Bachelor of International Hospitality Management

May 2014

Empowerment at
STAR
and the role of culture

Zaina Ibrahim
Supervisor: Luigi dAmbrosio

University College of Northern Denmark

104,644 characters

Contents
Introduction ..............................................................................................................3
Literature reviews ....................................................................................................6
Empowerment ............................................................................................ 6
Empowerment Process .................................................................................. 7
Empowerment in practice .............................................................................. 7
Organizational Culture View ........................................................................... 9
What is culture & why decipher culture?............................................................ 10

Theory of science ....................................................................................................11

Interpretivism ........................................................................................... 11
Interpretivism in practice ............................................................................. 11
Hermeneutics ........................................................................................... 12
Hermeneutics view on this study ..................................................................... 13
Social Constructionism ................................................................................. 14
Social constructionism view on this study........................................................... 14

Methodology ...........................................................................................................16
The actors view ........................................................................................ 16
The actors view on the study ........................................................................ 16
Interesting issues and perspectives ............................................................... 16
Conceptualization Language development ..................................................... 17
Qualitative Research ................................................................................... 17
Participant Observation................................................................................ 17
Informants ............................................................................................ 19
Ethics .................................................................................................. 20
Semi Structured Interviews............................................................................ 20
Interviewers techniques aim ...................................................................... 21
Sampling ............................................................................................... 21
Interview guide ....................................................................................... 21
Setting ................................................................................................. 22
Rapport ................................................................................................ 23
Interviewing instruments ........................................................................... 24
1|Page

Data management and analysis ....................................................................... 24

Confidentiality........................................................................................ 24
Transcribing interviews ............................................................................. 25
Thematic analysis ....................................................................................... 25
Critical reflections...................................................................................... 26
Validity and reliability ................................................................................. 29

Analysis ...................................................................................................................29
The three levels of culture Participant observation ............................................. 29
Shangri-La Tanjung Aru Resort and Spa (STAR)..................................................... 30
Artifacts ............................................................................................... 30
Espoused Beliefs and Values ........................................................................ 32
Basic Assumptions The STARs Paradigm........................................................ 35
Findings .................................................................................................. 38
Thematic analysis Semi constructed interview ................................................... 39
Culture as command and control .................................................................. 39
Findings .................................................................................................. 41
Discussion ................................................................................................ 42
Conclusion ............................................................................................... 44

Solution....................................................................................................................45
What is organizational change? ....................................................................... 45
Change management model ........................................................................... 45
Social construction in the context of organizational change ..................................... 47
Understanding culture & behavior ................................................................... 48
Rapid Deciphering A multistep Group Process ................................................. 49
Conclusion ............................................................................................... 54

List of reference ......................................................................................................55

Books ..................................................................................................... 55
Literature list ........................................................................................... 57
Internet .................................................................................................. 60

2|Page

Introduction

Culture is the set of beliefs that drive employee behaviors. These can be
things everybody in the company knows and shares, as well as unspoken
rules. The range of acceptable employee behaviors is based on these
underlying beliefs. Sometimes these behaviors align well with the business
strategy, but this isnt a given (Pink, 2013).
(Appendix 1- Viewpoints Q&A)

Senior Consultant from Organizational Surveys and Insights, Chris Pink viewpoints above gives
a definition of organizational culture and what his leading global professional services company,
Tower Watson means by the alignment of culture and business strategy.
In the hospitality industry, employee empowerment strategy is said to have much to offer
because empowered employees will develop a sense of ownership taking personal pride in
ensuring that service encounters become a success (Lashley, 1996). Besides the hotel chain
Hilton R. W. (2002), Shangri-La (2012) hotel group has also recently endorsed the
empowerment strategy. The international luxury chain hotel which is well known for
encapsulating the unique characteristic of Asian hospitality culture, has adopted empowerment as
a management strategy. The strategy is an integral part of their training programs which are
practiced throughout their 81 deluxe hotels and resort in key cities in Asia Pacific, Canada,
Europe and the Middle East (Shangri-la.com, 2014). This does not spare Shangri-La Tanjung
Aru Resort and Spa (STAR), a luxury resort in Malaysia where I during my internship conducted
the study both as an intern and a researcher.
Shortly after I applied for my application to do an internship for three months at STAR via email,
the Training Manager replied me and arranged for a telephone interview (Appendix 2). He called
me from Malaysia and gave a short briefing about STAR. I asked him to elaborate on the
3|Page

managements current challenges and concerns. He mentioned that the STAR management was
currently focusing on empowerment which had started in 2012. And that STARs management
expected the empowerment strategy could improve the performance efficiency of the employees
by them taking more ownership (Appendix 3). However despite the on-going training and
workshops around empowerment, the STARs deficiency report showed that the Front Desk
employees performance had deteriorated both in 2012 and 2013 (Appendix 4). In a defect
tracking report in 2012, a total of 982 in-house guests voiced their dissatisfaction regarding the
Front Desk employees poor performance based on the employees effectiveness in providing
service and solving the guests problems. Moreover, from January until mid of October 2013 the
number of in house guests complaints on Front Desk poor performance increased to 1,194 in
total (Appendix 4). Below was the Training Managers comment on the empowerment situation;

Shangri-La brand is currently focusing on empowerment which is also known as taking

ownership. Each employee at STAR is obligated to attend the training. But the employees
mentality has made the empowerment process unsuccessful. (Telephone interview, February
2013)

This comment subsequently made me wonder because a research conducted in Malaysia in 2011,
showed that applying empowerment could result in increased job satisfaction (Alkahtani, 2011).
Alkahtani concluded that managers in Malaysia who practised a high level of empowerment
resulted in strong employee job satisfaction. This is also supported by Blanchard and Witts
(2009), who argue that employees desire to have the tools, training, knowledge and skills to
decide for themselves. A global management consulting firm is also pointing at the same
direction. Their findings show that todays workforce wants to be empowered and have a high
self-efficacy (Haygroup, 2011). Self-efficacy is the belief in ones capabilities to organize and
execute the course of action required to manage prospective situations (Bandura, 1995. P. 2).
Its relationship with the empowerment strategies is important because it refers to a state of mind
or mentality (Gist, 1987). In the empowerment process of Conger, J.A. and Kanungo, R.N.
(1988), suggest that a high self-efficacy level provides a can do mentality and empowering
experience for the employee. This is why empowerment strategies are constructed to enhance
4|Page

self-efficacy by providing employees with greater freedom and by increasing knowledge and
control over factors directly related to job performance (French et al., 2011).
The growing curiosity towards this paradox made me want to examine further on the set of
beliefs that guided the employees behavior in STAR and how it was connected to the failure of
the empowerment implementation as the Training Manager claimed. What could be the possible
forces underneath, that caused a certain kind of behavior and how were these behaviors
connected with STARs newly developed empowerment strategy? Therefore the aim of this
research is to explore STARs organizational culture and examine its influence on the
empowerment strategy. The paper also attempts to provide a framework for analyzing STARs
organizational culture by using Scheins three levels of culture by illuminating the researchers
experiences and observations at STAR as a participant observer. The managers and employees
sense making of empowerment and their perspectives on the empowerment process will be vital
focal points of this research study. Trying to see through the eyes of key actors by the means of
organizational change must be considered as well. In addition, insights in this research also have
important practical applications because the insights from this research might help leaders and
managers decipher elements of their own culture so that they can assess its relevance and utilize
the insight in initiating an effective organizational change.
Taking the point of departure in the above mentioned problem and based on theories within,
STAR management must seek to decipher its current existing culture first before they can
implement empowerment strategy (Schein, 2010). It is because the foundation for understanding
organizational culture and behavior can substantially influence the initiating change process of
building a culture that supports and drives behavior aligned with STARs empowerment strategy
(Johnson, Whittington & Scholes, 2011 and Tower Watson, 2013).

Why did the implementation process of empowerment in the Front Desk Department
at Shangri-La Tanjung Aru Resort and Spa (STAR) fail and what kind of organizational
changes can be initiated in order to implement empowerment successfully?

5|Page

Literature reviews
Literature reviews is a means of reviewing the main ideas and research relating to the chosen
area of interest. The purpose of exploring the existing literature is to identify what is already
known about this area, relevant concept and theories, finding significant controversies,
inconsistencies and the possibility to be able to revise and refine the research question (Bryman,
2008).

Empowerment
The word empower is not new, it arrived in the mid-17th century with a meaning to invest with
authority, authorize (thefreedictionary.com). Thereafter, it began to be used in a more general
way meaning to permit or enable. Klagge J. (1998) sees empowerment as a relation between
freedom and authority. In the service industry Barbee and Bott (1991) define empowerment as
the act of vesting substantial responsibility in the people nearest the problem (Barbee &
Bott, 1991), while for Bowen and Lawler (1992), empowerment is described as management
strategies for sharing decision making power. Hilton R. W. (2002) adapted the management
strategy and described employee empowerment as the insight of reassuring and permitting
employees to embark on proposals to advance operations, diminish costs, and develop the
product and customer service quality. Some scholars (e.g. Conger and Kanungo, 1987; Evans,
1990) explain command and control forms of administration are likely to pin down the
application of job autonomy by the subordinates (Hilton R. W., 2002).

To gestate empowerment in motivational terms, Bandura's self- efficacy notion (1986) describes
empowerment as a process of an individual's belief in that his or her self-efficacy is improved.
Self-efficacy refers to a persons belief that they can perform sufficiently in a situation and that
the concept of empowerment is established on the belief that everyone has an internal need for
self-determination (French et al., 2010). A rising body of proof from diverse lines of studies
verifies that judgments of personal efficacy are a major basis of human action (Bandura, 1992,
1997). There are many activities in which, if accomplish well, guarantee valued outcomes but
6|Page

they are not pursued by people who doubt they can do what it takes to succeed. A low sense of
efficacy can therefore abolish the motivating potential of alluring outcomes (Bandura, 1996).
Thus French at al. (2011) suggest that appropriate empowerment strategies can raise the
perception of low self-efficacy.

Empowerment Process
Conger, J.A. and Kanungo, R.N. (1988) suggest that the process of empowerment can be viewed
in four stages. The first stage is the identification of conditions within the organization that are
accountable for contributing to low self-efficacy. This leads to Stage 2 whereby management
strategies and techniques are used to reduce the negative impact of Stage 1 factors. The
employment of these strategies is aimed not only at removing some of the external conditions
responsible for powerlessness, but also (and more important) at providing subordinates with selfefficacy information in Stage 3. As a result of receiving such information, subordinates feel
empowered with a can do mentality in Stage 4 (Bandura, 1986; French at el., 2011).

Empowerment in practice
A number of researches show that empowerment bring advantages to individuals, teams, and
organizations (e.g., Forrester, 2000; Mathieu, Gilson, & Ruddy, 2006; Wallace, Johnson, Mathe,
& Paul, 2011). In the hospitality industry, empowerment seems to have become a common
strategy and a powerful management tool that has an overall positive impact (Raub & Robert,
2012). In the hotel sector, empowerment has been utilized by Hilton Hotels to define employee
involvement in devising service standards (Hirst, 1992).

