This case study discusses the evolution of the Courtyard Hotels by Marriot. The hotels were started in the early 80’s to serve the cost conscious business traveler. At its onset each Courtyard had a general manager. Under the general manager were a sales manager, front desk manager, restaurant manager, maintenance supervisor and housekeeping manager. The general manager had complete authority in selecting employees. Courtyard managers attribute their success to: treating their people well, paying a fair wage, good benefits, good career opportunities, standard operating procedures (SOP’s), and everyone has their position and every position is important. Next, the case study discusses another Marriot chain, Fairfield Inn. Fairfield is a no frills hotel, specifically for business people who spend a lot of time on the road. In order to prevent a high turnover rate, Fairfield Inn developed a program to select, train, recognize, and compensate entry level front line service providers. They began by implementing a program to hire individuals suited to their positions. Then they instituted a performance based compensation program which included bonuses for superior performance, and/or overtime and additional paid vacation for excellent attendance. Training focused on team building and the development of good work habits. They also had a program for recognizing and rewarding effective employees. One employee comments: “I like the way this place feels, we work together. Everyone helps everyone else. I think that’s why people stay here.” It is also noted that the physical layout and size of the hotel, small staff, single break room for everyone, and the break room’s location next to the manager’s office, contributed to increased job satisfaction and communication. The article goes on to discuss the changes at Courtyard through the early 90’s. Through the 80’s general managers were concentrating on operational rather than sales or total contribution issues. With the onset of the recession they were encouraged to focus on maximizing revenue. The style of management audits changed and there were efforts to reduce overhead in the chain. More changes came in 1992, the structure of middle and operating management. Managers expressed that the command and control type of organization set up in the 80’s was right for the time, but it was time to look for other ways to manage. They wanted to give more autonomy to managers to make decisions and share ideas. The article ends by discussing two possible paths the senior management may choose to follow. Critique: When dealing with a hotel chain workforce the “typical” hierarchal bureaucracy makes sense. This is not an industry which requires creativity from its employees. The hotel management is planned out, right down to the design of the kitchen. Every hotel looks relatively the same, and follows the same rules and procedures. I would imagine that individuals with personalities that feel comfortable with knowing what is expected fill these management positions. These individuals are typical managers. By restructuring the company to allow more autonomy, they are essentially no longer asking for just managers, but leaders, people with vision and creativity who will work to make the hotel fit their personal style. In the case of hotel management I believe it would be a mistake to change the structure in this way. They have very structured policies in place which allows the organization to run efficiently. The performance based compensation procedures work well for motivating and rewarding individual employees. The focus is on team building and good work habits. Employees come to work knowing what is expected of them each day. The organization runs efficiently and there are no surprises for the most part. This type of model cannot work for schools, in my opinion. Schools are unique in that its customers are children who, in most cases, are not able to articulate their needs directly. As educators we must be allowed the freedom to seek what those needs are and meet them in varied ways. We are not only in the business of meeting our “bottom line” (test scores), we are in the business of inspiring others. This requires creative individuals who are given enough autonomy to meet the individual, day to day needs of the students.
Marriott Corporation determined management changes were necessary in their Courtyard Hotels due to market slump. The modification was influenced by their Fairfield Inn product due to Courtyard and Fairfield becoming a unified division of Marriott Corporation. Courtyard produced higher revenue than Fairfield. Through extensive research, Courtyard management focused on the needs of the customer. Management rated employee’s performance. Courtyard employees measured their success in relation to the performance of other employees. Incentives were provided to middle management for corporate revenue. Fairfield line management was shorter and they focused on the cleanest rooms and the friendliest staff. Performance based compensation was given to employees on an individual and team basis. Employee’s performance was rated by the customer. In 1992 management of Courtyard Hotels and Fairfield Inns was combined and the Senior Management had to form a new structure. Discussion commenced on what options from each organizational structure and process would be best to implement for the Courtyard/Fairfield Inn division.
