A Comparison of Operations Management in Hotels in Germany and the UK (004-0061) Christine A Hope, Bradford University School of Management Tamsin L Potter,

A Comparison of Operations Management in Hotels in Germany and the UK

Abstract

In order to ensure consistency of standards in hotels operating within a chain globally, one approach that is frequently adopted is to apply Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) across all hotels. However, it has been argued that adaptations to management practices will be required when operating globally because of differences between national cultures. This study compared the operations management practices of hotels situated in Britain and Germany within a US international hotel chain. Despite the relative proximity of English and German cultures, comparative analysis of sixty interviews revealed evidence to support the influence of national culture on operations and the consequent need to adapt service operations management processes accordingly. The SOPs, which were originally developed in the USA, had been adapted in both the UK and Germany. Legal requirement; customers’ expectations and clarification for employees were additional factors leading to amendments to SOPs.

INTRODUCTION There is a growing body of literature that examines the impact that national culture has on the expectations and perceptions of customers (Armstrong et al, 1997, Becker and Murrmann, 1999, Brady et al, 2001, Crotts and Erdmann, 2000, Espinoza, 1999, Furrer et al, 2000, Imrie et al, 2002, Kozak, 2001, Oh, 1999, Stauss and Mang, 1999, Weiermair, 2000), on various aspects of management (Pizam, et al 1997, Roper et al, 1997, Trigg and Trigg, 1995, Valentine, 2000) and in particular on Human Resource Management issues (Gill and Wong, 1998, Khilji, 2002, Lindholm, 1999, McGaughey and De Cieri, 1999, Wasti, 1998). However, relatively little research into the impact of national culture on service operations management has been reported (Huyton and Ingold, 1995). This is somewhat surprising given the labour intensive nature of many services and the high levels of customer contact and customisation (Haywood-Farmer, 1988). This paper will report the findings of a study which compared the operations management practices of hotels situated in Britain and Germany within a US international hotel chain. It will start by briefly considering national culture, before moving on to review evidence from studies of the influence national culture may have on operations management. The methodology, results and analysis will be presented before concluding with a discussion of the findings and of the implications for operations managers operating within a multi-national hotel chain. NATIONAL CULTURE What is National Culture? There is no one accepted definition of culture. Chang (2002) presents a range, from Samovar et al (1981): “knowledge, experiences, beliefs, values, attitudes, meanings, hierarchies, religion, timing, roles, spatial relations, concepts of the universe, and material objects and possessions acquired by a large group of people in the course of generations through individual and group striving.” (p.25) to Collier (1994): “a historically transmitted system of symbols, meaning and norms.”(p.36). Probably the best-known research of national culture in the context of management is the study of 116,000 IBM employees by Hofstede (1980). However, many other researchers have studied national culture and between them come up with numerous “dimensions” of culture. (Hall and Hall, 1990, Hofstede and Bond, 1988, Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck, 1961, Trompenaars and Hampden Turner, 1997, Triandis, 1995). Hope, Mühlemann and Potter (2000) presented a review of a range of these and attempted to illustrate how many of the dimensions proposed could be linked to each other and to the basic assumptions proposed by Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961). This is presented here in Figure 1.

1

Figure 1 Proposed linkages of cultural dimensions to basic assumptions Source: Hope, Mühlemann and Potter (2000)

Long vs. short-termorientation3

Past,present,future1,4

M-time vs.P-time4,5

TIME1

ACTIVITY1

Achievementvs. ascription4

BeingBeing-in-becomingDoing1

Masculinityfemininity2

Genderegalitarianism7

Assertivenessvs. nurturance7

LANGUAGE5

High vs. low-context5

HUMAN NATURE1

EVIRONMENT1

SPACE1,5

INTERPERSONALINTERACTION1

Lineal vs. collateralvs. individualistic

Uncertaintyavoidance2

Control vs.harmony vs.subjugation1,4

Personal vs.public4,5

Universalismvs. particularism4

Individualismvs. collectivism2,4

Utilitarian vs.loyal involvement8

Power distance2

Specific vs.diffuse4

Emotionalvs. neutral4

Verticalvs. horizontalcollectivisml6

Conservatismvs. egalitariancommitment8

Key: Origins of concepts 1. Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961) 2. Hofstede (1980) 3. Hofstede and Bond (1988) 4. Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1997) 5. Hall and Hall (1990) 6. Triandis (1995), Chen, Meindl and Hunt (1997) 7. GLOBE 8. Smith, Dugan and Trompenaars (1996)

Schein (1985) focuses on organisational culture. He explains how such cultures develop. Problems arise, solutions are found and if they work are repeated. Over time practices become embedded. The way things are done often reflect the beliefs and attitudes of the person who set up the organisation but may also reflect the nature of the industry and country of origin. Similarly, any group of people who interact develop agreed ways of behaving. Thus, there are multiple influences that mould the values, beliefs and attitudes of individuals. Hofstede (1994) uses an onion to illustrate manifestations of culture at different levels of depth. At the core are values with rituals, heroes and symbols forming the outer rings. Values are formed early in life and are the most deeply ingrained. They are those of the family (and the national culture) into which a person is born. However, as Hofstede (1994) states:

“Values are among the first things children learn – not consciously, but implicitly. Development psychologists believe that by the age of 10, most children have their basic value system firmly in place, and after that age, changes are difficult to make.” p.8.

When people move organisations, it may take some time before they are comfortable with the “way things are done around here”. It is not unusual to hear the phrase “back at my last firm, we used to do it like . . .”. The time it takes to feel comfortable or happy in a new organisation will depend, in part, upon how compatible the organisation’s culture is with the norms and beliefs held by the new employee. This is also why it may not be possible to transfer systems that work in one country to another country where the national culture is different. Where the ways of behaving or interacting within an organisation clash with long held, deeply rooted behaviours, attitudes and beliefs, it will be very difficult to avoid problems, which may prove insurmountable. Cran (1994) explains how training will only work in the long term if trainees internalise i.e. fully accept, the new way of working. He talks about service orientation i.e. a predisposition to serve. Without this, he argues that no

2

matter how good the training, an employee will not truly believe in putting the customer first. People have to “buy into” ways of working – otherwise there will be resistance and a tendency to revert back to the “old ways”. NATIONAL CULTURE AND OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT Chang (2002), Hope and Mühlemann (2001), Morden (1999) and Rodrigues (1998) have all considered how national culture might impact upon operations management practices. They all chose a selection of “dimensions” of national culture and hypothesised how these might affect the adoption of management practices. Others have focussed on specific aspects of operations management and discussed these in the light of cultural influences, for instance planning (Chong and Park, 2003) or TQM (Chen and Lu, 1998, Turnell and Washbourne, 1991). Some studies have touched upon aspects of operations within a broader context, for example, Mwaura et al (1998), when attempting to establish whether the corporate culture of an organisation could be effectively transferred to another country, considered inter alia issues of empowerment. A few papers do specifically consider the effects of cultural dimensions on TQM or quality initiatives (Crom, 2000, Huyton and Ingold, 1995, Lagrosen, 2002, Mathews et al, 2001, Ngowi, 2000, Noronha, 2002, Roney, 1997). All identify cultural factors that have an impact on the successful implementation of operations management techniques. Ngowi concluded: “The review showed that TQM is embedded in a culture that may or may not be consistent with the organizational and/or national culture of the host industry. Where inconsistency is the case, conflicts arise.” p.450. The findings of these studies are summarised in Table I. Standard Operating Procedures Despite the fact that their own study of work values in the United States, Russia, Japan and China did not support the case for Convergence, Ralston et al (1997) pointed out:

“If a multinational is going to become a truly global organization, the diverse individual work values from the various geographic locations of a multinational corporation (MNC) must converge and be integrated into a common set of values to create a universal corporate culture.” p.178

Organisations do develop Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) which specify what is done and how, in an attempt to ensure that the product or service consistently meets defined standards wherever and whenever production takes place. However, the question is, do organisations take cultural differences into account when developing these SOPs and does it matter? If cultural differences are not taken into account what happens? The level of detail provided in the SOPs are potentially problematic as people in “high context language” cultures may find detailed instructions insulting (Griffin and Pustay 1998). Even when production is mechanised there may be problems. As Adler (2000) states: “Although both Germans and Canadians, for example, install robots in their factories, each culture interacts differently with the robots.” (p.67). How much more difficult is it going to be in a service context which is characterised by high labour intensity, high contact between service providers and customers and heterogeneity?

