The impact of personal and organisational variables on the leadership styles of managers Summary This study has attempted to collect and analyse data on a number of personal as well as organisational variables that are considered as potentially useful in explaining the leadership styles of managers. Such data include the gender, age, length of service in present organisation, length of service in an organisation, hierarchy, size and type of organisation, whether a manufacturing or a financial services entity, for example.
The objective of the study is to examine the impact of these variables, if any, on the leadership style practices of managers. In the modern management of human resources it is useful to investigate whether, for example, there is less use of directive form of leadership in preference to consultative, participative and delegative leadership practices. If so, such practices will be in line with the expected liberalisation in today’s world as different from yesterday’s more authoritarian styles of organisational management.
It would be useful to know what personal characteristics, such as age, have on leadership practices which is supposedly based on some suggested principles. For example, how do older and younger top-level and lower-level organisational leaders differ in their leadership activities? Knowledge of the answers to these and similar questions can be used to improve the management of human resources. Respondents to this study identified a number of personal variables during the data collection phase.
This included their age, gender, and length of service either in the present organisation or in all organisations in which they have worked. Although a number of variables were thus involved and consequently used in the exploratory data analysis, some of them, like gender and length of service, were not significant, on their own, in the analysis. However, age shows up most significantly in their effects on the leadership styles of the managers. On leadership styles and behaviour, ompared with older workers, the researchers found that younger workers feel more comfortable in fast changing environments and are more willing to take risks and consider new approaches. They also operate with more energy and intensity, and have a greater capacity to energise others. In addition, they are more likely to seek out opportunities to take charge and push vigorously and competitively to achieve a high level of results. When compared to older workers, younger workers also tend to work to develop and promote themselves.
Similarly, on leadership styles and behaviour, compared with younger workers, the researchers found that older workers study problems in light of past practices in order to ensure predictability, and minimise risk. They tend to maintain a calmer and more understated (though not detached) demeanour. Older workers tend to maintain an in-depth knowledge of their field and use this knowledge to approach problems. They cooperate and delegate more, in addition to showing a greater degree of empathy and concern for other workers. Contrary to the practices of younger workers, the authors suggest that older workers work to develop and promote others.
Respondents were asked to indicate their overall satisfaction levels with their boss’s leadership styles. Given the hierarchical nature of most organisations, subordinates rated bosses who, in turn, rated their own bosses and so on so that a full picture of the situation with this consideration was obtained. A further examination of the data suggests that managers at higher organisational hierarchy, obviously, tend to use some but not all of the four leadership styles – directive, consultative, participative and delegative.
The impression seems to be that before they get to the higher organisational position they would have tried each of the leadership style dimensions and decided to concentrate on only one, two or three of them but not all four leadership styles. Experience would have assisted them in selecting and concentrating on the style or styles of leadership that they considered most appropriate during the performance of each of their organisational activities.
A corollary of this finding is that lower level managers tend to use significantly more of the overall leadership styles in comparison with the higher-level managers. This finding is as expected since lower-level managers need time and experience to decide which of the styles would work best for them in different situations. Thus in their learning processes, they might decide to use each and all of the leadership styles during their learning period. This study set out to examine the leadership styles of managers from the perspectives of their ages and the levels they occupy in their organisational hierarchies.
Using survey data from over 400 UK employees and managers, the authors found that managers at higher organisational hierarchies tend to use less of the overall leadership style in preference to one or the other of the directive, consultative, participative or delegative leadership styles. It was felt that their experiences enable them to more easily select an appropriate style of leadership in performing their organisational activities rather than relying on a composite leadership style. However, it was also found that older managers tend to use less of the individual leadership styles in preference to the overall leadership style.
This situation leaves us with the conclusion that the higher level managers in our study may not be the oldest ones and that, today, younger managers are rising to the top positions in organisational management. One reason for this, of course, is the increasing use of technology in managerial duties and that younger managers tend to be more adept at this than their older colleagues. One of the implications of our finding is that organisations today must increasingly recognise the complementary roles and skills of younger and older employees in achieving their goals. Age does not necessarily have to be an asset or a barrier.
