The Mountain

Lodge
MGX9850
Neha Sardana (25411292)
10/25/2013

The predominance of small firms is one of the defining characteristics of the hotel
industry and their success and survival is linked directly to the operational practices (Asree, Zain
& Razalli, 2010).
The Mountain Lodge is a seasonal ski resort located in the snowfields of Victoria with
about 120 staff members. It falls under the category of SME (Small & Medium enterprise),
which by definition, have less than 250 employees. SME's are characterized as having a small
share in the market and personalized management by its owners (Kramar & Syed, 2012). Hudson
brothers, the owners of the successful and reputed Luxe Boutique Hotel (located in the city),
expanded their operations by buying this established ski resort. The case further talks about the
ownership, functioning and issues at the Mountain Lodge Resort.

UNDERLYING ISSUES:
After careful analysis of the case, non-existence of a link between the Strategic
Management and the Human Resource aspects can be drawn. Strategic Management is pattern
or plan that integrates an organization's major goals, policies and action sequences into a
cohesive whole (Quinn, 1980). Human Resource Management refers to the policies, practices
and systems that influence employees behavior, attitudes and performance (De Cieri & Kramar,
2008). There were clearly no policies or practices that pre-existed or had been formulated after
the change in ownership. The lack of research by the Hudson brothers before expanded their
operations, by buying the Mountain Lodge, left the 'mission' and 'vision' of the business diluted.
The framework (Appendix 1) clearly outlines the necessity to integrate the strategies formulated
for a business with the Human Resources for implementation of the same. This lack of research
and the non-existing HRD within the business demonstrated the non- involvement of the owners
and therefore inculcated the feeling of isolation and insecurity within the employees.
The case points out Hudson brothers' awareness of the differences in the existing business
(Luxe Hotel) and the acquired business (Mountain Lodge). Despite the awareness, Sam and Ted
did not do much to apprehend the differences in the models, structures, culture and functioning
of the two businesses. They did not understand that the culture within their two businesses was
extremely different and incomparable. Organizational culture can influence how people set their
personal and professional goals, perform tasks and administer resources to achieve them.
Further, it affects the way in which people consciously and sub-consciously think, make
decisions and ultimately the way in which they perceive, feel and act (Schein, 1990 as cited by
Mushtaq, Fayyaz & Tanveer, 2013). According to Denison (1990, as cited by Mushtaq, Fayyaz
& Tanveer, 2013) performance of an organization is related to the degree to which culture values
are strongly held or widely and commonly shared. The employees felt disconnected from the
owners and did not appreciate the constant comparisons with the city hotel staff and eventually
the profits were down by about 15% on the last season.
Not perceiving the apparent differences and duplicating the functioning methodology at
the city hotel in the ski resort resulted in Hudson brothers adopting a wrong Management Model.
"A management model is the choices made by a companys top executives regarding how they
define objectives, motivate effort, coordinate activities and allocate resources; in other words,
how they define the work of management. A management model involves choices at the most
fundamental level about how the company will be run. Those choices then shape the specific
practices and behaviors in the company. Because these principles are invisible and rarely made
explicit, there is unawareness of the management models businesses use"(Birkinshaw &
Goddard, 2009). The brothers 'assumed' that the resort manager would be committed based on
the commitment capabilities of their city hotel staff. Also, the problems at the Lodge were often
compared to the issues at the city hotel and not much was done to understand/handle them
differently. The Hudson brothers did not analyze the key differences and weighed the actions (at
the Lodge) against the standards at the city hotel, such as, the age-bracket of the casual staff, the
seasonal functioning and the difference in the structure, which led to an increase in the number
of issues arising at the lodge.

