University College of Northern Denmark

104,644 characters

May 2014

Bachelor of International Hospitality Management

Empowerment at STAR and the role of culture

Zaina Ibrahim Supervisor: Luigi d’Ambrosio

1 | P a g e

Contents Introduction .............................................................................................................. 3

Literature reviews .................................................................................................... 6

Empowerment ............................................................................................ 6

Empowerment Process .................................................................................. 7

Empowerment in practice .............................................................................. 7

Organizational Culture View ........................................................................... 9

What is culture & why decipher culture? ............................................................ 10

Theory of science ....................................................................................................11

Interpretivism ........................................................................................... 11

Interpretivism in practice ............................................................................. 11

Hermeneutics ........................................................................................... 12

Hermeneutics view on this study ..................................................................... 13

Social Constructionism ................................................................................. 14

Social constructionism view on this study ........................................................... 14

Methodology ...........................................................................................................16

The actor’s view ........................................................................................ 16

The actor’s view on the study ........................................................................ 16

Interesting issues and perspectives ............................................................... 16

Conceptualization – Language development ..................................................... 17

Qualitative Research ................................................................................... 17

Participant Observation ................................................................................ 17

Informants ............................................................................................ 19

Ethics .................................................................................................. 20

Semi Structured Interviews............................................................................ 20

Interviewer’s techniques aim ...................................................................... 21

Sampling ............................................................................................... 21

Interview guide ....................................................................................... 21

Setting ................................................................................................. 22

Rapport ................................................................................................ 23

Interviewing instruments ........................................................................... 24

2 | P a g e

Data management and analysis ....................................................................... 24

Confidentiality........................................................................................ 24

Transcribing interviews ............................................................................. 25

Thematic analysis ....................................................................................... 25

Critical reflections ...................................................................................... 26

Validity and reliability ................................................................................. 29

Analysis ...................................................................................................................29

The three levels of culture – Participant observation ............................................. 29

Shangri-La Tanjung Aru Resort and Spa (STAR) ..................................................... 30

Artifacts ............................................................................................... 30

Espoused Beliefs and Values ........................................................................ 32

Basic Assumptions – The STAR’s Paradigm ........................................................ 35

Findings .................................................................................................. 38

Thematic analysis – Semi constructed interview ................................................... 39

Culture as command and control .................................................................. 39

Findings .................................................................................................. 41

Discussion ................................................................................................ 42

Conclusion ............................................................................................... 44

Solution....................................................................................................................45

What is organizational change? ....................................................................... 45

Change management model ........................................................................... 45

Social construction in the context of organizational change ..................................... 47

Understanding culture & behavior ................................................................... 48

Rapid Deciphering – A multistep Group Process ................................................. 49

Conclusion ............................................................................................... 54

List of reference ......................................................................................................55

Books ..................................................................................................... 55

Literature list ........................................................................................... 57

Internet .................................................................................................. 60

3 | P a g e

Introduction

Senior Consultant from Organizational Surveys and Insights, Chris Pink viewpoints above gives

a definition of organizational culture and what his leading global professional services company,

Tower Watson means by the alignment of culture and business strategy.

In the hospitality industry, employee empowerment strategy is said to have much to offer

because empowered employees will develop a sense of ownership taking personal pride in

ensuring that service encounters become a success (Lashley, 1996). Besides the hotel chain

Hilton R. W. (2002), Shangri-La (2012) hotel group has also recently endorsed the

empowerment strategy. The international luxury chain hotel which is well known for

encapsulating the unique characteristic of Asian hospitality culture, has adopted empowerment as

a management strategy. The strategy is an integral part of their training programs which are

practiced throughout their 81 deluxe hotels and resort in key cities in Asia Pacific, Canada,

Europe and the Middle East (Shangri-la.com, 2014). This does not spare Shangri-La Tanjung

Aru Resort and Spa (STAR), a luxury resort in Malaysia where I during my internship conducted

the study both as an intern and a researcher.

Shortly after I applied for my application to do an internship for three months at STAR via email,

the Training Manager replied me and arranged for a telephone interview (Appendix 2). He called

me from Malaysia and gave a short briefing about STAR. I asked him to elaborate on the

“Culture is the set of beliefs that drive employee behaviors. These can be

things everybody in the company knows and shares, as well as unspoken

rules. The range of acceptable employee behaviors is based on these

underlying beliefs. Sometimes these behaviors align well with the business

strategy, but this isn’t a given (Pink, 2013)”.

(Appendix 1- Viewpoints Q&A)

4 | P a g e

management’s current challenges and concerns. He mentioned that the STAR management was

currently focusing on empowerment which had started in 2012. And that STAR’s management

expected the empowerment strategy could improve the performance efficiency of the employees

by them taking more ownership (Appendix 3). However despite the on-going training and

workshops around empowerment, the STAR’s deficiency report showed that the Front Desk

employee’s performance had deteriorated both in 2012 and 2013 (Appendix 4). In a defect

tracking report in 2012, a total of 982 in-house guests voiced their dissatisfaction regarding the

Front Desk employees poor performance based on the employees effectiveness in providing

service and solving the guest’s problems. Moreover, from January until mid of October 2013 the

number of in house guest’s complaints on Front Desk poor performance increased to 1,194 in

total (Appendix 4). Below was the Training Manager’s comment on the empowerment situation;

“Shangri-La brand is currently focusing on empowerment which is also known as taking

ownership. Each employee at STAR is obligated to attend the training. But the employee’s

mentality has made the empowerment process unsuccessful.” (Telephone interview, February

2013)

This comment subsequently made me wonder because a research conducted in Malaysia in 2011,

showed that applying empowerment could result in increased job satisfaction (Alkahtani, 2011).

Alkahtani concluded that managers in Malaysia who practised a high level of empowerment

resulted in strong employee job satisfaction. This is also supported by Blanchard and Witts

(2009), who argue that employees desire to have the tools, training, knowledge and skills to

decide for themselves. A global management consulting firm is also pointing at the same

direction. Their findings show that today’s workforce wants to be empowered and have a high

self-efficacy (Haygroup, 2011). Self-efficacy is “the belief in one’s capabilities to organize and

execute the course of action required to manage prospective situations (Bandura, 1995. P. 2)”.

Its relationship with the empowerment strategies is important because it refers to a state of mind

or mentality (Gist, 1987). In the empowerment process of Conger, J.A. and Kanungo, R.N.

(1988), suggest that a high self-efficacy level provides a “can do” mentality and empowering

experience for the employee. This is why empowerment strategies are constructed to enhance

5 | P a g e

self-efficacy by providing employees with greater freedom and by increasing knowledge and

control over factors directly related to job performance (French et al., 2011).

The growing curiosity towards this paradox made me want to examine further on the set of

beliefs that guided the employees´ behavior in STAR and how it was connected to the failure of

the empowerment implementation as the Training Manager claimed. What could be the possible

forces underneath, that caused a certain kind of behavior and how were these behaviors

connected with STAR’s newly developed empowerment strategy? Therefore the aim of this

research is to explore STAR’s organizational culture and examine its influence on the

empowerment strategy. The paper also attempts to provide a framework for analyzing STAR’s

organizational culture by using Schein’s three levels of culture by illuminating the researcher’s

experiences and observations at STAR as a participant observer. The managers and employees

sense making of empowerment and their perspectives on the empowerment process will be vital

focal points of this research study. Trying to see through the eyes of key actors by the means of

organizational change must be considered as well. In addition, insights in this research also have

important practical applications because the insights from this research might help leaders and

managers decipher elements of their own culture so that they can assess its relevance and utilize

the insight in initiating an effective organizational change.

Taking the point of departure in the above mentioned problem and based on theories within,

STAR management must seek to decipher its current existing culture first before they can

implement empowerment strategy (Schein, 2010). It is because the foundation for understanding

organizational culture and behavior can substantially influence the initiating change process of

building a culture that supports and drives behavior aligned with STAR’s empowerment strategy

(Johnson, Whittington & Scholes, 2011 and Tower Watson, 2013).

Why did the implementation process of empowerment in the Front Desk Department

at Shangri-La Tanjung Aru Resort and Spa (STAR) fail and what kind of organizational

changes can be initiated in order to implement empowerment successfully?

6 | P a g e

Literature reviews

Literature reviews is a means of reviewing the main ideas and research relating to the chosen

area of interest. The purpose of exploring the existing literature is to identify what is already

known about this area, relevant concept and theories, finding significant controversies,

inconsistencies and the possibility to be able to revise and refine the research question (Bryman,

2008).

Empowerment

The word empower is not new, it arrived in the mid-17th century with a meaning “to invest with

authority, authorize” (thefreedictionary.com). Thereafter, it began to be used in a more general

way meaning “to permit or enable”. Klagge J. (1998) sees empowerment as a relation between

freedom and authority. In the service industry Barbee and Bott (1991) define empowerment as

“…the act of vesting substantial responsibility in the people nearest the problem” (Barbee &

Bott, 1991), while for Bowen and Lawler (1992), empowerment is described as “management

strategies for sharing decision making power”. Hilton R. W. (2002) adapted the management

strategy and described employee empowerment as the insight of reassuring and permitting

employees to embark on proposals to advance operations, diminish costs, and develop the

product and customer service quality. Some scholars (e.g. Conger and Kanungo, 1987; Evans,

1990) explain ‘command and control’ forms of administration are likely to pin down the

application of job autonomy by the subordinates (Hilton R. W., 2002).

To gestate empowerment in motivational terms, Bandura's self- efficacy notion (1986) describes

empowerment as a process of an individual's belief in that his or her self-efficacy is improved.

Self-efficacy refers to a person’s belief that they can perform sufficiently in a situation and that

the concept of empowerment is established on the belief that everyone has an internal need for

self-determination (French et al., 2010). A rising body of proof from diverse lines of studies

verifies that judgments of personal efficacy are a major basis of human action (Bandura, 1992,

1997). There are many activities in which, if accomplish well, guarantee valued outcomes but

7 | P a g e

they are not pursued by people who doubt they can do what it takes to succeed. A low sense of

efficacy can therefore abolish the motivating potential of alluring outcomes (Bandura, 1996).

Thus French at al. (2011) suggest that appropriate empowerment strategies can raise the

perception of low self-efficacy.

Empowerment Process

Conger, J.A. and Kanungo, R.N. (1988) suggest that the process of empowerment can be viewed

in four stages. The first stage is the identification of conditions within the organization that are

accountable for contributing to low self-efficacy. This leads to Stage 2 whereby management

strategies and techniques are used to reduce the negative impact of Stage 1 factors. The

employment of these strategies is aimed not only at removing some of the external conditions

responsible for powerlessness, but also (and more important) at providing subordinates with self-

efficacy information in Stage 3. As a result of receiving such information, subordinates feel

empowered with a ‘can do’ mentality in Stage 4 (Bandura, 1986; French at el., 2011).

Empowerment in practice

A number of researches show that empowerment bring advantages to individuals, teams, and

organizations (e.g., Forrester, 2000; Mathieu, Gilson, & Ruddy, 2006; Wallace, Johnson, Mathe,

& Paul, 2011). In the hospitality industry, empowerment seems to have become a common

strategy and a powerful management tool that has an overall positive impact (Raub & Robert,

2012). In the hotel sector, empowerment has been utilized by Hilton Hotels to define employee

involvement in devising service standards (Hirst, 1992).