THE DOWNSIDE OF SELF-MANAGEMENT: A LONGITUDINAL STUDY OF THE EFFECTS OF CONFLICT ON TRUST, AUTONOMY, AND TASK INTERDEPENDENCE IN SELF-MANAGING TEAMS Summary Over the past few decades, interest in self-managing teams has increased, particularly interest in understanding their design, structure, and performance. Little is known about how self-managing teams design and adapt themselves, and how these actions affect performance. A recent review of teams in organizations that specifically discussed adaptation did not reference any research exploring structural change as an adaptive mechanism.
The author illustrated an example of teams with high trust suffering performance losses when they adopted a design with high individual autonomy. Thus, selfmanaging teams’ ability to choose and adapt their structures has important implications for their performance. In general, flexibility and adaptability are beneficial and are often what allow teams to avoid trouble and manage problems successfully. However, the author suggest this flexibility can sometimes be a liability, specifically when a self-managing team unintentionally adopts a potentially dysfunctional design.
The authors focus is on how task and relationship conflict in self-managing teams can cause them to restructure themselves in response. The author defines task conflict here as disagreement among group members about decisions, viewpoints, ideas, and opinions and as potentially including controversy over the best way to achieve a group goal or objective. In the context of self-managing teams, the issue of structure and process becomes more complex than it is for “traditional” work teams.
Normally, structural, or design, variables are considered exogenous inputs in a classic input-process-output (IPO) model, but in the case of self-managing teams they can clearly be outputs as well. This characteristic raises two thorny issues, one conceptual and one methodological. First, it suggests that the study of self-managing teams should address not just the immediate effect of structure on outcomes such as performance, but also the effects on structure itself of various processes, such as conflict, and the effects of emergent states like trust.
Conflict has long been known to have the potential to harm group processes, such as coordination and cooperation, as well as performance outcomes, such as goal accomplishment, and much is known about the causes and effects of conflict in teams. Although the benefits of sharing divergent viewpoints and discussion are clear, especially in terms of team decision-making quality, the overall effect of both task and relationship conflict on performance appears to be negative. Despite voluminous research, the effects of onflict on team structure have remained largely unexplored, representing a significant shortcoming in academic understanding of teams, particularly selfmanaging ones. The author believes that the links between conflict and structure may not only be direct, but also indirect—through intervening variables such as intrateam trust, which has been found to be important to self-managing team performance. Hypothesis 1. Higher conflict, whether task or relationship, is associated with lower trust.
The author expects that the reductions in trust associated with increased conflict will in turn influence team structure, resulting in lowered autonomy and task interdependence. Autonomy and task interdependence both consistently stand out in the team design literature as the two primary structural factors of teams. Hypothesis 2. Lower trust is associated with lower levels of individual autonomy in a team. It is also likely that trust influences task interdependence. By a logic similar to that presented above, perceptions of risk may also lead team members to limit task interdependence and coordination requirements.
Task interdependence is often considered the extent to which an individual’s task performance depends on the efforts and skills of others. Hypothesis 3. Lower trust is associated with lower levels of task interdependence in a team. In addition to the indirect effects discussed above, it is also possible for conflict to have direct effects on team structure. In terms of autonomy, such effects might result from a desire for revenge or retribution in response to task or relationship conflict; a team member might essentially withhold autonomy from another as a punitive act.
Hypothesis 4. Higher conflict, whether task or relationship, is associated with lower levels of individual autonomy in a team. A direct effect of conflict on task interdependence is also possible, as team members may redesign their team to avoid interacting with one another. If relationship conflict is high, members can reduce task interdependencies to minimize their contact with team members they do not like, thus avoiding conflict. Hypothesis 5. Higher conflict, whether task or relationship, is associated with lower task interdependence.
Hypotheses 1, 2, and 3 thus suggest that trust serves as an indirect intervening variable by which trust is affected by conflict and, in turn, affects team structure. Hypothesis 6. Higher conflict, whether task or relationship, is associated with teams characterized by a combination of lower task interdependence and lower individual autonomy. Finally, it is worth noting that such a design— low interdependence combined with low autonomy—is potentially dysfunctional.
