Control and commitment in corporate travel management

Research in Transportation Business & Management 9 (2013) 21–28

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Research in Transportation Business & Management

Control and commitment in corporate travel management Per Gustafson ⁎ Institute for Housing and Urban Research, Uppsala University, Box 514, SE-75120 Uppsala, Sweden

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 26 July 2012 Received in revised form 12 February 2013 Accepted 4 March 2013 Available online 26 March 2013 Keywords: Business travel Commitment Control Travel management

a b s t r a c t This paper examines the practice of corporate travel management, using an analytical distinction between managerial strategies based on control versus commitment. Control-oriented strategies use formal rules, surveillance and sanctions, whereas commitment-oriented strategies encourage employee involvement, responsibility and self-control. The study draws on interviews with travel managers and analysis of travel policy documents. Elements of both control- and commitment-based management were identified at all stages of the business travel process – when a decision to travel was taken, when travel and accommodation were booked, and after the trip – but to varying extents in different organizations. The balance between control and commitment was influenced by both internal and external factors. With regard to internal factors, organizational hierarchies and the professional status of both travel managers and travelers played an important role. Senior management support and corporate culture also had an impact. External factors were mainly related to the business travel market. The ‘hybrid’ character of this market, the pricing and marketing strategies of important suppliers, and the services provided by major business travel agencies often promoted control-oriented travel management. The study may inspire travel managers to reflect on and refine their concrete managerial practices as well as their broader management strategies. © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Business travel has increased considerably over the past few decades. Globalization has brought about geographically expanded markets, global production chains and growing numbers of geographically dispersed multi-unit companies. These developments, together with organizational trends such as work in internal project teams and intense inter-firm cooperation, have increased the need for face-to-face encounters between employees working in different locations, and thus the need for travel. In parallel, improved infrastructures for mobility and the deregulation of air traffic have further fuelled the growth of business travel (Aguiléra, 2008; Beaverstock, Derudder, Faulconbridge, & Witlox, 2010; Doyle & Nathan, 2001). As growing numbers of employees travel for business, travel has become an issue for management. Large work organizations today often employ travel managers in order to implement efficient routines for their business travel (Holma, 2009; Lubbe, 2003; Mason, 2002). These practices have been subject to a certain amount of research in the fields of tourism and marketing management (Davidson & Cope, 2003; Gustafson, 2012a; Holma, 2009), but the organization of travel also involves employee relations and internal managerial control. One task of the travel manager is to make sure employees follow a set of corporate rules or guidelines when they travel. Previous studies indicate that this is a difficult task, partly because of the working conditions ⁎ Tel.: +46 18 4716509; fax: +46 18 4716501. E-mail address: [email protected]. 2210-5395/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2013.03.002

and professional status of frequent business travelers (Douglas & Lubbe, 2009; Mason & Gray, 1999). This paper takes a more systematic look at the strategies and concrete managerial practices employed in corporate travel management. The theoretical starting point of the analysis, derived from research on human resource management and work organization, is a distinction between two main types of managerial strategies: control-oriented strategies based on formal rules, surveillance and sanctions on the one hand, and commitment-oriented strategies based on employee involvement, responsibility and self-control on the other (Arthur, 1994; Boselie, Paauwe, & Richardson, 2003; Walton, 1985). Arguably, this distinction provides a useful tool for analyzing and understanding how travel is managed in organizations with designated travel managers. The purpose of the paper is therefore (1) to examine the practice of corporate travel management, with an analytical focus on the elements of control and commitment in the management strategies pursued by travel managers, and (2) to identify important factors behind the use of different management strategies. The next section sets the theoretical stage for the study by reviewing existing literature on control and commitment. Then follows a section about corporate travel management and a description of the data and methods used in the study. In response to the dual purpose of the paper, the subsequent presentation of analytical findings is divided into two sections — one that examines the use of control- and commitment-based strategies in current travel management, and one that seeks to understand and explain these strategies. The paper ends with a few points about managerial implications of the study and a

22

P. Gustafson / Research in Transportation Business & Management 9 (2013) 21–28

conclusion discussing the main findings as well as avenues for further research. 2. Control and commitment In principle, an employment relationship means that the employer decides what work the employees should perform and how it should be performed. In practice, the management of employees is a complex task and may involve several different strategies. One basic distinction in this regard has been conceptualized in terms of control versus commitment. The origins of this distinction can be traced back to McGregor's (1960) writings about ‘Theory X’ and ‘Theory Y’ and other early management research (see Boselie et al. (2003), and Verheul (2003), for reviews). The first explicit conceptualization of control- versus commitment-oriented strategies in human resource management was made by Walton (1985), and later Arthur (1994) developed the argument into a description of control and commitment as two different human resource systems. In these conceptualizations, control-oriented management strategies are based on formal rules about how employees should perform their tasks, strict managerial supervision to ascertain that rules are followed, and sanctions against those who violate the rules. Commitment-oriented strategies aim at stimulating involvement, participation and a sense of responsibility among employees, by forging psychological links between the employees and the organization. Importantly, commitment strategies do not signify an absence of control but rely on self-control on the part of the employees rather than on external control by managers. Verheul (2003, p. 18) describes this as ‘indirect supervision’. From a systems perspective, conceptualizations of a control system also include a hierarchical organization, narrowly defined jobs for which individuals can be held accountable, and a strong focus on reducing costs. A commitment system, on the other hand, is characterized by decentralization, non-hierarchical organization, broadly defined jobs, and job security for employees (Arthur, 1994; Boselie et al., 2003; Verheul, 2003; Walton, 1985). Previous empirical research on control and commitment has therefore investigated a range of management and human resource variables related to job design, work organization, employee participation, training and learning, managerial supervision, appraisal of employee performance, and compensation/rewards (Arthur, 1994; Lepak & Snell, 2002; Mélian-González & Verano-Tacoronte, 2006; Verheul, 2003). The present study, on the contrary, does not consider entire human resource management systems but rather examines elements of control and commitment in one specific field – corporate travel management – with a focus on managerial strategies for supervision. In early writings, control and commitment were understood as radically different forms of management. They were also commonly regarded as consecutive steps in a modernization process, with control representing a traditional understanding of management and commitment representing a more recent approach, reflecting important characteristics and values of modern working life (McGregor, 1960; Walton, 1985). Consequently, companies using commitment-based strategies were presumed to perform better than those which opted for control, a hypothesis that has also received some support in empirical studies (e.g., Arthur, 1994; Heinsman, de Hoogh, Koopman, & van Muijen, 2008). Yet these initial theorizations of control and commitment need qualification. Koopman (1991) and Verheul (2003) suggest that managerial practices in an organization cannot always be categorized as either a control or a commitment system, but will often include elements of both. Moreover, instead of simply regarding commitment as better than control, Koopman argues that they both have their pros and cons, and that managers need to find a good balance between the two rather than choosing one or the

