Managing Change Within the Hotel Industry
By Kenneth Heymann
Imagine a clock face. Assume that the 60 minutes represents three thousand or so years of history during which people have had access to writing systems. Therefore, one minute equals 50 years, ten minutes 500.
In this scenario, little changed, technologically, in the first 50 minutes, until the printing press was invented, about ten minutes ago. The telegraph arrived about 4 minutes ago, the telephone in the last three minutes. Television appeared in the last two, as have computers, lasers and communication satellites. Virtually everything that we consider essential to modern life has come into being in the last few minutes. Things are changing, faster.
Openness to Change
A number of years ago, I was starting a consulting project at a hotel. We were working on setting up a staff planning system that would realign the forecasting and scheduling processes so that there was a single forecast for all outlets and all schedules were posted on the same day. Standing before a group of managers, I asked "How many of you think of yourselves as open to change, willing to try new approaches?" Every manager in the room raised a hand. I scanned the room and said, "So many liars all in one place;" the group chuckled.
As I mentioned, change is hard. People get used to routines and familiar processes and tools. Mostly, people prefer to avoid change. According to J.M. Juran, there are three broad approaches to Change. Explorers, Conservatives and Inhibitors.
- Explorers - People who are most open to change and willing to try new approaches.
- Conservatives - People who are slow to change but will be willing to change given sufficient proof of value and assurance that the risk will not be too great.
- Inhibitors - People who are highly resistant to change and, in general, will work hard to undermine any change efforts.
These responses can be plotted along a classic bell curve, with the 5 - 10 % of explorers on the far left and the 5 - 10% of inhibitors on the far right. The grand mass of conservatives follow the curve.
Over the years, I've worked with various organizations looking to implement new systems and processes. Any number of times, the senior execs would recommend a pilot site led by someone they perceived to be resistant to new approaches or processes. The essential argument was - "Let's try it with John (or whomever). If you can win John over then the rest of the organization will follow along." DO NOT DO THIS. John is an inhibitor. He will do everything he can to ensure failure and justify his resistance to change. If you are going to try a new tool / system / process, find an explorer who will work to create success and be willing to work through the inevitable hiccups and challenges of a change process.
Reason to Change
As I said, most people try to avoid change, if possible. Some changes can't be avoided. Aging creates change; technology creates change; marriage and children create change. Market forces create change. People now pay for water in a bottle; for entertainment options on their TV's; we pay for things that used to be free. We adapt to these changes because we have no choice.
But organizational change is different. Organizations change when they have to adapt to new business circumstances (use of computers, social media and e-mail, etc.). They have to conduct business, to some degree, in a manner which is consistent with how other organizations conduct business. Change of this nature is generally reactive. "We have to build mobile apps." "We have to add teleconferencing capabilities."
However, proactive change that's based on a conscious decision comes from two primary sources - fear or vision. Fear drives change when an organization changes in order to avoid the consequences of not changing. 50 years ago, drivers accepted regular mechanical failures that occurred to their cars. As Japanese and German automakers began to penetrate the US market in the 70's and 80's, US automakers found that their cars often compared unfavorably; there were too many problems, too many breakdowns. "Quality," to put it in terms that Ford used in advertising, became "job 1." It became Job 1 when Ford introduced the slogan in the 80's, and kept it until the late 90's.
But the real change was the focus on building quality into the practice of making cars, not inspecting the cars to see if they were made well. There was a time when Hotel Franchise companies would put their brand on any property willing to pay the franchise fee. As the quality of the product diminished, and the customer became less confident of the quality of a given product, the franchisors realized that they had to set clearer standards in order to protect the integrity of their brands. They changed because they feared that customers would no longer choose them if they could not depend on the quality of the product they would receive. In these, and other similar circumstances, change was the result of a fear that the consequence of maintaining the status quo put the organization at risk.
The other source of change is vision. A vision of a better, more successful future is also a powerful source of change. When members of an organization agree on a better way, a new way, they will participate in the change process. Examples abound. When Henry Ford came up with a better way to build cars, his organization changed. When Robert Noyce and Gordon Moore came up with a better way to build semiconductors, Intel changed. Entire companies have been built on a vision that they will change the way people do business (think FedEx). It's hard for hoteliers to remember, but there was a time when a traveler stayed at a hotel or a motel. Select or Limited Service did not exist. But when the first Courtyard opened in 1983 and the first Hampton Inn in 1984, a new segment was created based on a vision of a new product. All these changes and new products were based on a vision.