THE STUDY The basic research question was “How does national culture influence practices and processes of service quality management of subsidiary units within an international hotel chain?” The choice of hotel industry was made for two main reasons: it is a) a service industry characterised by high levels of customer contact, and b) one where companies operate internationally. Limiting the study to one industry eliminated the effect of differences due to ‘industrial culture’. Furthermore, corporate culture was controlled by choosing hotels within one chain. The two main objectives of the research were:

3

Table I Summary of Findings of Previous Studies Authors Industry Location Cultural

Dimensions Effects

Crom, 2000

Various Europe Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner: decentralized/centralized; informal/formal organisations

Implementation of Six Sigma: needs to be handled differently from the start, according to national culture, e.g. in France, build awareness among senior managers and employees first. In Germany clearly define who is responsible for Six Sigma and how it fits with other initiatives. In Britain, link to career development of high potential managers.

Huyton and Ingold, 1995

Hotels Hong Kong

Traditional Chinese cultural values, the “Guanxi” relationships.

Respect for authority – superior takes umbrage if challenged. Informal groups may not concur with company aims. The relationships between junior and seniors is deferential. Authority expected without responsibility. Fear of losing ‘face’ creates barriers to team building. Unwillingness to share information as knowledge is power.

Lagrosen, 2002

Manu-facturing

UK, Germany, France, Italy

Hofstede: power distance; uncertainty avoidance

Considered a) the meaning of quality, b) problems concerning quality, c) essential requirements for quality. Found: “focus on people in UK, on procedure and structure in Germany, on communication in France and on leadership in Italy” p.282.

Mathews et al, 2001

Various UK, Finland, Portugal

Hofstede: power distance; uncertainty avoidance Trompenaars: Affective/ Neutral; Diffuse/ Specific

Quality systems: motivations for implementation vary – in the UK external drivers, in Finland and Portugal – emphasis on internal co-ordination; quality tools and techniques used – take up of formal quality systems highest in Portugal. In Finland a small take up of statistical approaches. UK – relatively greater incidence of empowerment – uncertainty-avoiding cultures will tend to choose documented systems; individual cultures – self-evaluation and empowerment.

Ngowi, 2000

Construction Industry

Botswana Trompenaars: fatalistic/ deterministic

Clashes with TQM culture: workers perceive a lack of personal control over events – initiative and problem solving is left to management. Workers do not aspire to achieve awards. Status and power are associated with position i.e. ascriptive. Teamwork not encouraged. No empowerment

Noronha, 2002

Various Taiwan An adapted version of Yau’s 12 core underlying cultural values of the Chinese people (1994)

Values of abasement, adaptiveness, harmony with people, interdependence and respect for authority were found to be positively associated with a TQM culture, but harmony with the Universe and sincerity do not “contribute much towards the nurturing of a quality climate” p.221.

Roney, 1997,

Manu-facturing

Poland Ascription vs achievement Fatalistic vs deterministic Individualistic and collectivisitic

Barriers to TQM mainly arose as 1) promotion was expected to be due to “who you are” as opposed to “what you do” and 2) because of a fatalistic attitude – i.e. a lack of belief of personal control over destiny.

4

1. To find out how the processes of service quality management differ between subsidiary units of a single international hotel chain in Britain and Germany, and

2. To attempt to explain differences and similarities found using cultural theory. Based on a study of the literature a conceptual framework was developed that basically assumes that there will be variation between countries in the processes of service quality management used in hotels within the same chain, according to how the operating procedures, standardised by the hotel chain, are adapted and interpreted by individual hotel units. If processes cannot be adapted to suit the particular context in which a hotel is operating, it is assumed that problems will occur for this reason. This framework is presented in Figure 2. This conceptual model begins with the assumption that international hotel chains aim to standardise both service and product through ‘standard operating procedures’ (Nickson and Warhurst 2000). The characteristics of these procedures will be influenced by the national culture and the contextual environment of the centralised headquarters (country of origin) of the international chain, where such decisions are made (and by the nationality and other socio-demographic features of the customer base). These procedures will then be communicated to all the individual subsidiary or franchised units within the hotel chain. However, they may be adapted according to the type of ownership and the cultural distance between the subsidiary and its parent. These standard operations procedures will then be interpreted (or possibly adapted) by managers of individual hotel units, and methods of implementation devised. This interpretation may be affected by many factors (such as national culture, age, gender, function within the hotel, education, experience and training). It was expected that national culture would be an (if not the) important factor in explaining differences in the interpretation (or adaptation) of SOPs for particular cultural contexts. Consequently, there would be differences between procedures used by hotels in different countries despite official ‘corporate’ culture and SOPs. Additionally, if such interpretations or adaptations were not allowed, problems would occur where certain procedures are unacceptable to specific cultures. Employees within individual hotels are presented with these SOPs which they should follow to deliver consistent service quality and meet customers’ requirements. Zeithaml et al (1988, 1990) in their model of service quality identify seven factors to explain differences between service specification and delivery. It is argued that these seven factors will influence the service-performance gap to varying extents, depending on the suitability of the procedures and processes in question for the national culture in which the hotel is operating. Although variation was expected between regions within countries, and according to individual level variables such as age, experience, gender, qualifications and role, these relationships were not the main focus of this study. The objective was to investigate whether there are consistent differences in the processes of service quality management between two countries: Britain and Germany. These differences may be attributable to institutional factors such as education systems or legal frameworks, or to differences in cultural value orientations between the countries. In order that the broad concept of service quality management could be studied, this research limited its comparison to two countries: Britain and Germany. These two countries were chosen for a number of reasons: both researchers were located in Britain and one spoke German fluently. The proximity of the countries was an advantage in terms of resource constraints however it was a disadvantage insofar as, according to Hofstede (1991), the national cultures are not that dissimilar from each other or from the USA as illustrated in Table 2. Nevertheless, despite the fact that these two nations share a great deal in terms of history, religion and language, there is evidence of differences between their cultures, institutions and management practices (for example Hofstede 1991, Lawrence 1994, Sorge and Warner 1981). If a cultural impact was discovered between two such similar nations, the probability that cultural differences effect the successful transfer of SOPs more disparate cultures must be higher.