In Malaysia, a relevant study was conducted by Lunjew, M. D., et al (1994) where worker

participation was evident to be optimistically associated with job satisfaction and performance of

the job. This finding is also supported by Alkahtani, A.L., et al. (2011) who state that Malaysian

managers practicing high levels of empowerment had resulted in increasing employee job

satisfaction. Moreover Aarabi, Subramaniam and Akeel (2013) recently revealed that the

motivational factors of employees in Malaysian service organizations include freedom, friendly

environment and climate. These three factors where found to contribute to 42.5% of job

8 | P a g e

performance. The findings also conclude that Malaysian firms should focus significantly on (i)

considerably relinquishing the dominating of treating employees at work place, (ii) giving the

employees respectful power and authority to make their own decisions, (iii) valuing their

individualistic talents, ideologies and philosophies and lastly training the employees to acquire

innovative ways to harness and nurture their talents, scholastic aptitudes, knowledge and

leadership skills (Aarabi, Subaramaniam and Akeel, 2013). However according to Raquib, M.A,

et al. (2010) findings on empowerment practices in Malaysia, unrealistic supposition of some

past managers indicated fear of losing managerial power as they felt ‘empowerment’ as a tool to

seize their bona fide managerial power if they would delegate authority down the hierarchy. Lim

(2001) supports this view by concluding that Malaysian’s organization have high power

distance. According to Hofstede (1997), power distance is defined as the extent to which the less

powerful members of institutions and organizations within a country expect and accept that

power is distributed unequally. Lim’s (2001) findings are equivalent to Hofstede’s National

Cultural Dimension conclusion as below;

National Culture

The Hofstede Centre

The graphs above show that Malaysia scores very high on power distance (score of 100) which

means centralization is popular and that the ideal boss is a benevolent autocrat. Challenges to the

leadership are not well received (Hofstede’s National Cultural Dimension, 2014).

9 | P a g e

There are also few reasons why managers are not willing to empower their subordinates. These

include managers habits in problem solving and decision making are embedded in the manager’s

way of thinking, lack of top management example, fear of anarchy, personal insecurity, lack of

skills (to mentor and support employees) and job/promotion insecurity (Clutterbuck &

Kernaghan,1994). Empowerment is not as simple as it seems, for instance even when

the managers implement empowerment, Locke and Schweiger (1979) caution that employee

participation in decision making does not always lead to positive results. Moreover Sutton (1997)

argues that cultural perspectives can be a hindrance to empowerment. These barriers may include

tradition of hierarchy, failure to identify empowerment, fear of retaliation, the attitude that

empowerment is “not my job”, pessimism and suspicion. And this is supported by Sigler &

Pearson’s (2000) findings that empowerment is closely linked to the culture of an organization

Organizational Culture View

Artifacts, Espoused Beliefs and Values, Basic Underlying Assumptions

The primary research aim was to identify key cultural factors that hindered Shangri-La Tanjung

Aru Resort’s (STAR) ability to effectively implement empowerment. In this project, Schein’s

(1992) three levels of culture was utilized as one of the basis for organizing the analysis and

describing the organizational culture. According to Schein (2004), organizational culture is

illustrated at three levels. Cultural artifacts may be visible processes and structures, dress,

observable rituals, and ceremonies. Espoused beliefs and values are consciously developed

formal organizational practices such as strategies, goals, policies, and informal practices like

implicit norms. Underlying assumptions are unconscious thoughts, beliefs, expectations, and

theories.

Schein’s three levels of culture helps STAR to explore and understand the organization’s shared

assumptions. The insight will later on assist in explaining some of the STAR’s puzzling and

frustrating experiences pertaining towards taking ownership. Most importantly, understanding

their own organizational culture enables STAR organization to understand the forces blocking

the process of empowerment.

10 | P a g e

What is culture & why decipher culture?

Edgar Schein (2010) defines organizational culture as the ‘basic assumptions and beliefs that are

shared by the members of an organization. The way ‘we do things around here’.

Even though Hofstede (1980) opposes this view by stating that there is no standard definition of

organizational culture, he argues that organizational culture is holistic, historically determined,

socially constructed, soft and difficult to change. Organizational culture is important to this

research because it is concerned with ways in which the organization members interpret the

everyday realities of the daily working life in the organization (French et al., 2011). For that

reason, Schein (2010) argues that the concept of culture can help explain and build a deeper

understanding on why several of people or organizations can be so different but also why it is

hard to change them. Therefore in-depth knowledge of organizational culture can assist

researchers in identifying appropriate change strategies that can fit the organization’s unique

cultural context (Heracleous, 2001). This is synonymous to Johnson (1987, 1990), Pascale,

Milleman and Gioha (1997) findings which show that working with organizational culture is an

essential consideration in change programs and disregarding it is an important reason for which

change programs fail. Moreover, Bartunek & Louis, 1996; Coghan & Brannick, 2005) argue that

if an organization is to understand its own strengths and weaknesses, learn and develop from its

own experience and make inform strategic choices based on realistic assessment of external and

internal factors, it must at some point study and understand its own culture.

In this research it can be proposed that organizational culture is the taken for granted

assumptions and behaviors that make sense of people’s organizational context. It contributes to

the understanding of STAR’s culture and behavior, which has an important influences on the

development and change of empowerment strategy (Johnson, Whittington & Scholes,2011). The

need to assess STAR’s culture on this research is to understand the organization better in order to

improve or solve business problems and to facilitate a change program (Schein, 2010).

11 | P a g e

Theory of science

The aim for this chapter is to show that an array of considerations enter into the process of doing

Shangri-La Tanjung Aru Resort’s (STAR) cultural research. It explores the nature and

relationship between theory and research. Not only has it concerned on the question of what

should be regarded as acceptable knowledge (epistemology) but also concern with the nature of

social entities (ontology).

Interpretivism

The study on culture requires the researcher to grasp the subjective meanings of social action

which concern human and theoretic knowledge. It requires interpretive effort which therefore the

epistemological position of this research is based on interpretivism. It is a contrasting

epistemology to positivism. I was a participant observant that is not only a ‘fly on the wall’ and

have been influence by the STAR’s social setting, interpretivism approach supplement this study

because it is a critical application of the scientific model as a view of the researcher in-order to

study the social world. It is a view that people and their organization are the subject matter of the

social sciences which are fundamentally different from the natural sciences. Interpretivism is

chosen because the study of the social world requires a research procedure that reflects the

distinctiveness of humans against the natural order (Bryman, 2008). Moreover conducting a

cultural research focuses on ways in which its members interpret realities in their daily working

life in the organization (French et al., 2011). Lastly it is the job of the researcher to gain access to

the member’s common-sense thinking and hence to interpret their actions and their social world

from their point of view (Bryman, 2008).

Interpretivism in practice

In order to understand more of what is going on, I was involved in STAR through the role of a

participant observer. It is a role whereby I immersed myself in STAR’s social setting for a

12 | P a g e

duration of three months. I was observing behaviors, looking for regularities and patterns,

listening to what is said in conversations between the actors and asking questions. I frequently

conducted interviews in the course of my research, interviewing key informants and studying

documents (Bryman, 2008). Participant observation was chosen to be included in this research

because Schein (2010) argues that for academic knowledge to be useful in the field of culture, it

must illuminate experiences and provide explanations for observed behaviors that puzzle or

excite us.

Accepted as an intern in STAR, I was a fully functioning member of the STAR’s social setting.

There was regular interaction with the employees and the management’s daily working routines,

therefore I was not just a fly on the wall. I acquired a great deal of superficial but potential

relevant cultural knowledge throughout the process of being in a role as a participant observer.

Hermeneutics

A study that involves researching on social science and human knowledge will subsequently

contribute to a variety of situations in which the researcher encounter meanings that are not

directly understandable. Adopting an interpretive method however could lead to a lot of

misinterpretations. Schleiermacher argues that misunderstandings commonly arise because of the

changes in word meanings, world views and so on that have occurred in the time separating the

author and the interpreter. The alienation of meaning can well occur while conducting a cultural

research. Hermeneutics is chosen because it is a method which is fundamental for all human

understanding. It encompasses both the unknown world that we strive to understand and the

familiar world that we already understand. And it is a set of rules that provide the basis for good

interpretive practice no matter what the subject matter (Gadamer, 1977). Hermeneutics is the

theory of interpretation that relates to all human objectifications—that is, not only speech and

writing, but also visual artistic expressions, more casual physical gestures as well as observable

actions or deeds (Makkreel, 2012). Hermeneutics is a term drawn from theology and when

imported into social sciences, is concerned with the theory and method of the interpretation of

human action (Bryman, 2008). Arbnor and Bjerke (2009) describe that Hermeneutician is a

knowledge creator solely interested in understanding. Whilst it’s complete opposite, the

13 | P a g e

positivist is solely interested in explaining. According to Schleiermacher and Dilthey the source

of prejudices and distortions blocks valid understanding, therefore it is precisely what the

researcher must transcend.

Hermeneutics view on this study

My task of understanding was to interpret the original life worlds of my informants and

participants from STAR. I tried to understand the employees and the managers of STAR as they

understood themselves. To be able to do this, I was constantly aware of how my pre-knowledge

affected the way, I interpreted the context and what brought me to new levels of knowledge. As a

knower, I was aware that the understanding was an important self-transposition or imaginative

projection while conducting this research study. My data analysis of STAR was characterized by

hermeneutic, iterative process of going back and forth from critical reflection to the data, looking

for key themes and patterns, and questioning, redefining the key themes and patterns identified

with further evidence.

The STAR training manager have informed me through our telephone conversation before

arriving at STAR, that the empowerment strategy failed due to the employee’s mentality in

hesitating to take ownership. This was initially my pre understanding before I came to STAR. A

few months after the telephone conversation took place, I then joined STAR as a participant

observant. In the process of interpreting the data, I try to distance myself from my pre-

knowledge and control my belief that the employee’s mentality was causing the failure of the

empowerment process. After three months negotiating meaning with the social actors, I have

gained new data from my informants. The employees was sharing that they like the freedom to

make decisions and take the ownership, however the supervisory style of the managers were

hindering them in doing so. With this new insight, I have reconfigured my pre-understanding,

hence the transformation of my new understanding about the empowerment process among the

employees.

14 | P a g e

Social Constructionism

The scientific foundation of this research is based on social constructionism. Social

constructionism emphasizes on uncovering the ways in which individuals and groups participate

in the creation of their perceived social reality. Knowledge and truth are socially constructed and

there for not objectively given. When people interact they socially construct their reality, which

means reality is constantly reproduced and negotiated. Constructionists view knowledge and

truth as created not discovered by the mind (Schwandt, 2003) and support the view that being a

realist is not inconsistent with being a constructionist. Language and communication are vital

roles in social constructionism as language creates and recreates reality instead of being a result

of reality. In other words it is through communication and conceptualization that our lives

become meaningful and through that we learn. It is through constant affirmation and negotiation

of meaning people coordinate realities and significance; hence it will be hollow for a social

constructionist to research without engaging in human interaction in meaningful contexts.

Communicating through language brings concepts across and provides means of structuring the

way the world is experienced. (Arbnor & Bjerke, 2009) A social constructionist will not be

interested in finding one definitive truth because there is no objective reality of the natural world.

And the way of description and comprehension are derived from human engagement.

Social constructionism view on this study

I came in to STAR without understanding the organizational culture. The approach was guided

by the epistemological foundation that knowledge and truth are socially constructed. It means

741 employees and management staffs have different constructions of reality where some

coordinate and some deviates. An individual’s construction of reality tells something about an

individual’s participation in different social settings. The purpose was not about finding the one

and only truth, thus the discussion was set in a mood where I was not asserting or arguing on

what was true or not. Instead my focus was to solicit various points of views and see if there was

inconsistency or coherence towards how reality was viewed between the employees and the

15 | P a g e

management. In order to get a deeper understanding of the culture, I gathered valid data through

constantly engaging with the actors in the negotiating meaning process. As a researcher, my

position in obtaining those constructs from the actors, was to obtain them as natural as I could

without manipulation. I could not be as objective as a positivist, because my participation was

right there from the beginning and throughout the process of completing the research. Once the

artifacts and processes were identified, I coordinated meaning with the actors on why things

were done this and that way. I did the same when trying to identify the espoused values that were

appealing to me, l used language to coordinate meaning and asked how they were implemented

in the organization.

During my three months internship at STAR particularly at the Front Desk department, I noticed

that whenever there were conflicts between the management and employees, they did not

negotiate meaning with each other. The management did not make an effort in using language to

coordinate meaning, because the autocratic leadership style at the Front Desk only gave

instructions to the employees. To question the managerial decisions were considered as a threat

towards the leader’s position. The employees ended up negotiating meaning among themselves

for affirmation. It was the only process that the employees knew how to make sense of things,

whenever confusion and tension arose with the management. Every time the employees

coordinated meaning among themselves they kept on recreating and reproducing their own

realities which created a big gap with the management’s reality. Clearly there were signs of

communication problems within the organization. Therefore it is important to emphasize the

importance of communication in this research because meaning making and managing are

important components of communication (Pearce, 2007).

