International Hospitality and Tourism Student Journal 12 (1) 2012 14-24

Assessing organisational performance through teamwork at Ritz-Carlton: an application of the systems leadership concept
Trung Kien Tran
HTMi, Hotel & Tourism Management Institute, Srenberg, 6174 Luzern, Switzerland _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Abstract This research attempts to assess Ritz-Carltons organisational performance through teamwork by the application of the Systems Leadership concept. Literature reviews suggests that teamwork plays an imminent role in determining how positive, engaged and sustainable an organisation is. The are also researches indicating majority of large organisations do not take efforts in improving the workplaces team spirits. Ritz-Carlton was selected to conduct the investigation by the benchmark of the highly practical System Leadership teamwork concept. The author considers taking a multi-method qualitative approach with a selective sampling population of 4 hotels. The results of the study suggests that while RitzCarlton provide a highly engaged and team-oriented environment for its workforce; there are still areas for improvements such as the clear distinction of accountability and the importance of clear purpose and context needed to be address. Further recommendations are suggested and elaborated.
Keywords: Organisational performance; Teamwork; System leadership concept; Ritz-Carlton 2010 International Hospitality Research Centre. All rights reserved. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1.

Introduction

William B. Johnson established the Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company in 1983. The founder of this acclaimed brand bought the rights to The Ritz-Carlton name along with the original Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Boston from Gerald W. Blakely (The Ritz-Carlton 2010). As of today, the Ritz-Carlton has 72 hotels in 24 countries, and most importantly often seen by the general population as a world class hotel brand with extremely strong focuses on customer satisfaction. The company is an independently operated division of the Marriott International Corporation (ibid). Part of the RitzCarltons success is due to the large emphasises on its culture (ibid). At some points, this scheme will tackle on the concept of teamwork and how employees interact with each other professionally in order to together achieve flawless customer service. It is the working together aspect of the training programme that this research builds the arguments upon. One of the most important elements in creating a successful organisation is the ability to effectively get the most out of its resources. It is easier said than done. Within the field of human resources, the difficulty in hiring the right people, retaining the employees and continuously motivate the workforce is particularly challenging. Within hospitality, that is a top-notch problem, a question that many managers and leaders worldwide within the industry want to find out a solution to. This paper attempts to look at a solution proposed for managers and leaders in building a positive

organisation through its people. It is suggested that this concept has not been put into practise within the hospitality industry; and thus this research is about finding out if one of the most accomplished hotel company in the world; the RitzCarlton does contain some of this concepts elements within its culture. 2. Literature review One of the most fundamental distinctions between people and other elements within an organisation is its ability to contribute. Employees, and employers alike, are factors that play a part in the success of a company (Barron, Maxwell, Broadbridge, and Ogden 2007). The practises of management were created for the purpose of maximising this human factor in hopes of beneficial results to financial and marketing performances. The beginning thoughts of formulating effective means of managing organisations are commonly referred as the classical perspective (Daft 2008; Naylor 2004; Griffin 2008). 2.1.1. Classical perspective Classical perspective stated that an organisation can maximise their productivity and performance by applying mechanical approaches to the practise of management (Beardwell, Holden, and Claydon 2004). This was during the

14\14

International Hospitality and Tourism Student Journal 12 (1) 2012 14-24

time of the industrial revolution, times in which the practicability of scientific discoveries have been more imminent. This had been underlined by the wide applications of scientific management, which use tested & proven rationales to justify the decisions of managing people (Ibid). Consider the restructuring of assembling lines of Ford Motor as an example, machines were used to heavy lifting and transportation of car parts to lessen worker hours, thus hence improve the productivity on the jobs (Redman and Wilkinson 2006). Efficiency was the significant factor to consider at the time. As such, the formalisation of bureaucracy in organisations naturally follows. Bureaucratic organisations delegate authority and power according to hierarchical ranks As an effort to minimise favouritism and bring a sense of fairness into management, organisations select, manage and retain employees based on competence and technical qualifications and requirements (Pizam and Shani 2009, Pinela and Lerner 2006). This perspective often is regarded as a breakthrough in management thoughts, and still is conventionally implemented in organisations worldwide (Ibid). However, classical approaches within moder n organisations are often seen as out-dated, rigid and inflexible; and often are not fitted within the dynamic changing business environments. Further on, Daft (2008) argued that classical approaches do not consider human as beings with feelings and emotions; as such, the concept do not take considerations into other intangible contributory factors that led to effective organisational performance such as employees needs and satisfactions, quality of work or recognitions and self-fulfilling rewards (Ingram, Teare, Scheuing and Armistead 1997). 2.1.2. Humanistic perspective

and thus having a formalised, structure organisation cannot improve organisational performance if its employees do not allow it. Douglas McGregor (1960, cited in Daft, 2008) further challenged the classical perspective and questioned the meaning of achieving successful organisational performance through people. His Theory X and Theory Y formulation stated that human behaviour cannot be generalised into one type of employees that can be managed with one application of management. Considering the two sets of assumptions about employees, again it is suggested that bureaucratic organisations are not the ideal solution for effectively managing organisational performance. With such significant discoveries, humanistic perspective and its view on human relations perhaps are viewed as the most appropriate approach for increasing human productivity (Griffin 2008). However this attempt at making sense of employees meets challenges as researchers explode untouched issues. While classical perspective concentrates on the benefits of the organisation, the humanistic perspective appears to focus on employees (Beardwell and Claydon 2007). What is more important, is the theories and concepts proposed are what Luthans (1973, cited in Griffin, 2008) described as universalist views toward managing organisational performance; that there is one best way. In practise, effectively managing organisational performance requires complex (that each and every parts of the organisation are connected), contingent (acknowledge that each organisational fragments has its own values obstacles) and unified (that the organisation must be views as a single system) management thinking (ibid). Clearly, this is a challenge of significant calibre. Just like its predecessor, the humanistic perspective fails to incorporate the factors above into its resolution. 2.2. Organisational performance