other. The outcome of this balancing may depend on a range of different factors: characteristics of work tasks and of the workforce, corporate culture and other characteristics of the organization, labor market conditions and societal values (Boselie et al., 2003; Koopman, 1991; Verheul, 2003). In the present study, characteristics of the work tasks and of the workforce are of particular interest. With inspiration from principalagent theory and sociological theories about work organization, Furåker (2005, pp. 76–84) argues that work involving a high degree of autonomy and individual responsibility is difficult to control by means of formal rules, and is therefore well suited for commitmentoriented strategies. Conversely, control-oriented strategies, relying on rules, surveillance and sanctions, should be more applicable to employees who perform routine tasks. In a similar vein, although from a different theoretical perspective, Lepak and Snell (1999) hypothesize that different managerial strategies are used for different employee groups, depending on the human capital employees represent. Studies by Lepak and Snell (2002) and by Mélian-González and Verano-Tacoronte (2006) also indicate that commitment-based management is primarily used for employees who, in the employer's view, represent valuable human capital. The use of management strategies may thus reflect internal hierarchies in the organization as well as broader patterns of social stratification (Furåker, 2005). Existing research has very little to say about control and commitment in the field of business travel, which is the subject of the present study. From an organizational perspective, travel may in some cases be an expression of control, as managers or staff from corporate headquarters are sent out to faraway units to oversee their activities and ascertain whether corporate rules and standards are being followed (Faulconbridge, Beaverstock, Derudder, & Witlox, 2009; Jones, 2007). But previous research has not examined control- and commitment-oriented management in relation to those employees who do the traveling. Studies of the management of mobile employees, mostly in the field of international human resource management, have mainly investigated expatriate assignments, whereas business travel has rarely been treated in the context of human resource management (Stahl & Björkman, 2006). In most companies, too, business travel and the working conditions of frequent travelers are not an issue for human resource departments; their management is largely left to line managers (Welch & Worm, 2006; Welch, Welch, & Worm, 2007). However, when it comes to the organization and regulation of business travel, control- and/or commitment-based management may also be implemented by corporate travel managers. 3. Corporate travel management Over the past few decades business travel has been growing considerably (Beaverstock et al., 2010; Davidson & Cope, 2003; Doyle & Nathan, 2001), and with increasing travel comes an increasing need to control travel-related costs and to implement efficient routines for travel. In response to this, the professional role of ‘travel manager’ emerged in the US in the late 1960s, and has since spread to other parts of the world. Travel managers are mostly found in relatively large companies, and their work normally includes: developing and implementing a travel policy; channelling all bookings through a designated travel agency; negotiating agreements with important suppliers; standardizing payment routines; collecting and analyzing travel statistics in order to monitor travel behavior; and having an ongoing dialog with travelers, senior managers and other stakeholders within the organization (Gustafson, 2012a; Jenkins, 1993; Lubbe, 2003). The relatively scarce research that exists about travel managers indicates that they are a heterogeneous group with somewhat diffuse professional status. Some are recruited from outside the organization, often from the travel industry (travel agencies in particular); others are recruited internally and have very diverse professional