Courtyard met their goals of profitability and Fairfield met their goals of satisfied staff. Both enterprises shared the goal of satisfied customers. It was a sound decision to maintain the majority of satisfied Fairfield staff due to the new structure creating a larger work load for the managers. Fairfield staff was accustomed to focusing on “team building and the development of good work habits”. The staff felt valued which maintained a low staff turnover. The Fairfield structure provided staff that was able and permitted to make decisions that benefited the entire division. Senior Management now encouraged sharing of ideas and coordination of marketing strategies. With the elimination of competition representatives from the two styles of management were able to share opinions and implement positive strategies that would achieve both the goals of customer satisfaction and revenue targets while maintaining productive staff. The Marriot structure works well for large corporations, but it would not be optimum structure for an education system where the person at the bottom of the system carries the largest responsibility for the positive output.
In the case study Courtyard by Marriott discusses the numerous changes in management in a years time. This study describes two primary types of travelers Courtyard was designed to attract: the funtional roomer who desired a good value hotel and the security seeker who desired security and comfort. The management structure of the hotel was General Manager-Department Managers-Supervisors. There was a total of three management levels at the hotel site. In 1992, Courtyard needed to cut cost and increase revenue. They had to combine the hotel's middle management and general managers had to take responsibilty for their properties to improve profitability. Courtyard had a couple ideas for the changes. One was to allow general managers to redesign the management structure in order to create a more uniform structure. Plus, each hotel would have specific cost reduction and revenue enhancement goals to increase accountability. The other idea was general managers would redesign their unit management structures to create ownership in the day to day operating decisions. They could create management structures for their individual hotels that would benefit their customers plus employee situation. The Courtyard Marriott seems to spend a lot of money on management structure and on out of date computer technology in order to receive customer input about their organization. Their old system wasn't working for them because they were losing tremendous amount of money because of the changing syndication market. I do agree that Courtyard needed to change along with the changing market place. This organization does value team building amongst employess along with a structured management system. However, this system is proving to be costly. I do agree with condensing the struture by having the general managers operate more than one hotel to reduce management cost and maybe eliminating supervisors between departments but keep the department managers. This article doesn't relate to education because these are two different organizations with totally different needs.
Courtyard by Marriot case study discusses the current environment in which they operate has been negatively affected by the real estate and hotel markets which have been depressed, thus, leading to a number of management changes. They were forced to make management changes that included the type of clientele they want to service, restructuring of the three levels of management, and incentive programs for employees at all levels. Marriot defined two types of traveler they wanted to service: “functional roomers” which wanted a “not fancy, good value hotel experience” and the second group were called “security seekers” which consisted of travelers not entirely comfortable with travel and who wanted to be reassured about security and comfort. The main objective for Marriot was to cut costs and increase revenue, so they had to combine middle management with general managers to help improve profitability. Some ideas included general managers creating management structures for their individual hotels that would benefit their customers plus employee satisfaction. I like the idea that each general manager operate more hotels and eliminate costs by cutting supervisory positions. Can we do this in education today? Cut costs, increase responsibility, and have incentives that promote happier employees. It is difficult enough to do what we have to do with the governor constantly cutting the education budget, so I don’t think we can cut anymore in the education budget- even though the governor just did! Increasing responsibility is great but that will increase costs to pay extra stipends or positions for teachers taking on the extra responsibilities. Merit pay sounds good but how do we make it equitable for all teachers. Some teachers may have many proficient or advanced students and a few basic or below basic students. Other teachers may have many basic or below basic students and a few advanced or proficient students. Although it sounds good merit pay almost seems impossible in education. I think it would only create more problems than good.
This website provides guidance on facilitating conflict resolution best practices amongst our students. It is interesting to see how well the strategies can easily be applied to our adult counterparts as well. I can see how the exercises work well with students in the classroom and possibly even teachers in the boardroom.