IMMEDIATE ISSUES:
The most immediate problem that surfaced within the Lodge was the inefficient Human
Resource Planning. HRP determines employees needs, supply of personnel, rationally predicts
the companys future manpower needs, and avoids cost errors. It is about matching the number
and skills of employees to business needs in the longer and/or shorter term. It enables managers
to answer two basic questions. First, how many employees? Second, what sort of employees?
HR planning, also, determines the suitable techniques of selecting, recruiting, and developing
employees knowledge and skills so that the organization can improve its effectiveness (Saad,
2013). As there was no HRP, an internal labor market (ILP) had not been well established,
leading to over-reliance on the managerial staff. Since the hospitality sector is labor-intensive, it
should be of utmost importance to have a steady supply/immediate availability of staff. It has
been argued that hotel managers lack a strategic focus for the management of staff and,
therefore, have not used their ILMs well (Jago & Deery 2004 as cited in Saad, 2013).
Simms et al. (1988) have suggested that a weak or unstable ILM correlates with a disjuncture
between employee expectations of promotional opportunity, job satisfaction and working hours,
and the actuality of these work components (as cited in Saad, 2013). A weak ILM has also been
linked to employees experiencing lower levels of job satisfaction and organizational
commitment, resulting in a dissatisfied workforce with greater intention to leave (Jago & Deery
2004 as cited in Saad, 2013). An improper Human Resource Planning and the absence of an
Internal Labor Market left the owners with no immediate replacement for the two people
responsible for ensuring smooth functioning of and within the Lodge (Paul & Jan) and the
Lodge's operations crippled, burdening the owners' with additional responsibilities.
Lack of HRP and ILP directly impacted the business in terms of the issue of Employee
Turnover. Research suggests that the hospitality industry has created and reinforced a turnover
culture. Employees generally enter with the belief that there is limited career development and
promotional opportunities (Iverson & Deery,1997). This has both direct costs (e.g. recruitment,
hiring and training) and indirect costs (e.g. overtime, reduced customer satisfaction) (Pearlman &
Schaffer, 2013). Turnover culture is said to have an impact on the organization in a negative way
by acting as a counterculture to the organization's main objectives (Cooke & Rousseau, 1988 as
cited in Pearlman & Schaffer, 2013). Turnover culture at the Mountain Lodge is evident in the
abrupt exit of Paul (resident manager) and Jan (head chef) and return of only 40% casual staff
from a year before.
Incorrect Recruitment and Selection Techniques posed another threat to the smooth
operation of the lodge. In the hotel industry, there is little evidence of systematic selection
practice to identify the quality service characteristics and he process is acknowledged to be
informal and basic, particularly for the non-managerial staff (Kelliher & Johnson, 1987;
Waryszak & Bauer, 1993 as cited in Lockyer, 2004). The same technique was implemented in
the Mountain Lodge, where the new recruits were in their early twenties and had cold-called the
brothers in search of work just before the ski season. Despite the Hudson brothers' seriousness
about the quality experience they were trying to provide, there was no systematic attempt to
assess the selection of the staff.
As seen in the case, there were questions and issues about Sam and Ted's Leadership
capabilities. Weak involvement, large dependence on managerial employees and inability to
understand the differences in the hotel and the lodge has been highlighted. Leadership is a
dynamic process based on influence relationship between a leader and a follower, which
recognize and accept him as a leader (Ispas, 2010 as cited in Andreia, 2012), which in turn,
affects individual performance (Appendix 2). Church (1995) confirms that leadership style of
managers at the workplace directly affects quality of services and organizational performance (as
cited in Andreia, 2012). But the Hudson brothers were staunch, old, conservative, and "stuffy"
which widened the gap between them and the young casual staff and reduced the productivity
and increased isolation.


ISSUES:
There were numerous HR flaws in the functioning of the resort. There were no Quality
Standards or Code of Conduct policies. Hogan et al.s (1984) construct of "service orientation"
identifies several personality characteristics useful for service work, such as courtesy,
consideration, tact, perceptiveness, responsibility and good communication skills (as cited in
Lockyer, 2004). The casual workers would party in the small hours and turn up at work in poor
physical conditions which eventually led to fall in profits and rise in customer complaints.

There was also a mismatch in the required skills and the skills of the hired casual
workers. There were concerns about the lack of appropriate skills amongst the restaurant staff.
But the staff hired was young, casual, irresponsible and lacked commitment. A proper
recruitment process had not been defined (cold-calling was used), there was no formal job
description and the employee expectations were not aligned with that of the business.
The absence of Employee Engagement and Retention policies increased the responsibility
(of motivating the new casual employees) on the permanent staff in the Lodge. This required
them to put in extra without being incentivized and little or no support from the leaders.
Organizations that truly engage and inspire their employees produce world class levels of
innovation, productivity and enhanced performance (Ncube & Jerie, 2012). Konrad (2006)
suggests that disengaged employees often force or hurry through interactions with the customers,
provide inadequate or incomplete service, complain in front of the customers, and fail to put
forth anything but the minimal effort (as cited in Ncube & Jerie, 2012), which were seen through
the customer complaints that were largely staff related.

