Becoming a Leader in the Hospitality Industry - Essay Example

Analytic Report Letter of transmittal April 26, The Dear Here is the report you requested… I hereby present my analytical report which offers an in depth analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of in-house training and the alternative of sending delegates to outhouse training. The content presented in the report is aimed at helping the hotel to make the best decisions as the staff need training. I hope you shall find my report satisfactory. Thank for the opportunity to research and offer to answer questions. Yours sincerely, Table of Contents Analytic Report 1 Name 1 Institution 1 Course 1 Letter of transmittal 2 Executive Summary 4 Introduction 4 The Option of In-house Training 4 Benefits of in-house training 5 Disadvantages of In-house Training 7 Out-house training 7 Advantages of outhouse training 8 Disadvantages of out-house training 8 The Most Preferred Alternative 9 Conclusion 10 References 11 Appendix 12 Executive Summary This report will present an in depth analysis of two alternatives that the hotel can adopt in handling the current need for staff training. In accordance with the hotel’s vision of becoming a leader in the hospitality industry, offering employees additional training is one of the strategies of empowering them to provide quality services to the hotel’s esteemed customers. After an extensive and intensive research, it became evident that, the hotel can either opt for in house training or out house training that will involve sending delegates away for training. This report presents the benefits of in house training, the cost implications for the hotel as well as its effects on the employees under training. On the other hand, the report compares in-house training with out-house training using similar criteria. After the analysis, and comparison, the report offers the preferred alternative that the hotel can adopt. Introduction After a close analysis of the current situation of the employees, and in accordance with the hotel’s current determination to become a leader in the hospitality industry, it becomes evident that the staff needs empowerment. Without doubt, the employees need to acquire new skills that will serve to enable them to register remarkable performance as they deliver their services to the hotel’s customers. According reliable research in the hotel management, the loyalty of customers depends on the quality of services provided by the staff. Being a service provider business, responsiveness, promptness and courtesy are some of the critical attributes that customers use in their rating of the quality of services rendered by the hotels. Therefore, employees need regular training so that they may have the capacity to meet the expectations of the customers. This is the reason why the hotel has identified the need to offer additional training to the hotel staff. However, there are two alternatives that the hotel must choose from in its bid to offer additional training to their staff. One of the options that the hotel has to choose from is offering in-house training within the hotel premises. The other alternative involves organizing an out-house training at a venue away from the hotel. Both options have differing financial implications for the hotel and each of them has certain desirable benefits. However, the hotel must choose the option that presents more benefits and reasonable financial implications (California, 2008). The Option of In-house Training This is one of the viable options that the hotel can choose in its bid to offer the employees an opportunity to advance their skills. In-house training will involve searching for a specialist or a group of training experts who can visit the hotel during the specified training period and offer the relevant training within the hotel. In this case, the logistics of travel are on the side of the trainers while the employees selected for the training still remain within the work place. For this type of training to be successful, the hotel must have the required training resources. In addition, the hotel must make provisions for the workers selected for the training to ensure a balance between their usual duties and meeting the training objectives (California, 2008). It is possible for the employees receive training as they continue to deliver their services in the hotel and meet their work objectives. On the other hand, the hotel may opt to carry out the training within the hotel premises, but excuse the selected workers for the training from their duties. However, the fact that they are within the hotel premises means that they can still handle some work related tasks alongside the training (California, 2008). Benefits of in-house training In-house training presents certain benefits to both the hotel and the staff undertaking the training. One of the evident benefits of the hotel is the fact that the output does not need to subside as the workers can continue with their usual duties as they receive the training. This is especially the case when the employees receiving training hold positions that are critical in the running of events within the hotel. The criticality of the position means that their absence would affect the hotel adversely. Therefore, in-house training is beneficial in such a case as it allows them to handle their tasks within the workplace and also attend the training. Moreover, the hotel does not have to make arrangements to cater for the logistics of ensuring that the selected staff for the training move to a new venue was the training takes place (Melkman & Trotman, 2005). This means that, in-house training is a cost effective training. Considering the reality surrounding out-house training whereby the hotel must cover the logistics for travel, venue and accommodation, then in-house training proves to be much cheaper in the hotel and also for the employees. In the modern world, a venue for training or a provision for training forums hosted away from the hotel are proving to be highly expensive and therefore, the hotel saves a lot when it adopts in-house training. In-house training also presents certain benefits to the employees. The fact that employees receive the training within their workplace is a provision that ensures that relevance of the training is maintained. Such relevance means that employees only receive the specific skills that conform to their tasks and responsibilities within the workplace. The fact that employees learn new skills and are able to implement them promptly are an assurance of value added training to them and also the