In the case study "Courtyard by Marriott" a review of the hotel's history, targeted clients, organization and culture were examined. The history of Courtyard, Marriott dates back to the early 80's with tremendous growth into the 90's. The targeted client population was the moderate travelor. Courtyard, Marriott divided it's clients into two categories. The first was the "functional roomers," where they needed the room to function in terms of sleep, work and entertainment. The second type of travelor discussed was the "security seekers," whom were most interested in security and comfort. The organization and culture of the Courtyard, Marriott was the major portion of the case study. The management's three levels and individual responsibilities were discussed at length. These three levels consist of the general manager, hotel supervisor and individualized specific area managers and supervisors. The case study also examined specific strategies employed by the organization at certain sites to foster economic gain and staff stability.
The management structure of the Courtyard, Marriott did several things right. Their focus on their specific travelor/customer to their hotel was evident. The case study discussed an example of one hotel site's attempts to reduce staff turnover. Through a three round new hire procedure they were able to find individuals that were the "best fit" for their positions that had a better chance of staying in the job for the long haul. Performance based compensation programs was another excellent idea employed to produce quality labor and reward those deserving of it. Another aspect examined by the study was management structure changes made mandatory due to a recession. They discussed two paths to deal with this restructuring and I agreed with Path Two which allowed general managers freedom to determine the management structure at their individual site to foster the highest economic gains. This individualistic approach takes into account that not hotels are the same, regardless if their franchised or not. When the location changes so does the customers and employees to appropriately reflect the surrounding populations. There isn't a cookie cutter structure that will be the best for all sites and Path Two takes this into account. Path One allowed general managers to choose the managers but didn't allow them to set up the structure, limiting their ability to add extra supervision where it's use would out weigh the costs.
This case study informs the reader about the history of the Marriott chain of hotels and the changes it had to adapt to over a period of time to remain successful. In 1983, the Courtyard by Marriott began its venture by the simple philosophy of supply and demand. They used data to establish what was missing in the hotel industry, with regards to business travelers. What they came up with was a recipe for success, by gaining feedback from the business travelers and there needs and wants. A new recipe fro success was created, which fit the customer’s needs. The Marriott understood that the customer required a high quality room that fit the customer’s business needs as well as their comfort needs. A facility that allowed the customer to work right at their hotel, by having important accommodations, like two large conference rooms, a nice restraint, and large enough rooms to entertain guests. Most importantly, the feeling of being in a safe place. A key ingredient to the success of the hotel chain was managing the hotels and keeping the employees happy. What they did was create a working team: general manager supervised his/her team managers: sales manager, front desk, restaurant manager, maintenance supervisor, and housekeeping. An effective positive atmosphere which gave employees incentives to work well and do their best consistently. The economy changed a little in the late 1980’s and Marriott created another product called the Fairfield Inn. This was basically for the business traveler on a budget. One who didn’t need all the luxuries that courtyard provided. These people were called the “Road warrior.” Later, as time continued to change, the family environment which previously was successful had to change because of the economy. As the economy changed so did the management style. It started to come down to the profit that was being made and not the excellent customer service which it had established. It became too big too fast, and times had changed. Now they needed to merge the two chains and establish a system which would make both hotels work efficiently and still turn a profit. There were two different plans for management. One was to pretty much keep things the way they were with little change, and the other was to have each hotel unit work independently to fit its own needs. As I read this case study I was amazed at the strategies that they used to successfully manage each hotel. I liked the systematic approach with incentives. Then the worst thing happened, quality suffered due to quantity on paper. (profit).