Thus, moving slightly outside the main focus of the present study, the author would also expect to find such an interactive effect of autonomy and task interdependence on team performance. In other words, design changes that are either directly or indirectly associated with conflict in a self-managing team are likely to have dysfunctional effects on performance. The authors basic contention is that self-managing teams can be particularly susceptible to detrimental effects of conflict as a result of their ability to alter their own structures and designs.
The results have largely supported that contention. He has shown that higher levels of conflict (especially relationship conflict) in teams are associated with lower task interdependence and individual autonomy, partly because of direct effects, and partly because of indirect effects of lower trust. He also demonstrated that high conflict in teams is associated with the combination of lower autonomy and interdependence, which is a potentially dysfunctional design for a self-managing team, with lower performance than other configurations. Leadership in the Service of Hospitality Summary
The definition of leadership has changed considerably in the past one hundred years, beginning with the “great man” concept and, more recently, focusing on “transformational leadership. ” The next step in leadership evolution is servant leadership, in which the leader seeks to support and empower followers. The implications are considerable for the hospitality industry, since it is based on the concept of leadership through service. Hospitality educators could take steps to instill servant leadership principles in students to equip them for this increasingly relevant leadership style.
This paper looks back on half a century of publications, the changes it has recorded in leadership theory and practice illustrate the evolution of approaches to understanding the relationship between leaders and followers in hospitality organizations. In the current business climate, there is a greater need for leaders who can guide with integrity and courage instead of autocratic leaders. Therefore it seems logical to research several philosophies on employee care and environmental stewardship. These philosophies promote a culture of trust and respect.
This emerging approach to leadership is examined in light of the pressing issues businesses are confronting as we move into the second decade of the twenty-first century—leaders whose motives are often questionable and a workforce that has become increasingly stressed, disillusioned, and disengaged. Early theories focused almost exclusively on personal characteristics of the leader and attempted to better understand the reason for his or her impact on organizational performance. In fact, one of the first perspectives was called the “great man” theory under the premise that leaders (at that time, almost exclusively male) were born, not made.
During the 1950s and 1960s, behavioural theories emerged with increasing frequency. Theorists proposed that individuals could learn to be leaders through skill development and deliberate action. While the earliest theories focused on the leader’s characteristics and competencies in search of the key to greater effectiveness, thinking during the past twenty-five years has generally taken a broader view that considers both the dynamics created between the leader and his or her followers as well as the context and features of the particular environment.
Servant leadership captures and reimagines elements from earlier thinking on the requirements of both the individual as leader and his or her relationship with followers. Servant leaders demonstrate the flexibility required for effectiveness in a culturally diverse workplace, incorporating the positive and appropriate aspects of other leadership models. Behaviors Associated with Servant Leaders 1. Listening intently to others combined with personal reflection on what is heard 2. Empathy: assuming the good intentions of colleagues 3. Awareness: understanding issues involving ethics and values . Persuasion, rather than relying on authority or coercion 5. Conceptualization: servant leaders dream great dreams and are also operationally skilled 6. Foresight: the ability to foresee the likely outcome of a situation 7. Stewardship: holding institutions in trust for the greater good of society 8. Commitment to the personal and professional growth of all employees 9. Building community within the organization As definitions of customer service turn to customer care, servant leadership becomes increasingly relevant. Servant leaders appreciate, encourage, and care for their followers.
Employees, inspired by the example their leader sets, in turn provide generous and genuine care to guests. When employees take personal responsibility for addressing each guest’s needs, when they serve out of a personal commitment to provide value and assistance, service becomes authentic and quality increases. This customization of service translates into high customer satisfaction and subsequent organizational effectiveness. When employees perceive their leader as trustworthy—when they keep their promises and act on espoused values—employee commitment, effort, and efficiency increase.
While both servant and transformational leaders seek to empower employees, servant leadership adds an ethical emphasis beyond what is generally found in transformational leadership theory. Arguments have been posed that transformational leaders, highly motivated to accomplish their organizational goals, may be tempted to use their charisma and misrepresent aspects of the situation to their followers. The path to servant leadership is not always direct, and students must be encouraged to cultivate a long-term view of the journey.