P. Gustafson / Research in Transportation Business & Management 9 (2013) 21–28

backgrounds. Some have full-time positions as travel managers, but many work part-time with other tasks — sometimes in a department of procurement, human resources or finance, sometimes as CEO assistants or secretaries. Some have formal positions at a managerial level and report directly to the CEO, but many have lower positions in the organizational hierarchy (AirPlus & ACTE, 2009; Gustafson, 2012a; Morrison, Ladig, & Hsieh, 1994). The extent to which travel managers have support from senior management within their organizations also varies greatly (Douglas & Lubbe, 2009; Jenkins, 1993). These conditions may have implications on their ability to implement their travel management programs and on the managerial strategies they employ. Moreover, travel managers manage travelers. Surveys show that frequent business travelers are often well paid, well educated managers and professionals (Doyle & Nathan, 2001; Gustafson, 2006). Business travel thus involves a group of employees who are often regarded as valuable by their employers, have high status, and occupy high hierarchical positions in their organizations. Employees in this category also tend to have a high degree of work autonomy, and their travel may even contribute to this autonomy (Gustafson, 2012b). Considering the theoretical arguments of Furåker (2005) and of Lepak and Snell (1999), these characteristics are likely to influence the use (and usefulness) of different managerial strategies. Other important conditions for travel management have to do with characteristics of the business travel market. First, travel agents play an important role as intermediaries between corporate buyers and suppliers. This gives rise to ‘triadic’ business relationships which are more complex than ordinary buyer–seller relationships (Holma, 2009, 2012). Second, many suppliers in the business travel industry (airlines, hotel chains, etc.) use dynamic pricing and yield management strategies. This means, for example, that travelers on the same airplane may pay very different prices for the same trip, depending on what kind of ticket they use and when they made the booking (Davidson & Cope, 2003, pp. 46–49; Jenkins, 1993, pp. 170–175). This makes it difficult to implement normal procurement routines and control costs. Third, the business travel market is a ‘hybrid market’ — employers pay for the services but the actual purchasing decisions are often made by individual travelers (Mason & Gray, 1999). Typically, travelers value comfort and convenience whereas employers focus on low costs (Douglas & Lubbe, 2006; Mason, 2002). Frequent flyer programs pursued by the major airlines also encourage travelers to use suppliers that give them individual benefits rather than those that offer the best prices and conditions to the corporate buyer (Gössling & Nilsson, 2010). In addition, travel – and upscale travel in particular – has a range of social and symbolic meanings to many travelers, such as the promotion of a privileged cosmopolitan identity and lifestyle (Lassen, 2010). These conditions, too, may affect travel management and the use of control- versus commitment-oriented managerial strategies. Finally, international management research suggests that national variations in business culture and institutional settings may affect corporate organization and management styles (Hofstede, 1980; Whitley, 1992). Such research tends to describe Sweden, where the present study was conducted, as a country with a democratic and consensual approach to employee relations and with small hierarchical differences between managers and subordinates (e.g., Lindeberg, Månson, & Vanhala, 2004). National characteristics of this kind may also be reflected in the management of travel. 4. Data and method Data from two different research projects about business travel and travel management in Sweden were used for this study. One project concerned business travel from both an employer and an employee perspective, the other corporate travel management with a

23

particular focus on business travel by train. Data collection was carried out in 2008 and 2009. Interviews were held with 22 travel managers, recruited among the members of the Swedish Business Travel Association. Sampling aimed at qualitative variation rather than statistical representation. Seven interviewees were employed by public authorities and 15 by private companies in different sectors (including trade, services and manufacturing). The organizations in the study also differed in terms of size, travel volumes and travel patterns. The interviews were semi-structured, with open-ended questions on a number of pre-defined themes, and usually lasted between 1 and 2 h. The contents of the interviews differed in some respects between the two projects, but all interviewees were asked questions about their professional background, their role as travel manager, their current work tasks and their strategies for managing travel. In addition, 17 of the 22 travel managers made their travel policies (or similar documents) available to the study. Interview transcripts and policy documents were entered into a computer program for qualitative analysis (NVivo) and were coded thematically. Initial coding largely followed the themes that had guided the interviews, whereas subsequent coding and analysis involved interplay between empirical findings and previous research and theory. Managerial control and a certain ambivalence with regard to travel policy enforcement appeared as an interesting issue early in the analytical work, and text segments referring to different forms of control were coded accordingly, partly with inspiration from research literature about managerial control. Later, sub-codes were introduced for control at different stages of the travel process, as the interviews clearly showed that different stages were associated with different control procedures. Also, initial coding referring to travel policies and their purpose, contents and application was gradually complemented by a set of sub-codes referring to factors that seemed to affect or condition the use of different forms of control and policy enforcement. When the whole body of data had been coded, the analytical work proceeded with focussed reading and re-reading of coded text segments, and analysis of these in relation to the literature. The analyses presented in the following focus primarily on qualitative patterns, on variation in such patterns and on factors behind these patterns and their variation, rather than on quantification. The analyses draw on the whole body of empirical data, with quotations from individual interviews and policy documents used to illustrate important analytical themes. Quotations have been anonymized (with regard to both persons and organizations) and translated into English by the author. 5. Management strategies Travel management involves interaction between the travel manager and several different stakeholders – travelers, travel agents, suppliers, and others – but the analytical focus of the present study is on management strategies in relation to the travelers. In this area managerial intervention may, schematically, occur at three successive stages: when a decision to travel is taken, when travel and accommodation are booked, and after the trip. Throughout this process, the corporate travel policy provides an important foundation for travel management. This section briefly reviews what types of rules and regulations travel policies contain, and then examines what strategies travel managers use to ensure that employees behave in accordance with policy at the different stages of the travel process. 5.1. The travel policy In most cases, the travel policies examined in the study were developed and implemented by the travel manager and formally

24

P. Gustafson / Research in Transportation Business & Management 9 (2013) 21–28

approved by the CEO or director-general. Their main objective was to establish common standards and administrative routines for the organization's travel activity. Common standards refer to travel costs, means of transport, choice of suppliers (airline, hotel chain, etc.), degree of comfort (e.g. economy or business class), type of ticket (e.g. fully flexible or with restrictions), and so forth. Administrative routines concern such things as pre-trip approval, booking and payment procedures, and expense report management. Travel policies might also include security regulations, environmental guidelines and rules about economic conditions for the travelers, such as subsistence allowance expenses. In the interviews when travel managers were asked about their work, the travel policy was a recurrent point of reference. It was generally available on a ‘travel page’ on the organization's intranet, and several travel managers also organized information meetings about travel policy and travel routines — with newly employed, frequent travelers, or line managers who were responsible for policy adherence among their personnel. One travel manager even produced a passport-size travel guide with policy regulations and practical advice that was distributed to all employees annually. Travel policies with formal rules and regulations, which provide opportunities for subsequent monitoring of policy adherence, may seem to reflect a highly control-oriented management strategy. Yet the policy documents collected in the study, together with the travel manager interviews, present a more complex picture. Travel policies generally provided a certain amount of explicit rules about what was and was not permitted, but often also contained less formal recommendations and guidelines as well as information and advice for travelers. Moreover, as will be shown in the following, organizations differed greatly in how they applied their travel policies and how they responded to policy violations. 5.2. Planning and pre-trip approval Planning and pre-trip approval routines provide a good example of different ways of applying policy. Most travel policies in the study stated that travelers should carefully consider whether they actually needed to travel or whether the meeting could instead be held by telephone, video or web. Such prescriptions were often supplemented with demands for pre-trip approval by the employees' immediate superior or some higher-level manager — demands which were in some cases translated into concrete administrative routines: For domestic trips we only require a verbal approval, but for foreign travel you need a written one; you simply fill in a handwritten form. And that form should be signed, by both a project manager – the one responsible for your project – and a division manager, to confirm that you can travel abroad. Approval routines could be used as a means to reduce travel and thus to curb travel costs. One interviewee described how her company, as part of a corporate savings program, had started demanding that travelers in certain departments ask for approval by senior management, and said that employees for this reason tended to avoid traveling. Threats of sanctions might also be involved, for example that employees would not be reimbursed for their travel expenses if they traveled without formal permission. However, such strongly control-oriented measures were exceptions. In many organizations in the study pre-trip approval was a mere formality, or was given informally, or was not requested at all: Well, the manager doesn't go out and say ‘You will travel, and you will travel!’, ‘Yes!, OK!’. That's something you decide yourself, really. But if you decide this too often, your manager may tell you that you've been traveling a bit too much, and your T&E expenses are a