I found this article pretty interesting. When I lived in Camarillo, a new Courtyard by Marriott was built just off our freeway off ramp. It was very nice, and we did stay there a few years ago when visiting relatives. I was impressed by its simplicity and efficiency. I had no idea that so much research had been done and that Marriott had intentionally built the line of hotels with specific travelers in mind. Reading the background made sense and also reminded me of how we currently use research in education. It was also interesting to see how they work as an organization. The general manager is much like a superintendent, the area managers are like principals, and the front line service providers are like the teachers and other staff members. The difference is in the philosophy of who they hire and how they keep their staff. In education, there is a “gut feeling” when choosing to hire a particular person for a specific job, and yet NCLB has definitely put constraints on who is qualified for certain positions. Also, school districts don’t always “treat their people well.” Wages may be comparable between districts, but they aren’t always fair, and good benefits are becoming a thing of the past. Plus, teachers are locked into their jobs. Movement isn’t possible because after five to seven years, you loose your seniority and step and column on the pay scale. It doesn’t pay any teacher to move from district to district, so I wouldn’t say there are good career opportunities for teachers. Standard Operating Procedures are in place, but they vary from school to school, and district to district. With the Marriott, training was focused on teaching everyone at the hotel what the SOPs were and how to perform them. This is similar to inservices, yet teachers aren’t necessarily expected to perform everything that is presented. I also found it interesting that a potential customer study had been performed. Don’t you wish we could study our potential customers, and determine who it is that we wish to serve? What a novel idea that there was a program to select, train, recognize and compensate entry level front line service providers. Isn’t that much like our teacher training/student teaching? Unfortunately, our training isn’t done in an effort to reduce turnover and absenteeism, or to increase the quality and consistency of the work performed by teachers/principals. And, wouldn’t it be interesting if teachers and principals were given personality skills profile tests to see if they were suited for their jobs? Marriott gave bonuses for superior performance, and/or overtime and additional paid vacation for excellent attendance, and bonuses based on an individual’s performance. The idea of merit pay for teachers, based on their performance and their student’s scores, is something that has been tossed around in the educational arena for years, and I’m sure that it will continue to be debated for many years. At this point in time, our district has been in a battle over using “don’t ask/don’t tell days” and it has become a huge contract issue in the last few years. Where is the incentive there? We are finally entering the age of PLC’s that promote team building and good work habits, but not everyone will be on the band wagon, and I have no doubt that the pendulum will swing yet again before they are fully functioning. The last part of the article talked about reducing overhead based on a slow down in the economy and the two options that the Marriott Corporation considered. Don’t we all wish that it were that easy, and that we could all have a say in how to “cut the budget cuts.” Things are changing so fast, how do we keep up, and still keep our costs down? Like Marriott, we must consider our demographic and psychographic profiles, and make the best of the situation, even though our research shows us who were serve, not who we would like to serve. Should we put a Scorecard system into place? I’m not sure that would work because the bottom line is that even though we are providing a service, it is in the area of human services, and that is a different business altogether!
This case study refers to two hotels, Courtyard by Marriott and Fairfield Inn. Courtyard catered to the business traveler while Fairfield Inn catered to the “road warrior.” These hotels were designed to suit the “functional roomers” as well as the “security seekers.” Both hotels were based on simplicity and being an economical choice.
Courtyard has been negatively affected by the depressed real estate and hotel markets. They have had to make significant managerial changes throughout the nineties to address continuing financial realities. They were established with a general manager who oversaw a sales manager, front desk manager, restaurant manager, maintenance supervisor, and housekeeping manager. They began to combine management and make necessary cuts. Senior management encouraged the two chains to work together and to share ideas. As these changes were made, more changes were still necessary.
They continued to need to more efficiently meet the customers’ needs while improving profitability. The senior management saw two basic options. The first option would include setting up criteria to see which management positions would remain and which would be eliminated. The senior management would make top down decisions and would mandate cost reduction and revenue improvement. The second option would be to give the general managers the authority to redesign their management structures. This would give the general managers ownership and the ability to be creative.
I feel that the second path is the best choice. By giving the general managers control, they are able to have buy-in. They can develop unique plans to cut costs, and increase profits. They can agree to objective criteria. This choice is also the closest to what many schools are moving towards with collaborative communities. District offices are giving individual schools more power so that they can make the necessary changes for improvement.