As an attempt to resolve such issues, the humanistic perspective was proposed as a next step in revolutionise management approaches (Beardwell, Holden, and Claydon 2004). This perspective emphasised the need to understand h u m a n b e h a v i o u r, n e e d s a n d a t t i t u d e s i n t h e workplace (Daft 2008 p.41). Much of the credit is due to the accidental discoveries of the Hawthorne studies where studies found out that the performance of employees would increase when they are being treated more positively. These findings sparkled off a chain of researches in improving organisational performance using human as the indicating factor (Herzberg 2002). Perhaps this is where the term personnel management became out-dated and the more fitting human resource (presumably understood as human as resource) comes to the spotlight. Two reputable studies further confirmed this claim. The hierarchy of needs of Abraham Maslow (1943, cited in Daft, 2008) argued that the state of being of a person depends on the level of psychological needs. As satisfying a lower level of needs (ability to survive, eat or sleep) promotes humans desire to pursue a higher level of needs (ability to love or gain respectable status). With this, it is suggested that humans motivation can only go as far as their satisfied needs allowed

Organisational performance is simple to acknowledge, and yet it is not a term that can be fully understood. There are various dimensions of the terminology that either is being looked at partially or it is not fully appreciated. A adapted from Johannes Steyrera, Schiffingera and Lang (2008) described the term as a broad construct which captures what agencies do, produce, and accomplish for the various constituencies with which they interact. This definition explains the performance of an organisation is measured by the performance of its divisions. One significant dimension regards the companys performance of its management of its people, the human resource context. The nature of employment relationship management had long-established since the booming of the industrial age as personnel management (Boella and GossTurner 2005). It was only until businesses understand that employees are no longer a cost but rather as productive asset; the more widely approved approach human resource was used (Beardwell and Claydon 2007). 2.2.1. Contemporary approaches

15\15

International Hospitality and Tourism Student Journal 12 (1) 2012 14-24

The latest contemporary management thoughts propose some of the most widely used solutions in managing employees. They have been seen as the most competent form of means in which effective organisational performance can be achieved (Fisher, Hunter, and Macrosson 1997). Perfor mance management is one of the more sophisticated answers in effectively managing organisational performance. It is defied as a systematic process for improving organizational performance by developing the performance of individuals and teams (Armstrong 2006, p. 495). Within this definition, it is suggested the needs for looking after the performance of individuals, and as well as looking after the performance of teams that made up of these individuals (Ingram 1997).. However, performance management has been challenged as a conceptual theory and has little indications of effective implementations within the workplace (Beardwell and Claydon 2007). Talent management is a more specific subfield of the development in managing people compared to the broad constructs of performance management. Adopters of talent management often come under tailored talent development programs (Silzer and Dowell 2010), talent factories initiatives (Ready and Conger 2007) or employer branding (Minchingdon 2006). Another issue to be discussed here is the overuse of theories and concepts. For example, a popular tool in performance management is the use of competency frameworks. However, Armstrong (2006) challenged the competency frameworks if use abundantly could overshadow the core vision and goals of the organisation. Talent management as well, does not come close in solving such difficulties. Martin and Schmidt (2010) hypothesise that often talent management implementations are based on assumptions rather than empirical researches; that it is timeinsensitive to react to business environment changes; and most importantly it is still top-down executed and thus do not reflect the needs and wants of talents themselves. Talent management, and performance management alike, also fall shorts on satisfying the demands of innovative management thinking. The learning organisation often is presented as an ideal solution for such humanistic management problems. The theory proposed by Senge (1990) suggested that for organisations that use human resource as its competitive advantage, the only way to maintain that edge is to continuously improve and evolve the whole organisation. As seemingly flawless as any literature theories or concepts, the learning organisation perhaps does not act as the sole solution. Collins (2007) argued that the concept only works when all employees within the organisation are committed and engaged (and it has been explored previously as virtually impossible); as well as size matter. When implementing the learning culture within large and complex organisations, its effectiveness are questionable since it require substantial efforts to monitor progresses. Senge (1990) further elaborated the needs to dismantle hierarchic structures within bureaucratic organisations into more aligned and organic organisations for the learning disciplines to be successfully implemented. How many organisations are there that can be noted to take such challenging initiatives?

2.2.2. Teamwork The efforts in making sense out of managing people have certainly brings management thoughts one step closer in creating ultimate functioning organisations. More importantly, the recognition of individualism and the needs to collectively bring employees together to achieve meaningful organisational performance is apparent. The next evolutional step of the continuous exploration in managing people therefore has been suggested as teamwork. Collectively, teamwork stands on the principle concept of people work together with a common goal and how they communicate with each other to reach their goals and objectives (Mullins 2001; Macdonald, Burke and Stewart 2006; Kavanaugh and Ninemeier 2007). The term is used regularly but nonetheless, it is often partly understood without a common consensus. Teamwork will be further examined through different perspectives; a conceptual context and the roles of membership against the individualism phenomenon. Essentially, teamwork results from interactions and communications between team members and team leader. DuBrin (2009) argued that in order for effective teamwork to be carried out; emphasis needs to be placed in the interactions and communications of the team. Mullins (2007) also place priorities in solving communication barriers in order to promote effective teamwork. However, Montes, Moreno, Morales (2005) are sceptical of such initiatives since it could potentially haul down the actual productivity of the organisation. It is further elaborated that consistent teamwork comes from relationship bonding. It is created, testes and sustained over a period of time, therefore organisations must give time for members to unite under a common voice (ibid). Nonetheless, considering the pressures of competition in the ever-challenging business environment, Liu, Combs, Ketchen, and Ireland (2007) questions the realistic patience that organisations give to employees. Kavanaugh and Ninameier (2007) derived that there are different types of team formulations that interact differently. This is appropriate; as discussed before that a team is made up of different members whom carries different behaviours, values, competences and interests. Belbin (1993, cited in Mullins 2007) therefore proposed 9 different team-roles with distinctive contributions and weaknesses that suit different types of members, and suggested that a successful team needs to have such diversities in order to excel at work. Conversely, it can be argued that in modern times, particularly of the service-oriented businesses, diversity in personalities and behaviours are not welcomed and are often overlooked for the sake of early efficiencies (Rabey 2003). There is a paradox that is rejected and supported simultaneously regarding the true values of teamwork. Academic literature takes further the concept of teamwork, in such instance; Bamber, Castka and Sharp (2003) strengthen the importance of teamwork and propose models to apply within organisations. Bamber et al. (2003) further elaborated that effective teamwork need to be built with the