bit too high, and then you kind of calm down. So I guess that's how it works in practice. Analytically, this approach involves elements of both control and commitment. In the first place, employees were expected to make their own travel decisions and, implicitly, to make these decisions with the employer's interest in mind. Yet management maintained enough control to notice and react to irresponsible travel behavior. Another company had strict policy regulations about managerial pre-trip approval but, when asked about this in the interview, the travel manager described a very different approach. What mattered, he said, was that the employees had the right attitude towards travel, and that promoting such an attitude had little to do with formal rules and routines: Travel manager: You should think: How can I justify that I make this trip on behalf of [the company]? This trip must be the best means to perform my job. If I take this trip, am I going to sell enough to justify the trip? Or am I going to save enough money to justify the trip? That's how you have to think. You shouldn't travel around looking at factories just because it's interesting to see how others are doing things. What's the benefit for me? What's the benefit for [the company] of my doing this? It's that way of thinking I'm after. […]

Interviewer: And how, in practice, do you try to achieve that?

Travel manager: Well, it's about information, really. You need to change people's attitudes and the way they think about travel. What this travel manager described was a clearly commitment-based management strategy, in which employee responsibility and self-control took precedence over regulation and managerial control. 5.3. Bookings A strategic opportunity for travel management to control and influence travel occurs when travelers book their trips. Bookings are often made via a phone call to the travel agent, and in such cases travel agency personnel usually have the task of implementing the organization's travel policy. Some companies instead have internal booking staff (secretaries or assistants) who make reservations on behalf of the travelers, and who have a similar responsibility for applying travel policy. In addition, large organizations increasingly employ ‘corporate booking tools’, provided by their travel agencies, which allow travelers to make their own bookings of uncomplicated trips online. Such booking tools may have built-in control features adapted to the corporate travel policy. As long as travelers make their travel bookings through one of these channels certain types of policy violations can, in principle, be avoided. For example, overly expensive trips or hotels without negotiated agreements may be blocked from the booking system, or booking personnel may be instructed to refuse such bookings. Yet in the Swedish organizations examined here, such ‘prohibitive’ practices were rare. A more common procedure was that travel agents or assistants pointed out to travelers if their booking requests did not comply with policy, suggesting an alternative. For example, booking personnel were often instructed to suggest the lowest available (or ‘lowest logical’) ticket price, and travelers were expected to follow these suggestions. This might be regulated in detail in the travel policy: A traveller who is given a travel alternative with a cost that is 25 per cent, and at least 750 SEK, lower than the intended trip should accept this suggestion, provided that the departure time is not

P. Gustafson / Research in Transportation Business & Management 9 (2013) 21–28

more than one hour earlier and the return time not more than one hour later than the intended travel schedule, and that the suggested travel times are within the time frame 07.00–18.30. Such savings and new travel schedules, suggested by the booking channels, should always be accepted […] Denied savings are reported to the travel manager who, if necessary, reports to the division or group manager. As this quotation shows, travel agencies routinely offered the service not only to suggest the best price, but also to report to the travel manager if travelers chose a more expensive trip. Such ‘deviation reports’ often included the traveler's stated reason for not accepting the suggested trip. Corporate booking tools allowing travelers to book their own tickets might have similar functions. One such tool showed departures permitted by the organization's travel policy in green on the screen, and departures outside policy in red. If a traveler tried to book a ‘red’ flight, a pop-up window appeared and the traveler had to type an explanation. The traveler was also informed that an email with this explanation, together with travel details and additional cost, would be sent to the travel manager and/or a line manager. Booking personnel and computerized booking systems thus became tools for highly control-oriented management. However, there were also examples of more commitment-based management strategies at the time of booking. Rather than applying formal rules, booking assistants were in some cases instructed to ask whether travelers were willing to make minor adjustments to their travel schedules if a considerably cheaper trip was available. Moreover, several interviewees claimed that the reason for implementing corporate booking tools was not primarily the integrated control functions. Instead, they argued, systems allowing the travelers to make their own bookings reduced ticket costs simply because the travelers acted responsibly. The mechanism was called ‘visual guilt’: ‘Visual guilt’ is the technical term. And it actually works, because when we look at the figures for the first year, the average prices for our 20 most frequent one-way trips, the destinations, were nine per cent lower when we used the self-booking than when we phoned the travel agency. And that's because you look a bit more broadly than you can demand from the travel agency. […] You see it on your screen, and if you see a low price you have a bad conscience if you book something much more expensive. Thus, rather than visibility through managerial surveillance, visual guilt referred to employees' self-control. Travelers who made their own bookings and clearly saw the different travel alternatives were presumed to take more responsibility than those presented with one or a few options on the phone by the travel agency. Yet such commitment-based approaches were usually combined with formal travel policies that prescribed cost-efficient travel, and with control routines that also made the travelers' booking behavior visible to the travel manager. Control- and commitment-based strategies thus became mutually reinforcing. 5.4. After the trip Travel behavior and travel costs may also be influenced by measures taken after the trip. To begin with, the traveler should normally have a travel expense report approved by his or her superior. This may constitute an instance of formal managerial control, but the interviews suggest that expense reports – very much like pre-trip approval forms – were often signed in a routine manner with little real control. Yet the very existence of an expense report system probably deterred travelers from trips and travel expenses that would be difficult to justify. This is, of course, one intention of control-based management. Moreover, travel agencies often produced deviation reports on travel policy violations by individual travelers. These reports were