HR APPROACHES:
The framework (Appendix 1) illustrates the integration of the Strategic formulation and
the Strategic Implementation. A business' mission, goals and opportunities are formulated and
implemented. Since HR practices can be used to achieve HR capability outcomes (such as skills,
ability, knowledge) and HR actions (behavior, results)(Kramer, Bartram & DeCieri, 2011),
formation of a Human Resource Department for the Lodge is of utmost importance. Lucas
(1995) and Maher & Strafford (2000) remark that HRM issues are important even if an
organization employs only a handful of people. Jameson (2000), Barrows (2000) and Conrade et
al. (1994) state that issues of human resource development in the hotel sector have been
neglected, especially in small businesses (as cited in Nolan, 2002). The hotel industry is a labor-
intensive service industry, depending on the social and technical skills, ingenuity and hard work,
commitment and attitude of its employees and hence it is imperative for the industry to develop
effective HRM practices. The HR functions would ensure that the organization has the proper
number of employees with the levels and types of skills required and develop a 'control' system
that ensures the employees act in a way that promotes the achievement of the goals specified in
the strategic plan (Kramer, Bartram & DeCieri, 2011). The HR person would also deal with the
staffing problem at the Lodge.
Hotels are only as good as their staff, which can make or break a company's ability to
render services (Collins, 2007). Krackhardt and Porter (1986) found that employees were more
likely to leave if they saw their peers quitting. Paul and Jan's departure had carved a pathway for
the others to follow. Turnover is known to be high in the hospitality industry. The Causal Model
of employee intent to leave (Appendix 3) illustrates organizational factors that have an impact on
the employee's intention to stay. Many employees enter the industry with the expectation of
working for a minimum amount of time in one organization, which directly calls for retention
measures. Offering job-security via long-term contracts and permanency via performance-
appraisals can promote the perception of long-term commitment (Iverson & Deere, 1997).
Integrating training and development procedures could enhance sense of belonging, along
with developing career paths within the Lodge which would directly impact job fulfillment and
satisfaction and reduce turnover, which would encourage staff members, especially the
permanent staff (like Paul and Jan) to have a long-term commitment. The development of an
internal labor market would provide a constant supply of trained and qualified workers, which, in
turn, would lead to higher retention. Organizations can also create a culture that gives individuals
permission and support for task performance (DiPietro & Condly, 2007).
The pre-entry variable of negative affectivity in the Causal Model (Appendix 1) has been
noted to have a direct impact on an employees' willingness to quit. Employees with high
negative affectivity experience low task-engagement are less inclined to control their work
environment; communication with peers and management is negligible and are therefore more
likely to leave (Iverson & Deere, 1997). This seemed to be a major issue at the Mountain Lodge,
highlighted by the fact that the staff turned up at work in poor physical conditions and only 40%
staff returned for the new season. Since "hospitality has been identified consistently ad an
industry with poor employment practices"(Rowley & Purcel, 2001 as cited in Collins, 2007),
there is an immediate need for appropriate recruitment and selection techniques, which may
include a formal referral system, more rigorous interviewing procedures (and not cold-calling),
personality tests and realistic job previews teamed with an appropriate job design (Lockyer &
Scholarios, 2004). This would ensure a match between the required and the hired skills and
therefore increase job satisfaction and lower turnover.
Researches (Hoan, Curphy & Hogan, 2002 as cited in DiPietro & Condly, 2007) show
that motivation and managerial support accounts for half of all performance results. Sam and Ted
need to alter their leadership style. Nstase M. (2006) pointed out that when a manager uses a
participative leadership style, the employees become more involved, more responsible and their
organizational commitment grows (as cited in Andreia, 2012). The key to being a leader lies in
the firm's ability to manage change (Olsen, West & Tse, 1998 as cited by Chanthoth & Olsen,
2002). To ensure smooth functioning, Sam and Ted would have to understand the change in the
functioning of their two businesses, be proactive, reduce reliance on the managerial staff, get
involved, and exercise control. This would improve their relationship with the young employees
at the resort, and may have an impact productivity and retention.

