Barriers and resistance to change in hotel rms: an investigation at unit level

Fevzi Okumus School of Hotel and Restaurant Management, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK Nigel Hemmington School of Hotel and Restaurant Management, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK

The aims of this paper are to investigate the barriers and the sources of resistance to change in hotel rms and to evaluate the change in strategies adopted in seeking to overcome these barriers. Primary data were gathered through in-depth semi-structured interviews in nine hotels in the UK. The ndings indicate that the cost of change, nancial difficulties and the pressure of other priorities are the main barriers to change in hotel rms. The ndings also indicate that hotel companies use multiple change strategies in overcoming barriers to change. Finally, the limitations of the research are discussed and opportunities for further research are identied.

Introduction
In order to survive in an increasingly turbulent and aggressive competitive environment organizations are having to learn to manage change; as Ulrich (1998) states, the pace of change today, because of globalisation, technological innovation, and information access, is both dizzying and dazzling. Alexander (1985) and Kotter (1995), however, note that the majority of change projects are not successfully implemented because of difficulties and obstacles faced during the change process. Because of this concern about the implementation of change, there is a growing interest in the literature, and among the rms themselves, in identifying and evaluating the sources of resistance and therefore the barriers to change. Most of the literature on managing change has been related to manufacturing industries and fails to address the issues associated with change in service industries and more specifically the hotel industry . Conceptual and empirical research is therefore needed to ll this gap in the hotel management literature. The objectives of this paper are therefore to identify and investigate the barriers and the sources of resistance to change in hotel organizations and to evaluate the main change strategies adopted in seeking to overcoming these barriers.

Theoretical background
A review of the literature reveals a number of potential barriers to change as indicated in Table I (Alexander, 1985; Carnall 1995; Overholt et al., 1994; Strabel, 1996; Thomas 1985). These barriers can be categorized as internal or external, or they may be grouped in terms of perceptual, economic, emotional, cultural or technical dimensions (Carnall, 1995; Thomas, 1985). It is important to note, however, that the list in Table I is not exhaustive and that each organization will face a

range of potential sources of conict depending on the particular situation they face at the time. Indeed, Carnall (1995) and Grundy (1993) suggest that managers should analyse each change situation cautiously and seek to anticipate any potential barriers which may impede or slow down the implementation of change. The use of analytical tools to evaluate change situations is proposed in much of the change management literature. The most commonly suggested approaches include stakeholder analysis, systems analysis and force-eld analysis (Grundy, 1993; Plant, 1995; Thomas, 1985). Stakeholder analysis is useful in identifying inuential people or groups who could support or impede the change process. Systems analysis has been found to be essential in evaluating the inuence of change on the wider organization and interaction with its environment. Finally, forceeld analysis provides a framework to compare and evaluate the restraining and driving forces for change. The identication of potential barriers to change is vital. However, it is perhaps more important to decide on and evaluate how hotel rms can overcome and manage resistance and possible sources of resistance to change. Kotter and Schlesingers (1979) pioneering study advocates six change strategies; education and communication, participation and involvement, facilitation and support, negotiation and agreement, manipulation and cooptation and coercion. Plant (1995), Nutt (1989) and Johnson and Scholes (1997) also suggest similar strategies. Interestingly, these authors also recommend that managers consider multiple strategies contingent on the organizational situation rather than relying on a single strategy to implement change.

International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 10/7 [1998] 283288 MCB University Press [ISSN 0959-6119]

Research methodology
A qualitative approach based on multiple case studies (Yin, 1994) and critical incidents

[ 283 ]

Fevzi Okumus and Nigel Hemmington Barriers and resistance to change in hotel rms: an investigation at unit level International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 10/7 [1998] 283288