In Malaysia, a relevant study was conducted by Lunjew, M. D., et al (1994) where worker
participation was evident to be optimistically associated with job satisfaction and performance of
the job. This finding is also supported by Alkahtani, A.L., et al. (2011) who state that Malaysian
managers practicing high levels of empowerment had resulted in increasing employee job
satisfaction. Moreover Aarabi, Subramaniam and Akeel (2013) recently revealed that the
motivational factors of employees in Malaysian service organizations include freedom, friendly
environment and climate. These three factors where found to contribute to 42.5% of job
7|Page

performance. The findings also conclude that Malaysian firms should focus significantly on (i)
considerably relinquishing the dominating of treating employees at work place, (ii) giving the
employees respectful power and authority to make their own decisions, (iii) valuing their
individualistic talents, ideologies and philosophies and lastly training the employees to acquire
innovative ways to harness and nurture their talents, scholastic aptitudes, knowledge and
leadership skills (Aarabi, Subaramaniam and Akeel, 2013). However according to Raquib, M.A,
et al. (2010) findings on empowerment practices in Malaysia, unrealistic supposition of some
past managers indicated fear of losing managerial power as they felt empowerment as a tool to
seize their bona fide managerial power if they would delegate authority down the hierarchy. Lim
(2001) supports this view by concluding that Malaysians organization have high power
distance. According to Hofstede (1997), power distance is defined as the extent to which the less
powerful members of institutions and organizations within a country expect and accept that
power is distributed unequally. Lims (2001) findings are equivalent to Hofstedes National
Cultural Dimension conclusion as below;

National Culture
The Hofstede Centre

The graphs above show that Malaysia scores very high on power distance (score of 100) which
means centralization is popular and that the ideal boss is a benevolent autocrat. Challenges to the
leadership are not well received (Hofstedes National Cultural Dimension, 2014).

8|Page

There are also few reasons why managers are not willing to empower their subordinates. These
include managers habits in problem solving and decision making are embedded in the managers
way of thinking, lack of top management example, fear of anarchy, personal insecurity, lack of
skills (to mentor and support employees) and job/promotion insecurity (Clutterbuck &
Kernaghan,1994). Empowerment is not as simple as it seems, for instance even when
the managers implement empowerment, Locke and Schweiger (1979) caution that employee
participation in decision making does not always lead to positive results. Moreover Sutton (1997)
argues that cultural perspectives can be a hindrance to empowerment. These barriers may include
tradition of hierarchy, failure to identify empowerment, fear of retaliation, the attitude that
empowerment is not my job, pessimism and suspicion. And this is supported by Sigler &
Pearsons (2000) findings that empowerment is closely linked to the culture of an organization

Organizational Culture View

Artifacts, Espoused Beliefs and Values, Basic Underlying Assumptions

The primary research aim was to identify key cultural factors that hindered Shangri-La Tanjung
Aru Resorts (STAR) ability to effectively implement empowerment. In this project, Scheins
(1992) three levels of culture was utilized as one of the basis for organizing the analysis and
describing the organizational culture. According to Schein (2004), organizational culture is
illustrated at three levels. Cultural artifacts may be visible processes and structures, dress,
observable rituals, and ceremonies. Espoused beliefs and values are consciously developed
formal organizational practices such as strategies, goals, policies, and informal practices like
implicit norms. Underlying assumptions are unconscious thoughts, beliefs, expectations, and
theories.
Scheins three levels of culture helps STAR to explore and understand the organizations shared
assumptions. The insight will later on assist in explaining some of the STARs puzzling and
frustrating experiences pertaining towards taking ownership. Most importantly, understanding
their own organizational culture enables STAR organization to understand the forces blocking
the process of empowerment.
9|Page

What is culture & why decipher culture?

Edgar Schein (2010) defines organizational culture as the basic assumptions and beliefs that are
shared by the members of an organization. The way we do things around here.
Even though Hofstede (1980) opposes this view by stating that there is no standard definition of
organizational culture, he argues that organizational culture is holistic, historically determined,
socially constructed, soft and difficult to change. Organizational culture is important to this
research because it is concerned with ways in which the organization members interpret the
everyday realities of the daily working life in the organization (French et al., 2011). For that
reason, Schein (2010) argues that the concept of culture can help explain and build a deeper
understanding on why several of people or organizations can be so different but also why it is
hard to change them. Therefore in-depth knowledge of organizational culture can assist
researchers in identifying appropriate change strategies that can fit the organizations unique
cultural context (Heracleous, 2001). This is synonymous to Johnson (1987, 1990), Pascale,
Milleman and Gioha (1997) findings which show that working with organizational culture is an
essential consideration in change programs and disregarding it is an important reason for which
change programs fail. Moreover, Bartunek & Louis, 1996; Coghan & Brannick, 2005) argue that
if an organization is to understand its own strengths and weaknesses, learn and develop from its
own experience and make inform strategic choices based on realistic assessment of external and
internal factors, it must at some point study and understand its own culture.

In this research it can be proposed that organizational culture is the taken for granted
assumptions and behaviors that make sense of peoples organizational context. It contributes to
the understanding of STARs culture and behavior, which has an important influences on the
development and change of empowerment strategy (Johnson, Whittington & Scholes,2011). The
need to assess STARs culture on this research is to understand the organization better in order to
improve or solve business problems and to facilitate a change program (Schein, 2010).

10 | P a g e

Theory of science

The aim for this chapter is to show that an array of considerations enter into the process of doing
Shangri-La Tanjung Aru Resorts (STAR) cultural research. It explores the nature and
relationship between theory and research. Not only has it concerned on the question of what
should be regarded as acceptable knowledge (epistemology) but also concern with the nature of
social entities (ontology).

Interpretivism

The study on culture requires the researcher to grasp the subjective meanings of social action
which concern human and theoretic knowledge. It requires interpretive effort which therefore the
epistemological position of this research is based on interpretivism. It is a contrasting
epistemology to positivism. I was a participant observant that is not only a fly on the wall and
have been influence by the STARs social setting, interpretivism approach supplement this study
because it is a critical application of the scientific model as a view of the researcher in-order to
study the social world. It is a view that people and their organization are the subject matter of the
social sciences which are fundamentally different from the natural sciences. Interpretivism is
chosen because the study of the social world requires a research procedure that reflects the
distinctiveness of humans against the natural order (Bryman, 2008). Moreover conducting a
cultural research focuses on ways in which its members interpret realities in their daily working
life in the organization (French et al., 2011). Lastly it is the job of the researcher to gain access to
the members common-sense thinking and hence to interpret their actions and their social world
from their point of view (Bryman, 2008).

Interpretivism in practice
In order to understand more of what is going on, I was involved in STAR through the role of a
participant observer. It is a role whereby I immersed myself in STARs social setting for a
11 | P a g e

duration of three months. I was observing behaviors, looking for regularities and patterns,
listening to what is said in conversations between the actors and asking questions. I frequently
conducted interviews in the course of my research, interviewing key informants and studying
documents (Bryman, 2008). Participant observation was chosen to be included in this research
because Schein (2010) argues that for academic knowledge to be useful in the field of culture, it
must illuminate experiences and provide explanations for observed behaviors that puzzle or
excite us.
Accepted as an intern in STAR, I was a fully functioning member of the STARs social setting.
There was regular interaction with the employees and the managements daily working routines,
therefore I was not just a fly on the wall. I acquired a great deal of superficial but potential
relevant cultural knowledge throughout the process of being in a role as a participant observer.

Hermeneutics
A study that involves researching on social science and human knowledge will subsequently
contribute to a variety of situations in which the researcher encounter meanings that are not
directly understandable. Adopting an interpretive method however could lead to a lot of
misinterpretations. Schleiermacher argues that misunderstandings commonly arise because of the
changes in word meanings, world views and so on that have occurred in the time separating the
author and the interpreter. The alienation of meaning can well occur while conducting a cultural
research. Hermeneutics is chosen because it is a method which is fundamental for all human
understanding. It encompasses both the unknown world that we strive to understand and the
familiar world that we already understand. And it is a set of rules that provide the basis for good
interpretive practice no matter what the subject matter (Gadamer, 1977). Hermeneutics is the
theory of interpretation that relates to all human objectificationsthat is, not only speech and
writing, but also visual artistic expressions, more casual physical gestures as well as observable
actions or deeds (Makkreel, 2012). Hermeneutics is a term drawn from theology and when
imported into social sciences, is concerned with the theory and method of the interpretation of
human action (Bryman, 2008). Arbnor and Bjerke (2009) describe that Hermeneutician is a
knowledge creator solely interested in understanding. Whilst its complete opposite, the
12 | P a g e

positivist is solely interested in explaining. According to Schleiermacher and Dilthey the source
of prejudices and distortions blocks valid understanding, therefore it is precisely what the
researcher must transcend.

Hermeneutics view on this study

My task of understanding was to interpret the original life worlds of my informants and
participants from STAR. I tried to understand the employees and the managers of STAR as they
understood themselves. To be able to do this, I was constantly aware of how my pre-knowledge
affected the way, I interpreted the context and what brought me to new levels of knowledge. As a
knower, I was aware that the understanding was an important self-transposition or imaginative
projection while conducting this research study. My data analysis of STAR was characterized by
hermeneutic, iterative process of going back and forth from critical reflection to the data, looking
for key themes and patterns, and questioning, redefining the key themes and patterns identified
with further evidence.

The STAR training manager have informed me through our telephone conversation before
arriving at STAR, that the empowerment strategy failed due to the employees mentality in
hesitating to take ownership. This was initially my pre understanding before I came to STAR. A
few months after the telephone conversation took place, I then joined STAR as a participant
observant. In the process of interpreting the data, I try to distance myself from my preknowledge and control my belief that the employees mentality was causing the failure of the
empowerment process. After three months negotiating meaning with the social actors, I have
gained new data from my informants. The employees was sharing that they like the freedom to
make decisions and take the ownership, however the supervisory style of the managers were
hindering them in doing so. With this new insight, I have reconfigured my pre-understanding,
hence the transformation of my new understanding about the empowerment process among the
employees.

13 | P a g e

Social Constructionism
The scientific foundation of this research is based on social constructionism. Social
constructionism emphasizes on uncovering the ways in which individuals and groups participate
in the creation of their perceived social reality. Knowledge and truth are socially constructed and
there for not objectively given. When people interact they socially construct their reality, which
means reality is constantly reproduced and negotiated. Constructionists view knowledge and
truth as created not discovered by the mind (Schwandt, 2003) and support the view that being a
realist is not inconsistent with being a constructionist. Language and communication are vital
roles in social constructionism as language creates and recreates reality instead of being a result
of reality. In other words it is through communication and conceptualization that our lives
become meaningful and through that we learn. It is through constant affirmation and negotiation
of meaning people coordinate realities and significance; hence it will be hollow for a social
constructionist to research without engaging in human interaction in meaningful contexts.
Communicating through language brings concepts across and provides means of structuring the
way the world is experienced. (Arbnor & Bjerke, 2009) A social constructionist will not be
interested in finding one definitive truth because there is no objective reality of the natural world.
And the way of description and comprehension are derived from human engagement.

Social constructionism view on this study

I came in to STAR without understanding the organizational culture. The approach was guided
by the epistemological foundation that knowledge and truth are socially constructed. It means
741 employees and management staffs have different constructions of reality where some
coordinate and some deviates. An individuals construction of reality tells something about an
individuals participation in different social settings. The purpose was not about finding the one
and only truth, thus the discussion was set in a mood where I was not asserting or arguing on
what was true or not. Instead my focus was to solicit various points of views and see if there was
inconsistency or coherence towards how reality was viewed between the employees and the
14 | P a g e

management. In order to get a deeper understanding of the culture, I gathered valid data through
constantly engaging with the actors in the negotiating meaning process. As a researcher, my
position in obtaining those constructs from the actors, was to obtain them as natural as I could
without manipulation. I could not be as objective as a positivist, because my participation was
right there from the beginning and throughout the process of completing the research. Once the
artifacts and processes were identified, I coordinated meaning with the actors on why things
were done this and that way. I did the same when trying to identify the espoused values that were
appealing to me, l used language to coordinate meaning and asked how they were implemented
in the organization.

During my three months internship at STAR particularly at the Front Desk department, I noticed
that whenever there were conflicts between the management and employees, they did not
negotiate meaning with each other. The management did not make an effort in using language to
coordinate meaning, because the autocratic leadership style at the Front Desk only gave
instructions to the employees. To question the managerial decisions were considered as a threat
towards the leaders position. The employees ended up negotiating meaning among themselves
for affirmation. It was the only process that the employees knew how to make sense of things,
whenever confusion and tension arose with the management. Every time the employees
coordinated meaning among themselves they kept on recreating and reproducing their own
realities which created a big gap with the managements reality. Clearly there were signs of
communication problems within the organization. Therefore it is important to emphasize the
importance of communication in this research because meaning making and managing are
important components of communication (Pearce, 2007).

