Means and standard
Based one could see that all the sixty (60) people on staff believe that the company is very dynamic company. Their response may not be “strongly agree” but the fact that the mean score obtained was 3. 0 with zero standard deviation is already a good indication of one-mindedness in the team. The ratings to other items related to being dynamic further validates this results such as items 2 to 8 of the staff survey.
It is also interesting to note that there is a slight deviation on items 2 and 4 of the staff survey which states “I recognize every change in the company the management implements” and “I know precisely what these changes in the company would mean to me” respectively. However, this could be just accounted to individual differences. The elements provided by the company such justification, roadmaps and strategies which are reflected on items 3, 6, 8, and 9 on the staff survey have no problem as indicated.
All these are important factors, at least on the part of the company, in improving customer interaction as noted by Osborne (2001). Thus, from this, it can be said that Millennium Seoul Hilton Hotel, is a very dynamic company. Moreover, it can be said based on the foregoing data that the changes implemented by the company is recognizable. Employees are also aware of the reasons why the management is initiating these changes, as well as its implications in terms of what it would mean to them and their customers.
Generally, good results are expected from every changes that are introduced in the hotel. After all, there are good strategies which increase the value of relationship and they are improved periodically. Finally, employees believe that technology-wise, the hotel is on the cutting edge in terms of hardware and software. However, in as much as all these are good evaluation of the hotel, there is one area which stands out due to low rating and that is in the area of compensation.
In general, the staff feel that they are not compensated well as given by the low mean of 2. 45 to the statement, “I am properly compensated from my work in this hotel”. The relatively high standard deviation on this item would also mean that people have varying beliefs on this item but in general, they lean towards disagreeing to item 11 of the staff survey. This might have something to do with the “people first before profit”policy of the hotel as reported by The Seoul Times (2005) and discussed in Section.
As far as the top level management is concerned, the staff, their employees in Hilton is not primarily focused on their pay checks but on customers. Survey results seem to validate this but it doesn’t mean that paychecks are not a concern. The hotel management can actually approach this issue in two ways. First, they could ignore this since despite these poor perception of their compensation, employees seem to get the overall vision of the company.
The second approach, however, would be to treat this as a warning sign that something is wrong and act in favor of the employees. After all, the way they answered the questionnaire just revealed their loyalty and adherence to vision and that in itself is enough cause to reward them with better salary. Furthermore, the management should also consider the grave loss that the hotel would incur if suddenly they all decided to leave. The staff seem to have solid agreement on critical items but the company seem not to appreciate it.
If this situation would persist, they may be forced to improve their compensation package by the leaving of current staff but then, it would be too late. The company would again have to train another batch and it would require a significant amount of time and resources. That is why, at least from the view point of the researcher, subsidizing the education of employees at an Honor University is a good way to encourage employees to stay but this is not directly felt. Otherwise, the ratings would not have been as low. Additional compensation, then, in terms of salary increase would be in order.
Now, looking at the customer side, one would immediately notice that although there is higher standard deviation from these criteria which are parallel in Table 4-1, the overall mean scores are higher as well. Higher standard deviation is expected since the sample population this time is more diverse as opposed to employees who go through the same thing day in and day out. But even so, one would still hope, at least from the management’s point of view, that ratings would be from the range 3 -4 (which means they at least “AGREE” on particular points stated in a positive way.)
And indeed, this is the case. According to the survey, customers agree that the company is very dynamic. In fact, this was further validated by high ratings on other items. For instance, a score of 3. 37 in the second item of the customer survey attest to this dynamism as being observed by customers. Moreover, a score of 3. 42 and 3. 25 on the next items (i. e. , 3 and 4) reflect that the customers are even aware as to why these changes have taken place and that at least, they are comfortable with these changes.
Furthermore, it can also be seen that the third item on the Customer Survey has the lowest mean and highest standard deviation. This, however, is to be expected as customers, having come from different backgrounds, would indeed have varying perceptions. While some of them, coming for instance from lower middle class families, for instance, would see installation of Pentium IV computers in every room as something very positive and would therefore appreciate it so much, their counterpart in more wealthy family would see this as not as a big deal.
In fact, they may even feel this is inadequate considering that there are other computers which, in their minds, perform better. An example of this is, of course, MAC. In any case, the score of 3. 25 is good enough, especially because of the term “very”. The implication of this is that a simple agreement to such statement would mean the customers are already very much amenable to it. In other words, they agree (while some very much agree) that they (i. e. , the respondents) are very much amenable to the changes which have been taking place on the hotel.
It can also be seen based on the ratings in Table 4-2 that people generally become more amenable to changes in the hotel as they enjoy privileges such as those accorded with the members of the Hilton HHonors. Quantitatively, this can be seen from the improvement of rating from 3. 25 to 3. 4 in items 4 to 5 of Table 4-2. Moreover, lower standard deviation was also observed as the result of people have the same opinion and choices this time. In a way, this is a good indication that there is some loyalty programme in place and that guests are satisfied with it in the sense that they see changes being made.
Also, it would be good to note that the respondents view the manager as someone who communicates to the customer just to ensure that they are well satisfied as reflected by a score of 3. 4 on this criterion. This is important because it communicates that the hotel values the customer. Moreover, a score of 3. 38 in the last item further validates this. This rating only means that not only is the person important, but his views and opinions are valuable as well.