16 | P a g e

Methodology

The actor’s view

“It is a methodology for creating for creating knowledge committed to understanding, creating

and vivifying meaning in reality, where the reality is presumed to be socially constructed”

(Arbnor and Bjerke, 2009).The process of choosing the actor’s view was done reflectively by

considering the situation of the research area and my opinion of life. I also bear in mind that you

can never empirically or logically determine the best view. The actor’s view assumes that the

reality is socially constructed and it is a world which to the largest extent is dependent on us

human beings, whereby the creator of knowledge also participate as one of the constructors. It is

how a creator of knowledge approaches and reflects on this research and study area. The actor’s

view is a methodology for creating knowledge that is dedicated to understanding, creating and

verifying meaning in reality. It assumes that the reality as it exists for us is a social construction

filled with potentially unlimited number of possible descriptions of the situations in question in

the case of exploring an organization but also relatively stable structures, mentally anchored with

those actors, who maintain the structures (Arbnor and Bjerke, 2009).

The actor’s view on the study

Interesting issues and perspectives

To explore what has already been done in the area is about getting an understanding of where the

research front is and what kind of interesting question that could arise. The assumption in the

actors view is that reality is constructed socially, meaning that the literature and contributions

from other researchers can only be included as experiential data used for developing and

maintaining the area of knowledge creation (Arbnor and Bjerke, 2009).

17 | P a g e

Conceptualization – Language development

The creator of knowledge attempts to conceptualize by developing a language that will bring

understanding and action when facing the study area. It is a conceptual development, whereby

the researcher is bridging the growing descriptive language of its own with the actor’s own

mental language. This is seen as a process of getting feedback and provide and providing an

understanding for the actors involved. The approach of this research is to be open and try

suspend all previously given categorization and clichés.

Qualitative Research

Qualitative research is defined by its aim, which pertains to gain insight and comprehend some

aspect of social interaction (Brikci & Green, 2007). The study applies qualitative approach

(Cresswell, 2007) because it emphasizes words rather than numbers in the compilation and

analysis of data. It is a method with less codification and is more concerned on language which is

in contrast with the adoption of a natural scientific model in quantitative research that aims to

measure something (Bryman, 2008). Qualitative method is appropriate for this research because

by addressing the individual’s experiences and understanding the actor’s different outlooks, it

gives me the advantage to explore and discover elements of the STAR’s culture which is the

main aim of this research. Moreover, culture is intimately related to language and they mirror

each other (Arbnor & Bjerke, 2009). To provide the basis to uncover and understand the

organization culture, the research employed participant-observation and semi-structured

interview for collecting data.

Participant Observation

Participant observation is the researcher who immerse herself in a social setting for an extended

period of time, observing behavior, listening to what it said in conversations both between others

and with the researcher, and also asking questions. It usually includes interviewing key

18 | P a g e

informants and studying documents (Bryman, 2008). The objective is to collect data that will

help answer the research question (Kawulich, 2005).

Schein (2005) argued that to understand what is going on in an organization, the researcher must

get more involved through becoming a participant observer. Furthermore, to understand wholly

the complexities of many situations, face-to-face interaction in, and observation of, the

phenomenon of interest may be the best research method (Brikci & Green, 2007). Participant

observant is appropriate for collecting data because it has a specific focus on the culture of the

group (Bryman, 2008) and help the researcher the feel of what are the cultural parameters in

which the ethnographer is involved with (Schensul, Schensul & LeCompte, 1999). Speaking of

culture, Bernard (1994) argued that when participant observation included cultural studies, it

could increase the validity by being on the site for a period of time and familiarizes the

researcher to the social setting, thus facilitating involvement in sensitive activities to which

he/she generally would not be invited. And not only it helps the researcher to develop questions

that is logic in the native language or are culturally relevant but also it provides the researcher a

better understanding of what is happening in the culture and lends credence to one’s

interpretations of the observations (Bernard, 1994).

Moreover it provide researchers with ways to check the nonverbal expression of feelings,

discover who interacts with whom, understand how participants communicate with each other

and check for how much time is spent on different activities (Schmuck, 1997). Dewalt and

Dewalt (2002) suggested that participant observation can be used as a way to increase validity of

the research, as observations may help the researcher have a better understanding of the context

of phenomenon under study. One example is that observational data is useful in overcoming

discrepancies between what people say and what they actually do and might assist to uncover

behavior of which participants themselves may not be aware (Brikci & Green, 2007).

Validity is stronger with the combination of additional strategies used such us interviewing with

observation (Dewalt & Dewalt, 2002), therefore semi structured interview will be utilize later to

verify and clarify observed events. And since the researcher is using semi structured interviews,

participant observation also allows researchers to inspect definitions of terms that participants

19 | P a g e

use in interviews, observe events that informants may be unable or unwilling to share when

doing so would be impolitic, disrespectful, or insensitive, and observe situations informants have

described in interviews, thereby making them aware of distortions or inaccuracies in description

provided by those informants (Marshall & Rossman, 1995).

Informants

The participants/informants were four management staffs and four employees from the Front

Desk Department of STAR where I was attached as an Intern/Participant Observer for three

months. My selection criteria was based on purposive sampling, which is a non-probability form

of sampling. I did not looked to sample the employees and management staff on an aimless

random basis. The objective of purposive sampling was to sample participants in a strategic way,

so that the sampled are connected and relevant to my research question (Bryman, 2008). It means

I have selected the informants because they are likely to generate useful data (Brikci & Green,

2007) towards the research question. I employed informal conversation with the employees and

management staff within the STAR’ social setting in order to negotiate meaning (Gergen, 2009)

based on the observed behavior and artifacts. The selection of the appropriate key informants to

conduct informal conversation will also be based on who are involved in the process, rituals,

traditions (Schein, 2010). I have noticed and experienced that the employees were tense and

reluctant to share information with me while the employees were on duty. I therefore collected

my oral data through informal conversation, mainly when the employees was on a short break,

like at the smoking area. Brikci & Green (2007) argued that many cultures are primarily oral

rather than literary and furthermore, talking to the informants informally was an ideal way of

understanding more about their social setting because it can be more informative than a formal

interview. For example I was privileged enough to listen to their stories, what they complained

about, how they described problems and managed them. They also elaborated on what could and

could be said in various situations. These informal conversation usually took place during

breakfast or lunch at the employee’s cafeteria and also at the female’s locker room. Brikci and

Green, 2007 point that the oral data collected in an informal conversation is an excellent way of

accessing what is important to the participants locally and how they think about it.

20 | P a g e

Ethics

The researcher’s primary consideration is to conduct the research in an ethical manner, informing

the employees and managers that the purpose for observing is to document their activities. I was

constantly introducing myself as a researcher, for example when I meet social members for the

first time, I usually informed of the purpose for me being there. Being open to STAR and

providing the informant’s adequate information about the study topic was very important. In this

way they did not so question my presence at STAR. I have also noted to preserve the anonymity

of the participants in the final write-up and in field notes to prevent their identification. For

example when things are being shared to me about informal activities or about the department

through informal conversation, I made sure that the information given does not get back to

others, whether superior or colleagues.

Semi Structured Interviews

In an attempt to capture the meaning, Semi-structured interviews is an appropriate method to

apply because it is a two way communication which can be used to gather qualitative

information. Most importantly it provides the opportunity for learning from a social

constructionist point of view. Semi-structured interviews have a list of specific questions to be

covered, usually referred to as an interview guide but the interviewee has a great deal of

flexibility and freedom in how to reply. As the interviewer picks up things from the interviewee,

the interviewer might ask questions that are not in the guide. The interview process is flexible

and emphasizes more on how the interviewee understands the issues or subjects (Bryman, 2008).

It is conducted on the basis of a loose structure made up of open-ended questions illustrating the

area to be explored (Brikci & Green, 2007).

The reason why I employ semi-structured interviews for this research is because it not only

provides answers but it also provides the reasons of the answer. The relatively unstructured

nature of the interviews has the capacity to provide insights into how the organization culture

works. Interviewing different representatives from one department in a relaxed atmosphere,

21 | P a g e

away from the employees’ daily working routine environment, will hopefully result in very

sincere interviews. Schein (2010) recommends that the interpretation of cultural data may require

interaction with the subjects for example by using semi structured interviews.

Interviewer’s techniques aim

The findings should reflect what the research is set to answer, rather than reflecting the bias of

the researcher. I have employed a systematic approach to ensure that the data and interviewees

are not just picked up in order to support the interviewer’s pre-existing ideas about the answers.

For credibility, the questions asked and the ways the questions are being asked should be

reasonable one for developing a valid or truthful accounts of the phenomena. The most important

goal is transparency whereby the method should be written up so that the readers can see how the

data is collected and analyzed (Brikci & Green, 2007).

Sampling

Four interviewees participated in the semi-structured interviews. Three were employees and the

other two were managers. The selection was a combination of purposive sampling (Bryman,

2008) and with the consideration based on hierarchy, because during my research as a

participant-observer at STAR, I discovered that rank and order is very important and must be

taken seriously. Interestingly Malaysia has scored very high in power distance with a total of 100

percent in Gert Hofstede’s National Cultural Dimension, a number that could not be simply

ignored. It means all individuals in societies are not equal and that hierarchical order are widely

accepted in the Malaysian organizations. Lim’s (2001) research on Malaysian’s work related

values also showed that the Malaysians have a high power distance.

Interview guide

An interview guide is a structured list of issues to be addressed or questions to be asked in semi-

structured interviewing (Bryman, 2008). It is important to develop accurate questions to ask and

to keep in mind that the interviewees are unlikely to share the researcher’s view on the world.

Therefore an interview guide has a list of key questions the interviewer would like to include,

22 | P a g e

with some useful prompts to boost the interviewee to talk about particular issues if they do not

come up spontaneously (Brikci & Green, 2007).

In preparing for my interview guide (Appendix 5), I have divided the questions for the

participants into two sections; management and employees. Then I have created a certain amount

of order on the topic areas which applies the same on both sections. Both sections include

demographic background, organizational culture, climate, empowerment, trust, relationship,

communication and collaboration and motivational needs. In some topic areas, certain questions

differ between the two sections. The order was arranged so that the questions about them flowed

reasonably well, while still keeping in mind and be prepared to alter the order of the questions

during the actual interview (Bryman, 2008). The interview questions was formulated in a way

that assisted me in answering my research questions and at the same time I did not make them

too specific. Based on my personal assumptions and my previous experiences as a participant

observer at STAR, I discovered that the majority of the employees and management staff used

English as the primary language of communication, however grammar did not seem to be

important because the focus was more on the meaning of the context. Even though English was

the mode of communication, a mix of Malay or Chinese language and expressions also appeared

in the conversations. Therefore I try to use everyday vocabulary and avoided overly complicated

ones (Brikci & Green, 2007), that were hard for the employees to comprehend. At the same time

I bore in mind that I might rephrase the questions again or explain it in Malay during the actual

interview. Lastly I try to avoid asking leading questions in the preparation of my interview guide.

Setting

Being a participant observer for three months at STAR made me familiar with the settings in

which the interviewees worked and engaged in. This was an advantage to me as an interviewer

because it helped me to understand what he or she was saying in the interviewee’s own terms

(Bryman, 2008). Being aware of the place where the interview is going to be conducted will have

an impact on the answers that I will get (Brikci & Green, 2007). The setting was requested and

arranged in advance via email correspondence with my contact person which was the Training

Manager and the Front Office Manager (FOM). Finally after a few emails exchanged at the FOM

23 | P a g e

closed office an interview setting was chosen and agreed upon. It was an acceptable quiet room,

however from my previous experiences being inside the FOM office, I felt and sensed an amount

of stress from the Front Desk employee team which was based just outside the office, where the

daily briefing was also conducted. Anyway the setting was closed and based on my personal

assumption there was enough privacy and ample space to make the interviewees feel relaxed.