5

Figure 2 Conceptual Model of Research

Cultural distance,cultural values andattitudes

Local interpretation by managers and employees

Individual demographiccharacteristics

Local institutional structure and environment

SERVICE DELIVERY

Type of ownership

PARENT COMPANYSTANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES

Environmental, institutional and cultural factors

HQ LEVEL FACTORS

PERCEIVED SERVICE

LOCAL LEVEL FACTORS Processes of managing

service quality Customer values and attitudes

Table 2 Hofstede’s Scores (1991) for Germany, the UK and the USA along Four Cultural Value Dimensions

Country Individualism-

Collectivism (IDV) Power Distance(PDI)

Uncertainty Avoidance (UAI)

Masculinity-Femininity (MAS)

Germany 67 35 65 66 UK 89 35 35 66 USA 91 40 46 62

The UK and Germany have the same scores for the dimensions Power-Distance (PDI) and Masculinity-Femininity (MAS) but do differ from each other on the dimensions Individualism-Collectivism and Uncertainty Avoidance. Any differences between the two countries due to cultural differences would therefore be expected to be related to either IDV or UAI. However, as the UK lies closer to the USA than Germany on these two dimensions, generally it would be expected that there would be fewer problems arising in the UK. Propositions As mentioned earlier, Zeithaml et al (1988, 1990) present seven reasons for a gap to exist between specification of service (i.e. SOPs) and delivery which they labelled the ‘service-performance gap’. These, together with aspects related to time and reaction to SOPs were each considered alongside the two cultural dimensions IDV and UAI and a number propositions were developed which were intended to form a basis for the investigation. These are presented in Table 3. METHODOLOGY Multiple Case Studies The decision was made to study multiple cases in both Britain and Germany. This can support the generalisability of findings. (Miles and Hubermann 1984). It may also be described as a safety tactic as one or more chosen hotel might have withdrawn from the study (Leavy 1994).

6

Table 3 Study Propositions Standard Operating Procedures P1 There will be less problems with employee conformance to SOPs in Germany than in Britain P2 Both employees and managers will be more positive about SOPs existence and utilisation in

Germany than in Britain. (UAI) P3 Employees will have more involvement in development of SOPs and standard guidelines in Germany

than in Britain. (IDV) Teamwork P4 Teamwork will function better in hotels in Germany than in Britain (IDV) P5 The majority of employees in Germany will prefer to work as a team, whereas in Britain there will be

more employees who prefer to work alone. (IDV) Perceived control and empowerment P6 Empowerment will be more successful in Britain than in Germany reflected in more employees being

happy with dealing with guest complaints and more positive comments by managers. (UAI) Supervisory control systems P7 Systems of performance appraisal may be more structured in Germany than in Britain, however there

will be no difference in criteria for performance measurement. (UAI) Employee performance measures and rewards P8 Reward systems are more likely to relate to individual performance in Britain and group or team

performance in Germany. (IDV) P9 The majority of employees in Germany will prefer their pay to be linked to team or hotel performance,

whereas in Britain more employees will prefer pay to be linked to individual performance. (IDV) Checklists P10 Checklists will be used more in Germany than in Britain. (UAI) Inspection and control processes P11 There will be more detailed and regular inspection of employees’ work performance in Germany than

in Britain. (UAI) Employee-job fit P12 There will be a greater proportion of part-time employees in Britain than in Germany. (UAI) P13 Labour turnover will be lower in Germany than in Britain, however it will also be a greater concern in

Germany than in Britain. (UAI) P14 Recruitment of suitably trained employees will be more problematic in Britain than in Germany. (UAI) Selection and recruitment processes and criteria P15 Neither country will choose to select employees because either friends or relatives work in the same

hotel. (IDV) P16 The process of selecting employees will be more structured in Germany than in Britain, reflected in

methods used to select employees and criteria used for selection. (UAI) P17 Personality and psychometric testing will be used more frequently in Germany than in Britain. (UAI) Induction, training and development processes P18 In Germany most respondents will have completed an apprenticeship scheme, whereas in Britain

most respondents will not have any relevant qualifications to hotel work. This will be most obvious at front-line employee level as all managers will probably have hotel experience and have gained qualifications either whilst working or prior to employment. (UAI)

P19 Induction processes will be longer, more structured and more detailed in Britain than in Germany. (UAI/Environment)

P20 There will be a greater need for all types of training and probably this will be reflected in a wider variety and greater number of training courses available in Britain compared to Germany. (UAI/Environment)

P21 Employee interest in training will be greater in Germany so long as training is specifically aimed at weaknesses, promotion or specialisation. (UAI)

Technology-job fit P22 Technology, equipment and suppliers will cause more problems in Britain than in Germany. (UAI) P23 Where there are problems with technology and equipment, respondents will be more critical and

focussed on continual improvement in Germany than in Britain. (UAI) Role conflict P24 There will be fewer instances of role conflict in Germany (UAI) P25 Where role conflict does occur it will cause more stress and concern in Germany than in Britain.

(UAI). Role ambiguity will be more prevalent in Britain than in Germany P26 Role ambiguity will be more prevalent in Britain than in Germany. (UAI)

7

Table 3 continued

Scheduling P27 Scheduling will be more structured and planned further in advance in Germany than in Britain. (UAI). Absenteeism and lateness P28 Absenteeism and lateness of employees will be a greater problem in Britain than in Germany.

(UAI/IDV). P29 Stealing may be a greater problem in Britain than in Germany. (IDV)

In order to gain access to the hotels, a letter and brief research proposal which included the rationale for the study and potential benefits for the hotel (a report of the results), written in English and translated into German, was sent to hotels within one hotel chain. Follow up telephone calls were made over a period of several weeks to discuss in more detail with interested contacts how much access would be possible. Access was agreed in principle with four German hotels; access to the same number in Britain was easily achieved, therefore eight hotels were studied in total plus one further hotel in the UK which was used as a pilot study. Within each hotel negotiations with one key contact (either the general manager or human resources manager) were conducted to establish which key operational managers and a selection of employees would be interviewed. Since Guerrier and Deery (1998) note that previous hospitality research had focussed on kitchen and restaurant staff, interviews were requested with managers and employees from housekeeping and front office areas. In most hotels this was possible, however, it was extremely difficult to gain access to housekeeping staff in Germany. Respondents from food and beverage areas were accepted where others were not available since they could add breadth to the picture of operations developed in each hotel and could still give their opinions about general hotel policies such as teamwork and empowerment. In order not to bias the content of the interview, detailed information about the purpose of the interview or lists of questions were not given prior to the event. In some cases managers did request to see interview questions in advance. Such requests were not met, because not only would this have created inconsistencies in the method, but it would also have allowed some respondents to prepare responses and find out company policy, which may have led them to be less honest about actual practices that may not meet company policy. Participating Hotel Characteristics The international hotel chain studied in this research began as an American chain of hotels and its headquarters remain in the USA today. In order to maintain confidentiality, only minimal details of this organisation may be given. It operates over 2,000 hotels throughout the world. Although the chain operates and franchises hotels under different brand names with slightly different service quality standards, all hotels studied for the purposes of this research were of the same flagship brand type of a quality corresponding to what is generally seen as a four star hotel. Where possible city centre hotels were studied in both countries. Although all 8 hotel cases operated under the same international brand, there was an important difference between Britain and Germany in the way hotels were owned. In the UK a British hotel company owned the franchise to operate the international brand. This same company also owned the hotel properties. In Germany the hotel buildings were owned by different investment and real estate companies, but were operated by the international hotel chain, which had a central office (regional headquarters) in Germany. As will be shown, this difference in ownership did have some impact on hotel operations. A summary of the characteristics of the eight hotels is presented in Table 4. To main confidentiality, hotels referred to throughout as G1-4 for the German hotels and E1-4 for the British hotels.

8

Table 4 Characteristics of Hotels

Hotel Rooms Location Type of customers G1 228 City centre, N. Germany Individual business travellers

(80% German, 12% from USA) G2 588 City centre, near trade show

venue, central Germany Trade show guests, consultancy firms, and large groups, mostly business (50% German, other 50% from Britain, USA and Asia)

G3 348 City outskirts, business district near trade show venue, S. Germany

Individual business travellers, conference groups and American tourists on weekends (50% German, 40% American/British)

G4 257 Small town, 20 km from large city, S. Germany

Individual business travellers (50 German, 30% American, 18% British)

E1 289 City Centre, S.W. England Individual business travellers and conferences, (mostly British, 10% American during week).

E2 150 City outskirts, near motorway, S.W. England

Individual business travellers, conferences and events, families and tourists in holiday periods (over 50% American during week).

