Innovations in Hospitality Human Resources: Cases from the U.S. Lodging Industry

[Excerpt] Today’s hospitality and tourism companies face complex, dramatically shifting challenges, most notably the need to compete for increasingly sophisticated customers in a global, fluid marketplace. To attract and retain the loyal cadre of customers that will ensure the organization’s success, service companies such as hospitality organizations must employ technologically advanced, yet margin sensitive, product and pricing strategies and practices that will differentiate themselves to their intended market. Even more importantly, these service organizations need to devise strategies that will capture and retain the most important yet, from a financial perspective, unrecognized asset on the balance sheet: the employees that design and deliver the service to the customer base. Human resource strategists (i.e. Becker & Gerhart, 1996; Cappelli & Crocker-Hefter, 1996; O’Reilly & Pfeffer, 2000; Pfeffer, 1998; Ulrich, 1997), including those who take a hospitality perspective (i.e. Baumann, 2000; Hume, 2000; Worcester, 1999) advocate a renewed attention to the investment in employees or “human capital” as a source of strategic competitive advantage.

A Flow-Through Analysis of the US Lodging Industry During the Great Recession

Purpose – The objective of this exploratory study is to investigate the “flow-through” or relationship between top-line measures of hotel operating performance (occupancy, average daily rate and revenue per available room) and bottom-line measures of profitability (gross operating profit and net operating income), before and during the recent great recession. Design/methodology/approach – This study uses data provided by PKF Hospitality Research for the period from 2007-2009. A total of 714 hotels were analyzed and various top-line and bottom-line profitability changes were computed using both absolute levels and percentages. Multiple regression analysis was used to examine the relationship between top and bottom line measures, and to derive flow-through ratios. Findings – The results show that average daily rate (ADR) and occupancy are significantly and positively related to gross operating profit per available room (GOPPAR) and net operating income per available room (NOIPAR). The evidence indicates that ADR, rather than occupancy, appears to be the stronger predictor and better measure of RevPAR growth and bottom-line profitability. The correlations and explained variances are also higher than those reported in prior research. Flow-through ratios range between 1.83 and 1.91 for NOIPAR, and between 1.55 and 1.65 for GOPPAR, across all chain-scales. Research limitations/implications – Limitations of this study include the limited number of years in the study period, limited number of hotels in a competitive set, and self-selection of hotels by the researchers. Practical implications – While ADR and occupancy work in combination to drive profitability, the authors' study shows that ADR is the stronger predictor of profitability. Hotel managers can use flow-through ratios to make financial forecasts, or use them as inputs in valuation models, to forecast future profitability. Originality/value – This paper extends prior research on the relationship between top-line measures and bottom-line profitability and serves to inform lodging owners, operators and asset managers about flow-through ratios, and how these ratios impact hotel profitability.

Do Individuals or Firms Matter More? The Case of Patent Generation

This paper studies the relative importance of individual inventors’ human capital and firms’ organizational capital in promoting a firm’s innovation output. We decompose the variation in innovation output into inventor- and firm-specific components. Inventors’ human capital is about 13 times as important as firms’ organizational capital in explaining a firm’s innovation performance in terms of patent counts and citations, while inventors’ human capital is only about the same as important when explaining the firm’s innovation styles in terms of patent exploratory and exploitive scores. In the cross section, inventors contribute more to innovation output when they are better networked, in firms with higher inventor mobility, in industries in which innovation is more difficult to achieve, and in publicly traded firms. Additional tests suggest that our main findings continue to hold after accounting for inventors’ endogenous moving. This paper highlights the importance of individual inventors in enhancing firm innovation and sheds new light on the theory of the firm.

Autonomous Vehicles and Commercial Real Estate

Hardly a day goes by without the release of a handful of news stories about autonomous vehicles (or AVs for short). The proverbial “tipping point” of awareness has been reached in the public consciousness as AV technology is quickly becoming the new focus of firms from Silicon Valley to Detroit and beyond. Automation has, and will continue to have far-reaching implications for many human activities, but for driving, the technology is here. Google has been in talks with automaker Ford (1), Elon Musk has declared that Tesla will have the appropriate technology in two years (2), GM is paired-up with Lyft (3), Uber is in development-mode (4), Microsoft and Volvo have announced a partnership (5), Apple has been piloting its top-secret project “Titan” (6), Toyota is working on its own technology (7), as is BMW (8). Audi (9) made a splash by sending a driverless A7 concept car 550 miles from San Francisco to Las Vegas just in time to roll-into the 2016 Consumer Electronics Show. Clearly, the race is on.

Joint Leverage and Maturity Choices in Real Estate Firms: The Role of the REIT Status

We explore the interdependence of leverage and debt maturity choices in Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) and unregulated listed real estate investment companies in the U.S. for the period 1973-2011. We find that the leverage and maturity choices of all listed real estate firms are interdependent, but in contrast to industrial firms, they are not made simultaneously. Across the different types of real estate firms considered, we find substantial differences in the nature of the relationship between leverage and maturity. Leverage determines maturity in non-REITs, whereas maturity is a determinant of leverage in REITs. We suggest that the observed differences reflect the effects of the REIT regulation, rather than solely being a function of real estate as the underlying asset class. We also present novel evidence that the relationship between leverage and maturity in both firm types can be used to moderate the effects of other exogenous financing policies.

On the Capital Structure of Real Estate Firms

The leverage and debt maturity choices of real estate companies are interdependent, and are not made separately as is often assumed in the literature. We use three-stage least squares (3SLS) regression analysis to explore this interdependence for a sample of listed U.S. real estate companies and Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) traded between 1973 and 2006.We find substantial differences in the nature of the relationship between leverage and maturity for the two firm types. Leverage is a determinant of maturity for non-REITs, whereas maturity is a determinant of leverage for REITs. We also find that the drivers of capital structure choices in real estate companies and REITs clearly reflect the effects of the REIT regulation.