16\16

International Hospitality and Tourism Student Journal 12 (1) 2012 14-24

supports from the leadership initiatives, and continuously reinforced by the rest of the workforce whom presumably work as a team. However, Macdonald et al (2006) argued that this critical element of working together cannot be achieved with such monopolism flows of contributions. Therefore, this suggests limitations within the model, since this is relevant to the businesses that offer productions and consumptions as separated functions (Collins 2007); and thus ignoring the given trend: all businesses of modern word are services operations. Further on, since this is a devised contemporary approach in explaining critical steps toward teamwork; more or less it is based on personal opinions and possibly it does not consider the practical aspects when conducting into realistic operations (Walker 2009). Collectively, a team is formed from a group of individuals whom share common goals, purposes or objectives. Individualism here has been replaced by the term membership. Membership is defined as the contributors in the creation, evaluation and selection of ideas for the completions of goals and objectives (DuBrin 2009). More over, membership systematically defines the overall quality of work output. In this sense, the more capable team members are, supposedly the better quality of work will be produced. On the other hand, much of the worlds organisational systems are ran and managed by hierarchies, where power and authority lied within the executives, directors and managers (Daft 2008, Kavanaugh and Ninimeier 2007). Again, team members (often are sub-ordinates) in a sense are doing the jobs of executing the tasks that are given, and thus has little to contribute in creating or evaluating the decisions of their superiors. Perhaps this is where teams failed to deliver teamwork. In addition, since there are little opportunities for team members to contribute, the output of team reflect little of the actual capabilities of the team and of the individuals within it. A saying often goes by: the whole is greater than the sum of its parts (Macdonald et al. 2006). That is often perceived to be accurate, a given law of cooperation (Mullins 2007, DuBrin 2009, Kavanaugh and Ninemeir 2007). Perhaps the underlying issue rests with the fact that often managers or leaders use this as an excuse to ignore the contributions of employees. This can happens for a number of reasons: selfegos (Macdonald et al. 2006), high power distances or race/ cultural differences (Hosfede year?), the pressure of time (Daft 2008), nature of businesses (Mullins 2007) and personal reasons such as lack of perspective awareness or fears of accountability consequences (Kavanaugh and Ninemeier 2007). Essentially, it is agreed that team outputs are more than the sums of its individuals; however, individuals in order to most effectively contribute to the performance of teams, the right conditions and environments needed to be provided and maintained by the team leaders or managers. Often organisations assume, or demand a seamless process of internal transitions within employees; that the minimisation of individualism are expected and replaced by roles and responsibilities of membership. It is fortified by rigid bureaucracies, job descriptions, strict policies and oftenrepetitive tasks and work. As if individualism has no longer

any values. Steinberg (1977, cited in Boella and Goss-Turner 2005) challenged the traditional norms of organisations by suggesting that an individual when joining a team (much like an employee joining an organisation) do not want to lose his/ her personalisation. Mullins (2007) further argued that modern organisations are so efficient in ignoring this element, intentionally or not, that employees as a result lose interests in their work, be come emotionally isolated and thus do not efficiently contributing to the overall organisational performance. Therefore, it is imperative to understand the fundamental characteristics of membership. Like individuals, members all feel the needs of belong. They need to understand the reasons, purpose and context of the existence within a team (Macdonald et al. 2006). As well as, team members feel the need to contribute to the growth, development and sustainability of the firm; as Steinberg (1977, cited in Boella and Goss-Turner 2005). emphasised that the individualism within everyone cradles to be matter and not just a cog, a number that is replaceable. As well as, membership also desire feedbacks; from all identities surrounding his environment. Again, no matter how individualism has been altered mercilessly to fit organisational needs and desires; it still cries out for opinions, praises and criticisms (Yu 1999). However, this more or less reflect the perceived opinions of the 1980s that was heavily influenced by industrial thinking; and might not reflect the changing nature of modern business environment. Collectively, organisations are facing a paradox. A paradox in one hand represents profitability, financial performance, pressure of time and level of productivity. On the other hand, perhaps as forcefully important, are employees needs and wants, work motivations and recognitions, and perhaps even as far as employees feelings and emotions, sense of belongings and personal reflections of their existence within firms and companies. Why? Because these are the reasons that determine the productivity of employees, and in turns determine the level of success of companies. 2.3. System leadership A teamwork concept

Previous arguments have presented an analytical view of the changes in the people management field. All of thee little contributions from worldwide literature have all attempted to make organisation more productive and effective (Berger and Brownell 2010). While there are many approaches toward teamwork; theories and models to make the process better, this section of the paper will focus on a relatively new concept that is proposed by Macdonald, Burke and Stewart (2006). Essentially, Systems Leadership is presented as another theory adding to the vast abundant pool of teamwork performance literature. However, rather than a popular approach of being conceptual or philosophical toward teamwork, Systems Leadership breaks down the components that made up teamwork, and gives its justification on what works and what doesnt (ibid, p.173). Further on, this proposal do not suggests a set of ideas that will make