Together with the FOM, I informed the participants in advance via email about the setting, date

and time schedule, so that they were aware in advance and well prepared before going for the

interview.

Rapport

The interviewee’s personal characteristics such as ethnicity, gender, status, position and social

distance was taken into consideration. I also reflected on what to wear and how I should present

myself in an appropriate way being sensitive to interviewee’s culture. Wearing a revealing attire

could be seen as offensive for this culture and scruffy appearance might make the interviewees

feel disrespected. While I was a participant observer, I found out an appealing information.

Tacky appearance at STAR means no make-up at all. Therefore during the online interviews I

planned to have a slight make up in order to avoid being rude. I was also aware that the

interviewees needed to trust me, for that reason I had to show that I was curious and interested in

them and what they had to say. But above all I had to suspend my judgment whatever the

interviewees might answer. The interviewees were also reminded before the interview started

that the interview could be stopped anytime, should they feel uncomfortable or unhappy. In order

for my respondents to be comfortable, I was attentive to help if they were frail or did not hear

well for example. This meant I had to be very sensitive towards my interviewees. Most

importantly I kept in mind that a research interview is not an interrogation. The objective is to be

as non-judgmental as possible and to avoid leading the interviewees to specific answers (Brikci

& Green, 2007). Finally I was interested in their perspectives and not their responses to my

perspectives.

24 | P a g e

Interviewing instruments

Due to the distance, the interviews were conducted via online Skype video and recorded by an

online recording program. A pilot test was conducted before the actual interview took place. The

method was used to test the online Skype video before carrying out the research. This involved

conducting an initial test of processes to spot and eradicate errors. The video quality on Skype

was acceptable but most importantly the microphone was excellent. It is essential to have a good

microphone (Bryman, 2008) in order to avoid a bad recording. The online recording program

generated a good quality material. The nature of the semi-conducted interview is supposed not to

be following the rigidly formulated schedule of questions of the kind used in structured

interviewing. Therefore with a good recorder it is not easy to lose the phrases and language used.

The recording material would later be used for transcribing the interviews. It is an important

procedure for the detailed analysis necessary in qualitative research and to guarantee that the

interviewee’s answers are captured in their own terms (Bryman, 2008). Despite the sleekness of

the online recording program, unexpected things might arise during the actual interview which is

therefore I came up with a preventive measure plan and recorded the interview not only with an

online recording program, but also together with a digital recording.

Data management and analysis

Confidentiality

Confidentiality consideration of the participants was taken seriously because during my

attachment at the Front Desk Department as participant observer I discovered through

observation and confirmation by key informants that it could be seen as disrespectful if an

employee voiced out their opinion, their views and suggestions openly. Therefore I had to think

that there might be a risk that the interviewees could be seen as disloyal and be excluded by their

team members. I also had to make sure that no one could access my materials specially the

transcripts. Exploring and revealing a culture could be quite sensitive issues especially if the

organization is not ready to accept it (Schein, 2008). I needed to be aware that I was dealing with

25 | P a g e

delicate issues such as depression, oppression, which was why I needed to ensure that the

information in my written research findings could not be traced to a specific person.

Transcribing interviews

The respondents’ prior permission had been sought for because an online recording program was

being used. I also explained that in order to assist me in making sure whether I had documented

their views correctly I would make use of the online recording program during the Skype

interview. During the interview I paused the recorder a few times and due to the tense in the

context when it got delicate and sensitive for the interviewees. This was done because according

to Brikci and Green (2007) it could be dangerous to the respondent.

Thematic analysis

A term used in connection with analysis of qualitative data refers to the extraction of key themes

in one’s research data (Bryman, 2008). It looks across all data to pinpoint the common issues that

reoccur and identify the main themes that summarize all the perspectives a researcher has

compiled (Brikci & Green, 2007).

There are a few stages of the thematic analysis that I have adapted in examining my data for this

research. The fundamental stage was reading and annotating the transcripts. I did not specify the

overview of the data. I only made exploratory observations in order to get the feel for the data.

Later I identified the themes and began identifying the themes with summaries of ‘what was

happening here’. I started to take notes of what the interviewees were connecting and referring to

in the edge of each transcript. I tried to make it as conceptual as possible which meant I did not

just sum up the text but also attempted to figure out what the text was an example of. Because I

could extract more out of the data if I thought in details about the diverse things that were going

on there, for example: triggers to the failure of communication and motivation. I then made a list

of themes as I looked through the data. The gathered initial themes was then used in developing a

26 | P a g e

coding scheme. There were a list of coding themes and codes that I applied later to the data. The

early analysis in beginning to develop the coding scheme as soon as initial data have been

gathered is beneficial because it can afterwards shape the data collected (Brikci & Green, 2007)

and whether I was asking the right questions or have I included the right individual. I made sure

that my bias of ‘what is happening’ was kept in check constantly while developing the coding

scheme. In the last stage I started applying the codes to the whole set of my data through typing

the codes on the edge of my transcripts.

Critical reflections

One of the challenging steps as a participant observer was to gain access to the social setting of

the Front Desk Department because it was a relatively closed one. Without a hassle I managed to

get an easy entry to the organization by getting my permission to participate and observe.

However, this did mean I would have an easy acceptance. Interestingly during my field work

research the managers was asking if I was sent from the Hong Kong headquarters of Shangri-La

without even giving me ample time to introduce myself properly. Moreover they kept on

interrogating me as if I was a suspicious individual. Due to this incident, the researcher need to

be aware in the future that sometime you do not have the privilege to introduce yourself first as

one of the guideline mention in ethics chapter before. Therefore a participant observer need to be

also conscious that securing in many ways is an on-gong activities (Bryman, 2008). Some of the

helpful tips from Taylor and Bogdan’s (1984) are that Participant observer should be familiar

with the setting before collecting data, be honest but not too technical or detailed in explaining to

participants on what he or she is doing there, low profile in dress and actions, become data and

lastly to keep the observation short in the beginning to keep from becoming overwhelmed and

affected.

Even though I have reveal myself that I am a researcher, the employees and the management

staffs completely disregard the purpose and were not really bothered by it. Later I found out that

STAR was not accustom to having interns that do research on their department. While I have

revealed myself as a researcher, I still obtained the advantages of a covert role which discard

27 | P a g e

some of the difficulties. Covert role means not to reveal the fact that you are a researcher

(Bryman, 2008). Regardless of this, they did not see me as an intruder into their lives because the

employees did not hesitate to share their concern and persistent in sharing their frustration as if I

was a full member of the organization.

Due to the intense engagement among the participant as a fully functioning member at the Front

Desk Department, my role as participant observation carried a risk of interfering with the

employees’ construction of reality and co-creating the realities with the staff by negotiation of

meaning. That was why I always tried to reflect critically of the information, that I was given and

reflected continuously on, how I as a researcher contributed to the construction of reality and

negotiation of meaning. According to Schein (2010) to lessen the biases that has resulted from

my own engagement, I have used the actors as an “informants” in order to clarify what I have

observed or to decipher the data I have gained.

However as a participant observation I relied too much on the informants, which were the

management staff, employees from the Front Desk Departments. Certain informants developed

interest on the research and directed me to situations, events and people likely to be helpful to the

progress of my problem formulation. Thus they became particularly seemingly important to the

research and turn into key informants. Although key informants kept on providing support and

informations and without a doubt of great help to me as a participant observant, I did bear in

mind that counting too much on key informants could involve a higher risk in seeing social

reality only through the eyes of the key informants instead of through the eyes of other members

of the social setting.

In the course of trying to understand how the STAR Front Desk Department really works. I

realized that it was difficult in gathering valid cultural data because with the human subjects

involved in the research had a tendency to either resist and hide data that they feel protective

about or to overstate in order to impress the researcher or simply to get a cathartic relief or in

other words “Finally someone is interested enough to listen to our story”. Frost, 2003 and

Goldman, 2008 mention the need for such “cathartic relief” derives from frustration with the

management, superior, tensions, destructive competition with peers, exhaustion from work and

28 | P a g e

so on. I was aware that I was listening to tales of woe from anxious and frustrated employees

who have no other place of means of release. Therefore Schein (2010) argues that to get any kind

of precise picture of what is going on, the researcher must find a method that advocate the

insiders to ‘tell it like it is’ instead trying to impress the researcher, hide data, or blow off steam.

In utilizing semi structured interview, the main challenge was this approach was time consuming

and it was quite hard to put data from different participants into a coherent picture because each

individuals see things differently even though he or she used the same words. Furthermore even

with the consent and confidentiality considered as an ethical guidelines for this interview, stress

and anxiety emerge only with the employees when they have to talk about their superior. On the

other hand the managers were more relaxed. Does the choice of setting effected this

phenomenon?

In the beginning I have formally applied and requested for a private and closed room located at

Human Resource Department (HRD), it was also called an interview room by the HRD staffs.

This setting is located outside of the main building of the resort where the Front Desk

Department (FDD)is located. Originally it was agreed between me and my contact person from

STAR which is the Training Manager, that the semi structured interview will be at the HRD

interviewing room which is located in another building approximately 200 meters walk. It was

made clear to my contact person, Front Office Manager and Director of Room Division that the

choice of setting was important in the process of conducting the interviews. However I was

informed one week before the interview that it was changed to the FOM’s closed office room.

The change was initiated by the FOM with reasons that it is convenient for them and that it

would be easy for the interviewees to get back to their work as soon as the interview was done.

Moreover I have received an email (Appendix 7) from the FOM that the interview process need

to be expedite due to their business and lack of employees. Could the change of setting impact on

the answer I get when they feel uncomfortable and not too much privacy because the DOR’s

secretary keep on opening the door and kept asking if the interview was done. Which leads me to

wondering, where the interviewees especially the employees are giving an honest answers?

29 | P a g e

Validity and reliability

Reliability refers to the consistency of a measure of a concept (Bryman, 2008). This research

have a high external reliability because the semi-structured interview with the employees and the

managers cannot be replicated. Moreover, even though a similar role can maybe adapted as a

Participant observant role at STAR replicating a similar social role by the original researcher,

however it is impossible to freeze social setting.

I have utilized respondent validation by frequently ensuring that there is a good correspondence

between my findings and the perspectives and experiences of the STAR’s employees and

managers. In the process of conducting my semi-structured interview, not only I constantly seek

corroboration to validate my understanding and interpretation, I have also sent interview

summaries to the participants for confirmation purpose. Which have contributed to a high

internal validity for this study.

Analysis

The three levels of culture – Participant observation

In this section, I will illustrate this multi-level analysis by describing Shangri-La Tanjung Aru

Resort (STAR) with whom I have worked for three months during my internship. I will begin to

identify some of the deep elements of their cultures. I describe it as elements because it is beyond

the bounds of possibility to describe an entire culture, however I can describe adequate elements

to make some of the key events and phenomena at STAR comprehensible.

30 | P a g e

Shangri-La Tanjung Aru Resort and Spa (STAR)

Built in 1983, STAR is renowned as the premier 5 star resort not only in Kota Kinabalu city but

also through-out Malaysia. STAR is a market leader for both leisure and corporate market. Kota

Kinabalu city has a total of 2,875,761 tourist arrivals in 2012 and is forecasted to increase the

number every year. The Training Manager which was my contact person at STAR shared to me

that the luxury Shangri-La chain had recently implemented empowerment strategies and it was a

part of their Shangri-La Care Programe which all current staff member had participated in and

newcomers still undergo. The Training Manager shared his concerns about how difficult it was

to enforce empowerment and moreover he also assumed that the employee’s mentality might

have hindered the empowerment implementation and subsequently failed during the change

process.

Artifacts

Physical expressions

To gain entry at the employee’s entrance, you had to sign in with a guard who sat behind the

counter while employees punched their card to enter and exit in order for the management to

keep track of their punctuality. There were also times where I saw Security guards inspecting the

employee’s bags upon leaving the resort. When I read the employee’s handbook, it also stated

that employees leaving the resort premises must be prepared to be inspected by the Security

Personnel on duty. What I remember most was the formality of the uniforms which were

segregated according to rank and department. Name tags were essential at STAR, it was also

according to hierarchy whereby the managerial level and up would have a magnetic name tag

with their managerial position laminated just below their name. On the other hand the employees

below managerial would only have their names using a pinned name tag. The physical layout of

the closed office, hidden pathways for employees and the patterns of communication and

cooperation made it easy to see who had what rank.

