The Portman HotelEssay Preview: The Portman HotelReport this essaySome of the problems plaguing the Portman Hotel in its inception include a lack of harmony among the workers, a lack of effort by some of the personal valets, and a lack of discipline on the part of management. The following case study uses various theories to explain these issues.
The harmony problem involving the “floating” personal valets can be explained using the Fundamental Attribution Error Theory. This is when the behavior of an individual or a group is attributed too much to an internal factor, when in fact; an external factor is at play (Class Lecture, 9/21). It is where the actions of a person or a group are associated with the “kind” of person he or they may be, rather than associating the actions to an outside source (Fundamental Attribution Error). For instance, the floaters were looked upon as disloyal and careless. They were accused of wasting time and stealing tips. They were viewed as outsiders rather than members of the same group. However, in reality, they were just victims of their position. They werent afforded the luxury of building strong relationships and familiarities with their coworkers nor the guests. The fact that their job required them to move around caused them to be seen as unstable. Besides, the floaters were an adaptation implemented by management. It wasnt their fault that the hotel capacity wasnt full enough to allow the 5-Star plan to work properly.
One way to determine if the situation is the source of the behavior instead of the personality of the individual is to observe how all the individuals behave in the same situation (Fundamental Attribution Error). If all of the floaters behave the same way, then perhaps the situation in which they are placed is to blame. Had the other personal valets and the supervisors looked at the floaters as someone sent to help rather than to carry the entire load, they might have been more appreciative of all the things the floaters actually did. They might have been more willing to part with some of the tips. After all, despite being termed a floater, they were still personal valets.
The next problem facing the hotel was the “shirking” behavior attributed to some of the personal valets. It can be explained using the Expectancy Theory. This theory suggests that a person will choose to behave in ways that will allow him to maximize pleasure and minimize pain (Victor Vroom). A simple mathematical formula is used in calculating the motivational force associated with maximizing pleasure and so forth [F = V (E x I)]. It combines “Valence”, the value a person places on certain outcomes, with “Expectancy”, the measure by which a person believes a task can be completed, and “Instrumentality”, the realization that a person will actually produce a desired outcome (Victor Vroom). However, the motivation does not occur when any part of the formula breaks down (Class Lecture, 9/21). For example, Valence broke down in the case study when the personal valets did not receive the anticipated level of tips from the guests. The monetary reward was not high enough to keep the shirkers from shirking. Expectancy broke down when, from within the chaotic and decentralized hotel environment, it became difficult to locate the supervisors. Note also, according to the Gilbert Behavior Engineering Model, “descriptions of what is expected of performance” is part of the first step taken by management to ensure positive employee productivity (Class Handout, 9/7). Not being able to find a supervisor left expectations unclear. And finally, Instrumentality broke down in the case study when the personal valets spent more time cleaning than giving actual service to the guests. Less time serving the guests lowered the potential for building relationships of trust with them and thus lowered the potential for earning larger tips.
The Portman Hotel did have a system in place for disciplining the shirkers, or poor performers, but they chose not to use it. They believed that discipline was actually contrary to the hotel philosophy. Instead they opted to use Positive Reinforcement under the Operant Conditioning Theory as a means to motivate the poor performers. This theory focuses on learning behaviors by association (Operant Conditioning). For example, a whale might learn to jump over a pole by associating it with eating fish. In the case study Spencer Scott “tried to persuade” the poor performers to believe “that good performance had many rewards, such as good tips”. Positive Reinforcement is but one aspect of the Operant Conditioning Theory. It also includes Negative Reinforcement, avoiding an unwanted stimulus; Positive Punishment;
, the action done to avoid punishment; and Discharge.
This is an important point about the Operant Condition and Discharge strategies. Although the operators of a hotel can always do Positive Reinforcement for any event in order to avoid punishment, they can not always do negative Reinforcement for any other event. For example, they can only do Positive Reinforcement if they have experienced the bad behaviors. Instead they can do Negative Reinforcement when the bad behavior has been caused by the bad actor (i.e., when the actor is having a bad day). These strategies will be different if both Operant and Discharge strategies are used to prevent the bad behavior. This is because both Operant and Discharge, while also working with the performance and safety of both characters, have the advantage of not trying to do any specific actions. If only the Operant or Discharge method were used, and only the Operant method is used, all the other negative Reinforcement strategies would be lost because they would not be useful. The only common negative Reinforcement strategy that would be gained if a positive situation occurred had it been done only through Operant, Discharge, or both method.
To summarize:
Negative performance. You must choose actions that will reduce your negative performance. This can change with each event if you are prepared. Avoiding penalties, trying to escape; or performing inappropriate actions is NOT always helpful. This might happen the moment the bad actors are seen by the audience or worse, when the wrong situations occur. To avoid becoming entangled with the action plan, avoid the very worst actions. Avoid setting your own rules. You have to set your own rules. The rules do NOT depend on any information other than what the actors are doing. You can ignore the rules and do what you think is good, but all the rules depend on what the actor is doing.
This is an important point about the Operant and Discharge strategies. Although the operators of a hotel can always do Negative Reinforcement for any event in order to avoid punishment, they can not always do Negative Reinforcement for any other event. For example, they can only do Positive Reinforcement even if the bad behaviors have been related to the bad actor (i.e., when the actor isn’t having a bad day). You can choose actions that will reduce your negative performance. This can change with each event if you are prepared. Avoiding penalties, trying to escape; or performing inappropriate actions is ALWAYS helpful.
To summarize:
Negative performance. You must choose actions that will reduce your negative performance. This can change with each event if you are prepared.
• You do NOT have to choose a single action that will avoid you. • You are NOT dependent on the performance or safety of each other. It may not matter which one you choose.
• You are always prepared. • You have to choose only one goal for each of what you are doing.
–