17\17

International Hospitality and Tourism Student Journal 12 (1) 2012 14-24

enhancements on teamwork productivity; but there are recommendations on gaps during group-work processes and the reasons for why such gaps existed; and as such, manager and leadership of teams can be more reflective toward their own approaches. The following subsections explore its distinctive characteristics against other theories, and practicability within worldwide industries. 2.3.1. Characteristics While in the previous sections, discussions have led to a perceived understanding of how should leaders best manage employees/team members. As such the conclusive investigation of theories suggested that often organisations have to choose one of the two approaches. On side of the weighting there are rigid bureaucracies, traditional hierarchies and reinforced policies (Daft 2008; DuBrin 2009). On the other side, ambitious organisations, often tech-related companies are believed in the idea of organic and unstructured workforces (Senge 1990). Systems Leadership suggests that the formulation of an effective workforce need not to be compromise by the selection of what is best, since it is argued that different approaches toward managing people are dependent on the environment surrounding and the situation the organisation is in. A study done by Burke and Smith (2006) points out the lack of accountability; a component of successfully teamwork was the major setback of highly hierarchic and bureaucratic organisations. As oppositely contrasting, Hoegl and Parboteeah (2007)s studies shown that the implementation of organic systems on teams and organisation without considering the needs for responsibility hinders performance effectiveness. Therefore, effective teamwork is a result of fine-tuning the work system of the team; and thus has little to do with the types of structure of organisation. Systems Leadership also brought out the need for teams (often initiated by leaders) to overcome negative mythologies (Macdonald et al 2006). Mythologies are the culture of the organisation, the way we do things around here. Negative mythologies here are defined as the underlying assumptions about the organisation that hindrance the work productivity (ibid). The term overcome in this instance is not about rejecting the negativity of the mythologies; but rather from the leaders perspectives to be reflective and ask themselves why, if you have made these changes (mythologies) in good faith, would someone also genuinely, not trust that they are beneficial? (ibid, p.104). The study done by Grimmond (2004) found out the consequences of not addressing negative mythologies and delaying the effectiveness of the change processes that was implemented; which could potentially be lost of moral support by team members and separations of teams and tasks. On the other hand, there are other researches that challenged this conclusion. Montes et al. (2005) found out that the mythologies; regardless of positive or negative affects little or not all of how teamwork can be formed since what determines the success of an organisation is its people and their willingness to contribute to help others. In this sense,

mythologies only act as a minor influential factor. Further on, one could argue that positive and negative mythologies always existed since they are created from peoples reactions to the work of changes, growth and development within an organisation; and sometimes mythologies are created from the core philosophies and visions of the organisation itself (Jarnagin and Slocum 2007). Therefore, leaders and managers of organisations, in order to effectively manager their organisations need to be reflective of the core purposes, and be sensitive to the implications when conducting decisions that affect the direction of the organisation. 2.3.2. Practicality Systems Leadership has its own applications in a wide variety of different fields, including but not limited to industrial businesses, social science agencies, hospitals, city governments national governments, armies, churches, public utilities, indigenous communities, schools (Macdonald et al. 2006, p.xiii). Further on there are case studies assessing its practicability. McGill (2005)s case presented the changes that happens in a business organisation; Commonwealth Bank of Australia were facing the restructuring and downsizing changes; at which it was revealed that the difficulties came from the fact that there were a lack of purposes and context from leaders that need to be communicated and delivered to members (ibid). As such, the implementation of the Systems Leadership concept was used to address important factors for effective teamwork: tasks distributions, the need for feedbacks and their roles within the organisation. However, the process of implementation ingrained within the company took 7 years, as such, it might raise limitations in applying this concept to time-sensitive business operations. Interestingly diverse, the concept was also utilised to improve the organisational processes of a mining company through a study done by Stanford (2006). The result was dramatic improvements in productivity and profitability of the workforce and stronger teamwork relationship between employees. In this sense, System Leadership was applied to tackle the challenges in the social technical and commercial processes (ibid). This implementation has been done through critical analysis of behaviour, systems and symbols of the work done by the leaders and teams of the company that reinforce negative mythologies overtime. Nonetheless, the positive improvements took 18 months to complete; time here again is the issue. Further more, Systems Leadership here is perhaps over-emphasised; It is argued that under the right circumstances, competent and motivated employees would contribute to overcome challenging environments anyway without leadership initiatives. 2.4. Teamwork at Ritz-Carlton

2.4.1. Leadership initiatives

18\18

International Hospitality and Tourism Student Journal 12 (1) 2012 14-24

With over 38,000 employees across 72 hotels in 24 worldwide destinations, interactions between all human resources are crucial to the daily operations of the RitzCarlton (The Ritz-Carlton 2010). Informal teams is a fundamental component within the Ritz-Carlton teamwork culture (Mullins 2007). In theory, informal groups are based on personal relationships rather than on defined role necessities (ibid). Ritz-Carltons top management understands this dilemma existence and twist these natural behaviours into standardised communications toward all employees across the globe (The Wall Street Journal Digital Network 2009). Excelled leaderships go out of ordinary structures to get things done and in this instance, Corporate President Simon Cooper shown Ritz-Carltons priority in keeping all employees knowledgeable of current business status of the company (DuBrin 2009). The leadership of the company focuses on reinforcing their core values of the Credo and the Motto (The RitzCarlton 2010) as their visible policy & strategy. This is supported also by the companys commitments to the people that is selected of mainly the right attitude and their methods of trying to find the true service values that are usually hidden behind its employees professional appearances (Hemp 2002). Walker (2009) agrees to this view as stating hospitality is all about delivering intangible products, that corresponds to the effort by the Ritz-Carltons employees in delivering an experience (Michelli 2008) and striving on making customer service an art (Gallo 2007). 2.4.2. Self-directed work teams Ritz-Carlton is also one of the pioneering companies in adopting this strategy. Self-directed work teams are organic teams that are formed within the organisations and they have the free will to set their own ogals or objectives (Kavanau and Ninemeier 2007). To take a step further, self-direct work teams are able to select and dismiss their own team members at will, formulate their own working schedules according to availability, design their own rewards and policies with the ultimate goals of getting objectives completed on tasks (ibid). Potential problems might arise in conducting such ambitious structures such as challenges to authorities and management controls; nonetheless, the rewards are more intriguing than ever such as lower administrative costs and greater job satisfactions. It is not perfect, but its better than the rest (ibid, p. 282). 3. Methodology 3.1 Approach

that can only be explained and understood through discussions with actual members; which in this case are the employees of Ritz-Carlton. For such, conducting qualitative researches allowed a more respondent focused set of results; therefore enhance the understanding of the underlying issues (Saunders et al, 2009). Further more, qualitative approaches allow changes within the aim and objective emphasis as the research progresses. Oppositely, quantitative approach is considered not suitable for such research since it gives little allowance for personal opinions and limits opportunities for exploring potential unaddressed issues (ibid). Further more, the data collected are not intended to gather streamlined sets of answers from a large population; but rather a more focused and purposive sampling population which can provide detailed, exhaustive and potentially sensitive data. 3.3 Sampling