I reacted differently to the STAR environment as it was alien to me this environment. According

to Schein, a researcher’s reaction are themselves artifacts when conducting cultural analysis. It

31 | P a g e

must be recognized and taken in to consideration and that it is unacceptable to present any

cultural analysis with total objectivity because not only would this be unreasonable, but a

researcher’s emotional reactions and favoritism are also primary data to be analyzed and

understood (Schein, 2010). Upon entering the employee’s entrance for the first time, I saw a sign

that said: ‘Welcome home’. This is synonymous to the STAR’s philosophy ‘Shangri-La

Hospitality from a caring family’.

Language

The formality between the employees and management staff were seeable through how they

greeted and interacted with each other. I was also briefed by the Training staff members that if I

saw the Quality Director in the hallways, I should immediately put my right hand to my left chest

(heart) and greet her.

Managers

Front Desk managers I came across were formal and serious. I found out later that STAR had a

system of managerial rank based on length of service, overall performance and the personal

background of the individual instead of the actual job being performed at a given time. As a

result, rank and status had a much more permanent quality.

Traditions

During the STAR’s Front Desk daily briefing and meeting at the back-office, I observed that

there was no direct confrontation and much respect for the managerial opinion. Meetings and

briefings were geared to transport information rather than problem-solving. Suggestions and

recommendations voiced out by managers in their specific area of accountability were normally

respected, accepted and implemented, moreover I never saw or noticed disobedience from the

employee’s side. Interpersonal confrontation, argumentativeness and conflict coming from the

employees were unnoticeable. Moreover asking the supervisor or manager’s consent before

32 | P a g e

deciding to make decision was a must and considered as an obedient employee. Clearly I could

see that rank and status had a high value and something that was taken seriously in the Front

Desk Department at STAR.

Monitoring the employee’s performance was an established practice. Performance Development

Indicator (PDI) is a scoreboard that measures each employee at STAR. There was an incident

that got my attention around this scoreboard area. One day The Assistant Training Manager was

clearly sick but still he managed to drag himself to work. Curiosity made me ask him why he did

not take sick leave and rest at home. He answered that he was fearful for his PDI would get

deducted. He elaborated that should an employee become repeatedly sick, their respective

superior or Manager might decide to deduct the PDI. Moreover if the Manager was intolerant or

prejudice, usually he or she would deduct the employee’s PDI points straight away.

Espoused Beliefs and Values

Strategic goals

The organization’s strategy and goals may fall into the category of espoused beliefs in that there

may be no way of experimenting it except through consensus because the link between strategy

and performance may be hard to prove (Schein, 2010). STAR’s strategic plan is to achieve

excellence through leadership that is committed, dedicated and creating a sense of belonging.

Secondly through colleague loyalty, commitment, efficient and high achievers (Shangri-La’s

employee handbook). These strategic goals are supported by a variety of training programmes

which all colleagues undergo within six months of joining STAR. One of these training

programmes is related to the empowerment strategy which is also known as Shangri-La Care

Module 3 - Taking Ownership. The Taking Ownership training module states the meaning as to

live in an environment that is filled with care for guests and compassion for colleagues. The

objective of it is to empower colleagues to take initiative in everything they do and be able to

take ownership to show care for guests, colleagues and company.

33 | P a g e

In order to realize STAR’s goal, eight guiding principles are adopted. The philosophy and

guiding principles are the foundation of the STAR’s culture, and they are the beliefs by which

the employees and management staff will conduct themselves to the benefit of both their

colleagues, their guests and STAR’s business.

Taking Ownership – Empowerment strategy

Shangri-La chain hotel headquarters in Hong Kong came up with a strategy that was meant to be

implemented in every Shangri-La chain hotel in the world which also included STAR. The

objective of the workshop is for the employees and managers to be able to take ownership and to

show care for their guests, colleagues and company. Shangri-La’s vision on Shangri-La Care

Module 3 –Taking Ownership is to be the first choice for guests and colleagues and with a

mission to delight their guests every time by creating engaging experiences straight from the

heart. According to the Taking Ownership training book, there are four drivers of ownership

(Appendix 3).

1. Show commitment

Do the actions to support values and principle. Most importantly assist colleagues to

delight guests.

2. Eager to take initiatives

Think outside the box, courage to take risk and constantly look for opportunities.

3. Lead yourself

‘Can Do’ spirit, self-motivated, make a difference and perseverance.

4. Filled with passion

Genuine desire to want to serve other, sincerity and being aware that customer service is

80% will and 20% skills.

34 | P a g e

Management

If I asked managers in STAR’s Front Desk Department why the Receptionists keep on going to

the back office to refer to their Supervisor whenever they after decision. They would explain to

me that, “It is normal to report and refer to their respective Supervisor first and then if they do

not get consent or solution from their Supervisor they could then proceed to get an approval

from the Duty Manager on that day”. Furthermore the managers clarified that the hierarchy

system needed to be followed accordingly before making decisions. And that this was the way

the management could keep track of what was happening. Moreover the management wanted to

be aware of any situation and have the overview in case a problem escalated. This way they felt

better prepared to handle any upcoming problem.

Despite the organization’s strategy in implementing empowerment, my observations showed that

there was a lack of ownership and decision making among the Receptionists. This made me

curious and therefore I confronted the Training Manager from Human Resource Department, the

Room Division Trainer and most of the Managers and Supervisors of the Front Desk

Department. I found out that there was a strong belief among managers and supervisors. The

management team explained that, ”the employees, specially the new and young ones mentality

are not bothered in taking ownership at work. These employees are somehow slowing down the

empowerment process.” The management team see the employee’s mentality as a challenge in

managing the change process in implementing the empowerment strategy.

Employees

After I observed a one way flow of communication during the Front Desk Department’s daily

briefing that took place right before the new shift started, I asked the receptionists and the

employees why they did not voice out their concerns, suggestions and opinions when the Duty

Manager conducted the daily briefing. They all explained that this kind of meeting was

exclusively used for announcing decisions and sharing information. Moreover the employees felt

that it was pointless to voice out what was on their mind because information coming from the

top was considered valid knowledge and therefore it was better to keep quiet and avoid

35 | P a g e

commenting on anything. They had a feeling that suggestions and discussions among the

employees were labeled as inessential by the management.

The employees further explained that a high value was placed on authority based on rank and

experience, and getting an approval from their Supervisors and Managers was a must in order to

avoid being disrespectful to any of their respective superiors. As I asked further on what they

meant by being disrespectful, the employees associated it with confronting, questioning or

reflecting on the suggested decisions of their superiors. For example if your Supervisor or

Manager suggested or asked you to do something that you acknowledge as incorrect, not

intelligent or irresponsible, you were supposed to just accept it and not pursue to change the

Supervisor or Manager’s mind. Because an attempt to change the mind of the superior was

somehow seen as a challenge to the Manager’s superiority and power. Furthermore it could be

considered as an insult to his or her intelligence thus being disrespectful. Therefore the

employee’s belief of constant obey and not going out of the chain of command will avoid being

rude and not get being is considered a good employee. And that providing a solution was solely

based on the manager’s value and did not reflect the STAR’s organization’s values. To

comprehend the significance of these values and to show how they were linked to obvious

behavior, I had to look a level deeper to discover the underlying assumptions.

Basic Assumptions – The STAR’s Paradigm

Many of the values gave a glimpsed of taste of STAR, however without penetrating deeper to

basic assumptions, it would be difficult to fully understand how things worked. For example the

artifact that hit me utmost as a participant-observant within the organization was the peculiar

behavior of how the managers and employees interacted during the completion of their daily

working routines. I observed that there was a one way communication occurring between the

Managers and the employees. That new concept or solution developed would never seem to get

out from the employees. If I asked the employees why they did not take initiative in solving the

guest’s problem on the spot and also voiced out their opinion to their respective Supervisors and

Managers with demotivating faces they would answer me ‘It is pointless and useless’ so why

bother (Receptionist)?’ Because of the imposed empowerment process strategy by the

36 | P a g e

organization, my assumption was that it would certainly have been beneficial for the employees

to decide and take control of the situation should a problem occur with their guests.

For example I notice that it was a daily routine for Receptionist to keep on traveling back and

forth towards the back-office leaving the guests unattended and irritated with up to fifteen

minutes of waiting time. As I went to the back-office there was a queue among the Receptionist

with worried faces waiting for their turn to report or get consent from their respective supervisor

or manager. I could hear high tones, irritating voices and sarcasm coming from their superior,

while on the other hand constant nodding, low voice and continually Yes and OK coming from

the receptionists. The receptionists were only listening to their superior who was demanding to

elaborate more on the situation pertaining to the guest’s complaints and then commanding the

receptionists on what to do and how to do it. The receptionists shared to me that, even though

they knew that they could solve it by themselves, they were reluctant to voice-out their opinions

and would not take the matters in their own hands. The Receptionists were hesitating to take

action in taking ownership of the problem and the eagerness to do something was not visible.

However, power and control were very visible not only at the Front Desk back office but also at

the Front Desk counter itself in front of the guests. This experience was puzzling and confusing,

a strong underlying assumptions were at work here. In order to find out what it was, I later asked

one of the receptionist why they were not practicing the taking ownership- empowerment

strategy, she disclosed that they did not dare to bother or care in empowerment strategy because

it did not exist. Furthermore the receptionist added that how could they practice to take

ownership when there was no freedom to decide. The employee’s ideas or opinions had always

been seen as a threat to their Superior’s power and credibility thus it was considered

disrespecting the Manager’s intelligence and years of experience. The underlying assumption

here was that unsolicited ideas were generally not well received and taking matters on the

receptionist own hands to solve problems on the spot were not a disrespectful. She concluded

that by being obedient, keeping their ideas to themselves and just become a follower were the

best way to avoid conflicts with the managers as the Superiors always considered themselves

right. I had a long curious conversation with most of the Front Desk employees about this

observed behavior and collectively figured it out what the clarification was. As earlier described,

managers see their job as their area of expertise and felt a strong sense of territory or control and

made the assumption that each Manager in the Front Desk Department would be completely

37 | P a g e

involved in managing by using power and to be on top of his or her field of expertise. Managers

demanded to be fully briefed and make himself an expert in that area. For that reason, if an

employee presented some spontaneous information connected to the job, this was potentially an

encroachment of privacy and possibly an insult, as it might indicate that the manager did not

earlier come up with this idea or information.

The dominant analogy that ‘offering someone unwanted information was like walking into their

home unwelcomed’ derive from a number of managers in subsequent interviews. It became

understandable that only if information was requested for was it adequate to offer ideas. To

provide unsolicited ideas could be seen as a challenge to the manager, and that it could be

referred to as disrespect or an insult.

The assumption for STAR’s philosophy ‘Shangri-La Hospitality from a caring family’ was that

the parental authority should be respected and that children (employees) should behave

accordingly to the rules and obey their parents.

Below are the important characteristic of the STAR’s Front Desk paradigm which I discovered

during my observations as a participant observer. The paradigm is a set of assumptions held in

common and taken for granted in an organization: in effect it is a collective experience used in a

situation in order to make sense (Johnson, 2011).

38 | P a g e

Findings

I have identified these assumptions primarily through observation. Whenever I discovered or

observed abnormalities I tried to be curious on the matter by confronting the inside informants.

To fully comprehend the observed incidents I gathered different perspectives and collected valid

information through constantly engaging with the employees and managers by negotiating and

coordinating the meaning in order to get a deeper understanding of the culture.

The powerful influence of the current managers/leaders was clear. They strongly valued their

culture and were pleased or satisfied with them. Stories told among managers were, that the

employees´ mentalities were the barrier that prevented a successful implementation of the

empowerment strategy. Moreover the managers also felt that it was necessary for the members

of the STAR’s organization to accept the basic assumptions and that hierarchy systems needed to

be followed accordingly before deciding and taking action. Although STAR was at the

empowerment stage process, the managers treasured their autocratic leadership style because

their current culture was seen as an important asset and they wanted to preserve it.

