The Portman Hotel Company
...to sympathize with the PVs. Thus, this leads us to a suitable remedy for this situation. I feel that an effective way this misunderstanding could have been avoided is to expose Scott to the lives of his subordinates. What I mean by this is to have management work in the “trenches” by having them shadow the valets for a week, or even go as far as becoming one for a day or two. Only then can management step out of the box and gain a totally different perspective (that of their employees) on the PVs’ problems. Fundamental attribution error teaches us that we are critical of how others behave and totally ignorant of possible outside factors at work. Not until we are able to step into their shoes can we look “out” from their perspective and see exactly how society and the environment guide/steer their particular behavior. I also feel this closely goes hand-in-hand with the “Value Foundation of Management” principles discussed in class where the essential message is getting people to trust you. In order to be an effective leader one has to follow such guidelines as respecting the individual, being fair to them, keeping promises and telling truths. I feel Scott was too optimistic towards the PVs in terms of their expected tips. Rewards are essential for short-term goals/reinforcements (which will be discussed in-depth later) and not living up to those promises really hurt Scott’s credibility as a leader. For instance, the valets were keen to point out that Scott could not delegate, did not know where things were, and did not even know the basics such as folding or stocking a cart. Scott could learn a thing from “leading by example”, and actually get to know the day-to-day activities of his staff, to build up his trust and credibility with them. This also ties back into the FAE argument about having Scott serve as a PV to see why they act the way they do in their environment. The second issue we will discuss is Expectancy Theory. According to our definition in class, Vroom’s theory can be likened to a mathematical equation where “efforts” generate “performance” and thus given “performance” leads to a certain level of “output”. The x-factor in the equation is the “valence” or “rewarding force” that dictates the outcomes attractiveness. When all these variables, or ingredients, are combined the result is motivation. So how can we illustrate this theory with regards to The Portman Hotel? Well, the key players that embody the very essence of the hotel are the Personal Valets. Due to the social and environmental forces acting upon them these employees might be motivated to engage in “shirking”. We will take a look at some examples to bolster this notion. Since the PVs were so autonomous they enjoyed a great deal of latitude in responsibility. Some of them were complaining about the chaotic, decentralized environment they were working in which peers were distrustful of each other and nobody took on any sense of accountability. The more dedicated workers were complaining about covering for the lazier ones and having to work even harder. One PV put it best when he thought to himself why should he be the bad guy by over-achieving and making up for the slack of his colleagues? Since there was essentially no reward/valence for generating that extra output the responsible PVs were less and less motivated to perform. Another reason why the valets lost their sense of responsibility was their disillusionment towards their job. When the hotel first started operations it was assumed that PVs would serve as multi-role servants to the guests. However, as time went by, these valets were being relegated to cleaning duties and their other tasks being taken on by other staff members. This sense of being mislead, on top of unrealized tip earnings (as promised by Scott), might have caused many of the valets to loose faith in the system. So how do we correct this problem and get the valets to perform to their maximum potential? Well, this is a delicate issue in light of management’s current philosophy towards punishment. Scott did not believe in disciplining poor performers. He was very lenient and gave his staff a lot of discretion. So in order to motivate the staff a better reward system has to be established. Ask what the employees like in terms of perks and tie these rewards into performance. Recognize good performers publicly so they know they are valued within the company. Instead of giving the “associate of the month” $200, give him a reserved parking space. Many of the employees probably commute and given the inadequate parking space in downtown San Francisco, along with the inconveniences of riding BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit), a reserved space would probably be appreciated and serve as a status symbol. For the “associate of the year” a week’s stay in their place of employment is hardly enjoying. In other words, make the rewards meaningful to motivate the people. Simple things such as gift cards would work wonders for employee morale. The final topic of discussion is Operant Conditional Theory. This idea involves getting ...