15 | P a g e

Methodology

The actors view

It is a methodology for creating for creating knowledge committed to understanding, creating
and vivifying meaning in reality, where the reality is presumed to be socially constructed
(Arbnor and Bjerke, 2009).The process of choosing the actors view was done reflectively by
considering the situation of the research area and my opinion of life. I also bear in mind that you
can never empirically or logically determine the best view. The actors view assumes that the
reality is socially constructed and it is a world which to the largest extent is dependent on us
human beings, whereby the creator of knowledge also participate as one of the constructors. It is
how a creator of knowledge approaches and reflects on this research and study area. The actors
view is a methodology for creating knowledge that is dedicated to understanding, creating and
verifying meaning in reality. It assumes that the reality as it exists for us is a social construction
filled with potentially unlimited number of possible descriptions of the situations in question in
the case of exploring an organization but also relatively stable structures, mentally anchored with
those actors, who maintain the structures (Arbnor and Bjerke, 2009).

The actors view on the study

Interesting issues and perspectives
To explore what has already been done in the area is about getting an understanding of where the
research front is and what kind of interesting question that could arise. The assumption in the
actors view is that reality is constructed socially, meaning that the literature and contributions
from other researchers can only be included as experiential data used for developing and
maintaining the area of knowledge creation (Arbnor and Bjerke, 2009).

16 | P a g e

Conceptualization Language development

The creator of knowledge attempts to conceptualize by developing a language that will bring
understanding and action when facing the study area. It is a conceptual development, whereby
the researcher is bridging the growing descriptive language of its own with the actors own
mental language. This is seen as a process of getting feedback and provide and providing an
understanding for the actors involved. The approach of this research is to be open and try
suspend all previously given categorization and clichs.

Qualitative Research
Qualitative research is defined by its aim, which pertains to gain insight and comprehend some
aspect of social interaction (Brikci & Green, 2007). The study applies qualitative approach
(Cresswell, 2007) because it emphasizes words rather than numbers in the compilation and
analysis of data. It is a method with less codification and is more concerned on language which is
in contrast with the adoption of a natural scientific model in quantitative research that aims to
measure something (Bryman, 2008). Qualitative method is appropriate for this research because
by addressing the individuals experiences and understanding the actors different outlooks, it
gives me the advantage to explore and discover elements of the STARs culture which is the
main aim of this research. Moreover, culture is intimately related to language and they mirror
each other (Arbnor & Bjerke, 2009). To provide the basis to uncover and understand the
organization culture, the research employed participant-observation and semi-structured
interview for collecting data.

Participant Observation
Participant observation is the researcher who immerse herself in a social setting for an extended
period of time, observing behavior, listening to what it said in conversations both between others
and with the researcher, and also asking questions. It usually includes interviewing key

17 | P a g e

informants and studying documents (Bryman, 2008). The objective is to collect data that will
help answer the research question (Kawulich, 2005).

Schein (2005) argued that to understand what is going on in an organization, the researcher must
get more involved through becoming a participant observer. Furthermore, to understand wholly
the complexities of many situations, face-to-face interaction in, and observation of, the
phenomenon of interest may be the best research method (Brikci & Green, 2007). Participant
observant is appropriate for collecting data because it has a specific focus on the culture of the
group (Bryman, 2008) and help the researcher the feel of what are the cultural parameters in
which the ethnographer is involved with (Schensul, Schensul & LeCompte, 1999). Speaking of
culture, Bernard (1994) argued that when participant observation included cultural studies, it
could increase the validity by being on the site for a period of time and familiarizes the
researcher to the social setting, thus facilitating involvement in sensitive activities to which
he/she generally would not be invited. And not only it helps the researcher to develop questions
that is logic in the native language or are culturally relevant but also it provides the researcher a
better understanding of what is happening in the culture and lends credence to ones
interpretations of the observations (Bernard, 1994).

Moreover it provide researchers with ways to check the nonverbal expression of feelings,
discover who interacts with whom, understand how participants communicate with each other
and check for how much time is spent on different activities (Schmuck, 1997). Dewalt and
Dewalt (2002) suggested that participant observation can be used as a way to increase validity of
the research, as observations may help the researcher have a better understanding of the context
of phenomenon under study. One example is that observational data is useful in overcoming
discrepancies between what people say and what they actually do and might assist to uncover
behavior of which participants themselves may not be aware (Brikci & Green, 2007).

Validity is stronger with the combination of additional strategies used such us interviewing with
observation (Dewalt & Dewalt, 2002), therefore semi structured interview will be utilize later to
verify and clarify observed events. And since the researcher is using semi structured interviews,
participant observation also allows researchers to inspect definitions of terms that participants
18 | P a g e

use in interviews, observe events that informants may be unable or unwilling to share when
doing so would be impolitic, disrespectful, or insensitive, and observe situations informants have
described in interviews, thereby making them aware of distortions or inaccuracies in description
provided by those informants (Marshall & Rossman, 1995).

Informants
The participants/informants were four management staffs and four employees from the Front
Desk Department of STAR where I was attached as an Intern/Participant Observer for three
months. My selection criteria was based on purposive sampling, which is a non-probability form
of sampling. I did not looked to sample the employees and management staff on an aimless
random basis. The objective of purposive sampling was to sample participants in a strategic way,
so that the sampled are connected and relevant to my research question (Bryman, 2008). It means
I have selected the informants because they are likely to generate useful data (Brikci & Green,
2007) towards the research question. I employed informal conversation with the employees and
management staff within the STAR social setting in order to negotiate meaning (Gergen, 2009)
based on the observed behavior and artifacts. The selection of the appropriate key informants to
conduct informal conversation will also be based on who are involved in the process, rituals,
traditions (Schein, 2010). I have noticed and experienced that the employees were tense and
reluctant to share information with me while the employees were on duty. I therefore collected
my oral data through informal conversation, mainly when the employees was on a short break,
like at the smoking area. Brikci & Green (2007) argued that many cultures are primarily oral
rather than literary and furthermore, talking to the informants informally was an ideal way of
understanding more about their social setting because it can be more informative than a formal
interview. For example I was privileged enough to listen to their stories, what they complained
about, how they described problems and managed them. They also elaborated on what could and
could be said in various situations. These informal conversation usually took place during
breakfast or lunch at the employees cafeteria and also at the females locker room. Brikci and
Green, 2007 point that the oral data collected in an informal conversation is an excellent way of
accessing what is important to the participants locally and how they think about it.

19 | P a g e

Ethics
The researchers primary consideration is to conduct the research in an ethical manner, informing
the employees and managers that the purpose for observing is to document their activities. I was
constantly introducing myself as a researcher, for example when I meet social members for the
first time, I usually informed of the purpose for me being there. Being open to STAR and
providing the informants adequate information about the study topic was very important. In this
way they did not so question my presence at STAR. I have also noted to preserve the anonymity
of the participants in the final write-up and in field notes to prevent their identification. For
example when things are being shared to me about informal activities or about the department
through informal conversation, I made sure that the information given does not get back to
others, whether superior or colleagues.

Semi Structured Interviews

In an attempt to capture the meaning, Semi-structured interviews is an appropriate method to
apply because it is a two way communication which can be used to gather qualitative
information. Most importantly it provides the opportunity for learning from a social
constructionist point of view. Semi-structured interviews have a list of specific questions to be
covered, usually referred to as an interview guide but the interviewee has a great deal of
flexibility and freedom in how to reply. As the interviewer picks up things from the interviewee,
the interviewer might ask questions that are not in the guide. The interview process is flexible
and emphasizes more on how the interviewee understands the issues or subjects (Bryman, 2008).
It is conducted on the basis of a loose structure made up of open-ended questions illustrating the
area to be explored (Brikci & Green, 2007).

The reason why I employ semi-structured interviews for this research is because it not only
provides answers but it also provides the reasons of the answer. The relatively unstructured
nature of the interviews has the capacity to provide insights into how the organization culture
works. Interviewing different representatives from one department in a relaxed atmosphere,

20 | P a g e

away from the employees daily working routine environment, will hopefully result in very
sincere interviews. Schein (2010) recommends that the interpretation of cultural data may require
interaction with the subjects for example by using semi structured interviews.

Interviewers techniques aim

The findings should reflect what the research is set to answer, rather than reflecting the bias of
the researcher. I have employed a systematic approach to ensure that the data and interviewees
are not just picked up in order to support the interviewers pre-existing ideas about the answers.
For credibility, the questions asked and the ways the questions are being asked should be
reasonable one for developing a valid or truthful accounts of the phenomena. The most important
goal is transparency whereby the method should be written up so that the readers can see how the
data is collected and analyzed (Brikci & Green, 2007).

Sampling
Four interviewees participated in the semi-structured interviews. Three were employees and the
other two were managers. The selection was a combination of purposive sampling (Bryman,
2008) and with the consideration based on hierarchy, because during my research as a
participant-observer at STAR, I discovered that rank and order is very important and must be
taken seriously. Interestingly Malaysia has scored very high in power distance with a total of 100
percent in Gert Hofstedes National Cultural Dimension, a number that could not be simply
ignored. It means all individuals in societies are not equal and that hierarchical order are widely
accepted in the Malaysian organizations. Lims (2001) research on Malaysians work related
values also showed that the Malaysians have a high power distance.

Interview guide
An interview guide is a structured list of issues to be addressed or questions to be asked in semistructured interviewing (Bryman, 2008). It is important to develop accurate questions to ask and
to keep in mind that the interviewees are unlikely to share the researchers view on the world.
Therefore an interview guide has a list of key questions the interviewer would like to include,
21 | P a g e

with some useful prompts to boost the interviewee to talk about particular issues if they do not
come up spontaneously (Brikci & Green, 2007).

In preparing for my interview guide (Appendix 5), I have divided the questions for the
participants into two sections; management and employees. Then I have created a certain amount
of order on the topic areas which applies the same on both sections. Both sections include
demographic background, organizational culture, climate, empowerment, trust, relationship,
communication and collaboration and motivational needs. In some topic areas, certain questions
differ between the two sections. The order was arranged so that the questions about them flowed
reasonably well, while still keeping in mind and be prepared to alter the order of the questions
during the actual interview (Bryman, 2008). The interview questions was formulated in a way
that assisted me in answering my research questions and at the same time I did not make them
too specific. Based on my personal assumptions and my previous experiences as a participant
observer at STAR, I discovered that the majority of the employees and management staff used
English as the primary language of communication, however grammar did not seem to be
important because the focus was more on the meaning of the context. Even though English was
the mode of communication, a mix of Malay or Chinese language and expressions also appeared
in the conversations. Therefore I try to use everyday vocabulary and avoided overly complicated
ones (Brikci & Green, 2007), that were hard for the employees to comprehend. At the same time
I bore in mind that I might rephrase the questions again or explain it in Malay during the actual
interview. Lastly I try to avoid asking leading questions in the preparation of my interview guide.

Setting
Being a participant observer for three months at STAR made me familiar with the settings in
which the interviewees worked and engaged in. This was an advantage to me as an interviewer
because it helped me to understand what he or she was saying in the interviewees own terms
(Bryman, 2008). Being aware of the place where the interview is going to be conducted will have
an impact on the answers that I will get (Brikci & Green, 2007). The setting was requested and
arranged in advance via email correspondence with my contact person which was the Training
Manager and the Front Office Manager (FOM). Finally after a few emails exchanged at the FOM
22 | P a g e

closed office an interview setting was chosen and agreed upon. It was an acceptable quiet room,
however from my previous experiences being inside the FOM office, I felt and sensed an amount
of stress from the Front Desk employee team which was based just outside the office, where the
daily briefing was also conducted. Anyway the setting was closed and based on my personal
assumption there was enough privacy and ample space to make the interviewees feel relaxed.
Together with the FOM, I informed the participants in advance via email about the setting, date
and time schedule, so that they were aware in advance and well prepared before going for the
interview.

