Why Hospitality Is Providing an Experience Rather Than a Service - Assignment Example

Assessment 3 Student’s Name Course: Tutor’s name Date 1. Illustrating why hospitality is providing an experience rather than a service In academia and especially in the last decade, there has been controversy about whether the hospitality industry can be categorised as a service industry, art, retailing, entertainment, or simply as a form of business (Hemmington 2007, p.2). Away from academia, hospitality appears to be an experience that involves exchange among humans, and some of the authors who have recognised this aspect in hospitality are Brotherton and Wood (2002, cited in Wood & Brotherton 2008, p.103), who define hospitality as ‘a contemporaneous human exchange, which is voluntarily entered into, and designed to enhance the mutual wellbeing of both parties concerned through the provision of accommodation, and/or food, and/or drink’. The recognition that human exchange takes place in hospitality means that guests often want to experience differences (in environment, cuisine, culture among other things) from what they consider the norm. While service provision is addressed by the hospitable behaviour that the host has towards the guest, the definition above as cited by Wood and Brotherton (2008, p. 103) differentiates between hospitality as an experience, and hospitality’s hospitable behaviour as portrayed in service provision. It is also arguable that service provision is part of the overall experience that the guest is exposed to through accommodation, food and drinks that are offered by the host. Arguably, it is not just the food, drinks or accommodation that makes up the hospitality experience, but how and when the different services are offered. For example, two hospitality establishments may be offering the same type of accommodation, foods and drinks and charging comparable prices for the same. Yet, one may attract more guests than the other depending on the desirability or lack thereof of the dining, accommodation, or drinking experience that guests are exposed to. Another hospitality establishment may have some shortcomings in its service provision, but be courteous enough to attune the guest expectations to the shortcomings; in such a case, the hospitality experience may be judged based on what the guests had expected, and what the host actually provided. When compared to a hospitality establishment that creates high expectations among guests but fails to meet them, the former would most likely produce a more satisfying guest experience than the latter. As Laws (2005, p. 14) notes, guests to hospitality establishments do not conduct a ‘measurement of absolute service performance’; rather, they compare their experiences with expectations to determine their satisfaction levels. In other words, hospitality is all about the experience. 2. The extent to which modern hospitality has common attributes with hospitality from the past Writing about hospitality from a historical cultural perspective, Zeldin (1994, p. 437 cited by Wood and Brotherton 2008, p. 41) states that once upon a time, hospitality ‘meant opening one’s house to total strangers, giving a meal to anyone who chose to come, allowing them to stay the night, indeed imploring them to stay, although one knew nothing about them’. Although Zeldin (1994 cited by Wood and Brotherton 2008, p. 41) was elaborating on historical aspects of domestic hospitality, there are similarities between that sort of hospitality and modern-day hospitality whether domestic or commercial-based. For starters, modern-day hospitality, just like in the past, ‘opens doors’ for total strangers, and even implores them to stay some more. Additionally, food and drinks are offered as a sign of the host’s hospitable attitude towards the stranger, and although historical and modern hospitality are different in that the former was highly personal and done on a domestic scale while the latter is more rational, institutionalised and monetary-based, the similarities remain to date. O’Gorman (2005, p. 148) reveals that hospitality was historically an honourable tradition, just as it is today. Specifically, the concepts of host welcoming the stranger are just as relevant today as they were in history. Hospitality is also perceived as a way through which guests and hosts can reveal their cultural values and beliefs, and where reciprocity is an embedded principle. O’Gorman (2005, p. 148) further observes that hospitality was fundamental to human existence just as it is today. As people travelled and still travel today, they need places where they can be accommodated, offered food and drinks, and where they can be genuinely welcomed and offered security during their stay. Historically and today, the extent of hospitality depends on the stranger/guest’s needs, and/or the purposes of his being in a new place. Another common attribute between historical and modern hospitality is the stratification. As O’Gorman (2005, p. 149) observes, hospitality was historically codified based on whether the stranger/guest was on a ‘private, civic or business’ mission. Today, just