E3 270 City outskirts, near motorway, S.E. England

Business during week, leisure at weekends (manager asked did not know guest nationalities).

E4 183 City outskirts, N.E. England Individual business traveller/conference during week, leisure and families at weekends, (mostly British, number of US guests expected to increase).

Information about relative performance was collected. A balanced scorecard approach to performance measurement was used in all 8 hotels except hotel G3, and even in this hotel the same four key performance measures were mentioned. The four performance measures were: guest satisfaction (GSS - from a survey filled in by guests), market ‘premium’ or ‘share’ (monthly average yield per room compared to local competition), financial measures (such as profit) and employee satisfaction (measured through an annual employee survey and annual labour turnover adjusted using a monthly moving average). There was also an annual audit of brand standards in each hotel. Table 5 presents reported results for: guest satisfaction, comparative performance (market ‘share’), labour turnover and occupancy where this information was available (some managers knew ‘exact’ figures, other managers gave estimates.

Table 5: Comparative performance of hotels

Hotel GSS Market ‘share’ Labour turnover Occupancy G1 79% No. 1 locally 40% 76.4% G2 79% No. 3 locally 35% 66% G3 80% No. 1 locally 70% 86% G4 83% No. 1 locally 50% 74% E1 81% 6th in UK GSS ranking 31.8% 80% E2 82% 9th in UK GSS ranking 24% 80% E3 81% Middle of UK GSS ranking 31% 83% E4 Middle of UK GSS ranking 28% 65%

Table 5 shows that there was little difference in the performance of the hotels in terms of guest satisfaction with scores varying between 79 – 83% (managers in hotel E4 felt their GSS was adequate but did not give actual figures). Labour turnover clearly varied between the hotels and this will be discussed later. Occupancy varied between 65 – 86% but this variation occurred across both countries. Comparative performance (market ‘share’) information was provided differently in Britain and Germany. In Britain, managers would qualitatively describe their local market position, for example the E2 HR manager said “I think we’re above the rest” and the E1 Operations manager “I think it’s definitely positioned very close to the top end of the market”. They did not appear to focus on measurement of market ‘share’. British managers did however know their hotel’s (relative) GSS

9

ranking within the chain in the UK. In Germany, managers were less concerned with their GSS ranking as this information was provided for the international hotel brand world-wide. They preferred to focus on their hotel’s position locally in terms of market ‘share’. This difference seems to have been caused by the differences in ownership. The choice of the hotel industry posed certain complications when choosing an appropriate approach. Although the established international nature of the hotel industry and its international clientele present opportunities for achieving a cross-cultural sample, these characteristics also present two main challenges for the research. First, international chains tend to pursue a strategy of providing consistent, standardised service wherever one is around the world (Nickson and Warhurst 2000). The extent that this standardisation is successful may be culturally determined, however the cultural origin of the hotel chain in question may also affect the types of practices that are selected. Secondly, international hotel chains have the ability to transfer employees between countries, and may identify benefits in doing so. This may have the consequence that employees in a specific hotel are internationally mixed and not necessarily native to (or representative of), the country in which the hotel is operating. Additionally, there are considerable established immigrant populations in both Britain and Germany. This research assumes it is useful and empirically valid to investigate employees’ opinions as representative of hotel workers in the countries studied. Therefore, if the hotels studied employ a majority of non-native or a mixture of international employees, the basic premise of this research would be compromised. In the event, although the hotels studied did employ international staff to differing extents, it was possible to interview mostly natives of the respective countries and therefore it was possible to test the general hypothesis that the national culture of the country in which the hotel is situated affects the operational practices employed. Interviews The research used semi-structured interviews as defined by Kvale (1996). Although observation could have provided data on actual behaviour (rather than perceived/reported behaviour from interviews), this was not possible due to the constraints of this study in terms of time and access: a stronger, more permanent relationship would have been required with respondents to facilitate observation. On the other hand questionnaires could have provided access to a larger sample, albeit with less in-depth data. However to focus on the questionnaire as the main method of data assimilation would have required well-developed a priori theory, which as discussed above, was not the situation here. Additionally, the focus on cultural and contextual influences on behaviour meant that questionnaires were only useful as an additional resource. A questionnaire was developed to supplement interviews with similar (but more structured) questions to those used in interviews, and this was distributed to front-line employees via the primary contact. However, the response rate was too low, particularly in Germany, for any meaningful analysis. The length of the questionnaire is likely to be the main reason for the low response rate. Furthermore, in a face-to-face interview situation, the researcher also has the benefit of being able to re-phrase questions when the respondent does not understand; ask for examples of situations to add depth to responses; and generally to build up a rapport with respondents. This may lead the respondent to be more open and forthcoming with their opinions, enabling better understanding. Interviews with hotel employees and managers therefore provide a picture of their perceptions of the processes of service quality management. In order to assess whether these perceptions (reported behaviour and opinions) are shaped by cultural values, they have to be interpreted through analysis as described below. Interview Questions Two sets of semi-structured questions were developed, one for managers and one for employees. Question schedules were intended as interview guides to outline the topics to be discussed. The general approach taken was to ask open questions at the beginning of the interviews, before moving on to more structured (occasionally closed) questions relating to individual propositions.

10

The open questions were intended to capture current issues and those parts of quality management which managers found most useful and used most frequently. This provided their views on how quality was managed without the interviewer leading or biasing responses towards certain topics, thus enabling a preliminary analysis of the validity of the service quality model being followed (Zeithaml et al, 1988, 1990). Furthermore, comparative analysis of the data led to initial conclusions about whether there were differences in approach to service quality management or whether different issues were more or less problematic between Britain and Germany. Open, direct and indirect questions were also used to assess managers’ perceptions of the extent of head office control in determining corporate culture and standard operating procedures. Closed questions were used where a set of pre-determined preferences had been created to answer specific propositions for example about wages or rewards. Initially employee-level respondents were asked about their daily work, followed by more specific questions relating to all topics covered by the propositions. Although there could have been new topics introduced during interviews, interview guides were not altered during the main data collection stage to ensure consistency between hotels. The approach was piloted in one British pilot hotel where nine interviews were carried out and in one with the operations manager of a German hotel. Very little adaptation was required to interview questions as a result of these pilots (some overlapping questions were identified and removed). The pilot interview in Germany allowed the translation of the interview questions to be verified. The interview questions had been translated using a ‘decentering’ approach (Werner and Campbell 1970 cited in McGorry 2000). Constant comparison and modification of questions in both languages can ensure that the meaning of the questions is as similar as possible. The translation process was assisted by two German nationals, both academic colleagues working in the UK, one of whom studied linguistics. These colleagues also verified the translation of the occasional colloquial used of language in the German interviews. Interviewees The number of interviewees in each hotel are given in Table 6. The numbers in brackets indicates the number of respondents answered the employee level questions.

Table 6 Interviewee functions and hierarchical levels

Job role G1 G2 G3 G4 E1 E2 E3 E4 General manager (GM) 1 1 Operations manager (OM) 1 1 1 1 1 Human resource manager (HR) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Front office manager (FOMgr) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Receptionists (R) 2 2 1 3 2 2 Guest relations manager (GRMgr) 1 Head housekeeper (HH) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Room attendants (maids) (C) 2 1 3 1 2 Food and beverages manager (F+BMgr) 1 1 1 Waiter (W) 1 1 1 Management trainee (MT) 1 Accounting supervisor (AS) 1 Total number of interviews 8(4) 9(3) 4(0) 8(4) 11(6) 7(3) 7(3) 6(2)

It was not possible to interview the same type of employees in every hotel, for example, it was extremely difficult to gain access to room attendants in Germany, due partly to the outsourcing of this function to external cleaning companies. Since respondents were not equivalent between hotels and due to the size of samples within each hotel, a decision was taken to consider the information available as representative of an overall picture of hotel operations within the chain in each country. Thus a large proportion of the analysis focuses on differences between Britain and Germany (from the aggregate of information gathered), rather than differences between individual hotel cases. Nevertheless, where the particular characteristics of a hotel could affect interview responses, this was considered.