Rapport
The interviewees personal characteristics such as ethnicity, gender, status, position and social
distance was taken into consideration. I also reflected on what to wear and how I should present
myself in an appropriate way being sensitive to interviewees culture. Wearing a revealing attire
could be seen as offensive for this culture and scruffy appearance might make the interviewees
feel disrespected. While I was a participant observer, I found out an appealing information.
Tacky appearance at STAR means no make-up at all. Therefore during the online interviews I
planned to have a slight make up in order to avoid being rude. I was also aware that the
interviewees needed to trust me, for that reason I had to show that I was curious and interested in
them and what they had to say. But above all I had to suspend my judgment whatever the
interviewees might answer. The interviewees were also reminded before the interview started
that the interview could be stopped anytime, should they feel uncomfortable or unhappy. In order
for my respondents to be comfortable, I was attentive to help if they were frail or did not hear
well for example. This meant I had to be very sensitive towards my interviewees. Most
importantly I kept in mind that a research interview is not an interrogation. The objective is to be
as non-judgmental as possible and to avoid leading the interviewees to specific answers (Brikci
& Green, 2007). Finally I was interested in their perspectives and not their responses to my
perspectives.

23 | P a g e

Interviewing instruments
Due to the distance, the interviews were conducted via online Skype video and recorded by an
online recording program. A pilot test was conducted before the actual interview took place. The
method was used to test the online Skype video before carrying out the research. This involved
conducting an initial test of processes to spot and eradicate errors. The video quality on Skype
was acceptable but most importantly the microphone was excellent. It is essential to have a good
microphone (Bryman, 2008) in order to avoid a bad recording. The online recording program
generated a good quality material. The nature of the semi-conducted interview is supposed not to
be following the rigidly formulated schedule of questions of the kind used in structured
interviewing. Therefore with a good recorder it is not easy to lose the phrases and language used.
The recording material would later be used for transcribing the interviews. It is an important
procedure for the detailed analysis necessary in qualitative research and to guarantee that the
interviewees answers are captured in their own terms (Bryman, 2008). Despite the sleekness of
the online recording program, unexpected things might arise during the actual interview which is
therefore I came up with a preventive measure plan and recorded the interview not only with an
online recording program, but also together with a digital recording.

Data management and analysis

Confidentiality
Confidentiality consideration of the participants was taken seriously because during my
attachment at the Front Desk Department as participant observer I discovered through
observation and confirmation by key informants that it could be seen as disrespectful if an
employee voiced out their opinion, their views and suggestions openly. Therefore I had to think
that there might be a risk that the interviewees could be seen as disloyal and be excluded by their
team members. I also had to make sure that no one could access my materials specially the
transcripts. Exploring and revealing a culture could be quite sensitive issues especially if the
organization is not ready to accept it (Schein, 2008). I needed to be aware that I was dealing with

24 | P a g e

delicate issues such as depression, oppression, which was why I needed to ensure that the
information in my written research findings could not be traced to a specific person.

Transcribing interviews
The respondents prior permission had been sought for because an online recording program was
being used. I also explained that in order to assist me in making sure whether I had documented
their views correctly I would make use of the online recording program during the Skype
interview. During the interview I paused the recorder a few times and due to the tense in the
context when it got delicate and sensitive for the interviewees. This was done because according
to Brikci and Green (2007) it could be dangerous to the respondent.

Thematic analysis
A term used in connection with analysis of qualitative data refers to the extraction of key themes
in ones research data (Bryman, 2008). It looks across all data to pinpoint the common issues that
reoccur and identify the main themes that summarize all the perspectives a researcher has
compiled (Brikci & Green, 2007).

There are a few stages of the thematic analysis that I have adapted in examining my data for this
research. The fundamental stage was reading and annotating the transcripts. I did not specify the
overview of the data. I only made exploratory observations in order to get the feel for the data.
Later I identified the themes and began identifying the themes with summaries of what was
happening here. I started to take notes of what the interviewees were connecting and referring to
in the edge of each transcript. I tried to make it as conceptual as possible which meant I did not
just sum up the text but also attempted to figure out what the text was an example of. Because I
could extract more out of the data if I thought in details about the diverse things that were going
on there, for example: triggers to the failure of communication and motivation. I then made a list
of themes as I looked through the data. The gathered initial themes was then used in developing a
25 | P a g e

coding scheme. There were a list of coding themes and codes that I applied later to the data. The
early analysis in beginning to develop the coding scheme as soon as initial data have been
gathered is beneficial because it can afterwards shape the data collected (Brikci & Green, 2007)
and whether I was asking the right questions or have I included the right individual. I made sure
that my bias of what is happening was kept in check constantly while developing the coding
scheme. In the last stage I started applying the codes to the whole set of my data through typing
the codes on the edge of my transcripts.

Critical reflections
One of the challenging steps as a participant observer was to gain access to the social setting of
the Front Desk Department because it was a relatively closed one. Without a hassle I managed to
get an easy entry to the organization by getting my permission to participate and observe.
However, this did mean I would have an easy acceptance. Interestingly during my field work
research the managers was asking if I was sent from the Hong Kong headquarters of Shangri-La
without even giving me ample time to introduce myself properly. Moreover they kept on
interrogating me as if I was a suspicious individual. Due to this incident, the researcher need to
be aware in the future that sometime you do not have the privilege to introduce yourself first as
one of the guideline mention in ethics chapter before. Therefore a participant observer need to be
also conscious that securing in many ways is an on-gong activities (Bryman, 2008). Some of the
helpful tips from Taylor and Bogdans (1984) are that Participant observer should be familiar
with the setting before collecting data, be honest but not too technical or detailed in explaining to
participants on what he or she is doing there, low profile in dress and actions, become data and
lastly to keep the observation short in the beginning to keep from becoming overwhelmed and
affected.

Even though I have reveal myself that I am a researcher, the employees and the management
staffs completely disregard the purpose and were not really bothered by it. Later I found out that
STAR was not accustom to having interns that do research on their department. While I have
revealed myself as a researcher, I still obtained the advantages of a covert role which discard
26 | P a g e

some of the difficulties. Covert role means not to reveal the fact that you are a researcher
(Bryman, 2008). Regardless of this, they did not see me as an intruder into their lives because the
employees did not hesitate to share their concern and persistent in sharing their frustration as if I
was a full member of the organization.

Due to the intense engagement among the participant as a fully functioning member at the Front
Desk Department, my role as participant observation carried a risk of interfering with the
employees construction of reality and co-creating the realities with the staff by negotiation of
meaning. That was why I always tried to reflect critically of the information, that I was given and
reflected continuously on, how I as a researcher contributed to the construction of reality and
negotiation of meaning. According to Schein (2010) to lessen the biases that has resulted from
my own engagement, I have used the actors as an informants in order to clarify what I have
observed or to decipher the data I have gained.

However as a participant observation I relied too much on the informants, which were the
management staff, employees from the Front Desk Departments. Certain informants developed
interest on the research and directed me to situations, events and people likely to be helpful to the
progress of my problem formulation. Thus they became particularly seemingly important to the
research and turn into key informants. Although key informants kept on providing support and
informations and without a doubt of great help to me as a participant observant, I did bear in
mind that counting too much on key informants could involve a higher risk in seeing social
reality only through the eyes of the key informants instead of through the eyes of other members
of the social setting.

In the course of trying to understand how the STAR Front Desk Department really works. I
realized that it was difficult in gathering valid cultural data because with the human subjects
involved in the research had a tendency to either resist and hide data that they feel protective
about or to overstate in order to impress the researcher or simply to get a cathartic relief or in
other words Finally someone is interested enough to listen to our story. Frost, 2003 and
Goldman, 2008 mention the need for such cathartic relief derives from frustration with the
management, superior, tensions, destructive competition with peers, exhaustion from work and
27 | P a g e

so on. I was aware that I was listening to tales of woe from anxious and frustrated employees
who have no other place of means of release. Therefore Schein (2010) argues that to get any kind
of precise picture of what is going on, the researcher must find a method that advocate the
insiders to tell it like it is instead trying to impress the researcher, hide data, or blow off steam.

In utilizing semi structured interview, the main challenge was this approach was time consuming
and it was quite hard to put data from different participants into a coherent picture because each
individuals see things differently even though he or she used the same words. Furthermore even
with the consent and confidentiality considered as an ethical guidelines for this interview, stress
and anxiety emerge only with the employees when they have to talk about their superior. On the
other hand the managers were more relaxed. Does the choice of setting effected this
phenomenon?

In the beginning I have formally applied and requested for a private and closed room located at
Human Resource Department (HRD), it was also called an interview room by the HRD staffs.
This setting is located outside of the main building of the resort where the Front Desk
Department (FDD)is located. Originally it was agreed between me and my contact person from
STAR which is the Training Manager, that the semi structured interview will be at the HRD
interviewing room which is located in another building approximately 200 meters walk. It was
made clear to my contact person, Front Office Manager and Director of Room Division that the
choice of setting was important in the process of conducting the interviews. However I was
informed one week before the interview that it was changed to the FOMs closed office room.
The change was initiated by the FOM with reasons that it is convenient for them and that it
would be easy for the interviewees to get back to their work as soon as the interview was done.
Moreover I have received an email (Appendix 7) from the FOM that the interview process need
to be expedite due to their business and lack of employees. Could the change of setting impact on
the answer I get when they feel uncomfortable and not too much privacy because the DORs
secretary keep on opening the door and kept asking if the interview was done. Which leads me to
wondering, where the interviewees especially the employees are giving an honest answers?

28 | P a g e

Validity and reliability

Reliability refers to the consistency of a measure of a concept (Bryman, 2008). This research
have a high external reliability because the semi-structured interview with the employees and the
managers cannot be replicated. Moreover, even though a similar role can maybe adapted as a
Participant observant role at STAR replicating a similar social role by the original researcher,
however it is impossible to freeze social setting.
I have utilized respondent validation by frequently ensuring that there is a good correspondence
between my findings and the perspectives and experiences of the STARs employees and
managers. In the process of conducting my semi-structured interview, not only I constantly seek
corroboration to validate my understanding and interpretation, I have also sent interview
summaries to the participants for confirmation purpose. Which have contributed to a high
internal validity for this study.

Analysis

The three levels of culture Participant observation

In this section, I will illustrate this multi-level analysis by describing Shangri-La Tanjung Aru
Resort (STAR) with whom I have worked for three months during my internship. I will begin to
identify some of the deep elements of their cultures. I describe it as elements because it is beyond
the bounds of possibility to describe an entire culture, however I can describe adequate elements
to make some of the key events and phenomena at STAR comprehensible.

29 | P a g e

Shangri-La Tanjung Aru Resort and Spa (STAR)

Built in 1983, STAR is renowned as the premier 5 star resort not only in Kota Kinabalu city but
also through-out Malaysia. STAR is a market leader for both leisure and corporate market. Kota
Kinabalu city has a total of 2,875,761 tourist arrivals in 2012 and is forecasted to increase the
number every year. The Training Manager which was my contact person at STAR shared to me
that the luxury Shangri-La chain had recently implemented empowerment strategies and it was a
part of their Shangri-La Care Programe which all current staff member had participated in and
newcomers still undergo. The Training Manager shared his concerns about how difficult it was
to enforce empowerment and moreover he also assumed that the employees mentality might
have hindered the empowerment implementation and subsequently failed during the change
process.