Another way to look at this is to distinguish between planned change and unplanned change. The key takeaway is that, in contemplating change, it's essential to understand what is driving the desire to change and to be able to communicate that to the organization.
Preparing for Change
The first step in planning change is to define who is responsible for three roles: Change Sponsor, Change Target, Change Agent.
The Change Sponsor is the individual or group within the organization that has the power and influence to initiate and implement change. The primary role of the change sponsor is to promote the vision of change and inspire others with this vision. To carry out this role effectively, the change sponsor must:
- Be fully convinced of the need for change.
- Have a clear vision of the desired outcomes of change.
- Know where the organization is, at present, relative to the desired change.
- Understand the implications of change for everyone.
- Be willing to provide the necessary resources to implement the change.
- Agree with the time frame necessary to achieve the change.
- Know what the consequences will be if change does not occur.
- Know how success will be evaluated.
The Change Agent is the person or group responsible for creating / implementing the change. The change agent may be someone (or a group) from inside the organization or a consultant hired to help facilitate change.
- To be effective, the change agent must:
- Agree with the sponsor's vision of change.
- Be fully convinced of the need for change.
- Help develop an implementation plan.
- Know the likely pitfalls of the process and be able to weather them.
- Appreciate the role of the change sponsor and request support as needed.
- Understand the limitations of the role that he or she will play in the change process.
- Demonstrate talent and proven credibility within the organization.
- Develop power bases and employ strategies for overcoming resistance to change.
- Be able to use the measurements necessary to evaluate the success of the change.
The Change Target is the group or groups within the organization that will need to change their skills, knowledge, and behaviors, or any combination. Admittedly, the word target has a less than appealing connotation as it suggests a passive group which will be the recipient of something, or is having something done to them. Perhaps Focus would be a better choice, but Target has gained a certain common currency. Regardless, the targets must be active participants as they will be the ones doing things differently. At the broadest level, even a Sponsor may find be a target, to some degree, and the term need not be viewed as pejorative.
Because the ultimate success or failure of the change effort depends on whether the target changes, there are a series of questions which must be answered affirmatively to ensure that the change will be successful.
Obviously, the primary resistance to change comes from the targets. They are the ones who, at first, may feel they have the most to lose, and who sense the greatest risk. Though they are typically not involved in originating the change, it is essential that every effort be made to ensure that they understand the need for and purpose of the change. Whether by communicating the information which has led to the decision to change (poor financial results, new competition, etc.), or painting a picture of the future without change, the targets must have a context which helps them understand the reasons for the change. If they don't know where the organization is going, and why it's going there, it will be very difficult to get them to go on the trip.
The Process of Change
The change process involves a series of phases or steps which each need careful management. As importantly, we will also look at why so many change efforts fail, as happens more often than perhaps organizations want to acknowledge.
Those Phases are:
I. Perceived Need
II. Vision of Change
III. Planning for Change
IV. Implementing Change
V. Crossroads
a. Path to Failure
b. Path to Plateau
c. Path to Success
VI. Commitment
VII. Continuous Improvement / Way of Life
Perceived Need - When Kemmon Wilson started building Holiday Inns in the 1950's, he started by recognizing the need for convenient places for families to stay while travelling. He perceived a need. Change occurs when an existing organization perceives and defines a need, whether driven by fear or vision.
Vision of Change - Vision can mean many things to many people. But in the context of change, it must have a precise meaning to be useful. It is therefore the articulation of what the organization will look like after a change is complete. Typically, the sponsor is responsible for articulating the vision.
Planning for Change - Once the need has been realized and the vision articulated, the next logical step is to determine how to get there. This requires understanding where you want to go; it also requires understanding where you are now. This involves some form of gap analysis with as much measurement as possible.
Implementing Change- This requires a detailed blueprint for creating the desired organizational context. It must account for all the necessary activities and tasks and incorporate appropriate time frames. For example, consider some basic steps involved in implementing a new Property Management System:
I. Determine Appropriate Configuration Parameters.
II. Configure Software.
III. Test Software.
IV. Make necessary adjustments and refinements.
V. Train Desk Staff.
VI. Implement new system.
One other observation worth mentioning. It is not an uncommon belief that the place to begin change is with the knowledge and attitudes of individuals. Changes in attitudes, the theory goes, lead to changes in individual behavior. And changes in individual behavior, repeated by many people, will result in organizational change. According to this model, change is like a conversion experience. Once people "get religion", changes in their behavior will surely follow. This theory gets the change process backwards. Individual behavior is powerfully shaped by the organizational roles that people play. The most effective way to change behavior, therefore, is to put people into a new organizational context, which creates new roles, responsibilities, and relationships.