(Easterby-Smith et al., 1991) was adopted as the most suitable approach for an exploratory study of this kind (Robson, 1993; Yin, 1994). Semi structured interviews and archival analysis were chosen as appropriate data collection methods. A semi-structured interview questionnaire was developed and piloted with one expert in hotel industry research at Oxford Brookes University and one restaurant manager in Oxford city centre. A sample of 25 hotels was selected from the London, Oxford, Reading and Swindon areas and general managers were contacted by post to explain the purpose of the research and to request an appointment for an interview. Location, size, brand and ownership were the main criteria for the selection of hotels. Ten hotel managers (two were from one hotel) agreed to be interviewed. Most of them had more than six years managerial and operational experience in the industry . Of the nine hotels selected for the study four were AA 3 star, three were AA 4 star and two were AA 5 star. Five of the hotels were members of large hotel groups and four were independent hotels. The interview schedule took place over one month. Each hotel was visited personally and the duration of the interviews was approximately one hour. In order to ensure complete and accurate records the interviews were tape recorded and hand-written notes were also taken. Each manager was asked for the details of the most recent change of signicance undertaken in the hotel and then the interview focused on this specic change case (see Table II for the ten sample cases). Several

main issues were identied and the interviewees were asked for more details wherever necessary . After the interview schedule, all the notes and tapes were transcribed and patterns were identied and coded to analyse the interview ndings (Miles and Huberman, 1994). Each interviewee was asked whether there was any documentation related to the case. Two managers provided documents but they proved to be of little relevance to the analysis. In some cases, managers were reluctant to provide documents or reports because of concerns about condentiality . It is interesting to note, however, that in most of the cases sampled, there was no documentation generated. Because of this lack of information, archive analysis proved to be unsuccessful as a method of data collection in this study .

Findings
The main barriers and sources of resistance to change in hotel rms identied in this study are shown in Table III. In three cases (creating a new management position, updating the computer system and opening a new engineering department), managers claimed not to have faced any signicant barriers or resistance. On the other hand, in the implementation of two cases, re-branding and repositioning, managers faced signicant barriers to change. Overall, nancial difficulties, the cost of change and lack of resources were found to be the most important constraints to change in hotels. All managers agreed that change is essential if the company is to survive and prosper, but they claimed that it is often expensive and that the company cannot always afford it. In most cases where the unit general managers wanted to implement change they had to ask head office for permission for any expenditure and use of the companys resources. In all cases, it was clear that before implementation both the head offices and the unit managers would conduct some form of cost-benet analysis to ensure that the company could afford the change and that

Table I A list of main barriers and resistance to change in organizations High cost of change Financial difficulties Time limitation Priority of other businesses Technical difficulties Fear of insecurity Losing something valuable Lack of skills and resources Unpleasant previous experience Commitment to the current practices Strong organizational culture Internal politics Powerful trade unions Government regulations

Source: adapted from Alexander (1985); Carnall (1995); Overholt et al., (1994); Strabel (1996); Thomas (1985)

Table II The sample change cases chosen for the research Re-positioning Re-branding Computer instalments Updating the computer system Opening a new reservation department Restructuring the organizational chart Opening an engineering department Creating a new management position Introduction of multi-skill training programmes Changing the menu and the service style in the F&B department

Table III Main barriers and resistance to change in hotel rms Financial difficulties Cost of the change Lack of resources Fear of losing the existing customer Time limitation Priority of other businesses Lack of co-operation and skills Fear of insecurity Losing something valuable Internal politics

[ 284 ]

Fevzi Okumus and Nigel Hemmington Barriers and resistance to change in hotel rms: an investigation at unit level International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 10/7 [1998] 283288

it was worth investing companys resources on the project. Customers were also identied as an important potential source of resistance to change. For example, in the cases of re-branding, repositioning and changing the menu and the service style in the F&B department, managers were concerned with the possibility of losing their existing customers as a result of implementing change. There were indications that each company carried out some kind of formal or informal market research to assess whether the changes would upset existing customers and whether it would attract new customers to the hotel. The interesting issue was that managers had some difficulty in identifying and understanding the resistance to change from customers. As one manager said, customers dont tell you anything about their dissatisfaction with the hotel, they would rather go somewhere else. Because of this all three cases carried out marketing and sales promotion activities during the implementation phase to inform existing and potential customers. Time limitation and the pressure of other priorities both emerged as important barriers to change. This was reected in the fact that during the process of implementing change none of the hotels were closed. Clearly, commercial factors required each hotel to continue to operate and it was the hotel managers responsibility to ensure that the process of change would not have any signicant effect on continued service delivery . It was also interesting that several respondents noted that the change process often took more time than they had expected or planned. Employees and departmental managers were also identied as a potential source of resistance. The majority of the respondents indicated that in the beginning, employees and even managers were suspicious and concerned. As one manager admitted, this was to be expected because they were moving from the security of the well-known into unfamiliar territory . The main reasons for this were suspicion, a general dislike of change, the potential for the loss of jobs and benets, lack of skills and commitment to the status quo. For example, in two of the cases (changing the organizational structure and changing the menu) there were some departmental managers who exhibited either explicit or signs of implicit resistance to change for what were assumed to be political reasons. In both cases, however, the resistance was overcome and in the case of changing the organizational structure some of those resisting change were forced to leave the company . There were indications of political resistance