11

Of the 31 respondents in Britain, 25 were female (81%), whereas 48% of the 29 respondents in Germany were female. However, as Hofstede’s (1980) masculinity-femininity cultural dimension scores for Britain and Germany were the same, this bias was not thought likely to affect the research findings. Data Processing and Analysis There were four broad, inter-linked stages of analysis: first, tape-recordings of the 60 interviews carried out with the managers and employees in the eight hotels interviews were transcribed into text format and imported into NUD*IST. The second stage involved categorising (coding) the interview text into topics related to propositions. In the third stage text coded at each topic area was processed into topic-specific matrices, designed to assist data reduction and weigh up the evidence available as to whether propositions were supported by the data. The fourth stage combined further data condensation, categorisation and interpretation, in order to decide whether propositions were supported and how the differences and similarities found could be explained. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION This section summarises the research findings in terms of which propositions were supported and which were not. Table 7 lists all propositions, giving the topic they relate to and the cultural dimensions which were used to create them. Propositions were either supported by the evidence; somewhat supported by the evidence; or not supported by the evidence. In some cases where a proposition was not supported the evidence actually suggested the reverse of what was expected. Uncertainty avoidance is abbreviated to UAI and Individualism/collectivism to IDV. In some instances institutional or other contextual differences could be seen to influence the findings, for example the apprenticeship scheme in Germany; this is indicated by an asterisk. Brand standards were perceived to be an important factor in achieving service quality in the hotels studied. Their standardisation supported the structure of hotel operations and facilitated the delivery of consistent service throughout this international chain. Generally HOWEVER, brand standards were found to be results oriented rather than process oriented. there was also some evidence of certain processes being standardised, mostly where employees have interaction with customers. Generally changes to actual SOPs were not possible at the individual hotel unit level. However there was some flexibility for individual hotels to add to SOPs, so long as the new standard was better than the original, rather like ‘icing on a cake’. Where necessary for legal requirements hotels could be exempt from SOPs or adapt them using LSOPs (local standard operating procedures). Evidence of additional detailed procedures was limited, but available in both countries. LSOPs were more frequently mentioned (interpreted as more common) in Germany than in Britain, which can be explained but the closer proximity of US-UK values. Nevertheless, generally the adaptation of SOPs was much less than was expected. Most aspects of SOPs directly relating to service delivery were pre-determined by head office. Problems with employees’ conformance to SOPs related to meeting them consistently, rather than specific SOPs causing difficulties. Two notable exceptions: answering the phone within three rings and using the guest’s name were equally significant in Britain and Germany. Since the issues reported about employees’ conformance to SOPs were similar in Britain and Germany, P1 was not supported. It should however also be noted that the greater importance of LSOPs in Germany implies greater adaptation of procedures compared with the perceived lack of need to do so in Britain. Therefore although problems with conformance were similar, there was some evidence that the greater need to avoid uncertainty did impact on the structure of SOPs in the German environment.

12

Table 7 Summary of Findings Proposition Topic Cultural

Dimension Sup-ported

Some Support

Not Sup-ported

Reverse Suggested

P1 SOPs UAI* X P2 SOPs UAI X X P3 SOPs IDV* X P4 Teamwork IDV X P5 Teamwork IDV X P6 Empowerment UAI (&IDV) X P7 Appraisal UAI X P8 Rewards IDV X P9 Pay IDV X P10 Checklists UAI X P11 Inspection UAI X P12 Part-time work NA X P13 Labour turnover UAI X P14 Recruitment * X P15 Selection (friends/family) IDV * UAI X P16 Selection (process) UAI X X P17 Psychometric tests UAI X X P18 Prior qualifications UAI & * X P19 Induction UAI & * X P20 Training (types) UAI & * X P21 Training (employee

interest) UAI (&IDV) X

P22 Technology-job fit (problems)

UAI X

P23 Technology-job fit (criticisms)

UAI X

P24 Role conflict (occurrence) UAI X P25 Role conflict (stress) UAI X P26 Role ambiguity UAI & IDV &

* X

P27 Scheduling UAI X P28 Absenteeism and lateness UAI X P29 Stealing IDV X Totals 4 8 17 3 P2 was unsupported by the evidence: respondents were more positive about SOPs in Britain than in Germany, implying the reverse of P2. This may again be explained by closer proximity of US-UK values than US-German values. However the difference was minimal – neither country was strongly opposed to the use of SOPs. Furthermore, if the greater number of mentions for SOPs as a factor for service quality in Germany and the (implied) greater adaptation of SOPs in Germany are considered, it is difficult to make strong conclusions based on this evidence. Since employees were equally unable to change SOPs and equally encouraged to make suggestions for improvement in both countries P3 was also not supported. The greater need to avoid uncertainty in Germany was however reflected in a preference for more formal, structured methods of making suggestions. As there was little evidence of adaptation of SOPs to suit employees’ values, the question has to be asked whether employees were happy with the procedures in place or whether the standards could be adapted to better suit employees’ values. This question was answered by firstly looking at respondents’ opinions of brand standards in general and secondly by looking at the level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with procedures and policies in place relating to the seven gap 3 factors (Zeithaml et al, 1990) and other elements of processes affecting service quality such as scheduling or absenteeism.

13

There was some evidence that teamwork functioned slightly better in Germany. A greater proportion of respondents in Germany were positive about the functionality of teamwork than were critical of it, whereas in Britain opinions were split 50-50. This provided initial support for P4, that teamwork functioned better in Germany than in Britain. Further support for P4 came from analysis of respondents’ understanding of teamwork. A wider range of concepts was mentioned by proportionally more respondents in Germany than in Britain. Therefore it was concluded that both the understanding, and the related functionality, of teamwork were more sophisticated in Germany than in Britain, thus P4 was supported. P5 was somewhat supported because a greater proportion of employees in Germany preferred to work as a team than in Britain. However, the nature of work in different functions and hierarchical levels clearly affected employees’ perceptions of, and preferences towards, teamwork. Future research should match samples between job roles across different countries, to investigate whether, as these findings suggest, functional culture (the nature of work) is more significant for teamwork than national culture. There is evidence to suggest that the general policy on empowerment, particularly in Germany, was more determined by the international hotel chain (and its American ownership) than its suitability to (or normality for) the national culture. The use of empowerment in this hotel chain was different from other hotel chains in Germany, however employees from other German chains could adapt to the policy given time. It was expected that the preference in Germany to control uncertainty would lead to an avoidance of empowerment at front-line levels with an emphasis on rules to give employees more control of uncertain situations. However, the existence of the extensive apprenticeship scheme in Germany and the general assumption that the majority of hotel workers would have completed this training scheme could explain why empowerment could and does work in German hotels (within an American chain). P6 was therefore not supported: the evidence implied that empowerment was equally successful in both Britain and Germany, although there was also evidence that indicated more structured financial limits were in place to control this in Germany. Furthermore in one British hotel empowerment was problematic which added weight to the lack of support for P6. The implication was that training and experience could be more important in determining the success of empowerment than the cultural value of needing rules to avoid uncertainty. More than twice the number of respondents mentioned that managers would support employees if they took their own decisions in Britain than in Germany, regardless of whether the amount they rebated was appropriate, although inappropriate decisions would be pointed out and the employee involved re-trained. This greater emphasis on management support could imply several interpretations. Firstly, it could mean that employees more frequently took such empowered decisions in Britain and therefore managers’ support was more frequently required. This would lead to the conclusion that employees were more successful at being empowered in Britain than in Germany (and support P6). On the other hand it could mean that mistakes are more frequently made in empowered decisions by employees in Britain, hence such patient support from managers is required more frequently than in Germany. This would lead to the conclusion that employees in Britain are less successful at being empowered than in Germany and could be explained by the more extensive apprenticeship scheme in Germany, meaning employees have more knowledge and experience of hotel operations and therefore are more capable of dealing with customer complaints without management intervention. Interview data also established differences in employees’ ability to be empowered depending on a variety of factors such as: their level of confidence; experience; training; and whether the situation was within the employees’ comfort zone. Employees’ ability to deal with empowerment also relates to the frequency with which managers would need to be consulted to solve problems. In some cases the need to have a manager present to deal with a guest would be determined not by employee ability, but by the actual demands of the guest. These findings indicate that further, structured research into the influence of culture and other contextual factors (such as the level of training or experience of employees) on the use of empowerment would be useful. Individual performance appraisals were used by all, and in most hotels were linked to pay rises for both employees and managers. P7 is supported in the sense that criteria for performance