organization. Moreover, in-house training presents a high level of convenience to the employees as they avoid the hustle of moving from one venue to another. Evidently, there are pressures involved in attending training away from the work place as it needs proper preparations for the employees (Melkman & Trotman, 2005). Therefore, when training is offered within the work place, it proves to be a better option for the employees. A different perspective reveals that employees are likely to enjoy the company of their work mates as they acquire new skills. These ensure a level of social support which motivates learning. On the side of the hotel, offering training to all the employees within a certain period at the hotel premises proved to be cost effective and reasonable. The opportunity of receiving training as a group within the hotel premises can be a precondition for team building a factor that ensures a higher rate of performance because workers learn the values of cooperation. With the increasing range of the training services, the hotel can choose to offer specialized and customized training to each employee depending on the job responsibility and within the hotel a factor that can improve the efficiency of the training. Moreover, the employees have an opportunity to assess the efficiency of the received training as they continue with their duties. Such immediate application maximizes the learning process of the new skills as employees have the opportunity to consult the training experts. Many of the in-house training providers have different offers for different companies. This means that they have a range of training services that the hotel can choose from. An additional impressive factor is the fact that the hotel can request the service provide to design a training program tailored to soot the hotel budget and training needs. This is an added advantage for the hotel as it can choose a training package that addresses the specific needs of its staff and also one that can be met by the budgetary allocations of the hotel. Training service providers for in-house training also allow the companies to choose the most appropriate time schedule for the purposed training (Melkman & Trotman, 2005). For example, the service providers offer a high level of flexibility, allowing organizations to choose either late evening, late night or weekends for the training. This compensates for any time that would have been spent traveling to a different venue. An obvious advantage of this is the fact that, if the hotel chooses this option, then its tasks and work objectives will not be adversely affected by the training program. This is to say that, productivity will remain at its usual rates while employees will receive the training. In-house training also presents the benefit of confidentiality. This is because the service providers come to the hotel and discuss performance issues with the employees selected for the training without any trainees from a different institution as is the case with out-house training. This makes it easier for issues to remain confidential because the materials concerning the hotel that is discussed in the training is only available to the proper audience who are the hotel’s employees (Melkman & Trotman, 2005). Experts of training have highlighted that in-house training encourages a higher retention rate of the content covered during training. This is because of the opportunity for repetition of certain issues as training is specialized as well as the interaction between the work mates. In a case whereby the employees only need a certain portion of a training package offered by a certain training service provider, the hotel can make arrangements for the service provider to offer an in-house training of its employees but only on the portion desired. In the case of the hotel staff requiring training in a bid to meet the defined objectives of being a leader in the hospitality industry, the employees only need certain parts of the training package offered to many hotel employees. In such a situation, in-house training becomes a viable option for the hotel (Rao & Indian Society for Training & Development, 2005). In-house training will offer the hotel an opportunity to utilize current work examples in a bid to make the training effective. The fact that the delegates chosen for the training tackle the content using work related examples that are evident in their current work place serves to increase the efficiency of the training. In such a case, training may serve to generate solutions for existing problems or challenges within the hotel. This is an advantage of in-house training which prompts many organizations to make it a preferred choice (Rao & Indian Society for Training & Development, 2005). In-house training will present the hotel with an opportunity to be in control of the training program (Masaoka, 2011). Contrary to other cases when the training service provider takes control of all the processes defining the training program, an in-house training venture allows the organization, in this case the hotel to make all the critical decisions regarding the time, the content and other aspects of the training package offered. For many organizations, having such control of the training program translates to a real value of their investment in training. Disadvantages of In-house Training As highlighted above, the organization takes charge in in-house training hence it accumulates more responsibilities surrounding the administration of the training program. The department in charge of the training which the capacity office is must ensure that all the processes that define the training program are able to meet the stated objectives. This can only happen if all the administration roles are well handled by the appropriate individuals. In-house training happens within the hotel premises a factor that may be a precondition for interruptions of the training programs when the delegates have to address certain work related issues. Rarely do delegates receive an entire excuse not to attend to their duties because of a training program. An in-house training may compel the hotel to incur additional expenses, especially if the required resources for the specific training package are not currently available. Additional costs are involved when the hotel has to make purchases of items such as projectors, publications, computers and assessment tools (Rao & Indian Society for Training & Development, 2005). From a different perspective, in-house training has a social disadvantage in that the delegates chosen for the training, lack an opportunity of