25

sent to the travel managers, who reviewed them and either took action themselves or forwarded the reports to the appropriate managerial level: One thing we follow up is whether they travel business class within Europe. […] We get a report on that from the travel agency, every month in retrospect, and then we get down to ‘This is Pelle Persson. He flew business class to Paris’. That report goes to our management, who discuss it with the different departments: ‘Let's see, R&D, research, you had X persons on this list. Why is that?’ And he or she who is responsible for R&D will go back to the department and demand an answer. All travel managers in the study also collected more general travel statistics, mainly from the travel agencies. These statistics showed the organization's travel volumes with different suppliers, travel costs for different routes, and booking behavior in various respects. Travel managers regarded these statistics as an important tool for monitoring travel and for identifying measures to reduce travel costs. They might, for example, analyze the extent to which corporate travelers used contracted suppliers or how long in advance they booked their tickets, and how changes in these parameters would affect travel costs for the organization as a whole or for different departments. The purpose of such analyses was generally not to expose individual policy violations but rather, following a more commitment-oriented strategy, to be able to offer advice about possible savings and to make employees and managers in the organization aware of the importance of their travel behavior. Travel management strategies applied after the trip thus reflected both control and commitment. In the case of reports and statistics from the travel agency, the very same data might in fact be used both for identifying and acting upon individual policy violations as well as for promoting awareness and responsibility. 6. Combining control and commitment The preceding section demonstrates that travel management may use both control- and commitment-based strategies at all stages of the travel process. All the organizations in the study had travel policies with formal rules about travel, which signaled control, and yet all organizations also displayed elements of commitment. In some cases, the strategies described by the interviewees deviated substantially from those indicated by policy documents. Moreover, individual interviews show that the proportions of control and commitment differed significantly between organizations. This section will consider some factors that may help in understanding and explaining these observations. 6.1. Travelers The position and behavior of the travelers is an initial factor to consider. Frequent business travelers are to a great extent managers, professionals and specialists (Doyle & Nathan, 2001; Gustafson, 2006). They often have working conditions characterized by heavy workloads, long working hours and a high degree of autonomy, which makes it difficult to regulate or supervise their work in detail (Gustafson, 2012b). In addition, business travelers are often well paid persons who occupy important positions in their organizations, and therefore tend to be loyal to the organization and identify with organizational goals and values. Theoretically, these characteristics suggest that business travelers are an employee category for which one would expect a high degree of commitment-oriented management (Furåker, 2005; Lepak & Snell, 1999). The elements of commitment found in the analysis can also largely be interpreted along these lines. Yet there are also conditions that speak in favor of control. Travel managers emphasized that travel is often something very personal to

26

P. Gustafson / Research in Transportation Business & Management 9 (2013) 21–28

the travelers. For frequent business travelers, comfort and convenience on the road are important aspects of their working conditions, and many travelers consequently have strong and specific preferences about their travel arrangements (Gustafson, 2012b; Mason, 2002). Moreover, business travel is sometimes associated with prestige, social status and self-identity (Lassen, 2010). The interviews contained numerous accounts of policy violations due to travelers' desire to fly business rather than economy class, use prestigious airlines or hotels, and so forth. A related issue is the loyalty programs run by major airlines and hotel chains. These programs generate benefits for individual travelers (through bonus points, etc.), and especially frequent flyer programs are widely known to affect the behavior of corporate travelers, to the detriment of their employers (Douglas & Lubbe, 2009; Gössling & Nilsson, 2010). Travel managers discussed these different aspects in terms of the ‘emotional’ side of travel, which they generally regarded as an important reason for regulation and control. 6.2. Travel managers A second factor, which is important for understanding how travel management is practiced in different organizations, is the professional role and position of the travel manager. To begin with, there were individual differences among the travel managers in how they performed their role, and especially in how they handled travelers who did not follow the travel policy. Most interviewees regarded it as important to take action on policy violations, most commonly by reporting to the traveler's superior, or in some cases by directly confronting the traveler. Yet some were reluctant to do so and argued that surveillance of, and confrontations with, individual travelers were inefficient or even counterproductive. Such different attitudes might obviously have an impact on the use of control and commitment in travel management. One highly commitment-oriented travel manager described his viewpoint: I see two problems with controlling people. First, there's a risk that you'll become some sort of internal investigator, and that's not a good way to become popular. It's much better to be your travelers' friend, and present them with good ways of following the rules. That's a much better way of succeeding. Second, […] chasing individual travelers who may occasionally have done something wrong is very, very inefficient in terms of costs and working time. But the balancing between control and commitment also reflects the travel managers' organizational position and professional status. Existing literature, including the current study, shows that travel managers are a heterogeneous occupational category with unclear status (AirPlus & ACTE, 2009; Morrison et al., 1994). One consequence of this is that travel managers often have a lower formal as well as informal status within their organizations than many of the employees whose travel they are supposed to manage. Some travel managers in the study therefore felt they lacked the necessary authority to enforce their travel policies through control-oriented measures and instead had to confine themselves to ‘softer’, commitment-oriented approaches. At the same time, several interviewees were striving for more control, and behind these attempts was clearly – at least in some cases – a perception that more control and strict policy implementation signified a reinforced professional status for the travel manager. 6.3. Senior management A third factor, strongly related to the question about the travel manager's status and authority in the organization, is the attitude of senior managers (Jenkins, 1993; Lubbe, 2003). The importance of managerial support was a recurrent theme in the interviews. Two aspects of such support were considered vital to the success of travel