The population determined in this research will be the employees of Ritz-Carlton. This includes the management and line staff of the company. With consideration to the time availability, the author suggests a period of conducting research limited to 1 year. The rationale is because of the instability nature of hotel jobs, as employment turnovers are high among this industry; career developments programs such as management trainees, internship or talent programmes often last between 6 months and 1 year. Therefore, employment relocations or promotions happens on a regular basis and as such it might affects the credibility of the perspectives of the research participants (Bryman and Bell 2007). The participating hotel shall be chosen from the 72 properties worldwide available. A permission request to be conducting researches shall be sent to the general managers of the properties; explaining the motives and methods of conducting research if permission was to be granted. Out of the responses gathered, a selection of 4 hotels shall be used in conducting the research. The criterion that determines the selection is the diversity in existence time. The fact that RitzCarlton plans to expand its company with new opening hotels needs to take into considerations. The reason is teamwork within a newly built hotel will be different from teamwork within one that has more history. This is due to many factors such as location, size of property, culture represented, image values, category of hotel, employees demographic proportions and age to name just a few (Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias 1996). This allows the research to be sensitive of different perspectives, which arguably changes overtime. 3.4 Method & data collection

In order to carry out this research, a set of multi-method qualitative studies will be conducted. Multi-method qualitative studies are a group of data collecting techniques This type of approach is designed for collecting in-depth information. Marshall and Rossman (2006) consider qualitative approaches most appropriate for exploring and validating interpretation. As previously discussed, teamwork is an intangible concept

The 1st part of the research will be used to explore the level of teamwork participation within the companys employees. A covert participant observation method will be used to gather such data. Previously the author selected a limited population of 4 hotels for the research for this purpose. The participant observation method is used to

19\19

International Hospitality and Tourism Student Journal 12 (1) 2012 14-24

directly observe teamwork participation level, which have mentioned is an intangible concept that is difficult to define; and thus limited the data gathering if less-engaged methods were to be chosen (Marshall and Rossman 2006). The researcher shall be place in a line employment role for a period of 3 months at each hotel. The time is considered to be sufficient for the researcher to gather comprehensive data for future analysis of findings. If possible, the researcher would request to be placed in a cross-departmental role within the hotels operations; thus it will give a more rounded context of each departments roles and perspectives regarding teamwork. Further more, the actual identity of the researcher shall be kept anonymously, for which it will not affect the conventional flows of teamwork that presumably already existed within teams. This will also allow the researcher to be objective in his observations since his role within the company are the same as other employees (Saunders et al. 2009). The form of data collection shall be from the researchers own interpretation of the situation and be recorded with a structured logbook at the end of the shift/ day or at the researchers convenience. It is acknowledged of the potential credibility of such methods; as it is discussed within the validity and reliability section below. The 2nd part of the research will be used to assess the level of commitments of the hotels leadership and management put into teamwork. This part of research shall be executed using in-depth semi-structured interviews (ibid). Again, permission requests (or invitations) shall be issued out to the management of the Ritz-Carlton hotels and interviews will be carried out if granted. Managers that are directly in charged of employee groups, sub-departments or departments qualify for research; since this will give corresponding perspectives to the data collected at the line employees levels. The numbers of issues explored during the 1st part of the research shall be used to formulate the open-ended questions for the semi-structured interviews. Semi-structured interviews in this case are considered to be the most appropriate. Nonstructured interviews are regard as time-consuming and lack of directions and focus, while structured interviews generally considered as limiting the participants opinions and points of views, which in qualitative researches are significantly important (ibid). The numbers of participants will need to be considered according to the numbers of managers that response positively to the invitations. However, the representative ratio from each hotels participants shall be approximately equal; for which this limits the subjectivity of the data collected. 3.5 Validity

employees. However, a number of potential hindrances to valid information need to be addressed. For potential ethical consequences, the author decided to request for permission to conduct the research to the general managers of each property; and have asked for the identity of the researcher and the research intention to be kept anonymously for the sake of objectivity of the data collected (Bryman and Bell 2007). However, such steps do not abstain the management to inform the his/her employees of the research. If that happens, there is a change of context and environment of the workplace and thus the data collected might not truly reflect the actual occurrences during ordinary settings. Further more, by choosing to directly participate in the researching environment, the researcher acknowledge that he is a part of the research process (Saunders et al. 2009). There is also a realisation that during the 1st part of the research, the data shall be collected through one individual by his own observations and interpretations. It is believed to be subjective and biased in nature (ibid). However, the nature of the research is to gather opinions and perceptions of the researching population; and also the experience of the researcher shall be enhanced and influenced by his role as an employee within the organisation, his colleagues and management within the hotel. Thus this actually gives a very comprehensive view of the organisations teamwork and might significantly reduce the validity errors of the data. Also, by conducting the observation method 1st, the researcher is (presumably) able to protect his identity from the management staff whom will be used for conducting the interviews until they are requested for participation in the research. This reduces unnecessary behaviour changes during the 1st part of the research, and also allows a more truthful attitude and opinions when taking part in the interview since there is an understanding that the researcher have collect experiential data prior to the interviews. This is especially important to consider since it is popular for hospitality businesses to emphasise positive attitude and ambassadorship before honesty and transparency (marshall and Rossman 2006). 3.6 Reliability

Validity is the extends to which the information gathered reflects the actual issues being research on at an objective manner (ibid). For using a qualitative method, the research emphasise on understanding the context and issues of the given situation (ibid). This is most appropriate when exploring the intangible issues such as teamwork among

Reliability concerns with if the research can be carried out at a different time that would yield the same result (Bryman and Bell 2007). In this research design, it has been stated that one of the criteria for hotels selection would be its length of existence. It is used to address this particular issue. Ideally, 4 participating hotels with different length of existence allows the data collected to be more diverse and generalisable. However, this would depend on the hotels general management and its individual philosophies of each property. Staff turnover is also another issue since teamwork is created and maintained by the employees, so changes within employment of the hotel arguably affects the stability of the team-working elements. However, Ritz-Carlton is acknowledged as having one of the lowest employee turnover

20\20

International Hospitality and Tourism Student Journal 12 (1) 2012 14-24

rates among industry standards (Michelli 2008), thus giving this study a more assuring context. 3.7 Generalisability