in some of the other cases but the resource limitations of this study precluded further indepth investigation of these situations. In several cases (opening a reservation department and changing the menu) it was noted that the resistance from employees was often constructive. The managers who implemented change in these situations admitted that criticisms from some staff and departmental managers were very helpful and actually helped them to see the change from a different perspective. In addition, in some cases, such as creating a new management position, opening a new engineering department and updating the computer system, it was claimed that there was no resistance from employees at all and that in fact some staff actively helped the managers before and during the implementation process. According to the managers the reasons for this were that they had communicated with staff prior to the implementation stage, they had trained them thoroughly and that they had made it clear that the changes were both practical and benecial for both the company and the employees. Communication, training, participation, involvement, planning and power emerged as the important aspects of the strategies used by managers in this study . In all cases communication appeared to be the most important factor in the change process; all the managers claimed to use communication at each stage of the change process. It was signicant, however, that they all seemed to use a top-down rather than a more two-way approach to communication. Training emerged as the second most important aspect of the change strategies adopted by managers in this study . It was clear that they often used teamwork as an important dimension of their strategy, and by this they meant participation and involvement. In addition, it appeared that initially they had a soft approach in overcoming resistance using training, communication, participation and involvement. If they still anticipated resistance and problems, they then tended to use gradually more hard approaches such as negotiation, edict and eventually power to eliminate the barriers. It was noted that overcoming barriers to change in hotels that were part of larger chains appeared easier than in independent hotels. This was because of the support of the company head office which invariably helped unit general managers and if necessary sent expert teams to the hotel. As an example, in the case of updating the computer system, it was stated by the manager that the hotel group had previously piloted and implemented this change in units elsewhere

[ 285 ]

Fevzi Okumus and Nigel Hemmington Barriers and resistance to change in hotel rms: an investigation at unit level International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 10/7 [1998] 283288

and these earlier trials had provided important guidance in the implementation of this change in his hotel. It was also evident that in the cases of re-branding and re-positioning, the company head office had made available the necessary resources and had provided guidelines and support in developing training programmes for employees. This support clearly helped managers in overcoming resistance to change and in solving problems in a more efficient way . The managers in this study appeared to rely heavily on their personal experience when analysing change situations. This was probably a consequence of the fact that none of the managers had had any formal training or development in the process of managing and implementing change strategies.

Discussion
Table III shows the main barriers and sources of resistance to change in hotel rms as identied by this study . Comparison with Table I indicates a consistency with the literature in that the majority of the barriers identied in previous studies (Alexander, 1985; Carnall, 1995; Overhalt et al., 1994; Strabel, 1996) have also emerged in this study of hotels. However, the signicance of the barriers and resistance to change varied according to the nature of the change; the extent to which it was radical or minor, and the change situation. For example, in three cases (creating a new management position, updating the computer system and opening a new engineering department) managers claimed that they did not face any signicant barriers and resistance. On the other hand, in the implementation of two cases (re-branding and re-positioning), managers faced signicant barriers. This is consistent with the opinions of Johnson and Scholes (1997) who argue that the more radical the change the more likely it is to meet signicant resistance. Re-branding and re-positioning are clearly quite radical changes and are likely therefore to involve more people, resources and time, all of which increases the potential for conict and resistance. Financial difficulties, lack of resources and the cost of change were found to be the most important constraints to change in hotels. It was clear that each company ensured, either through formal or informal analysis, that there was sufficient nance and other resources available before implementation. It is signicant that this study has only investigated cases that had already been implemented and, on the evidence of these ndings, it would seem reasonable to assume that in every company there will have been other change situations that