management. For one thing, it was important that senior managers be involved in their formal managerial roles — that the CEO or director-general formally approved the travel policy and gave the travel manager a strong mandate to implement it, and that top-level managers acted upon policy violations. Second, there was also an informal role, as senior managers were often frequent business travelers themselves. Interviewees stressed the importance of managers who clearly showed that they adhered to the travel policy: None of our top managers consider themselves superior to the rank and file in this respect. […] They set a good example. They travel economy class, and it's extremely embarrassing for other employees to stand in the business class queue when the group executive chairman or the deputy CEO is standing in the economy queue. Travel managers who did not receive such formal and informal support also found it more difficult to implement their travel policies. Yet convincing senior managers of the importance of travel and travel management may be difficult, given that travel is normally not regarded as a core business activity. 6.4. Corporate culture Another related factor, concerning the travel manager's authority and his or her ability to use different management strategies, is organizational culture more generally (Douglas & Lubbe, 2009; Jenkins, 1993). The interviews provided several examples of how differences in organizational culture may promote control- or commitment-oriented travel management. Several travel managers who worked for public authorities described a strong internal culture of adhering to rules and regulations. Also, one travel manager working at a private company pointed out that it was, by tradition, a ‘cost-conscious’ company, partly because it had been through several retrenchment programs. Consequently, employees were used to strict management and cost control, and therefore also accepted a control-oriented approach to travel management. On the contrary, in organizations where decentralization, individual initiative and entrepreneurship were important values, travel managers found it difficult to pursue control-based strategies: I used to work at an IT company, where management was very straightforward: ‘This is how we do things here, end of discussion. If you don't like it, there's the door.’ They really enforced their policies, which we don't do here. […] I think managers here are afraid, you know, ‘Our people should be entrepreneurs and it's important to maintain the creative spirit, so don't come and disturb or try to steer them too much’. And sure, I realize that these things are important. That's the corporate culture here, and it's important to respect that culture. The travel manager quoted above was not even allowed to call her travel policy a ‘policy’, as corporate management felt that having policies was not in accordance with the organizational culture of freedom and entrepreneurship. The document was instead called ‘travel and meeting guidelines’. It contained a certain number of explicit rules about travel and booking behavior, but also a great deal of factual information and statistics — for example about travel costs, use of business class, and CO2 emissions generated by travel. This information was clearly intended to appeal to the travelers' sense of responsibility, thus representing a more commitment-oriented approach. 6.5. The business travel market A final factor to consider is the business travel market (Douglas & Lubbe, 2006; Gustafson, 2012a). A significant characteristic of this market is that individual travelers, rather than professional procurement

P. Gustafson / Research in Transportation Business & Management 9 (2013) 21–28

departments, make a large number of purchasing decisions which one by one concern small amounts of money, but taken together represent considerable corporate spending. In addition, it is a complex market, where a multitude of suppliers attempt to maximize their earnings by using different sales channels and an often chaotic array of pricing strategies (Davidson & Cope, 2003; Holma, 2009). The ‘hybrid’ character of the market, with suppliers' loyalty programs targeting individual travelers, adds to this complexity (Gössling & Nilsson, 2010). Because of these market characteristics, several travel managers in the study strongly argued that a certain degree of control was necessary in order to avoid excessive travel costs. Moreover, as earlier sections show, travel agencies play an important role in exercising and facilitating such control. Over the past few years, the major business travel agencies have developed increasingly powerful tools for control-based management, such as policy implementation services, standardized deviation reports and detailed travel statistics, which they offer to their corporate clients. The availability of these tools – and the strategic thinking about travel management that is associated with them – clearly pushes towards more control-oriented travel management. 7. Implications for managerial practice The findings and analyses presented here may be useful to travel managers in at least three ways. First, the theoretical distinction between control and commitment employed in the study provides a useful tool for reflecting on employee relations and management strategies in general. Second, the analysis of concrete travel management practices in a number of organizations displayed considerable variation in such practices at all stages of the business travel process. Individual travel managers may evaluate their own approach to travel management in the light of this diversity, and possibly find inspiration for change. Third, the study identified a range of factors that facilitate and/or obstruct control- versus commitment-oriented travel management. Systematically considering these factors may enable travel managers to better understand the opportunities and constraints they face, and to develop and refine their travel management programs accordingly. In addition, the interviews showed that travel managers often depend on support from senior management. The study may thus also inform senior managers about how they can improve the conditions for travel management in their organizations. According to the interviewees they can do so by taking an interest in travel issues, by explicitly supporting the corporate travel policy, by acting on policy violations, and by setting a good example when they themselves travel for business. On a more general level, designated travel managers are mostly found in relatively large companies, whereas the management of business travel in small and medium-sized organizations is often much less formalized. Yet managers in such organizations – line managers as well as human resource and procurement staff – may learn several things from the present study. To begin with, the study may help them realize the importance of business travel, for corporate costs as well as traveling employees. Moreover, it provides an overview of different ways to manage business travel, of different stakeholders in the business travel process, and of issues that are likely to arise when managers attempt to control travel costs and travel behavior in their organizations. This knowledge may help even managers who do not have travel as their main responsibility to make informed choices in matters related to the organization and regulation of business travel. 8. Conclusion Previous research on the management of business travel is relatively scarce, and has mostly focussed on the relations between corporate