4. Discussion 4.1. To examine the commitment Ritz-Carlton leadership put into teamwork It is suggested throughout a review of existing literature that teamwork plays an important role within Ritz-Carlton. Ritz-Carlton has a reputation for being one of the most productive and sustainable companies within the hospitality industry; and it is because of the nature of this business as a people-oriented industry (Chatzkel 2000); the emphasis towards teamwork is further elaborated imminent. Leadership at Ritz-Carlton to an extend take the concept o teamwork seriously, although it is suggested that the concept is not thought out and emphasised directly as a key emphasis in the companys corporate cultures and philosophies. Nonetheless, there are other actions taken by Ritz-Carlton leadership to ensure productivity and engaged workforce; which are some of the components needed for effective teamwork (Crockett 2006). These elements includes thorough communication of core identities and culture, highly trustable and empowered workforce, systematic learning through experiences of frontline employees and encouraging innovative proposals for further enhancements of work such as the self-direct work teams initiatives (Michelli 2008; Kavanaugh and Ninemeier 2007) On the other hand, the sophisticated level of recruitment and selection policy of potential candidates for employment within the company could be a potential hindrance. The procedure acts as a shield neglecting the employees that might contribute significantly to the organisation but were not able to qualify according to policy standards. This suggests limitations to the ability for improvements within the company where it shields out different opinions and perspectives (Emerald Group Publishing 2004). Further more, Ritz-Carlton still maintains traditional bureaucratic hierarchies that separate work, authority and responsibility at different levels. This possibly might limits job enrichments and lack that humane elements needed for a living, organic organisation. 4.2. To investigate the level of Ritz-Carlton employee participation toward teamwork. Ritz-Carlton has a highly motivated and engaged workforce, possibly among the best within the industry. Although the paper explore some of the companys potential hindrances, it is necessary to mention that the sophisticated recruiting and selecting employment procedures of RitzCarlton have benefits the organisation on many levels (Gallo 2007). It allows the organisation to pinpoint the ideal candidates that are suitable within the companys corporate culture that ultimately allows an organisation with likeminded employees to prosper. Further more, the emphasis on Its not about you slogan that has been observed (Michelli 2008) add on to the overall employee experience at the workforce. It is used as an factor to remind and change the employees behaviour at the workplace: a unified team with a

Generalisability is concerned with the ability of the findings to be applied correctly to the wider population of research (Marshall and Rossman 2006). In this context it potentially is concerned with the other Ritz-Carlton properties that have not been researched, or the parent Marriott Corporation and event the wider luxury hospitality sector. Arguably, the design of the research has taken efforts in making conclusive findings generalisable through its constant revaluation that the methods are consistent, valid and reliable. Further more, It can be argued that the results should reflect if not all, majority of the perspectives of the Ritz-Carlton management and employees since Ritz-Carlton emphasise largely on their recruitment of suitable staff that share the same attitude and behaviour; and its culture also reinforce the hypothesis that employees of Ritz-Carlton worldwide behaves the same. In addition, qualitative research is less concerned with the need to generalise (Sounders et al. 2009). The aim of this research again, is to assess the organisational performance of a particular company through a very specific indicator, which is teamwork. And it is influenced by so many other factors that the review of literature have elaborated to a point where generalisation might not be appropriate. The deep understanding of teamwork and its role in Ritz-Carltons success perhaps play a more emphasised part in answering the question of this paper. 3.8 Ethical Issues

Confidentiality is a primary concern when consider using qualitative approaches (Saunders et al 2009). The fact that the researcher would like to keep his identity covert when conducting observational research expose the research participants in the risks of participants exposure; and thus this method will withhold the true intention of the covert researcher at the property. However, considering the need for reliable and truthful data, this sacrifice presumably is considered reasonable. A transparent proposal highlighting these consequences to the leadership management at each hotel might view as sustainable. More over, the identities of the management staff that participate at the hotel shall be given the option of guaranteed anonymously. The permission requests issued out also act as a tool to minimise potential ethical hindrances (King and Horrocks 2009). Further on, all the data and information gathered shall be provided with a statement of confidentiality to guarantee the non-disclosure of information. As well as when analysing and publishing the findings as a complete research; the general management of Ritz-Carlton shall have the option of non-disclosure of the companys identity, and the findings shall be served solely for academic purposes.

21\21

International Hospitality and Tourism Student Journal 12 (1) 2012 14-24

purpose to deliver the WOW experience to the customers (Gallo 2008). Further more, employees at Ritz-Carlton take pride in their work and they positively and publicly maintain the morale of the workforce by the everyday line-ups and the sharing of guest stories (Hemp 2002). This is considered as a great practise that show employees commitments in transparency and dedication to their work. Numerous stories carried out to delight customers cannot be achieve without a committed team of employees from all levels with a clear understanding of context and purposes. The story of Natalie Salazar demonstrate an example of the capability teamwork at Ritz-Carlton delivers that benefits not only the customers but ultimately enhance the employees experiences of their work and raise the organisations brand values, images and performance (The Wall Street Journal Digital Network 2009). Nonetheless, the structure of the organisation, especially a hospitality one such as Ritz-Carlton to an extend do not allow employees to be reflective of their work and perhaps find ways to improve their enjoyments at work. This is due to the repetitive nature of hospitality work; averagely high turnover rates as well as the industrys avoidance in addressing work rights and exploitation issues. Regardless of the fact the RitzCarlton has substantially the lowest employment turnover rates within the industry; it is still significantly much larger compare other industries that have excellent and sustainable humanitarian practises. Being the best sometimes is still not good enough. 4.3. To assess the similarities and differences between Ritz-Carltons teamwork and the Systems Leadership teamwork concept. Teamwork at Ritz-Carlton has presented itself as a part of the companys culture. It is a continuous progress that has been nurtured by the leadership; and implemented within the companys employees (Michelli 2008). Systems Leadership on the other hand, is a systematic concept striving to create and maintain positive organisations. It looks at the attempt in solving leadership and teamwork barriers that enhance the workforces productivity and sustainability (MacDonald et al. 2006). Teamwork at Ritz-Carlton goes on as an informal setting where the emphasis of the employees is to create exceptional customer experiences (Michelli 2008). Therefore, generally the team processes, decisions making processes and the actual performance of work are not generally thought out through. Authority still lies within the supervision and management level and the employees have little contribution to the decisions being made. On the other hand, Systems Leadership emphasise the need for leadership to take an authoritarian role in setting up the systems, behaviour expectations and symbols. This is in a way has been achieved by Ritz-Carlton through its philosophies, corporate culture and its trademark Gold Standards. However, Systems Leadership also points out a need for taking parts in the accountability of the actual work performance (ibid). Systems Leadership also highlight the need for a clear explanation of the purpose and context of a given job or