9 comments:
This case study discusses the evolution of the Courtyard Hotels by Marriot. The hotels were started in the early 80’s to serve the cost conscious business traveler. At its onset each Courtyard had a general manager. Under the general manager were a sales manager, front desk manager, restaurant manager, maintenance supervisor and housekeeping manager. The general manager had complete authority in selecting employees. Courtyard managers attribute their success to: treating their people well, paying a fair wage, good benefits, good career opportunities, standard operating procedures (SOP’s), and everyone has their position and every position is important.
Next, the case study discusses another Marriot chain, Fairfield Inn. Fairfield is a no frills hotel, specifically for business people who spend a lot of time on the road. In order to prevent a high turnover rate, Fairfield Inn developed a program to select, train, recognize, and compensate entry level front line service providers. They began by implementing a program to hire individuals suited to their positions. Then they instituted a performance based compensation program which included bonuses for superior performance, and/or overtime and additional paid vacation for excellent attendance. Training focused on team building and the development of good work habits. They also had a program for recognizing and rewarding effective employees. One employee comments: “I like the way this place feels, we work together. Everyone helps everyone else. I think that’s why people stay here.” It is also noted that the physical layout and size of the hotel, small staff, single break room for everyone, and the break room’s location next to the manager’s office, contributed to increased job satisfaction and communication.
The article goes on to discuss the changes at Courtyard through the early 90’s. Through the 80’s general managers were concentrating on operational rather than sales or total contribution issues. With the onset of the recession they were encouraged to focus on maximizing revenue. The style of management audits changed and there were efforts to reduce overhead in the chain. More changes came in 1992, the structure of middle and operating management. Managers expressed that the command and control type of organization set up in the 80’s was right for the time, but it was time to look for other ways to manage. They wanted to give more autonomy to managers to make decisions and share ideas. The article ends by discussing two possible paths the senior management may choose to follow.
Critique:
When dealing with a hotel chain workforce the “typical” hierarchal bureaucracy makes sense. This is not an industry which requires creativity from its employees. The hotel management is planned out, right down to the design of the kitchen. Every hotel looks relatively the same, and follows the same rules and procedures. I would imagine that individuals with personalities that feel comfortable with knowing what is expected fill these management positions. These individuals are typical managers. By restructuring the company to allow more autonomy, they are essentially no longer asking for just managers, but leaders, people with vision and creativity who will work to make the hotel fit their personal style. In the case of hotel management I believe it would be a mistake to change the structure in this way.
They have very structured policies in place which allows the organization to run efficiently. The performance based compensation procedures work well for motivating and rewarding individual employees. The focus is on team building and good work habits. Employees come to work knowing what is expected of them each day. The organization runs efficiently and there are no surprises for the most part.
This type of model cannot work for schools, in my opinion. Schools are unique in that its customers are children who, in most cases, are not able to articulate their needs directly. As educators we must be allowed the freedom to seek what those needs are and meet them in varied ways. We are not only in the business of meeting our “bottom line” (test scores), we are in the business of inspiring others. This requires creative individuals who are given enough autonomy to meet the individual, day to day needs of the students.
Marriott Corporation determined management changes were necessary in their Courtyard Hotels due to market slump. The modification was influenced by their Fairfield Inn product due to Courtyard and Fairfield becoming a unified division of Marriott Corporation. Courtyard produced higher revenue than Fairfield. Through extensive research, Courtyard management focused on the needs of the customer. Management rated employee’s performance. Courtyard employees measured their success in relation to the performance of other employees. Incentives were provided to middle management for corporate revenue. Fairfield line management was shorter and they focused on the cleanest rooms and the friendliest staff. Performance based compensation was given to employees on an individual and team basis. Employee’s performance was rated by the customer. In 1992 management of Courtyard Hotels and Fairfield Inns was combined and the Senior Management had to form a new structure. Discussion commenced on what options from each organizational structure and process would be best to implement for the Courtyard/Fairfield Inn division.