Finally, it was noticeable that STAR’s organization reflected the national culture of Malaysia in

which it operated. Whereby people accept a hierarchical order in which everybody has a place

and which needs no further justification (Hofstede’s National Cultural Dimension, 2014).

Truth and wisdom come from those

who have highest rank.

Leadership arrogance:

“We know what is best”

We are a family and members will take care of each other,

But a family is a hierarchy and children have to obey.

Leadership power and control

are the keys to success.

Staying closely linked to one’s

“parents” is considered as an

obedient employee and the

key to success.

39 | P a g e

Thematic analysis – Semi constructed interview

Culture as command and control

The overall theme in the participant’s narratives shows how it is to be a lower rank employee at

the STAR’s Front Desk. This sense of complications was attributed to difficulties with the

autocratic leadership style which the employees felt made them appear stupid and incompetent.

Unanimously, the participants had anticipated that the dictatorial and controlling style would be

the challenge. They were experienced in dealing with hotel guests, nevertheless all participants

expressed dissatisfaction at how coping with the domineering and tyrannical leadership style had

such an impact on their ability to take ownership in the Front Desk setting. Not having the

freedom to decide and to perform simple tasks such as settling hotel guest’s request was

frustrating and demotivating as shown in the following examples.

Participant 1

Employee - Service Center Associate’s Story

No ownership. No empowerment. Nothing. We just come to work whenever they ask us to. You

just do it. You cannot voice out anything. They said yes in front of you but at the back they say

no. So nowadays when we think of something, solution or idea, we all know this could not be

done. Therefore all of us in the Service Centre just go to work and then go back. That's it. That's

why taking ownership is nothing. You cannot say anything. We do not know how to say anymore.

It's nothing for us that taking ownership and empowerment. It does not exist and there is no

meaning for us.

40 | P a g e

Participant 2

Employee – Receptionist’s Story (Appendix 6)

No authority. It seems like they have a lot of stone that you need to jump. Need to ask for almost

everything. Meaning you need to ask for permission from a lot of people, pass a few superiors to

make decision. You have your own Service Leader (SL) to refer to first. However most of the SL

will say "Mmmm I am not sure. I don't know. But try and ask Duty Manager." Once you

approached the Duty Manager (DM), at the end they maybe just say no. It's like you need to

jump around. If the Duty Manager don't want to face it, they will inform you what to do, how to

do it and then you follow and do it. It's like a double job, it makes you look stupid. Because you

need to ask your managers, 'Ok how do I do this?' The Manager will say 'Ok I am letting you go

back.' On the corner the guest will be like, 'Common you cannot decide anything?'

Taking ownership-Empowerment is still not being widely practise. All the new employees, know

how to handle, but even though it’s just a very small matter, they just directly go to the upper one

and directly go to the Duty Manager. Let’s say if you want to take the initiative to handle the

problem by yourself and then later get back to the Duty Manager, he or she will then say, ‘Why

didn’t you report up to me?’ It feels like, so what do you want me to do? Therefore if a certain

problem or situation arise that needed to be solve, even though we know how to solve it, we will

just say 'I am not a Manager and this is not my task.' We let the manager do it. This is very

common and keep on happening here. All the employees are losing their motivation. We will be

clear in our status that we are not a manager and any complaint should be refer to SL or the

Managers. All of the employees are like a 'Robot'. Check-in, check-out, 'I am sorry Duty

Manager will speak to you'.

I have an idea. But I am not allowed to decide. Because we have a procedure like;

‘One moment Sir, I need to double check with my Duty Manager.’

41 | P a g e

Participant 3

Employee - Guest Relations Officer’s Story (Appendix 6)

Taking ownership is when a guests complaint something and you are supposed to recover the

problem. As an associate at lowest level, we cannot do anything. Because everything need to be

refer to your manager. Everything. So even if you can handle it, and solve it, the manager will

say 'Aah you didn’t call me in? You simply handle it by yourself?' Imagine guests complain to

you with simplest thing, and you have to say 'Aaah let me refer to my Superior, I will call the

Duty Manager for you.' I mean the guest will also said 'Aaah it's just a small thing and you have

to call your Duty Manager? So the staff cannot do anything for me?' The guest also feel like the

staff cannot do anything. For me it's like we cannot make decision. It feels and looks stupid, I

mean only for the small thing, you go in and out, again and again through the Front Desk back

office to refer to the managers.

Findings

Here the Front Desk Department employees from the Reception, Service Center and Guest

Relation sections underline issues that are voiced through narratives. The managers and leaders

attention to control and command posed a self-determination risk in the employee’s professional

competence, because the never ending referring upwards seem to have weakened the employee’s

belief to perform (Human resource online, 2008). According to Dr. Stephen Choo, regional

director (Southeast Asia) at Hay Group insight, the lack of empowerment to make decisions and

constantly having to refer to the respective superior contributes to a high frustration factor

(Choo, 2008).

If self-efficacy is lacking, people tend to behave ineffectually, even though they know what to do.

(Bandura, 1986. p.425)

42 | P a g e

The employees identify the problem of their inability to take ownership to be evidently related

to the managers ruling and dominant leadership style. Compounding this perception that their

motivation to take ownership were perish, employees felt that their capabilities to organize and

execute the courses of action required to manage prospective situations are belittle. As Raquib,

M.A, et al. (2010) and Lim (2001) found, the managers reluctance to delegate authority to their

subordinates let to employee’s feelings of disempowerment and disappointment. Their

confidence diminished and felt discouraged, some withdraw responsibilities and critical thinking

skills, a safe position where the risk of conflicts and confrontation would be minimized. STAR

management need to identify the conditions contributing to low self-efficacy which in this case

authoritarianism. Because a controlling supervisory style contributes to low self-efficacy

condition which is the barrier on the first stage of empowerment process (Conger and Kanungo,

1988). On a motivational perspective, the empowerment strategies relationship with Bandura’s

self-efficacy theory is important because it involves the mentality (Gist, 1987) of a person’s

belief that they can function and act adequately in a situation (Bandura, 1986).

Discussion

My argument is that unless you decipher the current existing culture (Schein, 2010) at STAR,

you cannot implement empowerment strategy effectively. And that the insight gained from the

understanding of STAR’s culture and behavior can essentially influence the initiating change

process of developing a culture that supports and drives behavior aligned with empowerment

strategy (Johnson, Whittington & Scholes, 2011 and Tower Watson, 2013).

The assumptions about the paradigm are very basic but may or may not align with the logic strategy.

(Johnson, 2011)

43 | P a g e

The STAR’s Training Manager stated that despite the acclaimed ‘Taking Ownership’ –

Empowerment strategy, it had failed in empowering employees to take initiative in many of their

actions. Even though STAR used labels such as respect, compassion, care for colleagues and that

every staff is equally important, the four drivers of Shangri-La’s “Taking Ownership-

Empowerment strategy”; show commitment, eager to take initiatives, lead yourself and filled

with passion (Appendix 3) were not visible at the Front Desk Department. Although such labels

are important and useful for understanding and communication, it is the practice that really

matter (Tosti, 2007).

Dewettinck (2003) noted that Bowen and Lawler (1992) suggested that in order for employees to

be empowered, the dispersion of authority, information and knowledge towards a lower

organizational levels become an important precondition. However, during my three months

internship as a participant observer at STAR, interviewing and interpreting their experiences

through thematic analysis, I found out that high power distance is widely accepted (Hofstede’s

National Cultural Dimension, 2014). Meaning that the individuals are not equal and that the

practice of controlling and autocratic leadership style was considered a norm. This hierarchal

order contributed towards the managerial and leadership belief that empowerment is a tool to

grab their legitimate managerial power to (Raquib, M.A, et al. 2010) which is why managers are

unprepared to empower their subordinates (Lim, 2001). These was a hindrance towards the

employee’s enthusiasm and readiness to perform and make decisions. Thus this has significantly

contributed towards the low self-efficacy of the employees. Meaning the employee’s belief to

perform sufficiently in a situation (Bandura, 1992 and French at al. 2011) is diminished. STAR’s

management fail to recognize and identify the conditions within the organization that are

responsible for contributing to low self-efficacy. This failure is a barrier in achieving the first

stage of the empowerment strategy process (Conger and Kanungo, 1988).

44 | P a g e

Conclusion

In the above case analyses, I have tried to demonstrate how STAR’s culture can be analyzed at

several levels: (1) visible artifacts; (2) espoused beliefs and values; (3) taken-for-granted, basic

underlying assumptions. However, it is vital to understand that I have only analyze certain

elements of the culture because these study is related to key goals that the STAR are trying to

achieve, therefore we should not assume that the above paradigm can represent STAR’s

organizational culture. The generality of the assumptions should be investigated and determined

empirically. What really matters is the definition that put emphasize on shared learning

experiences that lead to shared taken for granted basic assumptions (Schein, 2010) which the

meaning is shared by a collective and that it is a more complex idea (Alvesson, 2002).

To conclude my first research question, the assumptions about the STAR’s Front Desk paradigm

and empowerment strategy was not align. The managers of the current existing culture have a

focus on controlling and autocratic leadership style, they want the employees to obey and follow

their command. However STAR’s Front Desk culture is not the kind of an organization that

could support the empowerment strategy that’s highly focus on freedom and taking ownership.

Which is synonymous to some scholars findings (e.g. Conger and Kanungo, 1987; Evans, 1990)

explain ‘command and control’ supervisory style are likely to pin down the application of job

autonomy by the subordinates (Hilton R. W., 2002).

After understanding the shared assumptions and identifying the real constrains, the focus then

shift to make the STAR management aware that understanding of their own culture is crucial in

order to initiate the change process of empowerment.

45 | P a g e

Solution

What is organizational change?

It is an approach to change individuals, teams and organizations to a desired future state by using

a set of basic tools or structures intended to keep any change effort under control (Kotter, 2011).

In short making things different (French et al., 2011).

Change management model

From a constructionist perspective, organizations are seen as “a potentially fluid field of meaning

making” (Gergen, 2009) and that the situation is constantly changing and evolving. Moreover,

Lego’s CEO Jorgen Vig Knudstorp advises that the strongest organization survive not because

they’re the strongest financially but because their adaptive (Knudstorp, 2012). In the quest to be

adoptive in world of fluid setting (Borges & Rasera, 2013), I have taken a change management

model from Tower Watson Consultancy (Appendix 6) and altered the model into a creative

hybrid toolbox to be used by the management of STAR. My learning and understanding cycle is

based from hermeneutics, hence the explanation of the change process model’s transformation

below. My knowledge has continuously developed due to the new data I gained from my

analysis and other relevant resources from my literature reviews. That is the reason why I

reconfigured the model as seen below.

46 | P a g e

• Can do mentalityPurpose

• Fostering the sense that employees at all levels are in it together

• STAR's organization create the opportunity for social interaction by displaying the appetite and courage to hear from employees

• extablish ongoing conductive to collaboration rather than top-down communication

Behaviorial

Building Communities

•Modelling the empowerment processStrategic

Managing Change

• Understanding the forces blocking or facilitating change

• Identify conditions contributing low self-efficacy

• Recognizing how to boost employee's self efficacy

• Identify what motivate employees in taking ownership

• Does STAR's culture support and drive behaviors aligned with the empowerment strategy?

• A compelling case for change?

Essential

Understand culture & behavior

• Focus is on generating meaning together & engagement

• Used as creative process in research/intervention tools

• Dialog, imagination, co-creation meaning encourage to question the taken-for-granted, persuit new ideas & solutions

Foundation

Meaning making : Social construction

On this change process I will only describe the stage of understanding culture and behavior in

detail. Because in-depth knowledge of organizational culture can assist STAR management in

identifying appropriate change strategies that is suitable with STAR’s unique cultural

context .However, understanding culture in any particular context, is not an easy task

(Heracleous, 2001).

The findings from my analysis earlier concluded that STAR’s autocratic and controlling culture

is the main barrier of implementing empowerment process successfully. In regards to this, it is

therefore essential for the STAR management to understand their own culture extensively and

what is driving behind those behavior, before they could begin the process of empowerment. The

cultural insight gain from the cultural assessment can then be used to initiate the process of

change.