interacting with other employees in the same industry. This denies them the chance of networking and the opportunity of having an interchange of ideas from the functionality of different organizations. Some employees may not regard in-house training with the seriousness it deserves. They may consider it as a casual arrangement and disregard the defined training objectives. This translates to a loss to the organization, in this case the hotel despite the investment in training. In cases whereby the hotel cannot afford the additional resources for the training, the training will have to take place using what is available a factor that compromises the quality of the training offered. When that happens, the training program may eventually result to a still training. In other cases, in-house training may result to be a monotonous venture because employees only socialize with their work mates in the same venue (Masaoka, 2011). The fact that nothing is new introduces the monotony which affects the efficiency of the training. Out-house training This is the other option that the hotel may adopt in a bid to ensure that its staff receive additional training. It involves the identification of a qualified training service provider who hosts who host a range of training services to employees in the same industry. In this case, the hotel will have to outsource different service providers and select the service provider that offers the required package of training. The choice depends on the needs of the employees, although it proves impossible to alter the defined training program (Masaoka, 2011). The hotel then will make travel arrangements of the selected delegates to the venue of the training. Depending on the period of training, accommodation arrangement may also be necessary. Employees attending the training are usually away from the workplace during the training session and have the opportunity to enjoy the venture of being in a new place interacting with new people and a new training experience. These are factors that may serve to maximize the learning experience for the delegates. Training service providers are usually in charge of an out-house training and only dictate their terms of the organization. Since such training programs often bring together employees from different organizations, there is a chance of networking with different people. However, the hotel must be prepared to cover for all the expenses involved as out-house training requires travel arrangements that require funding as well as accommodation which must be paid for. Advantages of outhouse training Outhouse training presents the employee with the opportunity to undertake training in a new setting with new people. This serves as a conducive learning environment away from the busy working environment. Training takes place in such a setting a factor that facilitates an active learning sessions for the employees who momentarily forget the hustle of the work place. Since the delegates chosen for the training program are away from their workplace, they do not face the constant pressure of meeting work related targets and also achieving the training objectives. For many employees, the out-house training opportunity allows them a chance to focus on the training only (Rao & Indian Society for Training & Development, 2005). As highlighted above, out-house training presents the delegates with an opportunity to interact with delegates from other organizations and hence new network systems can be formed. Having delegates from different organizations, serves as a precondition for a productive interchange of ideas that make the training a success. It does not limit the hotel employees to examples and or cases studies of their own workplaces alone, but focuses on a diverse range of examples from different organization, hence the employees become more open minded in handing work related challenges (Rao & Indian Society for Training & Development, 2005). The fact the training takes place away from the training premises serves to motivate the employees to regard it seriously and attach value to it as a form of empowerment that can help them attain new job responsibilities. Even among other employees not attending the program, a positive notion towards out-house training does exist. Disadvantages of out-house training One of the outstanding disadvantages of the out-house training is the fact that the training takes place away from the workplace and that the employees lack the opportunity to have the first experiential application of the knowledge they receive (Masaoka, 2011). This factor serves to reduce the efficiency of off-the-job. The fact that off-the-job training compels the employees to learn in a different setting away from the real life challenges related to the workplace is also a barrier to an effective acquiring of new skills. This is because the delegates may learn simple practical lessons in a long time because of the theoretical approach used. Organizations that opt for the off-the-job training register a reduced productivity during the training session. This is the case because, the employees are away from their work place and their responsibilities are left unattended. The hotel may suffer additional costs of ensuring that delegates on training are covered up for in the work place (Masaoka, 2011). It is an expensive investment therefore because the hotel will have to bare with training costs while registering limited productivity during the training period. Off-the-job training also proves very costly for any organization because of the travel costs, accommodation costs, hiring a new venue and other logistics involved. This means that the hotel will have to be prepared to handle the high cost of training if it goes for this option. Making arrangements for a training to take place away from the workplace may present the hotel with additional responsibilities (Masaoka, 2011). The fact that the organization does not have a direct control of the training program if this option is adopted is also an outstanding disadvantage as there are no chances of tailoring the program to suit the specific needs of the hotel staff. In many cases, off-the-job training forums do not have a provision for feedback presentation from the delegates therefore it proves difficult to assess the efficiency of the training program undertaken. In some cases, off-the-job training makes use of simulation models in a bid to reproduce the work place situations or the machines used in the work place. Such simulation models and facilities are very expensive and require technical skills in using them. Employees may