Courtyard met their goals of profitability and Fairfield met their goals of satisfied staff. Both enterprises shared the goal of satisfied customers. It was a sound decision to maintain the majority of satisfied Fairfield staff due to the new structure creating a larger work load for the managers. Fairfield staff was accustomed to focusing on “team building and the development of good work habits”. The staff felt valued which maintained a low staff turnover. The Fairfield structure provided staff that was able and permitted to make decisions that benefited the entire division. Senior Management now encouraged sharing of ideas and coordination of marketing strategies. With the elimination of competition representatives from the two styles of management were able to share opinions and implement positive strategies that would achieve both the goals of customer satisfaction and revenue targets while maintaining productive staff. The Marriot structure works well for large corporations, but it would not be optimum structure for an education system where the person at the bottom of the system carries the largest responsibility for the positive output.
In the case study Courtyard by Marriott discusses the numerous changes in management in a years time. This study describes two primary types of travelers Courtyard was designed to attract: the funtional roomer who desired a good value hotel and the security seeker who desired security and comfort. The management structure of the hotel was General Manager-Department Managers-Supervisors. There was a total of three management levels at the hotel site.
In 1992, Courtyard needed to cut cost and increase revenue. They had to combine the hotel's middle management and general managers had to take responsibilty for their properties to improve profitability. Courtyard had a couple ideas for the changes. One was to allow general managers to redesign the management structure in order to create a more uniform structure. Plus, each hotel would have specific cost reduction and revenue enhancement goals to increase accountability. The other idea was general managers would redesign their unit management structures to create ownership in the day to day operating decisions. They could create management structures for their individual hotels that would benefit their customers plus employee situation.
The Courtyard Marriott seems to spend a lot of money on management structure and on out of date computer technology in order to receive customer input about their organization. Their old system wasn't working for them because they were losing tremendous amount of money because of the changing syndication market. I do agree that Courtyard needed to change along with the changing market place. This organization does value team building amongst employess along with a structured management system. However, this system is proving to be costly. I do agree with condensing the struture by having the general managers operate more than one hotel to reduce management cost and maybe eliminating supervisors between departments but keep the department managers. This article doesn't relate to education because these are two different organizations with totally different needs.
Courtyard by Marriot case study discusses the current environment in which they operate has been negatively affected by the real estate and hotel markets which have been depressed, thus, leading to a number of management changes. They were forced to make management changes that included the type of clientele they want to service, restructuring of the three levels of management, and incentive programs for employees at all levels.
Marriot defined two types of traveler they wanted to service: “functional roomers” which wanted a “not fancy, good value hotel experience” and the second group were called “security seekers” which consisted of travelers not entirely comfortable with travel and who wanted to be reassured about security and comfort.
The main objective for Marriot was to cut costs and increase revenue, so they had to combine middle management with general managers to help improve profitability. Some ideas included general managers creating management structures for their individual hotels that would benefit their customers plus employee satisfaction. I like the idea that each general manager operate more hotels and eliminate costs by cutting supervisory positions.
Can we do this in education today? Cut costs, increase responsibility, and have incentives that promote happier employees. It is difficult enough to do what we have to do with the governor constantly cutting the education budget, so I don’t think we can cut anymore in the education budget- even though the governor just did! Increasing responsibility is great but that will increase costs to pay extra stipends or positions for teachers taking on the extra responsibilities. Merit pay sounds good but how do we make it equitable for all teachers. Some teachers may have many proficient or advanced students and a few basic or below basic students. Other teachers may have many basic or below basic students and a few advanced or proficient students. Although it sounds good merit pay almost seems impossible in education. I think it would only create more problems than good.
http://www.co-operation.org/pages/conflict.html
This site takes a look at conflict specifically in the classroom. It addresses the following issues revolving around conflict.
The definition of conflict
The value of conflict
Teaching constructive conflict resolution strategies
This website provides guidance on facilitating conflict resolution best practices amongst our students. It is interesting to see how well the strategies can easily be applied to our adult counterparts as well. I can see how the exercises work well with students in the classroom and possibly even teachers in the boardroom.