14

measurement were similar, but not supported in the sense that the basic structure of performance measurement and appraisal was the same in all hotels. A range of reward systems were in place in all hotels, however there was a greater number of individual incentives in Britain (P8 somewhat supported). Points or vouchers were used to motivate employees, whereas in Germany this was perceived to be unnecessary due to higher task orientation (greater collectivism). Employees in both countries preferred pay linked to individual performance (P9 not supported). Employees in Britain were less aware of both appraisal and performance-related pay, which could be linked to less interest in careers and promotion due to the comparative lack of structured career paths. Checklists appeared to be used more frequently by the majority in Germany, whereas employees saw them more as a training tool in Britain (somewhat supporting P10). A majority of similar inspection processes were used in both countries (P11 not supported). In Britain the additional use of a team of inter-departmental employees, to check each other’s performance and adherence to SOPs, could reinforce acceptance of standards and inter-departmental understanding. A wider range of employee opinions of inspection was recorded in Britain, which could reflect a greater frequency of (external) inspection in Britain, or a greater acceptance of the need for (internal) inspection in Germany, due to greater task orientation and higher uncertainty avoidance in the latter. P12 was supported: as Prais et al (1989) showed, part-time workers form a much more significant proportion of the hotel workforce in Britain than in Germany. Labour turnover was higher in all German hotels than any British hotel, and despite possible differences in the content of figures, no support was found for P13: higher uncertainty avoidance in Germany did not lead to lower labour turnover. Recruitment problems were significant in both countries, in all but one hotel (E2), therefore P14 is not supported. Hotels had difficulties simply finding people willing to work for the pay available, rather than problems finding trained employees. The apprenticeship scheme in Germany did not create a larger pool of labour for hotels to draw from than in England. P15 was not supported because more employees in Britain (mostly from housekeeping) found their jobs through friends/family. The reverse of P16 was found; the use of more detailed selection processes in Britain is explained because the apprenticeship scheme in Germany reduces the uncertainty in selecting employees and makes detailed selection processes unnecessary. Personality and psychometric testing supported more detailed selection processes in Britain, but were not used in Germany, hence the reverse of P17 was also found. P18 was supported: apprenticeship training was widespread in Germany, whereas most employees in Britain had no relevant qualifications. P19 was somewhat supported, British hotels had more detailed formal induction and used buddy systems more extensively than German hotels (although employees were less aware of the former). P20 was not supported because a similar range of training was available in both countries, however there was some indication that training might relate to more individualist aims in Britain and a greater task orientation (collectivism) in Germany. P21 was also unsupported because equal proportions of employees claimed to be interested in training in both countries. P22 was not supported: there was no evidence that problems with equipment, technology and suppliers were greater in Britain, in fact the reverse was indicated to a certain extent. The need to avoid uncertainty through having the right equipment did not play out as expected in Germany. However P23 was somewhat supported because respondents in Germany were more critical, both in number and variety of issues discussed. Therefore the need to avoid uncertainty did manifest itself in greater criticism of equipment and technology in Germany. Role conflict was a difficult concept to capture: employees and managers recognised the problem of multiple superiors, but could give few examples. Similar patterns occurred in both countries: role conflict type situations were recognised, but few found dealing with such situations problematic. The slight indication from managers that instances of role conflict were greater in Britain was dismissed, because employee opinions have more weight here, and the interviewer felt German managers were less willing to discuss this issue. P24 was not supported: the greater need to avoid uncertainty in Germany, did not result in a significant difference in the occurrence of role conflict. However P25 was somewhat supported because a greater proportion of employees in Germany cited having too many different tasks to complete simultaneously as a challenge or cause of stress. Therefore although patterns of role conflict were similar between the two countries, the uncertainty involved in such situations did cause more stress in Germany. Evidence relating to role ambiguity

15

was equally difficult to capture and analyse. Although examples of role ambiguity were recorded in both countries, there were no patterns of differences between Britain and Germany, therefore P26 was not supported. P27 was somewhat supported by evidence which indicated that the planning of schedules was carried out further in advance in Germany. Employees in both countries could influence work schedules by requesting certain hours or days off. This involvement allowed employees in both countries to reduce the uncertainty in waiting for schedules and could explain why no real dissatisfaction was recorded in relation to the short notice at which shifts were planned, particularly in Britain. Additionally a similar number of employees in both countries expressed some dissatisfaction with their working hours: in Germany the main problem was the amount of overtime and in Britain the main problem was working a late shift followed by an early shift. P28 was partially supported because three of the four British hotels had problems with absenteeism, compared to none of the German hotels. The combination of higher uncertainty avoidance and greater collectivism did appear to reduce the incidence of absenteeism in Germany (notwithstanding problems with outsourced cleaning workers). However, in terms of lateness there was no difference between the two countries – lateness of employees was not particularly problematic. A greater acceptance of (tolerance for) lateness in Britain, due to the lower need to reduce uncertainty, could mean that problems were not reported. Despite evidence that theft did occasionally occur in hotels across both countries, the greater weight of evidence in two British hotels implies that theft was a more serious issue in Britain. Therefore P29 was somewhat supported: it is possible that greater collectivism in Germany reduced the regularity of incidences of theft. CONCLUSION As the discussion has illustrated, the presentation of results in table 7 has been necessarily simplified. Although a large number of propositions were not supported, alternative differences were found and explained using the same logic behind the original propositions. For example, the manifestation of collectivism as greater task orientation in Germany explained why rewards/incentives were comparatively less relevant, whereas originally it was expected that collectivism would lead to a greater emphasis on team rewards than in Britain, which was not the case. A further example of the use of cultural/contextual differences to explain unexpected findings is the case of empowerment. Although it was expected that empowerment would not be accepted in Germany, this particular (American) hotel chain did successfully employ empowerment in Germany. The ability of employees to adapt to this approach was explained by the apprenticeship scheme (and more structured financial guidelines). Therefore it can be concluded that the use of the two cultural dimensions of Uncertainty avoidance and Individualism-collectivism was appropriate for this research. Table 8 summarises the inductive differences found in the processes of service quality management between British and German hotels. One of the key contextual differences, in terms of its impact on a broad range of operational issues, was the apprenticeship scheme in Germany. Although a priori thinking did acknowledge this difference, it did not recognise the wide ranging impact this standardised, extensive combination of theoretical knowledge and practical experience would have on the different approaches to the processes of service quality management in the hotel industry. Furthermore the influence of other contextual factors such as the differences in legal systems and trade union relations was also observed. In terms of similarities, there was a greater use of unadulterated internationally standardised practices across the two countries than was anticipated prior to the analysis. Although some alterations to SOPs were reported these were nowhere near as far reaching as expected. It appears, at least in terms of Germany and Britain, that the basic operational practices behind consistent service delivery are indeed transferable between the two countries. However, future research should also look at how specific procedures are interpreted and carried out, since the evidence suggested that a reasonable amount of flexibility was granted by the hotel chain in terms of actual processes.