47 | P a g e

Social construction in the context of organizational change

Social constructionism is the foundation of the change process and is offered here as a

postmodern approach. It means exploring meaning by taking apart or unpacking the taken-for-

granted and basic underlying assumptions that are disguised as truths.

The social constructionism theory is very sensitive to changes creating new forms of practices

and behavior. In a world that is constantly changing and evolving, social constructionism will be

a useful approach to address and adopt changes in context, pointing to new possibilities of doing

research and interventions (Borges & Rasera, 2013). Dialogue, imagination and co creating

meaning will be used as an intervention tools to allow multiple meaning to emerge in order to

decipher the culture of STAR.

It is a change process model that focuses on generating meaning socially. Because it has the

ability to question the taken-for-granted underlying assumption, to experiment with new ways of

talking, to embrace ambiguity and to stimulate a state where ‘sky is the limit’, moving forward to

the pursuit of new ideas and solutions (Borges & Rasera, 2013). It is suitable for because the

autocratic and controlling culture of STAR only allowed one way communication. The

employees concerns, ideas and perspectives are not being voiced out. With the use of social

constructionism that promotes a stimulating two way communication through dialogue, the

STAR management can now tap into the hundreds of employee’s perspective which could be a

valuable cultural insight for STAR to understand their own culture and what drives behind those

behaviors hindering the empowerment process. Later, the cultural insight gained can tghen be to

be utilize to initiate the change process.

48 | P a g e

Understanding culture & behavior

Meaning making, engagement and change management are designed to drive behavior. However

with the absence of a foundation of cultural and behavioral awareness, organizations will have

little chances to drive organizational change succesfully. Research made in 2013-2013 indicated

that organizations with a deep understanding of culture and business strategy are more likely to

have better financial performance (Tower Watson, 2013).

STAR’s case – Identify conditions contributing low self-efficacy by understanding the

culture

Based on my findings on STAR’s situations, it is important to understand that the

managers and employees are in conflict because they hold different beliefs, value systems

and interpretations about their situation and their roles. STAR management must take

into consideration that not all people are prepared to sufficiently deal directly with a

person with whom they, mistrust, feel belittled towards and disrespected by. Therefore it

becomes necessary to have a way of assessing culture rapidly so that the change leaders

can determine how cultural elements will help or will hinder (Schein, 2010) STAR’s

empowerment strategy.

“The most successful companies actively build a culture to support and drive behaviors aligned with their business

strategy.”

(Change & Communication ROI Report, 2013-2014)

49 | P a g e

Rapid Deciphering – A multistep Group Process

I chose Schein’s cultural assessment as part of the change management program because the

process is designed to give leaders of change processes a rapid way of understanding the

elements of culture so that they can assess its relevance to their change program. I have done a

fine tuning of Schein’s process due to this paper’s foundation of social constructionism on the

change process tool.

Step 1: Obtaining Leadership Commitment

My previous experienced as a Participant Observant at STAR revealed that decoding cultural

assumptions and assessing their relevance at STAR were viewed as major intervention in their

organizational life. There was up to a point where some managers assumed that I was a spy and

questioned me, if I was from the Shangri-La headquarters. I also sensed their irritation and felt

threaten of my presence in the beginning. Therefore when assessing STAR’s culture, it must only

be undertaken with the full understanding and consent of the formal leaders of the organization.

The change process person should ask the STAR’s leaders also known as STAR Excom (General

Manager and directors of each department) on why they want to do the cultural assessment. The

change process person should also fully describe the process and explain the potential

consequences to obtain the leaders full commitment.

Step 2: Selecting Groups for Dialogue

The next stage is for the facilitator to work with the formal leaders which in this case are the

Room Division Director and the Front Office Manager. Together they need to determine how

best to select some groups of representatives. The criteria for selection depends on the concrete

nature of the problem to be solved, which in STARs empowerment case is identifying the

conditions contributing to the employees low self-efficacy level. In STAR where a high power

distance culture and ranking and order is highly emphasized, it is important to take note that

authority relationships and levels of intimacy are primary cultural dimensions. Therefore it is

50 | P a g e

important to keep this in mind during the selection process with the formal leaders, because it

can reveal some important elements of the culture.

The engagement of the entire STAR organization is of prime importance in the involvement of

dialogue for the assessment purpose. This is because the attitudes and feelings of the entire

organization are socially constructed, and have developed the organization’s current culture and

climate (Faure, 2012). However due to the hotel’s nature of running 24 hours operation and with

STAR’s numerous amount of managers and employees, everybody could not be included, hence

the explanation of the selection process. On the other hand, heterogeneous/assortment groups

will be selected based on ranks, number of years working at STAR, age, gender and from each

section of the Front Desk Department (Concierge, Service Center, Guest Relations, Club Floor

and Front Office). Mixing the group will not only draw in different perspectives but the level of

trust and openness across various boundaries is itself attributes the STAR’s culture. Once the

group has been identified, the Room Division Director shall inform the groups of the purpose of

the dialogue, share the information and conversations he had with the facilitator and explain the

basis on why people are chosen to attend. Most importantly, participants must know that the

change problems that is being worked on is about how the empowerment strategy and current

culture is misaligned. STAR’s Excom leaders, Room Division Director and Front Office

Manager have to be aware and are committed to the assessment process. The leaders shall also

highlight that openness and complete honesty are needed, and that culture is not good or bad.

Step 3: Selecting an Appropriate Setting for the Dialogue

I remember when I was attached as a participant-observant at the resort, the employees seems to

have dual personality. I asked questions to them to verify some incidents or just simply wanted

to hear their perspective concerning with empowerment and working culture. They were

hesitating and I can feel their tense. However when the employees are outside their work setting,

I could see a sudden transformation, they were more relax, calm and open. For example at the

female locker room or at the STAR car park area near the beach, they casually shared their

intimate feelings and experienced about their work openly. I have learn from my previous

experience that the setting plays an important part in getting the employees to engage in order to

negotiate meaning.

51 | P a g e

Which is therefore the setting for dialogue should be outside the STAR property. Because the

selection of a setting where the dialogue will take place shall stimulate a conversation that

welcomes participants to bring in a multiplicity of voices without judgement. It should be a

setting that welcomes the participant to express their perceptions, thoughts and feelings without

being questioned. The setting must therefore be comfortable and allow participants to sit in a

circular format and permit the hanging of many sheets of flip chart papers on which cultural

elements will be written.

Step 4: Explaining the purpose of the Dialogue (15 mins)

The dialogue should start with a statement of purpose of the dialogue by the General Manager

and Room Division Director as they are both perceived to be in a leadership and authority role,

so that the openness of a two way dialogue is encouraged. The process of this step is not only to

be clear on why they need to find out the conditions that is contributing to a low self-efficacy

level among the employees but also getting the group to be actively engaged in the process.

Step 5: Dialogue not monologue

While being a participant observant at STAR I had attended several meetings such as, daily

briefings, introductions and welcome meetings with new staff together with group training

sessions. One common thing that I noticed was that there was only one way communication,

whereby there is only one person delivering a speech. I noticed that most of the participants were

bored, sleepy and showed no interest at all. Why I mention no interest is because when I attended

the ‘Taking Ownership/Empowerment’ training session, ninety percent of the participants was

nowhere to be seen. Therefore the facilitator must bear in mind that the STAR employees have

mostly attended and experienced a monologue session. It is important that the facilitator start

with explaining what a dialogue in a constructionist perspective is. That dialogue is an ongoing

interactive process between the facilitator and the participants. And to raise the participants

awareness that in a dialogue type different understandings are welcomed without prejudice or

judgment.

52 | P a g e

Step 6: Dialogue on Culture

It is vital for the group to understand that culture illustrates itself at the level of artifacts and

espoused values, but the aim is to try to decode the shared assumptions that lie at a lower level of

consciousness. The three levels of culture will be presented in stage 6 and make the participants

understand what they are about to assess is a product of their own history and that the culture’s

stability is based on the organization’s past successes. Once the artifacts, espoused values and

shared underlying assumptions have been negotiated and co-created together, assumptions will

surface. In STAR’s case few of them are “power and control leadership style are the key to

success” and “Truth and wisdom come from those with the highest rank”. The facilitator should

test for general agreement and write the assumptions down on separate list. The list posted on the

walls separately becomes important as the visible connection of the cultural essence that has

been identified. When the participants and the facilitator feel that they have identified most of the

crucial assumption areas, and participants are clearer on what the assumptions are, then this

phase of exercise is done.

Step 7: Identifying Cultural Benefit and Barrier

Next task is to categorize the assumptions according to whether they will aid or hinder the

change process and discuss further as a way to make sense. Once identified, the general

agreement should be tested again for validity purpose. In the case of STAR, this study has

identified that the control culture of STAR is hindering the empowerment process by

contributing to low self-efficacy among employees. This management cultured characterized by

control seems to have demotivated and discouraged employees in taking ownership.

Step 8: Imagination – Future implications

Now that we have used dialogue to identify the barriers of the empowerment process, dialogue

can also be utilized in finding generative ways to create new possibilities. Many alternatives for

actions can then be imagined and created. When imagination is unleashed, meanings gain

freedom, and new knowledge can arise (Camargo-Borges, in press). Imagination will be used as

an important tool to unfold the future implications. The facilitator could stimulate with

53 | P a g e

imaginative question such as, “Let’s say that the ‘Taking ownership/empowerment’ process was

very successful, how would a day at work be like for you?” Below are one of the answers I got

asking this question to a Receptionist during my semi-conducted interview;

“If the taking ownership is successful, of course! Of course! It’s like you work half the

leadership, you can decide and take ownership. There is a pride in yourself.” (Appendix 6)

The use of imagination to favour future possibilities generates potentials for social change. And

with many STAR’s participants contributing on the above question, the potential meaningful

experiences can be created.

Step 9: Motivation

Identifying what motivates desired behavior among the group are very crucial in order to deliver

results. The facilitator can stimulate asking question on what sort of effort is necessary in

STAR’s organization in order to boost their self-efficacy. Below are one of the answers I

received from one of the Receptionist at STAR during the semi-structured interview;

“I am the one in-charge here. How can I help you?’ This is what we need to motivate all the

people now. All the new employees or others, instead of just passing them to the supervisors and

managers. It will be helpful for others and also ourselves because it raise up our motivations. It

feels like, I have an idea. I can decide now”. (Appendix 6)

These type of questions illustrate how dialogues and imagination play a role in deconstructing

old patterns of thinking about empowerment, new meaning and opening up transformation

within the STAR organization and increase the process of change through co-creation of new

possibilities (Borges & Rasera, 2013).

54 | P a g e

Step 10: Decisions - A compelling case for change

The new insight about how to boost the self-efficacy should be tested through consensus for

validity purpose. Once agreed, the facilitator can then discuss with the participants on the

connection between the STAR’s control culture and the empowerment strategy freedom to

decide. From here, there is a compelling case to change because the empowerment strategy does

not align with the STAR’s autocratic and controlling culture.

Conclusion

This case illustrates how STAR’s cultural assumptions ‘command and control’ underpin values

and beliefs, and have pervasive effects on the managers and employees’ interpretations and

actions.

In this solution chapter I have to answer on what STAR needs to focus on in initiating a step

towards implementing the empowerment process successfully. I have shown earlier that it is very

important for the STAR management to understand the essential stage, which is understanding

their own culture. This is where it has to be initiated. Because dealing with organizational culture

is a key consideration in change programs and ignoring it is an important reason for which

change programs fail (Johnson, 1987, 1990; Pascale, Milleman & Gioja, 1997).

It is crucial that the STAR management get help in this reflexive process where they have to be

aware. Then only they could move to the stage of implementing the empowerment process.

It is important to reflect and take into consideration that the STAR management is part of a big

corporation, and that the management might be obligated and confined towards the Shangri-La’s

corporate culture. Therefore there is no right solution and that I could only argued based on

STAR’s co-creation of meaning within their own social setting, conditions and boundaries.

For this research to be used in practice, it is important that the case for change does not only

focus on the understanding of why change is needed but also the action required to administer it.

