Leadership seminar

It is vitally important that a project of this nature have the overt support of top management. To accomplish this, a leadership seminar was held. The participants, the operating team, were corporate officers of the company. This summation of the topics covered and the discussion that ensued will give the reader a picture of the thinking of top managers at the beginning of the project.

Important elements of autonomy included the ideas that you do not dictate when it is not required and that there was a need to address priorities across the board. There was considerable disagreement as to how general managers would respond to more centralized policy decisions.

Individual comments addressed the need for understanding where responsibility lies, what the company expected overall from the general managers, and difficulties in communication.

The company system was described as a group of satellites that float in space and only occasionally come back in and dock.

There was considerable discussion of the concepts of "can versus must", with some people believing in the need to sell policy changes to general managers and others believing that a direct statement of intent should be adequate to ensure compliance.

It was noted that most members of the operating team were former general managers who historically had operated with a high level of autonomy, so current managers should not be more resistant to change than the team members would have been. It was suggested that once a budget was prepared, any deviation should require approval.

Regarding the growth of the company, it was indicated that in the past strong general managers had done what they had to do and nourished. Now management had become more complicated, and there was a void to be filled through corporate direction. Today's demands and pressures were different. The old system worked and was easier because the company was smaller.

It was agreed that autonomy could be preserved if corporate officials chose correctly what policy decisions it would make and how they would be preserved.

There was considerable discussion of both the necessity and difficulty of defining hospitality. It was also stated that performance standards should be established based on the provision of hospitality.

Words used to describe hospitality included welcome, warm, important, family, fun, empathy, concern, friendly, caring, home, comfortable, secure, happiness, recognition of the guest, gentleness, smile, sincerity, and enthusiasm.

It was stated that performance standards should be more specific across the board, and that there should be specific requirements with regard to service for guests.

There was considerable discussion of the concept of uniform policies and their impact on autonomy. Some people said uniform policies already were in place but were not being uniformly administered.

There was a mixed response to how new ideas were believed to be received. Several people said there was a tendency to shoot down a new idea; others disagreed.

The word cautiousness was used to describe how ideas were brought to the table.

There was considerable discussion, too, about the notion of the company as a family and the need for everyone to "come home" on occasion. Several items were thought to reinforce the family concept:

Participants noted that communication and relations with the development group could be improved. The operations group perceived itself to be stronger than the development group. Physical separation tended to increase the finger pointing.

It was indicated that the group needed to spend time on strategies. A case-study approach was suggested, in which up-front preparation would be required. There was general agreement that the time spent in meetings could be more effectively utilized. There was some disagreement about whether or not meetings were merely reporting sessions.

Participants stated that people should feel comfortable to say: "Hey guys, here's a mess, help me out."

The group noted it should meet more often, with the meetings serving as a vehicle for deciding on specific issues.

The leadership seminar led to its own clearly defined statement of general norms, or principles, divided into three categories: existing positive factors, existing negative ones, and desired goals ( Table 8). This was intended to help the general managers as they met in the four-step process to set new company standards.