16

Table 8 Summary of differences in the processes of service quality management between Britain and Germany

Issue/explanation Britain Germany Ownership Owned by franchisee – two sets of

SOPs (some conflict) Owned by investors, operated by brand – one set of SOPs

UAI Informal methods of communication between managers and employees

Formal methods of communication between managers and employees

IDV Narrower understanding of teamwork

Broader understanding of teamwork

UAI Control of empowerment through mixture of examples and (less) financial limits

Control of empowerment through financial limits

IDV Training for empowerment and generally related to individual needs and motivation

Training for task related aspects – task orientation

UAI Greater management support for employee mistakes

Less mistakes made or less empowered decisions taken

Career orientation (UAI)

Less awareness of appraisal among employees

More awareness of appraisal among employees

UAI Less emphasis on career/ promotion among employees

More career/promotion orientation among employees

Context (trade unions)

No trade union impact Work council involvement in: discipline, recruitment, overtime. Trade unions negotiate pay for all hospitality employees.

Context (law) Employees paid overtime per hour Employees receive overtime back in lieu (flexibility)

IDV Greater use of individual (and team) rewards

Less need for rewards and incentives (task orientation)

UAI Checklists used for training Checklists used as daily reminders IDV Use of daily standards team Not mentioned UAI Variety of opinions on inspection Inspection generally accepted Context (education) Lack of hotel specific education

scheme UK-wide Influence of apprenticeship scheme

UAI Context (education)

Qualifications not required Apprenticeship preferred

Context (education) UAI

Psychometric tests used Psychometric tests not used

Context (education) More structured induction (lack of apprenticeship)

Less need for induction and training (due to apprenticeship)

UAI – IDV Less critical and more accepting of equipment and technology

More critical of equipment and technology – task orientation and focus on continual improvement

UAI Cleaning mostly in-house Outsourced cleaning Additionally, standardised inspection, appraisal, as well as a similar organisational culture, were successfully in place in the hotels studied despite expectations that such aspects may need to be adjusted to the different cultures in Britain and Germany. It is possible that the perceived American characteristics of this specific hotel chain allowed employees to be more open to processes and policies which they would not expect from a German or British chain. Furthermore there were a number of issues which were problematic across both countries that can be related to the nature of the hotel industry (although this is not to say that they may not also be relevant to other service industries). For example the low levels of pay for front-line jobs was clearly a contentious issue in both countries despite trade union influences in Germany and the greater number of additional rewards in place in Britain. Furthermore, despite the more extensive apprenticeship scheme in Germany, hotels in both countries suffered from difficulties in finding trained, experienced employees willing to carry out front-line hotel work under current working conditions. On balance therefore, the main research question posed has been answered positively to an extent. The national cultures of Britain and Germany have been shown to have some influence on the processes of service quality management in the hotels studied, however, in some cases the

17

influence of cultural values was mediated by contextual differences. These contextual factors had a greater effect on the transfer of processes than expected and whilst some of these contextual differences clearly reflect underlying differences in cultural values, some also have to be seen as differences in the institutional framework of the two countries. Furthermore the culture of origin of the hotel chain in question had a greater influence than originally expected on the processes and practices in use in the two countries studied. The impact of national culture was mediated by the American ownership of the international hotel chain studied (and certain characteristics of the hotel industry itself). The basic initial thesis has been partially supported and partially disproved. National culture has been shown to affect the processes used to support the delivery of a quality service in some respects, however, in other areas the conforming influence of hotel industry culture (and corporate culture) meant that similar processes and procedures were deemed acceptable. It is recommended that future studies should consider the country of origin of the multinational studied in more detail and to take the complex interrelationships between the influence of this factor with cultural and contextual factors into account in the research design. From the viewpoint of hotel managers, the findings of this research clearly have implications for the processes required to achieve consistent quality service delivery internationally. On the one hand the results indicate that the standardisation of front line procedures across hotel units in different countries is feasible, at least in terms of achieving equivalent comparable results (brand standards). On the other hand however, differences were revealed particularly in terms of processes used to support service delivery such as training or teamwork. Additionally there was evidence to support differing employee preferences in ways of working, for example reward systems. Furthermore contextual differences such as different education systems and legal requirements had significant effects on hotel operations. Given the differences found between such similar countries as Britain and Germany it seems sensible to conclude that where differences in national culture are wider, the implications for process management will also be more marked. Further research is needed to establish just what these implications are. BIBLIOGRAPHY Adler, N.J. (2000) International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior, 4th Ed., South-Western,

Ohio. Armstrong, R.W., Mok, C., Go, F.M. and Chan, A. (1997) “The importance of cross-cultural

expectations in the measurement of service quality perceptions in the hotel industry”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol.16, No.2, pp.181-190.

Becker, C. and Murrmann, S.K. (1999) “The effect of cultural orientation on the service timing preferences of customers in casual dining operations: an exploratory study”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol.18, pp 59-65.

Brady, M.K., Robertson, C.J. and Cronin, J.J. (2001) “Managing behavioural intentions in direct cultural environments. An investigation of service quality , service value and satisfaction for American and Ecuadorian fast-food customers”, Journal of International Management, Vol.7, pp.129-149.

Chang, L-C. (2002) “Cross-cultural differences in international management using Kluckhohn-Strodtbeck framework”, Journal of American Academy of Business, Vol.2, No.1, pp.20-27.

Chen, W-H. and Lu, R.S.Y. (1998) “A Chinese approach to quality transformation”, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol.15, No.1, pp.72-84.

Chong, J.K.S. and Park. J. (2003) “National culture and classical principles of planning”, Cross Cultural Management, Vol.10, No.1, pp.29-39.

Collier, M.J. (1994), “Cultural identity and intercultural communication”, in L.A. Samovar, and R.E. Porter, (eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader, (7th Ed), Wadsworth, Belmont, CA, pp.36-45.

Cran, D.J. (1994) “Towards validation of the service orientation construct”, The Service Industries Journal, Vol.4, No.1, pp.34-44.

Crom, S. (2000) “Implementing Six Sigma in Europe: a cross-cultural perspective”, Quality Progress, Vol.33, No.10, pp.73-75.

18

Crotts, J.C., and Erdmann, R. (2000) “Does national culture influence consumers’ evaluation of travel services? A test of Hofstede’s model of cross-cultural differences”, Managing Service Quality, Vol.10, No. 6, pp.410-419.

Espinoza, M.M. (1999) “Assessing the cross-cultural applicability of a service quality measure. A comprehensive study between Quebec and Perth”, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol.10, No.5, pp.449-468.

Furrer, O., Shaw-Ching, L.B. and Sudharshan, D (2000) “The relationship between culture and service quality perceptions”, Journal of Service Research, Vol.2, No.4, pp.355-371.

Gill, R. and Wong, A. (1998) “The cross-cultural transfer of management practices: the case of Japanese human resource management practices in Singapore”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol.9, No.1, pp.116-135.

Griffin, R.W. and Pustay, M.W. (1998) International Business: A Managerial Perspective, 2nd Edition, Addison Wesley, Reading, Mass.

Guerrier, Y. and Deery, M. (1998) “Research in hospitality human resource management and organizational behaviour”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol.17, No.2, pp.145-160.