Educators can help each student to see the value in doing what is right, even if it is not immediately recognized or rewarded. While focus is on facilitating these outcomes in student learners, faculty may find that modelling servant leader attitudes and practices can help them to facilitate personal responsibility and high standards of ethical behaviour. When faculty demonstrate empowerment and build trust, they can raise students’ expectations regarding the requirements of their future hospitality leadership role. Job-Related Barriers and Coping Behaviors n the Career Development of Hospitality Undergraduates Summary The main reason why this research is done is to understand the reason for the extremely high turnover in the hospitality industry. The purpose of most of the hospitality education programs is to prepare students for future management positions. However, many of these students drop out after 3-5 years. The first step of the survey, in the direction of solving the problem is to understand students’ career planning. Studies from the student perspective are scarce, so this study will focus mainly on these students, hree main objectives guiding the study. 1. To explore and compare hospitality students’ perception of work-related barriers 2. The relationships between the role of the barriers students investigate in their career decision processes. 3. To evaluate the effectiveness of career counseling to improve and suggest directions for future studies focusing on barriers for hospitality students Job-related barriers are defined as “events or circumstances, either within the person or in his or her environment, which are part of a career progress difficult”.
Several studies focus on further classification of these career difficulties. Factors, including race, age, education and background are examined during the years. In addition to the quantitative studies that have focused on the effects of barriers for student career development processes a few researchers found that qualitative methods have the advantage of improving the exploration of the students’ perceived barriers. Nowadays hospitality researchers have developed a new and different approach to the career development of students in the hospitality industry.
Acquiring useful skills is viewed helpful in promoting hospitality graduates compatibility with advances in the industry. Along with the before mentioned approach, the view and the perception of the students in the hospitality is considered more and more important. The lack of opportunities for growth was the main reason reported by alumni of hotel and restaurant programs for changing employers or leaving the industry. Unsuitable working hours and poor financial compensation be mentioned as another important reason for the change businesses, changing careers, or leave the industry altogether.
Career decision-making self-efficacy (CdSe) refers to the degree of confidence people have in their expertise or ability to informational, educational and professional goal-planning activities to be carried out. In addition to these CdSe states that “the students’ perceptions of barriers can be based on several considerations: chance barriers arise, the degree of disruptiveness as it occurs, and an individual is able to overcome barriers” . A total of 430 surveys were distributed to hospitality students at two universities through the stratified sampling method (program enrollment ratio: 7:3).
School 1 is located in a small suburban university city with a population of 27,906 and a number of medium-sized cities in the area. School 2 is located in a medium sized city known for commercial and medical institutions with a population of 217,326 and the proximity of nearby small towns. Selection of these two samples, the investigator in order to determine whether location has significant influence on the selected variables. One of the outcomes of this research is what kind of factors are considered as the main barriers.
The factors, difficulty finding a job because of a tight labor market and not knowing the “right people” to get a job came in first and second. The findings of this study suggest that students perceived barriers differently, because the same item are grouped into different factors within the subscales. Thus, the inability to move away from friends / family seen as affecting “getting a job they desire” (finding the job factor), but the move was also seen as their “performance on the job” to influence (performing the work factor).
When both quantitative and quantitative measures were used to students’ perceptions of career barriers to explore other results have emerged from these two reviews. When students had a choice to predetermined list of wide assessments given, they rated the tight labor market as the top concern, followed by lack of connection. The findings of this study showed that students often use problem-oriented methods to deal with barriers.
Again, although the qualitative method may have limited students from considering all possible coping strategies, students turned on internal (hard to improve themselves, work) over external assistance (eg professional help) to find solutions. This result showed a consistency in the qualitative data, because internal barriers (lack of experience, motivation, self-confidence) more than external ones (tight labor) were cited. Finally, the moderate relationship found in this study showed that although students were able to career decision in the hospitality industry , they do not have the confidence in this field to conquer the barriers.