tasks, for it gives the purposes to the team members for why they are doing the work and how can it help to solve the tasks (MacDonald et al. 2006). Within Ritz-Carlton and the dynamic hospitality industry, often decisions are carried out on the spot without initial communication efforts and often there is no need for emphasising on all forms of communications. However, practising such speed-overefficiency methods may proven to be unproductive, ask employees will end up doing repetitive work, unable for implement job enrichment opportunities and as such explain the reasons for high job dissatisfaction and turnovers. 5. Conclusion and recommendations The hospitality industry is going through some of the most challenging phrases since its existence. There have been changes that was caused by the external environments, one such as the global economy crisis. There are also changes internally within hospitality as well, as the industry is becoming more mature and reflective; and there has been an on-going emphasis to where the industry is heading. Perhaps one of the biggest challenges of hospitality is the ability to sustain itself as a positive and humane industry. It is through such pursuit that ultimately within the long run, companies can improves their organisational performance. The paper have analysed the efforts in humanity in improving ways in which human can be effectively managed. It is the authors suggestions that the understanding and management of teamwork would be an effective step in search for the ultimate answer. Going back to the basics of the concept of team and teamwork; it is ultimately the search for perfection and continuous improvements that humanity gather together and work together for an aim or purpose. It is no less different from a group of employees working on a group project. Perhaps, there is nothing better than having a fully committed workforce, with deep understanding of the culture and purpose of the organisation and strives best in every way for such goals. Teamwork, essentially is the bond that makes such idealisms possible. Systems Leadership has proven itself as an appropriate benchmark in determining how positively an organisation could become. Ritz-Carlton has strived itself as a company to be admired and most initiated in determining its level of commitments to the employees. The success of Ritz-Carlton so far has been the utilisation of its core philosophy, its exceptional corporate culture and its ability to be innovative in empowering employees. Has Ritz-Carlton reach it peak at maximising its organisational performance? Possibly not. It requires the company to be more reflective and challenge the traditional norms of hospitality to make it a truly sustainable one. Perhaps its investments in studying teamwork and take considerations to how it could potentially benefits the overall performance of the company is important. As Systems Leadership point out, organisations that have people as its key resources would need to create a system where its members feel valued and wanted to commit to the organisation. The ideal picture is to enable the

22\22

International Hospitality and Tourism Student Journal 12 (1) 2012 14-24

workforce to be connected to one another, align itself with the companys hallmark culture and find ways to keep employees and together develop the system for the benefits of the organisation and everyone. Due to the limited scope of this research, there has been no attempt in investigating the time and financial obligations of structured systematic teamwork implementation within the company; Regardless of how teamwork has become an issue within current business, there are considerations into the nature of changes within hospitality. As it is very much a seasonal industry; systematic teamwork implementation such as the cases examined in Systems Leadership are not viable. Further more, Seasonality within hospitality directly affects its profitability and therefore creates an impact on its ability to invest on people. The author suggests a study to be conduct in the short and long term financial impacts on providing systematic learning and development opportunities. This would explain the potential hindrances for leadership to execute further investments on its people. It would also have been more critical in the arguments developed if there were researches done or available in conduction employee satisfactions of the teams existing within Ritz-Carlton, for such team developments and maturity are often perceived as stressful and time consuming for the members. Therefore an assessments on the motivation of employees to work in hospitality and elaborations in such reasons could be useful. One of the major problems in conducting this theoretical research is time allocated. The author would like an overall understanding of the teamwork structure within the RitzCarlton Hotel Company, as thus it was reasonable with just 72 properties. However, the same sampling of population is not feasible for other much larger hotel companies with thousands of properties across the globe. The author suggests to scale down the sampling population to a geographical area or properties that share common characteristics (types of hotels such as city centres or resorts for example. In order to benchmark Ritz-Carltons teamwork, a practical concept of teamwork was used for such purposes. However the author would like to also do a primary research with the original creators of Systems Leadership and its practical theories to understand the complexity lies underneath. The author deemed that the secondary resources was reasonable enough for such desires to be disregarded. Nonetheless, that would give this paper a more solid foundation on its arguments. References
Armstrong, M. (2006). A Handbook of Human Resource Management Practice. 10th ed. London: Kogan Page Limited. Bamber, C. J., Castka, P. and Sharp, M. J. (2003). Measuring teamwork culture: the use of a modified EFQM model. Journal of Management Development, [online] 22 (2), 149-170. Available from: http:// www.emeraldinsight.com [Accessed September 18 2009]. Barron, P., Maxwell, G., Broadbridge, A. and Ogden, S. (2007). Careers in Hospitality Management: Generation Ys Experiences and Perceptions. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 14 (2), 119-128.