55 | P a g e

List of reference

Books

Arbnor, Ingeman and Bjerke, Bjorn (2009), “Methodology for Creating Business Knowledge”, Sage Publication

Bandura, A. (1986). “Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory”. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bernard, H. Russell (1994). “Research methods in anthropology: qualitative and quantitative approaches” (second edition).

Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.

Bandura, Albert (1995), “Self-efficacy in Changing Societies”. Cambridge University Press, pp. 2.

Bandura, Albert (1997), “Self-efficacy: The exercise of control”. New York : Freeman.

Bryman, Alan (2008), “Social Research Methods”, OxfordUniversity Press

Bryman, A., Burgess, R.G (1994a), “Developments in Qualitative Data Analysis: An Introduction“ in A. Bryman and R.G Burgess

(eds.), “Analyzing Qualitative Data“, (London: Routledge)

Bryman, A., Burgess, R.G (1994b), “Reflections on Qualitative Data Analysis“ in A. Bryman and R.G Burgess (eds.), “Analyzing

Qualitative Data“, (London: Routledge)

Camargo-Borges, C. (in press). Collaborative group practices: Exercising dialogue in healthcare setting. Chargin Falls, OH: Taos

Institute Press

Cresswell, J.W (2007), “Qualitative Enquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches“, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA

DeWalt, Kathleen M. & DeWalt, Billie R. (2002). ”Participant observation: a guide for fieldworkers”. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira

Press.

French, Ray., Rayner, Charlette., Reers, Gary., Rumbles, Sally (2011), “Organizational Behaviour”- 2nd Edition, John Wiley &

Sons, Ltd

56 | P a g e

Frost, P. J. (2003). “Toxins Emotions at Work”. Boston : Harvard Business School Press

Gergen, J. Kenneth (2009). “An Introduction to Social Construction” – 2nd Edition, SAGE Publications Ltd

Gergen, J. Kenneth (2009). “Relational being – Beyond self and community” – Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press

Johnson, G. (1987). Strategic change and the management process. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Johnson, Gerry (1988) "Rethinking Incrementalism", Strategic Management Journal Vol 9 pp. 75–91

Johnson, G. (1990). Managing strategic change: The role of symbolic action. British Journal of Manage-

ment, 1, 183-200.

Johnson, Gerry., Whittington, Richard and Scholes, Kevan (2011), ”Exploring Strategy”, Financial Times Prentice Hall

Lashley, Conrad. (1996). “Research Issues for Employee Empowerment in Hospitality Organisations”. Int. J. Hospitality

Management – Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 333-346, Elsevier Science LTD

Marshall, Catherine & Rossman, Gretchen B. (1995). Designing qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Alvesson, Mats. (2002). “Understanding Organizational Culture.” Sage.

Schensul, Stephen L.; Schensul, Jean J. & LeCompte, Margaret D. (1999). Essential ethnographic methods: observations,

interviews, and questionnaires (Book 2 in Ethnographer's Toolkit). Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.

Schwandt, Thomas (2003), “Evaluating Educational Reforms” – Scandinavian Perspectives, Information Age Publishing.

W. Barnett Pearce (2007), “Making Social Worlds: A Communication Perspective“. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers

Williams, M. (2000), “Interpretivism and Generalization“, Sociology, 34: 209-24

Gadamer, Hans-Georg (1976), “Philosophical Hermeneutics”, University of California Press

Maslow, A. (1987). Motivation and Personality (3rd edition). New York: Harper and Row.

Schmuck, Richard (1997). Practical action research for change. Arlington Heights, IL: IRI/Skylight Training and Publishing.

Schein, Edgar., (2010). Organizational Culture & Leadership (4th edition). Jossey-Bass, A Wiley Imprint

57 | P a g e

Taylor, Steven J. & Bogdan, Robert (1984). Introduction to qualitative research: The search for meanings (second edition). New

York: John Wiley.

Literature list

Aarabi, M.S., Subramaniam, I.D., Akeel A.B.A.A.B (2013). Relationship between Motivational Factors and Job Performance of

Employees in Malaysian Service Industry. Asian Social Science; Vol. 9. Canadian Center of Science and Education. 3(3): 561-575

Abrahamson, E. 1996. Management fashion. Academy of Management Review, 21: 254-285.

Ayupp, K., Chung, T.H. (2010). Empowerment: Hotel Employees’ perspective. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management.

Baird, K. & Wang, H. 2010. Employee empowerment: extent of adoption and influential factors. Personnel Review,

39: 574-599

Balogun, J. and Johnson, G. (2004). Organizational restructuring and middle manager sense making. Academy of Management

Journal

Bandura, A. (1987). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122-147

Bandura, A. (1996). Ontological and Epistemological Terrains Revisited. Journal of Behav. Ther. & Exp. Psychiat. Vol. 27, No. 4,

pp. 323-345.

Bartunek, J.M., & Louis, M.R. (1996). Insider/outsider team research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Borges, C.C & Rasera, E.F. (2013). Social constructionism in the context of Organization Development: Dialogue, Imagination and

Co-creation as Resource of Change.

Brikci, Nouria., Green, Judith (2007), ”A guide to using Qualitative Research Methodology”, Health Services Research Unit,

London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine

Bowen, D.E., & , E.E Lawler, III (1992). The Empowerment of service workers: What, Why, How and When. Sloan Management

Review, 33(3): 31-39.

Bowen, D., & Lawler, E. (1995). Empowering service employees. Sloan Management Review, Summer, 73-83.

Burke, R. (1988). Sources of managerial and professional stress in large organizations. Causes, Coping and

Consequences of Stress at Work, 77-114. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01443330310790679

58 | P a g e

Clutterbuck D, Kernaghan S. The power of empowerment. London: Kogan Page; 1994

Coghlan, D., & Brannick, T. (2005). Doing action research in your own organization. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Conger, J. A., & Kanungo R. N. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory and practice. Academy of

Management Review, 13(3), 471-482.

Dewettinck, K., J. Singj and D. Buyens, 2003. Psychological Empowerment In the Workplace: Reviewing The Effects on Critical

Work Outcomes, Vlerick Leuven Gent Working Paper Series 2003/29

Ellsber, M., & Heise, L. (2005). Researching Violence Against Women - A Practical Guide for researchers and activists,

Washington DC, United States, World Health Organisation and PATH, 2005

Evans. M. (1990). The effects of supervisor behavior on the path-goal relationship. Organizational Behavior and

Human Performance, 5, 277-98.

Forrester, R. 2000. Empowerment: Rejuvenating a potent idea. Academy of Management Executive, 14: 67-80.

Foy, N. (1994). Empowering People at Work. London: Gower Publishing.

Gist, M.E. (1987), Self-efficacy: Implications in organizational behavior and human resource management. Academy of

Management Review, 12, 472-485

Goldman, A. (2008). “Company On The Couch: Unveiling toxic behavior in dysfunctional organizations.” Journal of Management

Inquiry, 17(3), 226-238

Hawkins, R. M. F. (1995). Self-efficacy: A cause of debate. In Special issue: Cognition, behavior and causality. Journal of Behavior

Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 26, 235- 240.

Hirst, M. (1992). Creating a service driven culture globally. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 4(1)

Hemdi, M., Omar, M., & Azmi, A. (2012, 12-13 March). The effect of organizational justice and organizational

trust on hotel employees turnover intentions. Paper presented at the 3rd International conference on business and economic

research (3rd ICBER 2012), Golden flower hotel, Bandung, Indonesia.

Hilton R. W. (2002). Managerial accounting: creating value in dynamic business environment. In Cherry C. K. (ed.),

Reengineering: Harnessing creativity and innovation. Journal of Cost Accounting, 8(2), 49.

59 | P a g e

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work Related Values. California: SAGE Publications.

Jarrar, Y. F., & Zairi, M. 2010. Employee empowerment—A UK survey of trends and best practices. Research paper

no. RP-ECBPM/0032. Keighly, UK: European Centre for Best Practice Management. Retrieved from www.

ecbpm.com.

Kawulich, Barbara B. (2005). Participant Observation as a Data Collection Method [81 paragraphs]. Forum Qualitative

Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 6(2), Art. 43

Klagge J. (1998). The empowerment squeeze – Views from the middle management position. Journal of Management

Development, 17(8), 548-558.

Kotter, J. (July 12, 2011). "Change Management vs. Change Leadership -- What's the Difference?". Forbes online. Retrieved

12/21/11

Lim, Long (2001). Work-Related Values of Malays and Chinese Malaysians. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management

2001 1: 209

Locke, E. A., & Schweiger, D. M. (1979). Participation in decision-making: One more look.

Research in Organizational Behavior, 1, 265–339.

Lunjew, M. D., Sail, R. M., & Silong, A. D. (1994). Factors associated with employee participation and its relationships

with performance and job satisfaction. Malaysian Management Review, 29(3), 7-10.

Malone, T. W. 1997. Is “empowerment” just a fad? Control, decision-making, and information technology. Sloan

Management Review, 38: 23-35

Faure, Marvin. (2012). Social Constructionism and the power of engagement. Enablers.com from Disruption to Engagement

Mathieu, J. E., Gilson, L. L., & Ruddy, T. M.( 2006). Empowerment and team effectiveness: An empirical test of an

integrated model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91: 97-108

Maynard, M.Y., Gilson, L.L., Mathieu, J.E. (2012) Empowerment−−Fad or Fab? A Multilevel Review of the Past Two Decades of

Research. Journal of Management, 2012 38: 1231

Morales, H.N., Gonzales, J.C. & Mendoza, A.T. (2013). Empowerment as a Culture and a Strategy to strengthen the activities of

research and innovation. European Scientific Journal, vol.1 ISSN: 1857-7881 (print) e – ISSN 1857-7431

Nicholls J. (1995). Getting empowerment into perspective: A three-stage training framework. Empowerment in

60 | P a g e

Organizations, 3(2), 6-11.

Pascale, R., Milleman, M., & Gioja, L. (1997, November/December). Changing the way we change. Harvard Business Review,

127-139

Raub, S., & Rober, C. (2012). Empowerment, Organizational Commitment, and Voice Behavior in the Hospitality Industry:

Evidence from a Multinational Sample. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 54(2) 136 –148.

Sigler TH, Pearson CM. (2000) “Creating an empowering culture: examining the relationship between

organizational culture and perceptions of empowerment”. Journal of Quality Management, Vol.5, No.1: pp27–53.1111

Strøbæk P & Vogt J. (2013). Cultural Synergy and Organizational Change : From Crisis to Innovation. Journal of Business and

Media Psychology, AUSGABE 02/2013

Sutton J. One hotel — two systems. In: Teriovski M, editor. Relevant research in quality management. Melbourne: Monash

University; 1997. p. 227–35.

Tosti, Donald T, CPT. (2007). “Aligning The Culture and Strategy for Success”. Performance Improvement. ProQuest Education

Journals, Jan 2007; 46,1, pg21

Wallace, J. C., Johnson, P. D., Mathe, K., & Paul, J. 2011. Structural and psychological empowerment climates,

performance, and the moderating role of shared felt accountability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96: 840-850.

Internet

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hermeneutics/ http://libweb.anglia.ac.uk/referencing/harvard.htm

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/empower

http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/466/996#g83

http://journal-bmp.de/2013/06/english-cultural-synergy-and-organizational-change-from-crisis-to-innovation/?lang=en

www.ecbpm.com.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/gadamer/ (First published Mon Mar 3, 2003; substantive revision Mon Jun 8, 2009)

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dilthey/ (First published Wed Jan 16, 2008; substantive revision Thu Mar 22, 2012)

http://www.shangri-la.com/corporate/careers/growing-with-us/shangri-la-care-programme/

http://www.humanresourcesonline.net/news/8323 Asian Employees Bogged Down By Bosses (Published : Aug 26, 2008)

http://geert-hofstede.com/malaysia.html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkotter/2011/07/12/change-management-vs-change-leadership-whats-the-difference/

http://enablersnetwork.com/2012/social-constructionism-and-the-power-of-engagement-by-marvin-faure/ Social

Constructionism and the power of engagement by Marvin Faure. (Published : May 5, 2012)