27

buyers (represented by travel managers), suppliers and travel agencies. The present study highlights that travel management also involves employee relations and internal managerial control. Its main contribution to scholarly research is the application of a theoretical distinction between control- and commitment-oriented management, derived from research on human resource management and work organization (Arthur, 1994; Verheul, 2003; Walton, 1985). The examination of travel management through this analytical lens demonstrates that the concepts of control and commitment are useful not only for examining entire ‘human resource systems’, but also for the in-depth study of managerial practices in a specific field. A first analytical step examined how travel management at different stages of the business travel process reflected control versus commitment, and a second step identified a number of factors that affected the use of control- and commitment-oriented strategies. The initial analysis of travel management practices showed that elements of both control and commitment were present in all the examined organizations, even though the proportions varied. These findings lend support to theoretical suggestions in management research, that control or commitment is not an either/or choice, but rather a matter of ‘balancing’ (Koopman, 1991; Lepak & Snell, 1999; Verheul, 2003). This balancing may be a delicate task, as control and commitment are sometimes difficult to combine. Several travel managers in the study felt there was an opposition between strict policy rules followed up by formal administrative routines (pre-trip approval, deviation reports) on the one hand, and ‘guiding’ policies and the promotion of awareness and responsibility among the travelers on the other. But there were also situations in which control and commitment appeared as complements, and even as mutually reinforcing aspects. In some cases, control strategies may work better if employees are committed, and commitment strategies may work better if supported by a certain degree of control. The notion of visual guilt in relation to travelers' use of online booking tools provided a pertinent example. The subsequent analysis identified and examined a number of external as well as internal factors that affected travel management strategies and their variation between organizations. For one thing, a range of external factors related to the travel industry had a significant impact on travel management in general. The complexity of the business travel market with regard to supply and pricing was one such factor (Davidson & Cope, 2003; Holma, 2009); the hybrid character of the market, especially the loyalty programs directed at individual travelers rather than corporate buyers, was another (Gössling & Nilsson, 2010; Mason & Gray, 1999). Both these factors, travel managers argued, necessitate formal control in order to curb travel costs. In addition, the services for policy implementation and monitoring offered by the major business travel agencies (Gustafson, 2012a) also promote a control-oriented approach to travel management. Sociologists sensitive to social class and stratification have long argued that employment relationships differ between employees who are assigned relatively simple, routine tasks and highly skilled employees who perform more complex tasks and are given a higher degree of responsibility and work autonomy (Furåker, 2005). Given the characteristics of frequent business travelers (Doyle & Nathan, 2001; Gustafson, 2006), one would expect commitment-based management to predominate. Yet, as discussed above, factors related to the business travel market promoted the use of control-based management even in relation to this group of employees. This is an interesting finding in relation to existing theoretical and empirical research on control and commitment (Arthur, 1994; Lepak & Snell, 2002; Verheul, 2003). At the same time, the fact that many business travelers are highly qualified and hardworking managers and specialists did have an impact. The analysis indicates that the preference, in some situations, for commitment-oriented strategies as well as the reluctance, in some situations, to enforce strict policy

28

P. Gustafson / Research in Transportation Business & Management 9 (2013) 21–28

regulation was partly due to internal factors such as the status, professional positions and working conditions of the travelers. Moreover, questions about status and organizational hierarchies should also be asked concerning those managers who design and implement the management strategies. Travel managers are a relatively diffuse occupational group (AirPlus & ACTE, 2009; Gustafson, 2012a), and the status and organizational position of individual travel managers in the present study differed widely. Travel managers did in fact often have a lower hierarchical position than many of their frequent travelers. This ambivalent managerial position sometimes made it difficult to enforce control-oriented strategies and might, at the same time, reinforce the desire for more control precisely because the mandate to exercise control was perceived as a recognition of the travel manager's professional status. These dynamics suggest, more generally, that status and internal hierarchies are important factors to consider in relation to the use of control- and commitment-based management with high-status employees. The observations above also highlight the importance of two other internal factors, namely senior management support and organizational culture. Particularly for travel managers with low formal status, the support of senior managers was crucial to their ability to pursue their travel management programs. In addition, travel managers acted in different organizational settings, characterized by different management systems and different informal norms and traditions. Their travel management practices, with their inherent balancing between control and commitment, resulted from an ongoing negotiation with travelers, senior managers, suppliers and travel agencies, conditioned by developments in the business travel market as well as by the cultures and values of their own organizations. This multi-faceted process merits further research. The present study has been an initial attempt to explore the strategies and practices of corporate travel managers. Future studies may investigate more systematically how the different factors identified here affect travel management in different organizational settings. Moreover, this study was limited to a sample of travel managers working at Swedish organizations. How corporate travel management is practiced with regard to control and commitment in other national contexts, with different cultural and institutional characteristics, is an issue that awaits further exploration. Another limitation of the study is that the formal position of travel manager mostly exists within large corporations. In other organizations, business travel is probably subject to less systematic management and the responsibility for managing travel is probably more diffuse. To what extent, in what ways and by whom business travel is managed in small and medium-sized companies without designated travel managers are other questions for future research. Acknowledgments The research was funded by the Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research (FAS 2007–0205), and also used data from a study funded by the Swedish Transport Administration (TRV 2010/ 73774). Thanks are due to Gunilla Bergström Casinowsky who conducted most of the interviews in the latter project, to the Swedish Business Travel Association for help with recruiting respondents for the interviews, and to seminar participants at the Department of Working Life Science, Karlstad University, for useful comments on an early draft of the text. References Aguiléra, A. (2008). Business travel and mobile workers. Transportation Research Part A, 42(8), 1109–1116. AirPlus, & ACTE (2009) Empowered employees: How travel managers are adapting and thriving in the global recession. White Paper, April 2009. . Alexandria, VA: AirPlus International and Association of Corporate Travel Executives (ACTE). Arthur, J. B. (1994). Effects of human resource systems on manufacturing performance and turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 670–687.