By studying the career development processes of hospitality students, hospitality teachers will benefit from understanding how to help students cope with barriers and hospitality situated in a better position to help students with their career goals. Decreasing barriers in students’ career planning will improve hospitality students control over their career behavior. A conscious choice of career, a meaningful career goal and career preparation will facilitate hospitality students commitment to their career choices and retention in the hospitality industry. Career Decision Making and Intention: a Study of Hospitality Undergraduate Students
Summary This study focused on a sample of hospitality undergraduate students and had three main objectives: First, to determine factors that affect their career-related decisions; second, to explore motivations for pursuing a hospitality career; and third, to examine whether the probability of hospitality students’ career intentions can be predicted by selected variables Self-Efficacy. This concept dominates career development theories and may be best described as “Can I do this? ”. Self-efficacy serves as a mediator to motivate people to achieve a special goal, such as pursuing a career in the hospitality industry.
Self-efficacy is about individuals’ belief in their ability to carry out the following five tasks: self-appraisal, vocational information gathering, plans for the future, problem solving, and goal selection. Performing these five tasks is essential to achieve career maturity. Outcome Expectations. This factor is an important determinant of “career interests and choice goals” and may be best described as “If I do this, what will happen? ”. Outcome expectations are both the intrinsic and extrinsic rewards that career choices and goals are based on. Vocational Exploration.
This factor refers to a process that an individual engages when choosing a career. This process begins with exposure to various sources of information (about one’s self, the vocational world, and alternative options) and involves activities such as (a) testing occupational preferences and interests, (b) evaluating suitability and obtaining feedback, (c) establishing career goals and overcoming barriers and obstacles, and (d) engaging in and committing to a career choice. Career Intentions. This factor is defined as “the degree to which a person has formulated conscious plans to perform or not perform some specified future behavior”.
Both self-efficacy and outcome expectations are predictors of “career intentions and persistence behavior”. Three methods of data analysis were performed in this study. First, a series of bivariate correlation analyses was conducted to test the relationships among career-related variables. Second, logistic regression analysis was performed to test the hypothesis and identify background and career-related variables that significantly predicted the probability of students’ intention to work in the hospitality industry after graduation.
Third, students’ responses to one open-ended question were thematically analyzed. This question encouraged students to express their own views and opinions about pursuing careers in the hospitality industry. The authors results hold three main implications for both hospitality educators and industry. First of all, hospitality students in this study identified themselves as the most influential factor in making career decisions and also reported intrinsic rewards as more valuable outcomes or motivators for pursuing careers than extrinsic.
Implications of this finding suggest that hospitality firms continue to create industry positions that promote “self-reliance,” “autonomy,” “advancement,” “opportunities for personal and professional development,” and “sense of achievement”. These researchers concluded that “money alone does not motivate a young manager” “the strongest driver of commitment is the intrinsic nature of the job,” and “one of the most important job features focuses on challenging job that offers growth opportunities”. Industry may also find our qualitative data on students’ motivations for pursuing a hospitality career valuable.
Their responses matched with industry professionals’ views regarding qualifications for hospitality graduates in the 21st century, and included service attitude, flexibility, enjoy serving people, enjoy what you do, dedication, and commitment. Second, hospitality educators may find our regression analysis on factors affecting undergraduate students’ career intentions worthwhile when planning curriculum. For example, female students were found to show stronger intentions to work in the hospitality industry than male students. How does the material/information in the articles relate to the career development programme hat you followed at IHM? The IHM career development programme is created to prepare the student for his/her professional life after graduating IHM. By the use of several obliged tests and assignments, the student and his/her study career coach try to find out what the weaknesses and more important, strengths of the student are. Along with the before mentioned activities, the students tries to acquire skills that might help him/he in the future. Because the author of this assignment is currently a second year student, the first two years of the career development programme are examined.
According to (Kuang Chuang, 2011) most of the career development programmes are designed to fit the student in a profile that companies expect. However the turnover rate in the hospitality industry is extremely high, most of the universities do not change their programmes to decrease this high turnover rate. As mentioned before, students are bounded to several tests in order to increase their chance to receive a suitable job after graduation. The examples given in the article of the before mentioned authors, are the so called job-barriers.