have been either postponed or cancelled due to nancial constraints. Consistent with the literature customers appeared to be another important source of potential resistance to change in hotels. Because customer reaction to change is difficult to assess before implementation has been completed, hotels tend to conduct promotional activity to inform customers during the implementation phase. In carrying out market research before change and informing existing and potential customers during and after change, companies seek to reduce potential resistance from customers. This approach based on external customer education and communication is signicant as a strategy in overcoming barriers and resistance to change from customers that is not specically identied in any of the change management literature. A further interesting nding was that time limitation was found to be an important barrier to change in hotels; this supports Alexanders (1985) ndings. Operational issues and the pressure of other priorities were also found to be potential barriers to change. It was clear that, apart from managing change, each hotel had other operational and managerial priorities. It was particularly interesting to note that some of the managers found managing change risky and implied that the management of change should not be considered as a primary responsibility of hotel managers. Respondents in this sample clearly saw themselves as managers of the operational status quo rather than innovators, change agents or strategic managers. This has interesting implications in terms of the perceived role of the hotel general manager. Employees were also found to be a potential source of resistance to change in hotels. This is consistent with Carnalls (1995) ndings; however it was noted that the degree of resistance varied depending on the cycle of the change process. At the beginning of the change process a high degree of resistance was often faced but as the process proceeded this resistance often reduced. The explanation for this seems to be that employee attitudes towards change improve as their involvement and understanding increases. This has clear implications for the role of communication, involvement and training in the change process. Supporting Bowman and Ashs (1987) ndings, there were several cases where there was constructive and rational resistance from employees which helped managers to see the change from a different perspective. In addition, in some cases, there was no resistance at all and some employees helped the managers before and during the

[ 286 ]

Fevzi Okumus and Nigel Hemmington Barriers and resistance to change in hotel rms: an investigation at unit level International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 10/7 [1998] 283288

implementation process. The stated reasons for this were that they used strategies of communication, training and participation and that they had explained how the changes were benecial and practical for both the organization and the employees. In short, it appears that the key to prevent and overcome resistance to change is the ability to harness constructive criticism through participation, active training and communication. Consistent with the arguments found in the literature (Carnall, 1995; Johnson and Scholes, 1997; Pettigrew et al., 1992) internal conict and politics emerged as a potential barrier to change in hotel rms. However, as stated earlier, due to resource and access limitations, this area could not be investigated in further depth. Surprisingly, organizational culture did not emerge as a signicant barrier to change although it is often referred to in the literature. It is also worth noting that of all the cases investigated none was stopped or altered because of resistance from hotel employees. Several managers stated that the employees in the hotel industry are not powerful enough to impede change. This can perhaps be explained in terms of the nature of the hospitality industry including the prevalence of an autocratic management style, low unionization, high labour turnover and low pay (Wood, 1994). As discussed above, depending on the situation hotel managers used multiple change strategies in preventing and overcoming the barriers and resistance to change; this is consistent with Kotter and Schlesingers (1979) recommendations. It seems that the ability to use multiple strategies such as communication, training, participation, planning and perhaps power at the right time and in the right situation is an important factor in addressing the majority of the barriers and potential sources of resistance, particularly from employees. Related to this issue, a further interesting issue is that overcoming barriers and resistance to change in chain hotels appears to be easier than in independent hotels. This is because head office can support individual hotels through the transfer of experience and learning from location to location as well as providing more general resources, guidelines and training. None of the respondents had any formal training or development in the management of change. It was probably because of this that they did not seem to use any of the analytical tools recommended in the literature. It was felt that appropriate training programmes in the management of change would assist managers particularly in identifying and overcoming the potential barriers in a more effective and efficient way . It would also help

managers to better understand and evaluate internal politics and dynamics (Stacey, 1996) of their companies when they are implementing changes.

Conclusions
From this research several conclusions can be drawn. First, there are important similarities between hotel rms and manufacturing rms in terms of facing and overcoming barriers and potential resistance to change. Second, nancial issues and constraints appear to be the most important potential barrier to change in hotel rms. Other signicant potential barriers are customers, time limitations, the pressure of operational priorities and employees. A further conclusion is that uni-dimensional change strategies are insufficient to overcome most potential barriers to change. Hotel managers need to adopt multiple strategies, the nature of which will depend on the particular change situation. In general, the abilities, skills, experience of unit general managers and the active support of head office appear to be the key factors in overcoming the barriers and resistance to change in hotel rms. It is recommended, therefore, that head offices and unit managers should develop an appropriate organizational culture and working environment where head office and unit managers co-operate and communicate effectively . It is also suggested that hotel rms should provide development in change management for their managerial staff in order to help them to understand the dynamics of change and to learn how to cope with complex change situations. It is believed that these programmes can help hotel companies to be more proactive towards change in the long term.