Beaverstock, J. V., Derudder, B., Faulconbridge, J., & Witlox, F. (Eds.). (2010). International business travel in the global economy. Farnham: Ashgate. Boselie, P., Paauwe, J., & Richardson, R. (2003). Human resource management, institutionalization and organizational performance: A comparison of hospitals, hotels and local government. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14(8), 1407–1429. Davidson, R., & Cope, B. (2003). Business travel: Conferences, incentive travel, exhibitions, corporate hospitality and corporate travel. Harlow: Prentice Hall. Douglas, A., & Lubbe, B. A. (2006). Identifying value conflicts between stakeholders in corporate travel management by applying the soft value management model: A survey in South Africa. Tourism Management, 27(6), 1130–1140. Douglas, A., & Lubbe, B. A. (2009). Violation of the corporate travel policy: An exploration of underlying value-related factors. Journal of Business Ethics, 84(1), 97–111. Doyle, J., & Nathan, M. (2001). Wherever next? Work in a mobile world. London: The Industrial Society. Faulconbridge, J. R., Beaverstock, J. V., Derudder, B., & Witlox, F. (2009). Corporate ecologies of business travel in professional service firms: Working towards a research agenda. European Urban and Regional Studies, 16(3), 295–308. Furåker, B. (2005). Sociological perspectives on labor markets. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Gössling, S., & Nilsson, J. H. (2010). Frequent flyer programmes and the reproduction of aeromobility. Environment and Planning A, 42(1), 241–252. Gustafson, P. (2006). Work-related travel, gender and family obligations. Work, Employment and Society, 20(3), 513–530. Gustafson, P. (2012a). Managing travel: Developments and dilemmas in corporate travel management. Tourism Management, 33(2), 276–284. Gustafson, P. (2012b). Travel time and working time: What business travellers do when they travel, and why. Time & Society, 21(2), 203–222. Heinsman, H., de Hoogh, A. H. B., Koopman, P. L., & van Muijen, J. J. (2008). Commitment, control, and the use of competency management. Personnel Review, 37(6), 609–628. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills: Sage. Holma, A. (2009). Adaptation in triadic business relationship settings: A study in corporate travel management. PhD dissertation. Helsinki: Swedish School of Commerce. Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10227/442 (accessed 9 July 2012). Holma, A. -M. (2012). Interpersonal interaction in business triads: Case studies in corporate travel purchasing. Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, 18(2), 101–112. Jenkins, D. (1993). Managing business travel: Improving the bottom line through effective travel management. Homewood, IL: Business One Irwin. Jones, A. (2007). More than ‘managing across borders?’: The complex role of face-to-face interaction in globalizing law firms. Journal of Economic Geography, 7(3), 223–246. Koopman, P. L. (1991). Between control and commitment: Management and change as the art of balancing. Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 12(5), 3–7. Lassen, C. (2010). Individual rationalities of global business travel. In J. V. Beaverstock, B. Derudder, J. Faulconbridge, & F. Witlox (Eds.), International Business Travel in the Global Economy (pp. 177–194) Farnham: Ashgate. Lepak, D. P., & Snell, S. A. (1999). The human resource architecture: Toward a theory of human capital allocation and development. Academy of Management Review, 24(1), 31–48. Lepak, D. P., & Snell, S. A. (2002). Evaluating the human resource architecture: The relationships among human capital, employment, and human resource configurations. Journal of Management, 28(4), 517–543. Lindeberg, T., Månson, B., & Vanhala, S. (2004). Sweden and Finland: Small countries with large companies. In C. Brewster, W. Mayrhofer, & M. Morley (Eds.), Human resource management in Europe: Evidence of convergence? (pp. 279–312) London: Routledge. Lubbe, B. (2003). A study of corporate travel management in selected South African organizations and a conceptual model for effective corporate travel management. South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences, 6(2), 304–330. Mason, K. J. (2002). Future trends in business travel decision making. Journal of Air Transportation, 7(1), 47–68. Mason, K. J., & Gray, R. (1999). Stakeholders in a hybrid market: The example of air business passenger travel. European Journal of Marketing, 33(9/10), 844–858. McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw Hill. Mélian-González, S., & Verano-Tacoronte, D. (2006). Is there more than one way to manage human resources in companies? Personnel Review, 35(1), 29–50. Morrison, A. M., Ladig, K. A., & Hsieh, S. (1994). Corporate travel in the USA: Characteristics of managers and departments. Tourism Management, 15(3), 177–184. Stahl, G. K., & Björkman, I. (Eds.). (2006). Handbook of research in international human resource management. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Verheul, I. (2003). Commitment or control? Human resource management practices in female and male-led businesses. SCALES-paper N200306. . Zoetermeer: EIM Business & Policy Research (Available at: www.ondernemerschap.nl/pdf-ez/N200306.pdf (accessed 9 July 2012)) Walton, R. E. (1985). From control to commitment in the workplace. Harvard Business Review, 63(2), 77–84. Welch, D. E., Welch, L. S., & Worm, V. (2007). The international business traveller: A neglected but strategic human resource. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18(2), 173–183. Welch, D. E., & Worm, V. (2006). International business travellers: A challenge for IHRM. In G. K. Stahl, & I. Björkman (Eds.), Handbook of research in international human resource management (pp. 283–301) Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Whitley, R. (Ed.). (1992). European business systems: Firms and markets in their national contexts. London: Sage.