Artifacts
Physical expressions
To gain entry at the employees entrance, you had to sign in with a guard who sat behind the
counter while employees punched their card to enter and exit in order for the management to
keep track of their punctuality. There were also times where I saw Security guards inspecting the
employees bags upon leaving the resort. When I read the employees handbook, it also stated
that employees leaving the resort premises must be prepared to be inspected by the Security
Personnel on duty. What I remember most was the formality of the uniforms which were
segregated according to rank and department. Name tags were essential at STAR, it was also
according to hierarchy whereby the managerial level and up would have a magnetic name tag
with their managerial position laminated just below their name. On the other hand the employees
below managerial would only have their names using a pinned name tag. The physical layout of
the closed office, hidden pathways for employees and the patterns of communication and
cooperation made it easy to see who had what rank.
I reacted differently to the STAR environment as it was alien to me this environment. According
to Schein, a researchers reaction are themselves artifacts when conducting cultural analysis. It

30 | P a g e

must be recognized and taken in to consideration and that it is unacceptable to present any
cultural analysis with total objectivity because not only would this be unreasonable, but a
researchers emotional reactions and favoritism are also primary data to be analyzed and
understood (Schein, 2010). Upon entering the employees entrance for the first time, I saw a sign
that said: Welcome home. This is synonymous to the STARs philosophy Shangri-La
Hospitality from a caring family.

Language
The formality between the employees and management staff were seeable through how they
greeted and interacted with each other. I was also briefed by the Training staff members that if I
saw the Quality Director in the hallways, I should immediately put my right hand to my left chest
(heart) and greet her.

Managers
Front Desk managers I came across were formal and serious. I found out later that STAR had a
system of managerial rank based on length of service, overall performance and the personal
background of the individual instead of the actual job being performed at a given time. As a
result, rank and status had a much more permanent quality.

Traditions
During the STARs Front Desk daily briefing and meeting at the back-office, I observed that
there was no direct confrontation and much respect for the managerial opinion. Meetings and
briefings were geared to transport information rather than problem-solving. Suggestions and
recommendations voiced out by managers in their specific area of accountability were normally
respected, accepted and implemented, moreover I never saw or noticed disobedience from the
employees side. Interpersonal confrontation, argumentativeness and conflict coming from the
employees were unnoticeable. Moreover asking the supervisor or managers consent before
31 | P a g e

deciding to make decision was a must and considered as an obedient employee. Clearly I could
see that rank and status had a high value and something that was taken seriously in the Front
Desk Department at STAR.
Monitoring the employees performance was an established practice. Performance Development
Indicator (PDI) is a scoreboard that measures each employee at STAR. There was an incident
that got my attention around this scoreboard area. One day The Assistant Training Manager was
clearly sick but still he managed to drag himself to work. Curiosity made me ask him why he did
not take sick leave and rest at home. He answered that he was fearful for his PDI would get
deducted. He elaborated that should an employee become repeatedly sick, their respective
superior or Manager might decide to deduct the PDI. Moreover if the Manager was intolerant or
prejudice, usually he or she would deduct the employees PDI points straight away.

Espoused Beliefs and Values

Strategic goals
The organizations strategy and goals may fall into the category of espoused beliefs in that there
may be no way of experimenting it except through consensus because the link between strategy
and performance may be hard to prove (Schein, 2010). STARs strategic plan is to achieve
excellence through leadership that is committed, dedicated and creating a sense of belonging.
Secondly through colleague loyalty, commitment, efficient and high achievers (Shangri-Las
employee handbook). These strategic goals are supported by a variety of training programmes
which all colleagues undergo within six months of joining STAR. One of these training
programmes is related to the empowerment strategy which is also known as Shangri-La Care
Module 3 - Taking Ownership. The Taking Ownership training module states the meaning as to
live in an environment that is filled with care for guests and compassion for colleagues. The
objective of it is to empower colleagues to take initiative in everything they do and be able to
take ownership to show care for guests, colleagues and company.

32 | P a g e

In order to realize STARs goal, eight guiding principles are adopted. The philosophy and
guiding principles are the foundation of the STARs culture, and they are the beliefs by which
the employees and management staff will conduct themselves to the benefit of both their
colleagues, their guests and STARs business.

Taking Ownership Empowerment strategy

Shangri-La chain hotel headquarters in Hong Kong came up with a strategy that was meant to be
implemented in every Shangri-La chain hotel in the world which also included STAR. The
objective of the workshop is for the employees and managers to be able to take ownership and to
show care for their guests, colleagues and company. Shangri-Las vision on Shangri-La Care
Module 3 Taking Ownership is to be the first choice for guests and colleagues and with a
mission to delight their guests every time by creating engaging experiences straight from the
heart. According to the Taking Ownership training book, there are four drivers of ownership
(Appendix 3).

1. Show commitment
Do the actions to support values and principle. Most importantly assist colleagues to
delight guests.

2. Eager to take initiatives

Think outside the box, courage to take risk and constantly look for opportunities.

3. Lead yourself
Can Do spirit, self-motivated, make a difference and perseverance.

4. Filled with passion

Genuine desire to want to serve other, sincerity and being aware that customer service is
80% will and 20% skills.

33 | P a g e

Management
If I asked managers in STARs Front Desk Department why the Receptionists keep on going to
the back office to refer to their Supervisor whenever they after decision. They would explain to
me that, It is normal to report and refer to their respective Supervisor first and then if they do
not get consent or solution from their Supervisor they could then proceed to get an approval
from the Duty Manager on that day. Furthermore the managers clarified that the hierarchy
system needed to be followed accordingly before making decisions. And that this was the way
the management could keep track of what was happening. Moreover the management wanted to
be aware of any situation and have the overview in case a problem escalated. This way they felt
better prepared to handle any upcoming problem.
Despite the organizations strategy in implementing empowerment, my observations showed that
there was a lack of ownership and decision making among the Receptionists. This made me
curious and therefore I confronted the Training Manager from Human Resource Department, the
Room Division Trainer and most of the Managers and Supervisors of the Front Desk
Department. I found out that there was a strong belief among managers and supervisors. The
management team explained that, the employees, specially the new and young ones mentality
are not bothered in taking ownership at work. These employees are somehow slowing down the
empowerment process. The management team see the employees mentality as a challenge in
managing the change process in implementing the empowerment strategy.

Employees
After I observed a one way flow of communication during the Front Desk Departments daily
briefing that took place right before the new shift started, I asked the receptionists and the
employees why they did not voice out their concerns, suggestions and opinions when the Duty
Manager conducted the daily briefing. They all explained that this kind of meeting was
exclusively used for announcing decisions and sharing information. Moreover the employees felt
that it was pointless to voice out what was on their mind because information coming from the
top was considered valid knowledge and therefore it was better to keep quiet and avoid

34 | P a g e

commenting on anything. They had a feeling that suggestions and discussions among the
employees were labeled as inessential by the management.
The employees further explained that a high value was placed on authority based on rank and
experience, and getting an approval from their Supervisors and Managers was a must in order to
avoid being disrespectful to any of their respective superiors. As I asked further on what they
meant by being disrespectful, the employees associated it with confronting, questioning or
reflecting on the suggested decisions of their superiors. For example if your Supervisor or
Manager suggested or asked you to do something that you acknowledge as incorrect, not
intelligent or irresponsible, you were supposed to just accept it and not pursue to change the
Supervisor or Managers mind. Because an attempt to change the mind of the superior was
somehow seen as a challenge to the Managers superiority and power. Furthermore it could be
considered as an insult to his or her intelligence thus being disrespectful. Therefore the
employees belief of constant obey and not going out of the chain of command will avoid being
rude and not get being is considered a good employee. And that providing a solution was solely
based on the managers value and did not reflect the STARs organizations values. To
comprehend the significance of these values and to show how they were linked to obvious
behavior, I had to look a level deeper to discover the underlying assumptions.

Basic Assumptions The STARs Paradigm

Many of the values gave a glimpsed of taste of STAR, however without penetrating deeper to
basic assumptions, it would be difficult to fully understand how things worked. For example the
artifact that hit me utmost as a participant-observant within the organization was the peculiar
behavior of how the managers and employees interacted during the completion of their daily
working routines. I observed that there was a one way communication occurring between the
Managers and the employees. That new concept or solution developed would never seem to get
out from the employees. If I asked the employees why they did not take initiative in solving the
guests problem on the spot and also voiced out their opinion to their respective Supervisors and
Managers with demotivating faces they would answer me It is pointless and useless so why
bother (Receptionist)? Because of the imposed empowerment process strategy by the

35 | P a g e

organization, my assumption was that it would certainly have been beneficial for the employees
to decide and take control of the situation should a problem occur with their guests.
For example I notice that it was a daily routine for Receptionist to keep on traveling back and
forth towards the back-office leaving the guests unattended and irritated with up to fifteen
minutes of waiting time. As I went to the back-office there was a queue among the Receptionist
with worried faces waiting for their turn to report or get consent from their respective supervisor
or manager. I could hear high tones, irritating voices and sarcasm coming from their superior,
while on the other hand constant nodding, low voice and continually Yes and OK coming from
the receptionists. The receptionists were only listening to their superior who was demanding to
elaborate more on the situation pertaining to the guests complaints and then commanding the
receptionists on what to do and how to do it. The receptionists shared to me that, even though
they knew that they could solve it by themselves, they were reluctant to voice-out their opinions
and would not take the matters in their own hands. The Receptionists were hesitating to take
action in taking ownership of the problem and the eagerness to do something was not visible.
However, power and control were very visible not only at the Front Desk back office but also at
the Front Desk counter itself in front of the guests. This experience was puzzling and confusing,
a strong underlying assumptions were at work here. In order to find out what it was, I later asked
one of the receptionist why they were not practicing the taking ownership- empowerment
strategy, she disclosed that they did not dare to bother or care in empowerment strategy because
it did not exist. Furthermore the receptionist added that how could they practice to take
ownership when there was no freedom to decide. The employees ideas or opinions had always
been seen as a threat to their Superiors power and credibility thus it was considered
disrespecting the Managers intelligence and years of experience. The underlying assumption
here was that unsolicited ideas were generally not well received and taking matters on the
receptionist own hands to solve problems on the spot were not a disrespectful. She concluded
that by being obedient, keeping their ideas to themselves and just become a follower were the
best way to avoid conflicts with the managers as the Superiors always considered themselves
right. I had a long curious conversation with most of the Front Desk employees about this
observed behavior and collectively figured it out what the clarification was. As earlier described,
managers see their job as their area of expertise and felt a strong sense of territory or control and
made the assumption that each Manager in the Front Desk Department would be completely
36 | P a g e

involved in managing by using power and to be on top of his or her field of expertise. Managers
demanded to be fully briefed and make himself an expert in that area. For that reason, if an
employee presented some spontaneous information connected to the job, this was potentially an
encroachment of privacy and possibly an insult, as it might indicate that the manager did not
earlier come up with this idea or information.
The dominant analogy that offering someone unwanted information was like walking into their
home unwelcomed derive from a number of managers in subsequent interviews. It became
understandable that only if information was requested for was it adequate to offer ideas. To
provide unsolicited ideas could be seen as a challenge to the manager, and that it could be
referred to as disrespect or an insult.
The assumption for STARs philosophy Shangri-La Hospitality from a caring family was that
the parental authority should be respected and that children (employees) should behave
accordingly to the rules and obey their parents.
Below are the important characteristic of the STARs Front Desk paradigm which I discovered
during my observations as a participant observer. The paradigm is a set of assumptions held in
common and taken for granted in an organization: in effect it is a collective experience used in a
situation in order to make sense (Johnson, 2011).

37 | P a g e

We are a family and members will take care of each other,

But a family is a hierarchy and children have to obey.

Leadership power and control

are the keys to success.

Truth and wisdom come from those

who have highest rank.

Staying closely linked to ones

parents is considered as an
obedient employee and the
key to success.

