Selection Of Students For Hotel Schools: A Comparative Study

In the discussion - Selection Of Students For Hotel Schools: A Comparative Study - by William Morgan, Professor, School of Hospitality Management at Florida International University, Morgan’s initial observation is: “Standards for the selection of students into schools of hospitality management around the world vary considerably when it comes to measuring attitudes toward the industry. The author discusses current standards and recommends some changes.” In addition to intellectual ability, Professor Morgan wants you to know that an intangible element such as attitude is an equally important consideration to students seeking curriculum and careers in the hospitality field. “…breaches in behavior or problems in the tourist employee encounter are often caused by attitudinal conditions which pre exist the training and which were not able to be totally corrected by the unfreezing, movement, and refreezing processes required in attitudinal change,” says Morgan. “…other than for some requirements for level or grade completed or marks obtained, 26 of the 54 countries sampled (48.1 percent) had no pre-selection process at all. Of those having some form of a selection process (in addition to grades), 14 schools in 12 countries (22.2 percent) had a formal admissions examination,” Professor Morgan empirically provides. “It was impossible, however, to determine the scope of this admissions examination as it might relate to attitude.” The attitude intangible is a difficult one to quantify. With an apparent sameness in hotels, restaurants, and their facilities the significant distinctions are to be found in their employees. This makes the selection process for both schools and employers a high priority. Moreover, can a student, or a prospective employee, overcome stereotypes and prejudices to provide a high degree of service in the hospitality industry? This query is an important element of this article. “If utilized in the hotel, technical, or trade school or in the hiring process at the individual facility, this [hiring] process would provide an opportunity to determine if the prospective student or worker is receptive to the training to be received,” advises Professor Morgan. “Such a student or worker is realistic in his aims and aspirations, ready in his ability to receive training, and responsive to the needs of the guest, often someone very different from himself in language, dress, or degree of creature comforts desired,” your author further counsels. Professor Morgan looks to transactional analysis, role playing, languages, and cross cultural education as playing significant roles in producing well intentioned and knowledgeable employees. He expands upon these concepts in the article. Professor Morgan holds The International Center of Glion, Switzerland in high regard and cites that program’s efforts to maintain relationships and provide graduates with ongoing attitudinal enlightenment programs.

Toward a unified theory of task -oriented and relationship -oriented leader behavior: A multi -country generalizability study

The theoretical foundation of this study comes from the significant recurrence throughout the leadership literature of two distinct behaviors, task orientation and relationship orientation. Task orientation and relationship orientation are assumed to be generic behaviors, which are universally observed and applied in organizations, even though they may be uniquely enacted in organizations across cultures. The lack of empirical evidence supporting these assumptions provided the impetus to hypothetically develop and empirically confirm the universal application of task orientation and relationship orientation and the generalizability of their measurement in a cross-cultural setting. Task orientation and relationship orientation are operationalized through consideration and initiation of structure, two well-established theoretical leadership constructs. Multiple-group mean and covariance structures (MACS) analyses are used to simultaneously validate the generalizability of the two hypothesized constructs across the 12 cultural groups and to assess whether the similarities and differences discovered are measurement and scaling artifacts or reflect true cross-cultural differences. The data were collected by the author and others as part of a larger international research project. The data are comprised of 2341 managers from 12 countries/regions. The results provide compelling evidence that task orientation and relationship orientation, reliably and validly operationalized through consideration and initiation of structure, are generalizable across the countries/regions sampled. But the results also reveal significant differences in the perception of these behaviors, suggesting that some aspects of task orientation and relationship orientation are strongly affected by cultural influences. These (similarities and) differences reflect directly interpretable, error-free effects among the constructs at the behavioral level. Thus, task orientation and relationship orientation can demonstrate different relations among cultures, yet still be defined equivalently across the 11 cultures studied. The differences found in this study are true differences and may contain information about cultural influences characterizing each cultural context (i.e. group). The nature of such influences should be examined before the results can be meaningfully interpreted. To examine the effects of cultural characteristics on the constructs, additional hypotheses on the constructs' latent parameters can be tested across groups. Construct-level tests are illustrated in hypothetical examples in light of the study's results. The study contributes significantly to the theoretical understanding of the nature and generalizability of psychological constructs. The theoretical and practical implications of embedding context into a unified theory of task orientated and relationship oriented leader behavior are proposed. Limitations and contributions are also discussed. ^