CONCLUSION:
The case has highlighted some major HR issues, such as no human resource planning,
mismatch between strategic formulation and implementation, faulty recruitment and selection
techniques, wrong leadership style, employee turnover and duplication of organizational culture
based on a different business.
By including the strategic management components and human resource components in
the business, Sam and Ted can target and eliminate most of the highlighted issues. Formulating a
strong HRD, restructuring the recruitment and selection along with providing training and
development and by modifying the leadership style, the functioning at Mountain Lodge can be
given a new direction. There may be costs involved in bringing along most of these changes but
nonetheless, have lasting benefits.







APPENDIX 1



APPENDIX 2


Leadership
Style
Job
Satisfaction
Organizatinal
Commitment
Employee's
Individual
performance
Source: Andreia, 2012
Leadership and Employees' Individual Performance
Framework
APPENDIX 3
Causal Model of employee intent to leave



Source: Iverson & Deery, 1997
REFERENCES
Andreia I. (2012). Conceptual Approach of Leadership and Employee' Individual Performance
Relationship. Cresterea calittii si a competitivittii cercetrii doctorale prin acordarea
de burse".
Asree S., Zain M., & Razalli R.M. (2010). Influence of leadership competency and
organizational culture on responsiveness and performance of firms. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 22(4), 500 - 516.
Birkinshaw J., & Goddard J. (2009). What is your Management Model? MITSloan Management
Review, 50(2), 81 - 92.
Chathoth P., & Olsen M. (2002). Organizational Leadership and Strategy in the Hospitality
Industry. Journal of Service Research, 2(1), 4 - 29.
Colins A. (2007). Human Resources: a hidden advantage? International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 19(1), 78 - 84.
DiPietro R., & Condly S. (2007). Employee Turnover in the Hospitality Industry: An analysis
based on the CANE Model of motivation. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality &
Tourism, 6(1), 1 - 22.
Iverson R., & Deery M (1997). Turnover Culture in the hospitality industry. Human Resource
Management Journal, 7(4), 71 - 82.
Kramer R., Bartram T., DeCieri H., Noe R., Hollenbeck J., Gerhart B., & Wright P. (2011).
Human Resource Management in Australia: Strategy, People, Performance (4th ed).
NSW, Australia: McGraw Hill.
Kramer R., & Syed J (2012). Human Resource Management in a Global Context: a critical
approach. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Lockyer C., & Scholarios D. (2004). Selecting hotel staff: why best practice does not always
work. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 16(2), 125 - 136.
McPhail R., & Fisher R. (2008). It's more than wages: An analysis of the impact of the internal
labor markets on the quality of jobs. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 19(3), 461 - 472.
Mushtaq A., Fayyaz A., & Tanveer A. (2013). Organizational Culture in Hotel Industry:
Perceptions and Preferences among Staff. Advances in Management, 6(5), 55 - 60.
Ncube F., & Jerie S. (2012). Leveraging Employee Engagement for Competitive Advantage in
the Hospitality industry. A Comparative study of Hotels A and B in Zimbabwe. Journal of
Emerging Trends in Economics and Management Sciences, 3(4), 380 - 388.
Nolan C. (2002). Human Resource Development in the Irish hotel industry: The case of the small
firm. Journal of the European Industrial Training, 26(2/3/4), 88 - 99.
Ogbonna E., & Harris L. (2002). Managing Organizational Culture: insights from the hospitality
industry. Human Resource Management Journal, 12(1), 33 - 53.
Pearlman D., & Schaffer J. (2013). Labor Issues within the Hospitality and Tourism Industry: A
study of Louisiana's Attempted solutions. Journal of Human resources in Hospitality and
Tourism, 12, 217 - 242.
Saad S. (2013). Contemporary Challenges of Human Resource Planning in Tourism and
Hospitality Organizations: A Conceptual Model. Journal of Human resources in
Hospitality and Tourism, 12, 333 - 354.