These barriers are events of circumstances that are part of career development difficulties of the ex-student. Examples of barriers are; inflexible working hours, poor financial compensation and the lack of growth. Students mentioned these three barriers as most important factors to leave the industry. Nowadays the industry, together with the universities, realize more and more that the students’ point of view is important as well. Only fitting into a profile is not applicable anymore in the current market. Personal opinions, from students in this case, are becoming the new standard.
The link with the IHM career development programme is that IHM tries to learn the student a range of skills that might turn out useful in any industry and not only the hospitality industry. Improving the lack of experience and motivation are also an important part of the programme. Of course fitting into a certain profile is also part of the programme, e. g. company visitations in the first year, and the expectations that derive from these visitations. Overall the article concludes that hospitality teachers will benefit from understanding how to help students with their barriers and how to give them a better position on the future market.
A well chosen choice of career, a well structured goal and preparation will improve the chance of reaching the goals of students. The second article (Ning-Kuang Chuang and Mary Dellmann-Jenkins, 2010), tries to understand the factors that are involved in choosing a future career for students. Further objectives were if the career intentions of students can be predicted by researching several variables. In accordance with the IHM programme, the articles explains the importance of self efficiency. It can be best described as; Can I do this?
Part of the self efficiency are also individuals’ belief in their ability to carry out the following five tasks: self-appraisal, vocational information gathering, plans for the future, problem solving, and goal selection. Especially in the practical modules, students are constantly challenged to improve their performance and look critically towards themselves and to others. These factors are essential in achieving a mature and professional student. The focus in this part lies on the last two factors, problem solving and goal selection because these to factors can be best related to the career development programme of IHM.
One of the boundaries that lies in the main question in this part of the assignment is the fact that all the articles should relate to the career development programme. However, the entire educational programme of IHM focuses on the before mentioned factors, and therefore this part will also include information about the rest of the IHM programme. The most obvious factors in the IHM programme related to problem solving is Problem Based Learning. In short, PBL. During these sessions students are trained in solving real life problems, that might also occur in the careers of the students contributing in a session.
But PBL is in the authors opinion not only about solving problems but also about setting goals. What does a group want to achieve, will that challenge them, and why do the students want to know it? All these aspects of the IHM programme relate to this article in such a way that IHM also tries to find out why a student wants to achieve something. In the article, the students stated that money was not the only motivator in a job, but the intrinsic value that was found in a job gave the decisive. Especially these intrinsic values are also mentioned in the industry as most important in hiring people.
Therefore the IHM educational programme is an extension of the article or the other way around. Describe in your own words how a manager of a hospitality company can use the information derived from the articles and the career development programme. What is a leader? Is a leader someone born to lead, or someone learned to lead? In earlier times especially men were considered leader that were born. There gender and background gave them the status that was expected and necessary to lead. In those days, most of the leaders were autocratic leaders, not much or little attention was given to the human aspects of leading.
According to (Judi Brownell, 2010), the ‘great man’ concept was the way to look at leaders. Nowadays leaders are considered transformational, they change according to what is needed to lead successful. The next step is the servant leadership style in which the leader seeks to support and empower followers. The implications are considerable for the hospitality industry, since it is based on the concept of leadership through service. In the current market there is a need for trustworthy leaders who lead with integrity. Care about employees and the environment are considered more and more important.
Keywords are trust and respect, however motives of leaders are, or are becoming questionable, and more often employees are stressed, disillusioned and disengaged. Is the personality of the leader the key factor in success? Or can a leader be trained to be a leader as mentioned before? Servant leadership might be the new success, but I have my doubts about the ‘new’ element in this case. The hospitality industry has always been an industry were not the employees, but the guests and their expectations were considered most important.
Employees in this industry have always been servants of guests. In my opinion is a good leader in a hospitality company, a trustworthy, respectable and integer person. One that has feeling with his company and his employees in order to let the guest feel at home and treated as such. Quality increases when employees feel respected and valued. While both servant and transformational leaders seek to empower employees, servant leadership adds an personal aspect to the business beyond what is normally found in transformational leadership.