Limitations and further research

This study has several theoretical and methodological limitations. First, the research was carried out in the UK and therefore the ndings are culturally bound and are likely to have limited application to other countries. Second, due to time and other resource constraints, a limited sample was used and only one data collection method was employed (archive analysis proved to be unsuccessful). Third, research was carried out at only one managerial level (unit level) and the interviews focused on successfully implemented change cases and did not include any failure situations. Finally, the fact that the research was based on reported

[ 287 ]

Fevzi Okumus and Nigel Hemmington Barriers and resistance to change in hotel rms: an investigation at unit level International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 10/7 [1998] 283288

data should also be considered as a limitation as this type of data can only reect the respondents perceptions and individual perspectives. This study should be seen as a starting point for research into change management in the hospitality eld. It is hoped that it will stimulate further research to provide valuable insights for both academics and practitioners. Areas for further research can be proposed as follows: Investigation of unsuccessful change cases may provide a better insight into the evaluation of barriers and organizational dynamics, particularly related to assessing the impact of internal politics. Further research can also investigate how head office and units can/should work together in developing and implementing successful changes. Many hotel rms have become international over the last two decades. These rms, obviously , attempt to implement various changes in different countries and cultures. An investigation of the barriers and resistance to change in different geographical locations and cultures could prove to be interesting for both academics and practitioners. This study used a multiple case study approach. However, it would also be useful to choose a single case and carry out indepth analysis as recommended by Johnson (1988), Pettigrew et al. (1992). Finally, future studies should seek to triangulate their research results through the use of multiple research methods (such as combinations of interviews, document analysis, observation and questionnaires) at different levels of management in order to collect deeper and more reliable data.

References
Alexander, L.D. (1985), Successfully implementing strategic decisions, Long Range Planning, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 91-7. Bowman, C. and Ash, D. (1987), Strategic Management, Macmillan, Basingstoke.

Carnall, C.A. (1995), Managing Change in Organizations, Prentice-Hall, Hemel Hempstead. Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R. and Lowe, A. (1991), Management Research, Sage, London, pp. 83-4. Grundy, T. (1993), Implementing Strategic Change, Kogan Page, London. Johnson, G. (1988), Strategic Change and the Management Process, Basil Blackwell, Oxford. Johnson, G. and Scholes, K. (1997), Exploring Corporate Strategy, Prentice-Hall, London. Kotter, J. P. (1995), Leading change: why transformation efforts fail, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 73 No. 2, March-April, pp. 59-67. Kotter, J.P. and Schlesinger, L.A. (1979), Choosing strategies for change, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 57 No. 2, March-April, pp. 106-14. Miles, M.M. and Huberman, A.M. (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, Sage, London. Nutt, P.C. (1989), Selecting tactics to implement strategic plans, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 145-61. Overholt, M., Kroegor, L. and Prager, K. (1994), Changing people, changing organizations, Information Strategy: The Executives Journal, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 39-48. Pettigrew, A., Ferlie, E. and McKee, L. (1992), Shaping Strategic Change, Sage, London. Plant, R. (1995), Managing Change and Making It Stick, Harper Collin, London. Robson, C. (1993), Real World Research, Blackwell, Oxford. Stacey, R.D. (1996), Strategic Management & Organizational Dynamics, 2nd ed., Pitman Publishing, London. Strabel, P. (1996), Why do employees resist change?, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 74 No. 3, May-June, pp. 86-92. Thomas, J. (1985), Force eld analysis: a new way to evaluate your strategy, Long Range Planning, Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 54-9. Ulrich, D. (1998), A new mandate for human resources, Harvard Business Review, JanuaryFebruary , pp. 125-33. Wood, R.C. (1994), Organizational Behaviour for Hospitality Management, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford. Yin, R.K.(1994), Case Study Research Design and Methods, Sage, London.

[ 288 ]