Leadership arrogance:
We know what is best

Findings
I have identified these assumptions primarily through observation. Whenever I discovered or
observed abnormalities I tried to be curious on the matter by confronting the inside informants.
To fully comprehend the observed incidents I gathered different perspectives and collected valid
information through constantly engaging with the employees and managers by negotiating and
coordinating the meaning in order to get a deeper understanding of the culture.
The powerful influence of the current managers/leaders was clear. They strongly valued their
culture and were pleased or satisfied with them. Stories told among managers were, that the
employees mentalities were the barrier that prevented a successful implementation of the
empowerment strategy. Moreover the managers also felt that it was necessary for the members
of the STARs organization to accept the basic assumptions and that hierarchy systems needed to
be followed accordingly before deciding and taking action. Although STAR was at the
empowerment stage process, the managers treasured their autocratic leadership style because
their current culture was seen as an important asset and they wanted to preserve it.
Finally, it was noticeable that STARs organization reflected the national culture of Malaysia in
which it operated. Whereby people accept a hierarchical order in which everybody has a place
and which needs no further justification (Hofstedes National Cultural Dimension, 2014).
38 | P a g e

Thematic analysis Semi constructed interview

Culture as command and control
The overall theme in the participants narratives shows how it is to be a lower rank employee at
the STARs Front Desk. This sense of complications was attributed to difficulties with the
autocratic leadership style which the employees felt made them appear stupid and incompetent.
Unanimously, the participants had anticipated that the dictatorial and controlling style would be
the challenge. They were experienced in dealing with hotel guests, nevertheless all participants
expressed dissatisfaction at how coping with the domineering and tyrannical leadership style had
such an impact on their ability to take ownership in the Front Desk setting. Not having the
freedom to decide and to perform simple tasks such as settling hotel guests request was
frustrating and demotivating as shown in the following examples.

Participant 1
Employee - Service Center Associates Story

No ownership. No empowerment. Nothing. We just come to work whenever they ask us to. You
just do it. You cannot voice out anything. They said yes in front of you but at the back they say
no. So nowadays when we think of something, solution or idea, we all know this could not be
done. Therefore all of us in the Service Centre just go to work and then go back. That's it. That's
why taking ownership is nothing. You cannot say anything. We do not know how to say anymore.
It's nothing for us that taking ownership and empowerment. It does not exist and there is no
meaning for us.

39 | P a g e

Participant 2
Employee Receptionists Story (Appendix 6)

No authority. It seems like they have a lot of stone that you need to jump. Need to ask for almost
everything. Meaning you need to ask for permission from a lot of people, pass a few superiors to
make decision. You have your own Service Leader (SL) to refer to first. However most of the SL
will say "Mmmm I am not sure. I don't know. But try and ask Duty Manager." Once you
approached the Duty Manager (DM), at the end they maybe just say no. It's like you need to
jump around. If the Duty Manager don't want to face it, they will inform you what to do, how to
do it and then you follow and do it. It's like a double job, it makes you look stupid. Because you
need to ask your managers, 'Ok how do I do this?' The Manager will say 'Ok I am letting you go
back.' On the corner the guest will be like, 'Common you cannot decide anything?'

Taking ownership-Empowerment is still not being widely practise. All the new employees, know
how to handle, but even though its just a very small matter, they just directly go to the upper one
and directly go to the Duty Manager. Lets say if you want to take the initiative to handle the
problem by yourself and then later get back to the Duty Manager, he or she will then say, Why
didnt you report up to me? It feels like, so what do you want me to do? Therefore if a certain
problem or situation arise that needed to be solve, even though we know how to solve it, we will
just say 'I am not a Manager and this is not my task.' We let the manager do it. This is very
common and keep on happening here. All the employees are losing their motivation. We will be
clear in our status that we are not a manager and any complaint should be refer to SL or the
Managers. All of the employees are like a 'Robot'. Check-in, check-out, 'I am sorry Duty
Manager will speak to you'.

I have an idea. But I am not allowed to decide. Because we have a procedure like;
One moment Sir, I need to double check with my Duty Manager.

40 | P a g e

Participant 3
Employee - Guest Relations Officers Story (Appendix 6)

Taking ownership is when a guests complaint something and you are supposed to recover the
problem. As an associate at lowest level, we cannot do anything. Because everything need to be
refer to your manager. Everything. So even if you can handle it, and solve it, the manager will
say 'Aah you didnt call me in? You simply handle it by yourself?' Imagine guests complain to
you with simplest thing, and you have to say 'Aaah let me refer to my Superior, I will call the
Duty Manager for you.' I mean the guest will also said 'Aaah it's just a small thing and you have
to call your Duty Manager? So the staff cannot do anything for me?' The guest also feel like the
staff cannot do anything. For me it's like we cannot make decision. It feels and looks stupid, I
mean only for the small thing, you go in and out, again and again through the Front Desk back
office to refer to the managers.

Findings

If self-efficacy is lacking, people tend to behave ineffectually, even though they

know what to do.
(Bandura, 1986. p.425)

Here the Front Desk Department employees from the Reception, Service Center and Guest
Relation sections underline issues that are voiced through narratives. The managers and leaders
attention to control and command posed a self-determination risk in the employees professional
competence, because the never ending referring upwards seem to have weakened the employees
belief to perform (Human resource online, 2008). According to Dr. Stephen Choo, regional
director (Southeast Asia) at Hay Group insight, the lack of empowerment to make decisions and
constantly having to refer to the respective superior contributes to a high frustration factor
(Choo, 2008).

41 | P a g e

The employees identify the problem of their inability to take ownership to be evidently related
to the managers ruling and dominant leadership style. Compounding this perception that their
motivation to take ownership were perish, employees felt that their capabilities to organize and
execute the courses of action required to manage prospective situations are belittle. As Raquib,
M.A, et al. (2010) and Lim (2001) found, the managers reluctance to delegate authority to their
subordinates let to employees feelings of disempowerment and disappointment. Their
confidence diminished and felt discouraged, some withdraw responsibilities and critical thinking
skills, a safe position where the risk of conflicts and confrontation would be minimized. STAR
management need to identify the conditions contributing to low self-efficacy which in this case
authoritarianism. Because a controlling supervisory style contributes to low self-efficacy
condition which is the barrier on the first stage of empowerment process (Conger and Kanungo,
1988). On a motivational perspective, the empowerment strategies relationship with Banduras
self-efficacy theory is important because it involves the mentality (Gist, 1987) of a persons
belief that they can function and act adequately in a situation (Bandura, 1986).

Discussion

The assumptions about the paradigm are very basic but may
or may not align with the logic strategy.
(Johnson, 2011)

My argument is that unless you decipher the current existing culture (Schein, 2010) at STAR,
you cannot implement empowerment strategy effectively. And that the insight gained from the
understanding of STARs culture and behavior can essentially influence the initiating change
process of developing a culture that supports and drives behavior aligned with empowerment
strategy (Johnson, Whittington & Scholes, 2011 and Tower Watson, 2013).

42 | P a g e

The STARs Training Manager stated that despite the acclaimed Taking Ownership
Empowerment strategy, it had failed in empowering employees to take initiative in many of their
actions. Even though STAR used labels such as respect, compassion, care for colleagues and that
every staff is equally important, the four drivers of Shangri-Las Taking OwnershipEmpowerment strategy; show commitment, eager to take initiatives, lead yourself and filled
with passion (Appendix 3) were not visible at the Front Desk Department. Although such labels
are important and useful for understanding and communication, it is the practice that really
matter (Tosti, 2007).
Dewettinck (2003) noted that Bowen and Lawler (1992) suggested that in order for employees to
be empowered, the dispersion of authority, information and knowledge towards a lower
organizational levels become an important precondition. However, during my three months
internship as a participant observer at STAR, interviewing and interpreting their experiences
through thematic analysis, I found out that high power distance is widely accepted (Hofstedes
National Cultural Dimension, 2014). Meaning that the individuals are not equal and that the
practice of controlling and autocratic leadership style was considered a norm. This hierarchal
order contributed towards the managerial and leadership belief that empowerment is a tool to
grab their legitimate managerial power to (Raquib, M.A, et al. 2010) which is why managers are
unprepared to empower their subordinates (Lim, 2001). These was a hindrance towards the
employees enthusiasm and readiness to perform and make decisions. Thus this has significantly
contributed towards the low self-efficacy of the employees. Meaning the employees belief to
perform sufficiently in a situation (Bandura, 1992 and French at al. 2011) is diminished. STARs
management fail to recognize and identify the conditions within the organization that are
responsible for contributing to low self-efficacy. This failure is a barrier in achieving the first
stage of the empowerment strategy process (Conger and Kanungo, 1988).

43 | P a g e

Conclusion
In the above case analyses, I have tried to demonstrate how STARs culture can be analyzed at
several levels: (1) visible artifacts; (2) espoused beliefs and values; (3) taken-for-granted, basic
underlying assumptions. However, it is vital to understand that I have only analyze certain
elements of the culture because these study is related to key goals that the STAR are trying to
achieve, therefore we should not assume that the above paradigm can represent STARs
organizational culture. The generality of the assumptions should be investigated and determined
empirically. What really matters is the definition that put emphasize on shared learning
experiences that lead to shared taken for granted basic assumptions (Schein, 2010) which the
meaning is shared by a collective and that it is a more complex idea (Alvesson, 2002).
To conclude my first research question, the assumptions about the STARs Front Desk paradigm
and empowerment strategy was not align. The managers of the current existing culture have a
focus on controlling and autocratic leadership style, they want the employees to obey and follow
their command. However STARs Front Desk culture is not the kind of an organization that
could support the empowerment strategy thats highly focus on freedom and taking ownership.
Which is synonymous to some scholars findings (e.g. Conger and Kanungo, 1987; Evans, 1990)
explain command and control supervisory style are likely to pin down the application of job
autonomy by the subordinates (Hilton R. W., 2002).
After understanding the shared assumptions and identifying the real constrains, the focus then
shift to make the STAR management aware that understanding of their own culture is crucial in
order to initiate the change process of empowerment.

44 | P a g e

Solution

What is organizational change?

It is an approach to change individuals, teams and organizations to a desired future state by using
a set of basic tools or structures intended to keep any change effort under control (Kotter, 2011).
In short making things different (French et al., 2011).

Change management model

From a constructionist perspective, organizations are seen as a potentially fluid field of meaning
making (Gergen, 2009) and that the situation is constantly changing and evolving. Moreover,
Legos CEO Jorgen Vig Knudstorp advises that the strongest organization survive not because
theyre the strongest financially but because their adaptive (Knudstorp, 2012). In the quest to be
adoptive in world of fluid setting (Borges & Rasera, 2013), I have taken a change management
model from Tower Watson Consultancy (Appendix 6) and altered the model into a creative
hybrid toolbox to be used by the management of STAR. My learning and understanding cycle is
based from hermeneutics, hence the explanation of the change process models transformation
below. My knowledge has continuously developed due to the new data I gained from my
analysis and other relevant resources from my literature reviews. That is the reason why I
reconfigured the model as seen below.

45 | P a g e

 Can do mentality
Purpose

Behaviorial
Building
Communities

Fostering the sense that employees at all levels are in it together

STAR's organization create the opportunity for social interaction by
displaying the appetite and courage to hear from employees
extablish ongoing conductive to collaboration rather than top-down
communication

Strategic

Modelling the empowerment process

Managing Change

Essential
Understand culture & behavior

Foundation
Meaning making : Social construction

Understanding the forces blocking or facilitating change

Identify conditions contributing low self-efficacy
Recognizing how to boost employee's self efficacy
Identify what motivate employees in taking ownership
Does STAR's culture support and drive behaviors aligned
with the empowerment strategy?
A compelling case for change?

Focus is on generating meaning together &

engagement
Used as creative process in
research/intervention tools
Dialog, imagination, co-creation meaning
encourage to question the taken-for-granted,
persuit new ideas & solutions

On this change process I will only describe the stage of understanding culture and behavior in
detail. Because in-depth knowledge of organizational culture can assist STAR management in
identifying appropriate change strategies that is suitable with STARs unique cultural
context .However, understanding culture in any particular context, is not an easy task
(Heracleous, 2001).
The findings from my analysis earlier concluded that STARs autocratic and controlling culture
is the main barrier of implementing empowerment process successfully. In regards to this, it is
therefore essential for the STAR management to understand their own culture extensively and
what is driving behind those behavior, before they could begin the process of empowerment. The
cultural insight gain from the cultural assessment can then be used to initiate the process of
change.