According to (Titus Oshagbemi, 2008), t would be useful to know what personal characteristics, such as age, and gender have on leadership which is based on some suggested principles. For example, how do older and younger top-level and lower-level organisational leaders differ in their leadership activities? Older workers are considered more calm and understated, they tend to cooperate and delegate more work compared to their younger employees. Also these older workers show a greater degree of empathy and care for their colleagues, they work to develop and promote others instead of themselves.
According to my opinion all this theory is important but not essential. Of course a leader can be trained in more or less disciplines of the hospitality business. But overall a leader is born, a leader has a natural feeling of what he/she has to do in order to make his employees do what he/she wants without being questioned. In addition to this most important factors a good leader, let his/her employees feel valued and respected. I think a hospitality leader is a leader that can deal with all sorts of problems. The most important information in these two articles is the information about the servant leadership.
This kind of leadership should, in my opinion, almost be natural in a hospitality company. It doesn’t maybe give direct rewards or benefits, but it would increase the quality of a lot of companies. A leader is in every way a role model, not only business wise but also personal wise. When answering the main question, for a hospitality manager without the natural leadership ability, I would recommend to turn the entire process around. Try to find out what you would like to experience when visiting your own company. How should the staff treat you, how should the overall feeling be?
Explore what being a leader is about? According to these articles there are different ways to achieve a successful company. In addition to these articles, a manager should learn how to develop him/herself, the career development programme gives lot of opportunities to do so. By the hand of e. g. a Belbin Teamroletest or a Core Quality Quadrant, a manager might come up with ways to improve his leadership capabilities. But in my opinion, a manager hopefully already owns this kind of knowledge about him/herself, and should not have to rely on a university programme.
Describe in your own words the importance of self management, personal leadership and career development for your personal professional development as a manager. Self management is the ability to lead a group without being constantly supervised or controlled. Little is actually known about the pro’s and con’s of self management, on the one hand it is a positive factor that individual peers can form an autonomous group, with self control. A group that makes it own decisions and is responsible for its performance. Skills like: leadership, cooperation and team-building can be learned.
On the other hand, one might say that conflicts easily occur within a group, these conflicts might decrease the overall performance in this group. Conflicts are caused by a bad designed group, a group without clear agreements and without a clear structure. In this case the self management in my own personal professional development as a manager is the main issue. E. g. is the experience I gained at IHM with self managed groups. Especially in module assignments, teamwork is at the essence. Placed most of the time in a random group, it is just luck whether you are placed in a productive group, or not.
Of course there are the workshops about cultural differences, effective teamwork and communication skills, but these workshops do not contribute to the basic of these groups. A group consists out of 4 peers, 2 peers are contributing and obviously 1 or 2 are not. This is the problem that, in my opinion, comes forward in any group. Answering the before mentioned main subject, self management is extremely important, if carried out correctly. Students at IHM, might get the feeling that there are always negative aspects in a group process. This is a negative aspect in the self managing atmosphere of IHM.
However I believe that if carried out correctly and if just slightly supervised, the before mentioned, negative peers get the feeling that they also have to work in order to reach the set objectives. So concluded I would say that self management is important when becoming a future manager but it should be learned correctly in order to succeed. Secondly I will explain my vision on personal leadership in my personal professional development as a manager. As mentioned earlier in this assignment, I think leaders are born instead of taught. I realize that in the current, international market, this vision is to black and white.
I understand the importance of knowing the theory behind leading and the ability to perform according to the theory. In addition I will specify the ”manager” part in the earlier mentioned statement. At IHM we are becoming future hospitality managers. In my opinion hospitality managers should have a common feeling of what a guest actually wants. The basic should be right in order to successfully create a future manager. Besides all the business, marketing and HRM knowledge, the basic should be right. Therefore I think that just a percentage of all the IHM graduates will become successful future hospitality managers.
This might also be a reason for the high turnover in the industry, however this will not be examined further in this assignment. Self management will however remain one of the most important factors in our future jobs, because of the increasing globalization and the changing nature of the hospitality industry. Finally this part of the assignment will focus on the career development part in becoming a manager. In my opinion standing still is … Especially in the current modern business market, every single individual has to keep improving whenever the possibilities are present.