Crossroads - Path to Failure
As was mentioned before, the reality of change efforts is that many fail, some miserably. For various reasons, people reject the change or even deny that it's needed. When the path to failure is pursued the next step is break-down. Resources for change are re-channeled. The vision is changed or denied (a common occurrence when new executives take over) and the organization returns to what we simply call "point zero." Basically, things go back to the way they were.
Failure can occur for a variety of reasons:
- Change targets resist the change because its impact on their human relationships was not accounted for in the planning and implementation and they perceive the change as disruptive.
- Resistance is created because of certain blind spots and attitudes which change agents have because of their pre-occupation with the technical aspects of new ideas. Some change agents are too "self-preoccupied," interested in the change and technology--not the people. They're so busy saving the organization that they forget about the people in the organization.
- Change agents overlook input from the change targets and don't demonstrate enough respect for them. One organization, in attempting to implement Quality Management processes, selected an individual to oversee the process who had been successful at a pilot property at which he had been an executive. This individual was fond of pointing out how stupid the people in the field were. The people in the field, not surprisingly, became very fond of pointing out how ineffective this individual's efforts were.
- The change agent wants too much credit for the improvements, and doesn't want to share the accomplishments with others.
- The change agent is too dependent on complex explanations and formula for justifying the change, and treats his / her knowledge as a secret domain. As a result, the change agent fails to effectively justify the reason for the change. In other words, if it's not rocket science, don't treat it like rocket science.
- The change agent "goes native." This is the opposite of a change agent being too aggressive and unsympathetic. In this instance, the agent is so sympathetic, complimentary and tentative that the targets end up believing that they're doing very well and that there's no need for change.
- The sponsor gets cold feet--too much change too fast. Or, as is often the case, the sponsor believed that change would affect everyone else, and s/he could get on with business as usual. If the sponsor's not part of the solution, s/he'll end up as part of the problem.
- The change wasn't well-planned.
- The measurements weren't valid--or the expected improvements weren't achieved. If there are no tangible results that management can seize on to promote further efforts, there will be no further efforts.
Crossroads - Path to Plateau
On this path, the organization enters a holding pattern, and the changes already implemented remain, without further changes being achieved. This path has much in common with the path to failure, except that some vestiges of the new systems or structures remain. This leads some organizations to think they've made progress.
Part of the problem is that, as is often noted, if you're standing still, you're moving backward - because everyone else is moving forward.
Crossroads - Path to Success / Commitment / Way of Life
An organization on the path to success views implemented changes as successful and beneficial. More changes are made, and the organization begins to do business in a new fashion and moves to the next phase of the change process--commitment.
A key to success, and this often differentiates success from failure, is trust among the sponsor, agent, and target. If the sponsor supports the effort in public, but questions it in private, the private message will become public. If the change agent questions the commitment of the sponsor, the targets will lose faith in the change agent. Both the change agent and sponsor must be seen as predictable. People must feel that they know what they can expect.
Some indicators of long-term success are:
- Early events and people disappear into the background as later events and people come forward. People actually begin to create a little mythology. They tell stories of the early days of the effort.
- Conflict is less frequent and consensus more common. Managers who previously fought over their turf and protected what they perceived to be the interests of their department now recognize the interests of the entire organization.
- Alternatives which seemed equally plausible, creating unsureness, give way to obvious choices which are seen as consistent with the desired goals.
Change is and always will be difficult. There are no perfect prescriptions for success, nor any guaranteed methods that will work in all organizations in all circumstances. One-size-fits-all approaches ignore the often unique circumstances and history of an organization. A good change plan must acknowledge these circumstances.
Change sponsors and change agents should be careful of excessively logical "how-to" approaches to managing change. Change involves human beings and there are no "one-two-three" guides to follow. There are roles people play, and various strategies to use.
Once an organization is on the Path to Success, Commitment requires some form of institutionalization or systemization to ensure that there is organizational structure to support the change(s). At that point, the change is a Way of Life and seems to come naturally. Companies need a mind set for managing change that emphasizes process as well as content. Style, especially in the early part of the process, is just as important as substance. Organizations must recognize that change is a unit-by-unit learning process rather than a series of programs, and they must acknowledge the payoffs that result from persistence over time as opposed to quick fixes.