David
In the case study "Courtyard by Marriott" a review of the hotel's history, targeted clients, organization and culture were examined. The history of Courtyard, Marriott dates back to the early 80's with tremendous growth into the 90's. The targeted client population was the moderate travelor. Courtyard, Marriott divided it's clients into two categories. The first was the "functional roomers," where they needed the room to function in terms of sleep, work and entertainment. The second type of travelor discussed was the "security seekers," whom were most interested in security and comfort. The organization and culture of the Courtyard, Marriott was the major portion of the case study. The management's three levels and individual responsibilities were discussed at length. These three levels consist of the general manager, hotel supervisor and individualized specific area managers and supervisors. The case study also examined specific strategies employed by the organization at certain sites to foster economic gain and staff stability.
The management structure of the Courtyard, Marriott did several things right. Their focus on their specific travelor/customer to their hotel was evident. The case study discussed an example of one hotel site's attempts to reduce staff turnover. Through a three round new hire procedure they were able to find individuals that were the "best fit" for their positions that had a better chance of staying in the job for the long haul. Performance based compensation programs was another excellent idea employed to produce quality labor and reward those deserving of it. Another aspect examined by the study was management structure changes made mandatory due to a recession. They discussed two paths to deal with this restructuring and I agreed with Path Two which allowed general managers freedom to determine the management structure at their individual site to foster the highest economic gains. This individualistic approach takes into account that not hotels are the same, regardless if their franchised or not. When the location changes so does the customers and employees to appropriately reflect the surrounding populations. There isn't a cookie cutter structure that will be the best for all sites and Path Two takes this into account. Path One allowed general managers to choose the managers but didn't allow them to set up the structure, limiting their ability to add extra supervision where it's use would out weigh the costs.
David
Case study “Courtyard by Marriott”
This case study informs the reader about the history of the Marriott chain of hotels and the changes it had to adapt to over a period of time to remain successful.
In 1983, the Courtyard by Marriott began its venture by the simple philosophy of supply and demand. They used data to establish what was missing in the hotel industry, with regards to business travelers. What they came up with was a recipe for success, by gaining feedback from the business travelers and there needs and wants.
A new recipe fro success was created, which fit the customer’s needs. The Marriott understood that the customer required a high quality room that fit the customer’s business needs as well as their comfort needs. A facility that allowed the customer to work right at their hotel, by having important accommodations, like two large conference rooms, a nice restraint, and large enough rooms to entertain guests. Most importantly, the feeling of being in a safe place.
A key ingredient to the success of the hotel chain was managing the hotels and keeping the employees happy. What they did was create a working team: general manager supervised his/her team managers: sales manager, front desk, restaurant manager, maintenance supervisor, and housekeeping.
An effective positive atmosphere which gave employees incentives to work well and do their best consistently.
The economy changed a little in the late 1980’s and Marriott created another product called the Fairfield Inn. This was basically for the business traveler on a budget. One who didn’t need all the luxuries that courtyard provided. These people were called the “Road warrior.”
Later, as time continued to change, the family environment which previously was successful had to change because of the economy. As the economy changed so did the management style. It started to come down to the profit that was being made and not the excellent customer service which it had established.
It became too big too fast, and times had changed. Now they needed to merge the two chains and establish a system which would make both hotels work efficiently and still turn a profit. There were two different plans for management. One was to pretty much keep things the way they were with little change, and the other was to have each hotel unit work independently to fit its own needs.
As I read this case study I was amazed at the strategies that they used to successfully manage each hotel. I liked the systematic approach with incentives. Then the worst thing happened, quality suffered due to quantity on paper. (profit).
I found this article pretty interesting. When I lived in Camarillo, a new Courtyard by Marriott was built just off our freeway off ramp. It was very nice, and we did stay there a few years ago when visiting relatives. I was impressed by its simplicity and efficiency. I had no idea that so much research had been done and that Marriott had intentionally built the line of hotels with specific travelers in mind. Reading the background made sense and also reminded me of how we currently use research in education. It was also interesting to see how they work as an organization. The general manager is much like a superintendent, the area managers are like principals, and the front line service providers are like the teachers and other staff members.