Improving does not only relate to performing better, but also on the before mentioned fact of dealing with problems, the so called barriers. These barriers will not only come up when being a manager, but will cross the paths of current IHM students as well. Therefore I would like to explain the importance of career development by using the example of the students, becoming managers. I think one of the most important factors in career development is to turn the barriers into something positive. Learn from the difficulties that will sooner or later arise. Together with this barrier dealing issue, the performing part is the other main aspect.
I think it is wise for managers in any industry to improve their overall performance constantly. Not only from learning theory, but from learning the industry as well. Explore what, related to the hospitality industry, your guests want and how their needs change. What are the trends and how will you use these in your advantage? Write a reflection of what you have learned from this replacement assignment, and how this can help you to make the right career decisions for you. At first, I have to be honest, I thought of this assignment as just the next of many others.
The same aspects of the career development programme highlighted again. Until the moment that I started searching for articles. I realized that there was a lot to learn about these kind of programmes. Information that I had never seen before. Useful research that had been done concerning real life students’ ”problems”. In the last part of this replacement assignment I will focus on the 3 factors mentioned in the part above. Self management As mentioned earlier in this assignment I consider the luck factor in a designated module assignment group as a negative aspect. But maybe I should consider this barrier as a positive factor.
I will help my fellow peers to gain a feeling with a project, try to guide them trough the available theory and set up clear rules and agreements. This might be a positive influence in a group. These steps will improve the group process and eventually the overall performance. Therefore I consider this a right decision in my upcoming career. Personal leadership I always have, and still do, consider myself as a leader type of person. This comes forward out of my personal experiences. E. g. I have been the chairman of several commissions, part of the largest student hockey club in the Netherlands.
And I used to be the captain of my team. One of my strong points is that I can understand the position of other people in situations, I always try to listen carefully, not only to what people are telling me, but also what they don’t. During my first two years at IHM, especially my practical module points and PBL points, underline this personal skill. Positive feedback from PBL coordinators and fellow peers also prove this. Currently my objective is to get a internship at the famous Amstel Hotel in Amsterdam. During my third year at IHM I will focus more on what is expected from me if I want to get the internship.
Together with the Industrial Placement Office, I will try to make the right decisions in this step of my career as well. Career development After making this assignment I think I will consider the career development programme of IHM as a useful part of the education, instead of a less interesting way to receive credits. I think it would be good to make these kind of assignments part of the career development programme, because it offers a lot of information to students that they otherwise wouldn’t have seen at all. It also gives students the opportunity to broaden their horizon bout career development, further than the basic assignments, in my opinion, for the portfolio do. The assignments given in the first 2 years of the education give not really a in depth view of the benefits the programme has. Conclusion Finally I want to conclude that however I didn’t like the assignment at first, I realize that it will contribute to my career development programme in a positive way. After reading all the information in the articles, my look on the programme changed. It became clear to me that it is a way of preparing you for your upcoming professional life, however at first I might not seem that way.
I read more about self management, career development and personal leadership in one week than in the rest of the two years together, and learned a lot. Literature list 1. Ning-Kuang Chuang. (2011). Job-Related Barriers and Coping Behaviors in the Career Development of Hospitality Undergraduates . Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism. 14-32. DOI: 10. 1080/15332845. 2010. 500183 2. Ning-Kuang Chuang and Mary Dellmann-Jenkins. (2011). Career Decision Making and Intention: a Study of Hospitality Undergraduate Students. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 2010 34: 512 originally published online 19-05-2010.
DOI: 10. 1177/1096348010370867 3. Judi Brownell. (2011). Leadership in the Service of Hospitality. AUGUST 2010 Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 363. Volume 51, Issue 3 363-378. DOI: 10. 1177/1938965510368651 4. George W. Langfred. (2007). THE DOWNSIDE OF SELF-MANAGEMENT. Academy of Management Journal 2007, Vol. 50, No. 4, 885–900. 5. Titus Oshagbemi. (2008). The impact of personal and organisational variables on the leadership styles of managers. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 19, No. 10, October 2008, 1896–1910.