not have the required skills to benefit from such training, tools and facilities (Moore & Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, 2003). Moreover, reproducing a work place situation does not present an assurance that the delegates under training will benefit from the training program. This is the case because the simulated procedure may not exhibit any similarity to modern workplace challenges. Off-the-job training offers a low level of confidentiality because specific examples that are used in the training that concern a certain organization are accessible to many delegates from different organizations and the chances of them remaining confidence is very low. The formality associated with off-the-job training may serve as a limitation or a potential barrier of effective training of the hotel staff. This is because the associated formality introduces a form of tension to the employees and this affects their learning. Notably, off the job trainings an artificial form of training contrary to the natural training programs that occur as employees continue with their job responsibilities (Moore & Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, 2003). Rarely is off-the-job training based on the employee’s experience and may therefore prove unreliable to the employees. In some cases the trainers do not provide the necessary motivation to the employees and hence that derails the learning process. The Most Preferred Alternative As highlighted above, in-house training proves to be highly effective for the hotel to adopt. The choice depends on certain criteria. One of the outstanding criteria that requires first priority in choosing between the two alternatives is the cost efficiency of the chosen type of training. Without doubt, both alternatives have a level of financial implications, however, off-the –job training appears to have a higher cot implications than the in-house training option (Masaoka, 2011). This is because of the travel, accommodation and other logistics that require funding from the hotel. Moreover, the fact that the chosen delegates have to attend an entire training package, irrespective of its relevance to their needs may compel the hotel to pay for training services that are not necessary. Such expenses do not apply to the in-house-training a factor that makes it relatively cheaper than the out-house training and hence the preferred choice in this case. The fact that out-house training takes place away from the workplace and that it affects productivity, is one of the disadvantages that the hotel cannot assume. This is because the hotel is not in a position to access replacements for the delegates who will attend training during the training period. Therefore, the productivity of the hotel will be negatively affected. This makes off-the-job training an ineffective option for the hotel. A situational analysis of the hotel reveals that the hotel needs are in-house training that will ensure that productivity is still high and that the delegates receive the appropriate training (Sims, 2002).  The fact that in-house training can be tailored to suit the needs of the hotel staff and also be adjusted to conform to the hotels schedules is an added advantage for the hotel. This is because the selected employees for the training will only receive training that is relevant to their needs and also that conforms to their job responsibilities (Gile, 2009). Moreover, the hotel will not have challenges in creation time for the training as there is the flexibility of holding in-house training in the evening. Notably, the fact that the hotel will be in control of the training program in the case of in-house training is an additional factor that makes this the most preferred choice. In house training presents more benefits as illustrated in this report, although it has certain disadvantages that also need to be addressed if it is adopted as the preferred choice. In addition to tailoring, the kind of training given to suit the needs of the employees there is a need to diversify the methods used in training in a bid to maximize the learning experience. Integrating different training techniques may make the training more effective and also ensure that monotony does not result. Employees are more motivated to view training as relevant if it is directly related to their job responsibilities (Sims, 2006). Moreover, the hotel may carry out a survey that identifies the needs of the workers and their opinion on the content of the training program. Conclusion This report offers an extensive analysis of the benefits presented by both in-house and off-the-job training options. Both of them present certain desirable aspects, but the in-house training proves to be the best choice according to a situational analysis of the hotel. This will present minimal costs targeted towards training and will also ensure that the hotel can negotiate on the specific training services that it needs. With in-house training, personalized training is assured alongside a high level of confidentiality. References California. (2008). California training benefits and training extension, annual program report. Sacramento?: The Division. Gile, D. (2009). Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Pub. Co. Masaoka, J. (2011). The nonprofits guide to human resources: Managing your employees & volunteers. Berkeley, CA: Nolo. Melkman, A., & Trotman, J. (2005). Training international managers: Designing, deploying and delivering effective training for multi-cultural groups. Aldershot, Hants, England: GOWER. Moore, R. W., & W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research. (2003). Training that works: Lessons from Californias employment training panel program. Kalamazoo, Mich: W.E. Upjohn for Employment Research. Rao, P. L., & Indian Society for Training & Development. (2005). HRD through in-house training. New Delhi: Indian Society for Training & Development in association with Vikas Pub. House. Sims, R. R. (2002). Organizational success through effective human resources management. Westport, Ct: Quorum Books. Sims, R. R. (2006). Human resource development: Today and tomorrow. Greenwich: Information Age. Appendix Steps involved in in-house training Retrieved on 26th April 2014 from http://www.technicalchange.com/in-house-job-skills-training.html The hierarchy of in-house training Retrieved on 26th April 2014 from http://cetcindia.com/learning-solutions/corporate-in-house-training/ Frequency of in-house training Retrieved on 26th April 2014 from http://www.foodservicedirector.com/research/big-picture/articles/most-training-done-house Read More