The difference is in the philosophy of who they hire and how they keep their staff. In education, there is a “gut feeling” when choosing to hire a particular person for a specific job, and yet NCLB has definitely put constraints on who is qualified for certain positions. Also, school districts don’t always “treat their people well.” Wages may be comparable between districts, but they aren’t always fair, and good benefits are becoming a thing of the past. Plus, teachers are locked into their jobs. Movement isn’t possible because after five to seven years, you loose your seniority and step and column on the pay scale. It doesn’t pay any teacher to move from district to district, so I wouldn’t say there are good career opportunities for teachers. Standard Operating Procedures are in place, but they vary from school to school, and district to district. With the Marriott, training was focused on teaching everyone at the hotel what the SOPs were and how to perform them. This is similar to inservices, yet teachers aren’t necessarily expected to perform everything that is presented. I also found it interesting that a potential customer study had been performed. Don’t you wish we could study our potential customers, and determine who it is that we wish to serve? What a novel idea that there was a program to select, train, recognize and compensate entry level front line service providers. Isn’t that much like our teacher training/student teaching? Unfortunately, our training isn’t done in an effort to reduce turnover and absenteeism, or to increase the quality and consistency of the work performed by teachers/principals. And, wouldn’t it be interesting if teachers and principals were given personality skills profile tests to see if they were suited for their jobs? Marriott gave bonuses for superior performance, and/or overtime and additional paid vacation for excellent attendance, and bonuses based on an individual’s performance. The idea of merit pay for teachers, based on their performance and their student’s scores, is something that has been tossed around in the educational arena for years, and I’m sure that it will continue to be debated for many years. At this point in time, our district has been in a battle over using “don’t ask/don’t tell days” and it has become a huge contract issue in the last few years. Where is the incentive there? We are finally entering the age of PLC’s that promote team building and good work habits, but not everyone will be on the band wagon, and I have no doubt that the pendulum will swing yet again before they are fully functioning. The last part of the article talked about reducing overhead based on a slow down in the economy and the two options that the Marriott Corporation considered. Don’t we all wish that it were that easy, and that we could all have a say in how to “cut the budget cuts.” Things are changing so fast, how do we keep up, and still keep our costs down? Like Marriott, we must consider our demographic and psychographic profiles, and make the best of the situation, even though our research shows us who were serve, not who we would like to serve. Should we put a Scorecard system into place? I’m not sure that would work because the bottom line is that even though we are providing a service, it is in the area of human services, and that is a different business altogether!
This case study refers to two hotels, Courtyard by Marriott and Fairfield Inn. Courtyard catered to the business traveler while Fairfield Inn catered to the “road warrior.” These hotels were designed to suit the “functional roomers” as well as the “security seekers.” Both hotels were based on simplicity and being an economical choice.
Courtyard has been negatively affected by the depressed real estate and hotel markets. They have had to make significant managerial changes throughout the nineties to address continuing financial realities. They were established with a general manager who oversaw a sales manager, front desk manager, restaurant manager, maintenance supervisor, and housekeeping manager. They began to combine management and make necessary cuts. Senior management encouraged the two chains to work together and to share ideas. As these changes were made, more changes were still necessary.
They continued to need to more efficiently meet the customers’ needs while improving profitability. The senior management saw two basic options. The first option would include setting up criteria to see which management positions would remain and which would be eliminated. The senior management would make top down decisions and would mandate cost reduction and revenue improvement. The second option would be to give the general managers the authority to redesign their management structures. This would give the general managers ownership and the ability to be creative.
I feel that the second path is the best choice. By giving the general managers control, they are able to have buy-in. They can develop unique plans to cut costs, and increase profits. They can agree to objective criteria. This choice is also the closest to what many schools are moving towards with collaborative communities. District offices are giving individual schools more power so that they can make the necessary changes for improvement.
Post a Comment