Beardwell, I., Holden, L. and Claydon, T. (2004). Human Resource Management: A contemporary Approach. 4th ed. Essex: Pearson Education Limited. Beardwell, J. and Claydon, T. (2007). Human Resource Management: A Contemporary Approach. 5th ed. Essex: Pearson Education Limited. Berger, F. and Brownell, J. (2010). Organizational Behaviour for the Hospitality Industry. 1st edition. New Jersey: Pearson Education. Boella, M. and Goss-Turner, S. (2005). Human Resource Management in the Hospitality Industry. 8th ed. Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann. Bryman, A. and Bell, E. (2007). Business Research Methods. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Burke, C.G. and Smith, D.L. (2006). Organising Corporate Computing: A History of the Application of Theory. Systems Leadership, (2), 1-12. Chatzkel, J. (2000). Quest for Excellence XII: The official conference of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award. Measuring Business Excellence, [online] 4 (3), 15-18. Available from: http://www.emeraldinsight.com [Accessed September 21 2009]. Collins, A. B. (2007). Human resources: a hidden advantage? International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, [online] 19 (1), pp.78-84. Available from: http://www.emeraldinsight.com [Accessed October 30 2009]. Crockett, R. O. (2006). Keeping Ritz-Carlton at the Top of Its game. BusinessWeek GoftDigest. [online] Available from: http:// www.businessweek.com [Accessed October 30 2009]. Daft, R.L. (2008). New Era of Management. 9th ed. Mason: South-Western, Cengage Learning. DuBrin, A. (2009). Essentials of Management. 8th ed. Mason: South-Western Cengage Learning. DuBrin, A. (2009). Essentials of Management. 8th ed. Mason: Cengrage Learning. Emerald Group Publishing. (2004). Delighted, returning customers: service the Ritz-Carlton way. Strategic Direction, [online] 20 (11), 7-9. Available from: http://www.emeraldinsight.com [Accessed September 15 2009]. Fisher, S. G., Hunter, T. A. and Macrosson, W. D. K. (1997). Team or group? Managers perceptions of the differences. Journal of Managerial Psychology, [online] 12 (4), 232-242. Available from: http://www.emeraldinsight.com [Accessed October 30 2009]. Frankfort-Nachmias, C. and Nachmias, D. (1996). Research Methods in Social Sciences. 5th ed. London: Arnold. Gallo, C. (2007). How Ritz-Carlton Maintains its Mystique. BusinessWeek Communication, [online] Available from: http://www.businessweek.com [Accessed October 30 2009]. Gallo, C. (2008). Employee Motivation the Ritz-Carlton Way. BusinessWeek Communication, [online] Available from: http://www.businessweek.com [Accessed October 30 2009]. Griffin, R. (2008). Fundamentals of Management, [online book] 5th ed. Boston: Cengage Learning, Inc. Grimmond, J. (2004). The Century Story. Systems Leadership, (1), 1-16. Hemp, P. (2002). My Week as a Room-Service Waiter at the Ritz. Harvard Business Review, [online] R0206B June, 4-11. Available from: http:// hbr.harvardbusiness.org [Accessed September 20 2009]. Herzberg, F. (2002). One More Time: How Do You Motivate Employees? Harvard Business Review, [online] R0301F, 1-14. Available from: www.hbrreprints.org [Accessed October 30 2009]. Hoegl, M. and Parboteeah, K.P. (2007). Creativity in Innovative projects: How teamwork matters. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 24 (1-2), 148-166. Ingram, H. 1997. Performance management: processes, quality and teamworking. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, [online] 9 (7), 295-303. Available from: http://www.emeraldinsight.com [Accessed September 20 2009]. Ingram, H., Teare, R., Scheuing, E. and Armistead, C. 1997. Techniques: A system model of effective teamwork. The Total Quality Management Magazine, [online] 9 (2), 118-127. Available from: http:// www.emeraldinsight.com [Accessed September 20 2009]. Jarnagin, C. and Slocum Jr, J.W. (2007). Creating Corporate Cultures Through Mythopoetic Leadership. Organisational Dynamics, 36 (3), 288-302. Kavanaugh, R. R. and Ninemeier, J. D. (2007). Supervision in the Hospitality Industry. 4th ed. Michigan: American Hotel & Lodging Educational Institute. King, N. and Horrocks, C. (2009). Interviews in Qualitative Research. London: Sage Publications. Liu, Y., Combs, J.G., Ketchen Jr, D.J. and Ireland, R.D. (2007). The value of human resource management for organizational performance. Business Horizons, 50, 503-511. Macdonald, I., Burke, C. and Stewart, K. (2006). Systems Leadership: Creating Positive Organisations. Hampshire: Gower Publishing Limited.

23\23

International Hospitality and Tourism Student Journal 12 (1) 2012 14-24

Marshall, C. and Rossman, G.B. (2006). Designing Qualitative Research. 4th ed. London: Sage. Martin, J. and Schmidt, C. (2010). How to Keep Your Top talent. Harvard Business Review, [online] May.,1-7. Available from: www.hbr.org [Accessed October 27 2010]. McGill, G. (2005). Effective Leadership Programme, Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA). Systems Leadership, (3), 1-5. Michelli, J. A. (2008). The New Gold Standard. Chicago: McGraw-Hill. Minchingdon, B. (2006). Your Employer Brand: Attract, Engage, Retain. 1st edition. Sydney: Collective learning Australia Montes, F.J.L., Moreno, A.R. and Morales, V.G. (2005). Influence of support leadership and teamwork cohesion on organizational learning, innovation and performance: an empirical examination. Technovation, 25. pp. 1159-1172. Mullins, L. J. (2001). (2002). Hospitality Management and Organisational Behaviour. 4th ed. Essex: Pearson Education Limited. Mullins, L. J. (2007). Management and Organisational Behaviour. 8th ed. Essex: Pearson Education Limited. Naylor, J. (2004). Management. [online book] 2nd ed. Essex: Pearson Education Limited.

Pinela, R. C. and Lerner, L. D. (2006). Goal attainment, satisfaction and learning from teamwork. Team Performance Management. [online] 12 (5/6) pp. 182-191. Available from: http://www.emeraldinsight.com [Accessed September 15 2009]. Pizam, A. and Shani, A. (2009). The Nature of the Hospitalitys Industry: Present and Future Managers Perspectives. An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research. 20 (1) pp. 134-150. Rabey, G. (2003). The paradox of teamwork. Industrial and Commercial Training. [online] 35 (4) pp. 158-162. Available from: http:// www.emeraldinsight.com [Accessed September 18 2009]. Ready, D.A. and Conger, J.A. (2007). Make Your Company a Talent Factory. Harvard Business Review. [online] June. pp. 1-8. Available from: www.hbr.org [Accessed October 27 2010]. Redman, T. and Wilkinson, A. (2006). Contemporary Human Resource Management: Text and Cases. 2nd ed. Essex: Pearson Education Limited. Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2009). Research Methods for Business Students. London: Financial Times Press. Senge, P.M. 1990. The Fifth Discipline. 1st edition. New York: Currency Doubleday. Silzer, R. and Dowell, B.E. (2010). Strategy-Driven Talent Management: A Leadership Imperative. 1st edition. California: John Wiley and Sons.

24\24