Hall, E.T. and Hall, M.R. (1990) Understanding cultural differences, Intercultural Press: Maine, USA. Haywood-Farmer, J. (1988) “A Conceptual model of service quality”, International Journal of

Operations and Production Management, Vol.8, No.6, pp.19-29. Hofstede, G. (1980) Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values,

Sage Publications: London. Hofstede, G. (1991) Cultures and organizations: intercultural cooperation and its importance for

survival: software of the mind, London: HarperCollinsBusiness (McGraw Hill). Hofstede, G. (1994), Culture and Organizations: Intercultural Cooperation and Its Importance for

Survival, Harper Collins Business, London. Hofstede, G. and Bond, M.H. (1988) “The Confucius connection: from cultural roots to economic

growth”, Organization Dynamics Vol.16, No.4, pp. 4-21. Hope, C. A. and Mühlemann, A. P. (2001) “The impact of culture on best practice

production/operations management”, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol.3, No.3, pp.199-218.

Hope, C. A., Mühlemann, A. P. and Potter, T. L. (2000), “Culture - A critical review and framework for further research”, Proceedings of the 50th Annual AIEST Congress - China, Vol.42, AIEST, St Gallen, pp 255-277.

Huyton, J.R. Ingold, A. (1995) “The cultural implications of Total Quality Management – The Case of the Ritz Carlton Hotel, Hong Kong” in R. Teare and C. Armistead (eds) Services Management: New Directions, New Perspectives. Cassell: London.

Imrie, B.C, Cadogan, J.W . and McNaughton, R. (2002) “The service quality construct on a global stage”, Managing Service Quality, Vol.12, No.1, pp. 10-18.

Khilji, S.E. (2002) “Modes of convergence and divergence: an integrative view of multinational practices in Pakistan”, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol.13, No. 2, pp.232-253.

Kozak, M. (2001) “Comparative assessment of tourist satisfaction with destinations across two nationalities”, Tourism Management, Vol.22, pp.391-401.

Kluckhohn, F.R. and Strodtbeck, F.L. (1961) Variations in Value Orientations, Row, Peterson and Company: New York.

Kvale, S. (1996) InterViews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. Sage: London. Lagrosen. S. (2002) “Quality management in Europe: a cultural perspective”, The TQM Magazine,

Vol.14, No.5, pp.275-283. Lawrence, P. (1994) “German management: at the interface between Eastern and Western Europe”

in R. Calori and P. de Woot (eds), A European Management Model: Beyond Diversity. Prentice Hall: London.

Leavy, B. (1994) “The craft of case-based qualitative research”, Irish Journal of Management, Vol.15, pp.105-119.

Lindholm, N. (1999) “National culture and performance management in MNC subsidiaries”, International Studies of Management and Organization, Vol.29, No.4, pp.45-66.

19

McGaughey, S.L. and De Cieri, H. (1999) “Reassessment of convergence and divergence dynamics: implications for international HRM”, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol.10, No.2, pp.235-250.

McGorry, S.Y. (2000) “Measurement in cross-cultural environments: survey translation issues.” Qualitative Market Research: an International Journal, Vol.3, No.2, pp.74-81.

Mathews, B.P., Ueno, A., Kekäle, T., Repka, M., Lopes Pereira, Z and Silva, G. (2001) “European quality management practices: the impact of national culture”, The International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management”, Vol.18, No. 6/7, pp.692-707.

Miles, M.B. and Hubermann, A.M. (1984) Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook. 2nd edition. Sage: London.

Morden, G. (1999) “Models of national culture – a management review”, Cross Cultural Management, Vol.6, No.1, pp.19-44.

Mwaura, G., Sutton, J. and Roberts, D. (1998) “Corporate and national culture – an irreconcilable dilemma for the hospitality manager?”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol.10, No.6, pp.212-220.

Ngowi, A.B. (2000) “Impact of culture on the application of TQM in the construction industry in Botswana”, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol.17, No.4/5, pp.442-452.

Nickson, D. and Warhurst, C. (2000) “From globalization to internationalisation to Americanization: the example of ‘Little Americas’ in the Hotel Sector”, in S. Young and N. Hood (eds) The Multinational in the Millenium: Companies and Countries, Changes and Choices, Vol. 2, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, pp.299-326.

Noronha, C. (2002) “Chinese cultural values and total quality climate”, Managing Service Quality, Vol.12, No.4, pp.210-223.

Oh, H. (1999) “Service quality, customer satisfaction and customer value: a holistic perspective”, Hospitality Management, Vol.18, pp. 67-82.

Pizam, A., Pine, R., Mok, C. and Shin, J.Y (1997) “Nationality vs industry cultures: which has a greater effect on managerial behaviour?” International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol.16, No.2, pp.127-145.

Prais, S.J., Jarvis, V. and Wagner, K. (1989) “Productivity and vocational skills in services in Britain and Germany: Hotels.” National Institute Economic Review, No.130, November (4), pp.52-74.

Ralston, D.A., Holt, D.H., Terpstra, R.H. and Kai-Cheng, Y. (1997) “The Impact of national culture and economic ideology on managerial work values: a study of the United States, Russia, Japan and China”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol.28, No.1, pp.177-207.

Rodrigues, C. A. (1998) “Cultural classifications of societies and how they affect cross-cultural management”, Cross Cultural Management, Vol.5, No.3, pp.29-39.

Roney, J. (1997) “Cultural implications of implementing TQM in Poland”, Journal of World Business, Vol.33, No.2, pp.152-168.

Roper, J. (1997) “The multi-cultural management of international hotel groups”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol.16, No.2, pp.147-159.

Samovar, L.A., Porter, R.E. and N. Jain (1981), Understanding Intercultural Communication, Wadsworth, Belmont, CA.

Schein, E.H. (1985) Organizational Culture and Leadership, Jossey-Bass Publishers: London. Smith, P.B., Dugan, S. and Trompenaars, F. (1996) “National Culture and the values of

organisational employees: a dimensional analysis across 43 nations”, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol.27, No.2, pp.231-264.

Sorge, A. and Warner, M. (1981) “Culture, management and manufacturing organization: a study of British and German firms”. Management International Review, Vol.21, No.1, pp.35-48.

Stauss, B. and Mang, P. (1999) “Cultural shocks in inter-cultural service encounters? Journal of Service Marketing, Vol.13, No.4/5, pp.329-346.

Triandis, H.C. (1995) Individualism and Collectivism, Westview: Boulder, CO. Trigg, M.C. and Trigg, D. (1995) Disney’s European theme park adventure: a clash of cultures.

Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, Vol.2, No.2, pp.13-22. Trompenaars, F. and Hampden-Turner, C.M. (1997) Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding

Cultural Diversity in Business, 2nd edition, Nicholas Brearley Publishing: London .

20

Turnell, C. and Washbourne, M. (1991) “Australian TQM model”, The TQM Magazine, Vol.3, No.4, pp.247-251.

Valentine, S. (2000) “International person-organization fit: the role of national culture”, International Journal of Management, Vol.17, No.3, pp.295.

Wasti, A. (1998) “Cultural barriers in the transferability of Japanese and American human resource practices to developing countries: the Turkish case”, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol.9, No.4, pp.608-31.

Weiermair, K. (2000) “Tourists’ perceptions towards and satisfaction with service quality in the cross-cultural service encounter: implications for hospitality and tourism management”, Managing Service Quality, Vol.10, No.6, pp.397-409.

Werner, O. and Campbell, D.T. (1970) “Translating, working through interpreters and the problem of decentering” in R.N. Cohen (ed.) A Handbook of Methods in Cultural Anthropology. American Museum of Natural History: New York.

Zeithaml, V., Berry, L.L. and Parasuraman, A. (1988) “Communication and control processes in the delivery of service quality”. Journal of Marketing, Vol.52 (April), pp.35-48.

Zeithaml, V., Parasuraman, A. and Berry, L.L. (1990) Delivering Quality Service: Balancing customer perceptions and expectations. Macmillan, New York.

21