46 | P a g e

Social construction in the context of organizational change

Social constructionism is the foundation of the change process and is offered here as a
postmodern approach. It means exploring meaning by taking apart or unpacking the taken-forgranted and basic underlying assumptions that are disguised as truths.
The social constructionism theory is very sensitive to changes creating new forms of practices
and behavior. In a world that is constantly changing and evolving, social constructionism will be
a useful approach to address and adopt changes in context, pointing to new possibilities of doing
research and interventions (Borges & Rasera, 2013). Dialogue, imagination and co creating
meaning will be used as an intervention tools to allow multiple meaning to emerge in order to
decipher the culture of STAR.
It is a change process model that focuses on generating meaning socially. Because it has the
ability to question the taken-for-granted underlying assumption, to experiment with new ways of
talking, to embrace ambiguity and to stimulate a state where sky is the limit, moving forward to
the pursuit of new ideas and solutions (Borges & Rasera, 2013). It is suitable for because the
autocratic and controlling culture of STAR only allowed one way communication. The
employees concerns, ideas and perspectives are not being voiced out. With the use of social
constructionism that promotes a stimulating two way communication through dialogue, the
STAR management can now tap into the hundreds of employees perspective which could be a
valuable cultural insight for STAR to understand their own culture and what drives behind those
behaviors hindering the empowerment process. Later, the cultural insight gained can tghen be to
be utilize to initiate the change process.

47 | P a g e

Understanding culture & behavior

The most successful companies actively build a culture to

support and drive behaviors aligned with their business
strategy.
(Change & Communication ROI Report, 2013-2014)

Meaning making, engagement and change management are designed to drive behavior. However
with the absence of a foundation of cultural and behavioral awareness, organizations will have
little chances to drive organizational change succesfully. Research made in 2013-2013 indicated
that organizations with a deep understanding of culture and business strategy are more likely to
have better financial performance (Tower Watson, 2013).

STARs case Identify conditions contributing low self-efficacy by understanding the

culture

Based on my findings on STARs situations, it is important to understand that the

managers and employees are in conflict because they hold different beliefs, value systems
and interpretations about their situation and their roles. STAR management must take
into consideration that not all people are prepared to sufficiently deal directly with a
person with whom they, mistrust, feel belittled towards and disrespected by. Therefore it
becomes necessary to have a way of assessing culture rapidly so that the change leaders
can determine how cultural elements will help or will hinder (Schein, 2010) STARs
empowerment strategy.

48 | P a g e

Rapid Deciphering A multistep Group Process

I chose Scheins cultural assessment as part of the change management program because the
process is designed to give leaders of change processes a rapid way of understanding the
elements of culture so that they can assess its relevance to their change program. I have done a
fine tuning of Scheins process due to this papers foundation of social constructionism on the
change process tool.

Step 1: Obtaining Leadership Commitment

My previous experienced as a Participant Observant at STAR revealed that decoding cultural
assumptions and assessing their relevance at STAR were viewed as major intervention in their
organizational life. There was up to a point where some managers assumed that I was a spy and
questioned me, if I was from the Shangri-La headquarters. I also sensed their irritation and felt
threaten of my presence in the beginning. Therefore when assessing STARs culture, it must only
be undertaken with the full understanding and consent of the formal leaders of the organization.
The change process person should ask the STARs leaders also known as STAR Excom (General
Manager and directors of each department) on why they want to do the cultural assessment. The
change process person should also fully describe the process and explain the potential
consequences to obtain the leaders full commitment.

Step 2: Selecting Groups for Dialogue

The next stage is for the facilitator to work with the formal leaders which in this case are the
Room Division Director and the Front Office Manager. Together they need to determine how
best to select some groups of representatives. The criteria for selection depends on the concrete
nature of the problem to be solved, which in STARs empowerment case is identifying the
conditions contributing to the employees low self-efficacy level. In STAR where a high power
distance culture and ranking and order is highly emphasized, it is important to take note that
authority relationships and levels of intimacy are primary cultural dimensions. Therefore it is

49 | P a g e

important to keep this in mind during the selection process with the formal leaders, because it
can reveal some important elements of the culture.
The engagement of the entire STAR organization is of prime importance in the involvement of
dialogue for the assessment purpose. This is because the attitudes and feelings of the entire
organization are socially constructed, and have developed the organizations current culture and
climate (Faure, 2012). However due to the hotels nature of running 24 hours operation and with
STARs numerous amount of managers and employees, everybody could not be included, hence
the explanation of the selection process. On the other hand, heterogeneous/assortment groups
will be selected based on ranks, number of years working at STAR, age, gender and from each
section of the Front Desk Department (Concierge, Service Center, Guest Relations, Club Floor
and Front Office). Mixing the group will not only draw in different perspectives but the level of
trust and openness across various boundaries is itself attributes the STARs culture. Once the
group has been identified, the Room Division Director shall inform the groups of the purpose of
the dialogue, share the information and conversations he had with the facilitator and explain the
basis on why people are chosen to attend. Most importantly, participants must know that the
change problems that is being worked on is about how the empowerment strategy and current
culture is misaligned. STARs Excom leaders, Room Division Director and Front Office
Manager have to be aware and are committed to the assessment process. The leaders shall also
highlight that openness and complete honesty are needed, and that culture is not good or bad.

Step 3: Selecting an Appropriate Setting for the Dialogue

I remember when I was attached as a participant-observant at the resort, the employees seems to
have dual personality. I asked questions to them to verify some incidents or just simply wanted
to hear their perspective concerning with empowerment and working culture. They were
hesitating and I can feel their tense. However when the employees are outside their work setting,
I could see a sudden transformation, they were more relax, calm and open. For example at the
female locker room or at the STAR car park area near the beach, they casually shared their
intimate feelings and experienced about their work openly. I have learn from my previous
experience that the setting plays an important part in getting the employees to engage in order to
negotiate meaning.
50 | P a g e

Which is therefore the setting for dialogue should be outside the STAR property. Because the
selection of a setting where the dialogue will take place shall stimulate a conversation that
welcomes participants to bring in a multiplicity of voices without judgement. It should be a
setting that welcomes the participant to express their perceptions, thoughts and feelings without
being questioned. The setting must therefore be comfortable and allow participants to sit in a
circular format and permit the hanging of many sheets of flip chart papers on which cultural
elements will be written.

Step 4: Explaining the purpose of the Dialogue (15 mins)

The dialogue should start with a statement of purpose of the dialogue by the General Manager
and Room Division Director as they are both perceived to be in a leadership and authority role,
so that the openness of a two way dialogue is encouraged. The process of this step is not only to
be clear on why they need to find out the conditions that is contributing to a low self-efficacy
level among the employees but also getting the group to be actively engaged in the process.

Step 5: Dialogue not monologue

While being a participant observant at STAR I had attended several meetings such as, daily
briefings, introductions and welcome meetings with new staff together with group training
sessions. One common thing that I noticed was that there was only one way communication,
whereby there is only one person delivering a speech. I noticed that most of the participants were
bored, sleepy and showed no interest at all. Why I mention no interest is because when I attended
the Taking Ownership/Empowerment training session, ninety percent of the participants was
nowhere to be seen. Therefore the facilitator must bear in mind that the STAR employees have
mostly attended and experienced a monologue session. It is important that the facilitator start
with explaining what a dialogue in a constructionist perspective is. That dialogue is an ongoing
interactive process between the facilitator and the participants. And to raise the participants
awareness that in a dialogue type different understandings are welcomed without prejudice or
judgment.

51 | P a g e

Step 6: Dialogue on Culture

It is vital for the group to understand that culture illustrates itself at the level of artifacts and
espoused values, but the aim is to try to decode the shared assumptions that lie at a lower level of
consciousness. The three levels of culture will be presented in stage 6 and make the participants
understand what they are about to assess is a product of their own history and that the cultures
stability is based on the organizations past successes. Once the artifacts, espoused values and
shared underlying assumptions have been negotiated and co-created together, assumptions will
surface. In STARs case few of them are power and control leadership style are the key to
success and Truth and wisdom come from those with the highest rank. The facilitator should
test for general agreement and write the assumptions down on separate list. The list posted on the
walls separately becomes important as the visible connection of the cultural essence that has
been identified. When the participants and the facilitator feel that they have identified most of the
crucial assumption areas, and participants are clearer on what the assumptions are, then this
phase of exercise is done.

Step 7: Identifying Cultural Benefit and Barrier

Next task is to categorize the assumptions according to whether they will aid or hinder the
change process and discuss further as a way to make sense. Once identified, the general
agreement should be tested again for validity purpose. In the case of STAR, this study has
identified that the control culture of STAR is hindering the empowerment process by
contributing to low self-efficacy among employees. This management cultured characterized by
control seems to have demotivated and discouraged employees in taking ownership.

Step 8: Imagination Future implications

Now that we have used dialogue to identify the barriers of the empowerment process, dialogue
can also be utilized in finding generative ways to create new possibilities. Many alternatives for
actions can then be imagined and created. When imagination is unleashed, meanings gain
freedom, and new knowledge can arise (Camargo-Borges, in press). Imagination will be used as
an important tool to unfold the future implications. The facilitator could stimulate with

52 | P a g e

imaginative question such as, Lets say that the Taking ownership/empowerment process was
very successful, how would a day at work be like for you? Below are one of the answers I got
asking this question to a Receptionist during my semi-conducted interview;
If the taking ownership is successful, of course! Of course! Its like you work half the
leadership, you can decide and take ownership. There is a pride in yourself. (Appendix 6)

The use of imagination to favour future possibilities generates potentials for social change. And
with many STARs participants contributing on the above question, the potential meaningful
experiences can be created.

Step 9: Motivation
Identifying what motivates desired behavior among the group are very crucial in order to deliver
results. The facilitator can stimulate asking question on what sort of effort is necessary in
STARs organization in order to boost their self-efficacy. Below are one of the answers I
received from one of the Receptionist at STAR during the semi-structured interview;

I am the one in-charge here. How can I help you? This is what we need to motivate all the
people now. All the new employees or others, instead of just passing them to the supervisors and
managers. It will be helpful for others and also ourselves because it raise up our motivations. It
feels like, I have an idea. I can decide now. (Appendix 6)

These type of questions illustrate how dialogues and imagination play a role in deconstructing
old patterns of thinking about empowerment, new meaning and opening up transformation
within the STAR organization and increase the process of change through co-creation of new
possibilities (Borges & Rasera, 2013).

53 | P a g e

Step 10: Decisions - A compelling case for change

The new insight about how to boost the self-efficacy should be tested through consensus for
validity purpose. Once agreed, the facilitator can then discuss with the participants on the
connection between the STARs control culture and the empowerment strategy freedom to
decide. From here, there is a compelling case to change because the empowerment strategy does
not align with the STARs autocratic and controlling culture.

Conclusion
This case illustrates how STARs cultural assumptions command and control underpin values
and beliefs, and have pervasive effects on the managers and employees interpretations and
actions.
In this solution chapter I have to answer on what STAR needs to focus on in initiating a step
towards implementing the empowerment process successfully. I have shown earlier that it is very
important for the STAR management to understand the essential stage, which is understanding
their own culture. This is where it has to be initiated. Because dealing with organizational culture
is a key consideration in change programs and ignoring it is an important reason for which
change programs fail (Johnson, 1987, 1990; Pascale, Milleman & Gioja, 1997).
It is crucial that the STAR management get help in this reflexive process where they have to be
aware. Then only they could move to the stage of implementing the empowerment process.
It is important to reflect and take into consideration that the STAR management is part of a big
corporation, and that the management might be obligated and confined towards the Shangri-Las
corporate culture. Therefore there is no right solution and that I could only argued based on
STARs co-creation of meaning within their own social setting, conditions and boundaries.
For this research to be used in practice, it is important that the case for change does not only
focus on the understanding of why change is needed but also the action required to administer it.

54 | P a g e

List of reference
Books
Arbnor, Ingeman and Bjerke, Bjorn (2009), Methodology for Creating Business Knowledge, Sage Publication

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bernard, H. Russell (1994). Research methods in anthropology: qualitative and quantitative approaches (second edition).
Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.

Bandura, Albert (1995), Self-efficacy in Changing Societies. Cambridge University Press, pp. 2.

Bandura, Albert (1997), Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York : Freeman.

Bryman, Alan (2008), Social Research Methods, OxfordUniversity Press

Bryman, A., Burgess, R.G (1994a), Developments in Qualitative Data Analysis: An Introduction in A. Bryman and R.G Burgess
(eds.), Analyzing Qualitative Data, (London: Routledge)

Bryman, A., Burgess, R.G (1994b), Reflections on Qualitative Data Analysis in A. Bryman and R.G Burgess (eds.), Analyzing
Qualitative Data, (London: Routledge)

Camargo-Borges, C. (in press). Collaborative group practices: Exercising dialogue in healthcare setting. Chargin Falls, OH: Taos
Institute Press

Cresswell, J.W (2007), Qualitative Enquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA

DeWalt, Kathleen M. & DeWalt, Billie R. (2002). Participant observation: a guide for fieldworkers. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira
Press.

French, Ray., Rayner, Charlette., Reers, Gary., Rumbles, Sally (2011), Organizational Behaviour- 2nd Edition, John Wiley &
Sons, Ltd

55 | P a g e

Frost, P. J. (2003). Toxins Emotions at Work. Boston : Harvard Business School Press

Gergen, J. Kenneth (2009). An Introduction to Social Construction 2nd Edition, SAGE Publications Ltd

Gergen, J. Kenneth (2009). Relational being Beyond self and community Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press

Johnson, G. (1987). Strategic change and the management process. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Johnson, Gerry (1988) "Rethinking Incrementalism", Strategic Management Journal Vol 9 pp. 7591

Johnson, G. (1990). Managing strategic change: The role of symbolic action. British Journal of Management, 1, 183-200.

Johnson, Gerry., Whittington, Richard and Scholes, Kevan (2011), Exploring Strategy, Financial Times Prentice Hall

Lashley, Conrad. (1996). Research Issues for Employee Empowerment in Hospitality Organisations. Int. J. Hospitality
Management Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 333-346, Elsevier Science LTD

Marshall, Catherine & Rossman, Gretchen B. (1995). Designing qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Alvesson, Mats. (2002). Understanding Organizational Culture. Sage.

Schensul, Stephen L.; Schensul, Jean J. & LeCompte, Margaret D. (1999). Essential ethnographic methods: observations,
interviews, and questionnaires (Book 2 in Ethnographer's Toolkit). Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.

Schwandt, Thomas (2003), Evaluating Educational Reforms Scandinavian Perspectives, Information Age Publishing.

W. Barnett Pearce (2007), Making Social Worlds: A Communication Perspective. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers

Williams, M. (2000), Interpretivism and Generalization, Sociology, 34: 209-24

Gadamer, Hans-Georg (1976), Philosophical Hermeneutics, University of California Press

Maslow, A. (1987). Motivation and Personality (3rd edition). New York: Harper and Row.

Schmuck, Richard (1997). Practical action research for change. Arlington Heights, IL: IRI/Skylight Training and Publishing.

Schein, Edgar., (2010). Organizational Culture & Leadership (4th edition). Jossey-Bass, A Wiley Imprint

56 | P a g e

Taylor, Steven J. & Bogdan, Robert (1984). Introduction to qualitative research: The search for meanings (second edition). New
York: John Wiley.

Literature list
Aarabi, M.S., Subramaniam, I.D., Akeel A.B.A.A.B (2013). Relationship between Motivational Factors and Job Performance of
Employees in Malaysian Service Industry. Asian Social Science; Vol. 9. Canadian Center of Science and Education. 3(3): 561-575

Abrahamson, E. 1996. Management fashion. Academy of Management Review, 21: 254-285.

Ayupp, K., Chung, T.H. (2010). Empowerment: Hotel Employees perspective. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management.

Baird, K. & Wang, H. 2010. Employee empowerment: extent of adoption and influential factors. Personnel Review,
39: 574-599

Balogun, J. and Johnson, G. (2004). Organizational restructuring and middle manager sense making. Academy of Management
Journal

Bandura, A. (1987). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122-147

Bandura, A. (1996). Ontological and Epistemological Terrains Revisited. Journal of Behav. Ther. & Exp. Psychiat. Vol. 27, No. 4,
pp. 323-345.

Bartunek, J.M., & Louis, M.R. (1996). Insider/outsider team research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Borges, C.C & Rasera, E.F. (2013). Social constructionism in the context of Organization Development: Dialogue, Imagination and
Co-creation as Resource of Change.

Brikci, Nouria., Green, Judith (2007), A guide to using Qualitative Research Methodology, Health Services Research Unit,
London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine

Bowen, D.E., & , E.E Lawler, III (1992). The Empowerment of service workers: What, Why, How and When. Sloan Management
Review, 33(3): 31-39.

Bowen, D., & Lawler, E. (1995). Empowering service employees. Sloan Management Review, Summer, 73-83.

Burke, R. (1988). Sources of managerial and professional stress in large organizations. Causes, Coping and
Consequences of Stress at Work, 77-114. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01443330310790679

57 | P a g e

Clutterbuck D, Kernaghan S. The power of empowerment. London: Kogan Page; 1994

Coghlan, D., & Brannick, T. (2005). Doing action research in your own organization. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Conger, J. A., & Kanungo R. N. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory and practice. Academy of
Management Review, 13(3), 471-482.

Dewettinck, K., J. Singj and D. Buyens, 2003. Psychological Empowerment In the Workplace: Reviewing The Effects on Critical
Work Outcomes, Vlerick Leuven Gent Working Paper Series 2003/29

Ellsber, M., & Heise, L. (2005). Researching Violence Against Women - A Practical Guide for researchers and activists,
Washington DC, United States, World Health Organisation and PATH, 2005

Evans. M. (1990). The effects of supervisor behavior on the path-goal relationship. Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance, 5, 277-98.

Forrester, R. 2000. Empowerment: Rejuvenating a potent idea. Academy of Management Executive, 14: 67-80.

Foy, N. (1994). Empowering People at Work. London: Gower Publishing.

Gist, M.E. (1987), Self-efficacy: Implications in organizational behavior and human resource management. Academy of
Management Review, 12, 472-485

Goldman, A. (2008). Company On The Couch: Unveiling toxic behavior in dysfunctional organizations. Journal of Management
Inquiry, 17(3), 226-238

Hawkins, R. M. F. (1995). Self-efficacy: A cause of debate. In Special issue: Cognition, behavior and causality. Journal of Behavior
Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 26, 235- 240.

Hirst, M. (1992). Creating a service driven culture globally. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 4(1)

Hemdi, M., Omar, M., & Azmi, A. (2012, 12-13 March). The effect of organizational justice and organizational
trust on hotel employees turnover intentions. Paper presented at the 3rd International conference on business and economic
research (3rd ICBER 2012), Golden flower hotel, Bandung, Indonesia.

Hilton R. W. (2002). Managerial accounting: creating value in dynamic business environment. In Cherry C. K. (ed.),
Reengineering: Harnessing creativity and innovation. Journal of Cost Accounting, 8(2), 49.

58 | P a g e

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work Related Values. California: SAGE Publications.

Jarrar, Y. F., & Zairi, M. 2010. Employee empowermentA UK survey of trends and best practices. Research paper
no. RP-ECBPM/0032. Keighly, UK: European Centre for Best Practice Management. Retrieved from www.
ecbpm.com.

Kawulich, Barbara B. (2005). Participant Observation as a Data Collection Method [81 paragraphs]. Forum Qualitative
Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 6(2), Art. 43

Klagge J. (1998). The empowerment squeeze Views from the middle management position. Journal of Management
Development, 17(8), 548-558.

Kotter, J. (July 12, 2011). "Change Management vs. Change Leadership -- What's the Difference?". Forbes online. Retrieved
12/21/11

Lim, Long (2001). Work-Related Values of Malays and Chinese Malaysians. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management
2001 1: 209

Locke, E. A., & Schweiger, D. M. (1979). Participation in decision-making: One more look.
Research in Organizational Behavior, 1, 265339.

Lunjew, M. D., Sail, R. M., & Silong, A. D. (1994). Factors associated with employee participation and its relationships
with performance and job satisfaction. Malaysian Management Review, 29(3), 7-10.

Malone, T. W. 1997. Is empowerment just a fad? Control, decision-making, and information technology. Sloan
Management Review, 38: 23-35

Faure, Marvin. (2012). Social Constructionism and the power of engagement. Enablers.com from Disruption to Engagement

Mathieu, J. E., Gilson, L. L., & Ruddy, T. M.( 2006). Empowerment and team effectiveness: An empirical test of an
integrated model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91: 97-108

Maynard, M.Y., Gilson, L.L., Mathieu, J.E. (2012) EmpowermentFad or Fab? A Multilevel Review of the Past Two Decades of
Research. Journal of Management, 2012 38: 1231

Morales, H.N., Gonzales, J.C. & Mendoza, A.T. (2013). Empowerment as a Culture and a Strategy to strengthen the activities of
research and innovation. European Scientific Journal, vol.1 ISSN: 1857-7881 (print) e ISSN 1857-7431

Nicholls J. (1995). Getting empowerment into perspective: A three-stage training framework. Empowerment in

59 | P a g e

Organizations, 3(2), 6-11.

Pascale, R., Milleman, M., & Gioja, L. (1997, November/December). Changing the way we change. Harvard Business Review,
127-139

Raub, S., & Rober, C. (2012). Empowerment, Organizational Commitment, and Voice Behavior in the Hospitality Industry:
Evidence from a Multinational Sample. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 54(2) 136 148.

Sigler TH, Pearson CM. (2000) Creating an empowering culture: examining the relationship between
organizational culture and perceptions of empowerment. Journal of Quality Management, Vol.5, No.1: pp2753.1111

Strbk P & Vogt J. (2013). Cultural Synergy and Organizational Change : From Crisis to Innovation. Journal of Business and
Media Psychology, AUSGABE 02/2013

Sutton J. One hotel two systems. In: Teriovski M, editor. Relevant research in quality management. Melbourne: Monash
University; 1997. p. 22735.

Tosti, Donald T, CPT. (2007). Aligning The Culture and Strategy for Success. Performance Improvement. ProQuest Education
Journals, Jan 2007; 46,1, pg21

Wallace, J. C., Johnson, P. D., Mathe, K., & Paul, J. 2011. Structural and psychological empowerment climates,
performance, and the moderating role of shared felt accountability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96: 840-850.

Internet
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hermeneutics/ http://libweb.anglia.ac.uk/referencing/harvard.htm
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/empower
http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/466/996#g83
http://journal-bmp.de/2013/06/english-cultural-synergy-and-organizational-change-from-crisis-to-innovation/?lang=en
www.ecbpm.com.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/gadamer/ (First published Mon Mar 3, 2003; substantive revision Mon Jun 8, 2009)
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dilthey/ (First published Wed Jan 16, 2008; substantive revision Thu Mar 22, 2012)
http://www.shangri-la.com/corporate/careers/growing-with-us/shangri-la-care-programme/
http://www.humanresourcesonline.net/news/8323 Asian Employees Bogged Down By Bosses (Published : Aug 26, 2008)
http://geert-hofstede.com/malaysia.html
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkotter/2011/07/12/change-management-vs-change-leadership-whats-the-difference/
http://enablersnetwork.com/2012/social-constructionism-and-the-power-of-engagement-by-marvin-faure/ Social
Constructionism and the power of engagement by Marvin Faure. (Published : May 5, 2012)

60 | P a g e