like in the past, civic and business hospitality is formal (occurring in hospitality establishments such as hotels and guesthouses among others) compared to private hospitality which happens in the host’s private sphere (often at home). Diversity in hospitality facilities is also a common attribute between the past and the present. O’Gorman (2005, p. 149) notes that just as people are diverse, so were their demand for hospitality services. The same diversification persists to date as hospitality establishments seek to provide satisfactory, convenient and affordable hospitality services to people with different preferences, needs, and whose purchasing power varies. Finally, a common trait between historical and contemporary hospitality is its centrality to human endeavour. As O’Gorman (2005, p. 149) notes, hospitality was and continues to be ‘a vital and integral part of societies’, and has been ‘central to the development’ of the same societies as far back as the ‘beginning of human history’. The same traits are likely to continue into the future. 3. With the move towards profit, the spontaneity of the act of hospitality has been somewhat lost, giving way to economic rationalisation, regulation and performative behaviour True to the above statement, spontaneity was critical in the historical form of hospitality where the stranger/guest was received in a non-formal domestic setting. However, with more formal and profit-driven types of hospitality, spontaneity has been replaced by some equally profit-driven practices, which include performative behaviour, regulation, and economic rationalisation. In other words, every act of hospitality has to be judged against its probable effect on eroding or enhancing the profitability of the host. Even where services are not charged, they are included by the host as part of a strategy to attract more strangers/guests to a hospitality establishment, and /or enhance repeat guests to bring future business. The spontaneity seems to be a thing of the past owing to the globalisation concept, because as Ritzer (2003, pp. 59-60) observes, it has increased the rate of no-person interactions between the host and the stranger, and as such, the host ‘does not interact with others as a person, and perhaps more importantly is not treated by others as a person’. With reference to McDonaldization – a concept that refers to the standard production of food for the mass market – Ritzer (2001, p. 33) indicates that the need for profits has the potential to rationalise the hospitality industry to an extent of making it ‘antihuman or even destructive of human beings’. Even employees who are supposed to provide satisfactory service to the guests have their duties rationalised, and this effectively means that spontaneity is even further from being a reality in such cases. A counterargument to the above statement would however be relevant owing to the fact that even with economic rationalisation becoming a present-day reality, most of the profit-making potential of the hospitality industry is pegged on its ability to respond to guests’ requests, needs, and preferences as and when they occur. To what extent the hospitality industry can remain spontaneous to individual guests, while targeting a mass market is however still a debatable topic. It has however been noted that when hospitality is relocated to exotic places, spontaneity is realised since the unresponsive, tightly scripted interactions do not work well away from the everyday modern hospitality establishments. 4. “Guests and/or customers from different cultures would often bring with them different expectations and ideals of what constitutes good customer service”. Cultural influences on customer service expectations are perhaps best understood from the 5-dimensional model for cultural differences as illustrated by Hofstede (2001, cited by Wursten, Fadrhonc & Roersoe 2009, pp. 1-21). The power distance in a specific culture affects how the guests and/or customers expect their service offers to be. A guest from a high-power distance cultural orientation expects to be treated with utmost regard, because as Wurrsten et al. (2009, p. 3) observe, ‘the customer is king’ in such societies. A guest from a cultural orientation where the power distance is relatively closed-up would however have lower expectations of what a good customer service is. Individualism vs. collectivism on the other hand affects the self-image perception that a person has. A guest from an individualistic society would most likely expect that their customer service preferences will be met, while a guest from a collectivist cultural background would most likely focus more on forging relationships rather than on the need to having their customer preferences attended to. Masculinity vs. femininity cultural orientations also affect the guests’ expectations of the customer service experience with those from masculine cultural orientations focusing on having their need for the host to have competitive, high-quality services. Such expectations are founded on the fact that masculine cultures are driven by motivations such as achievements, competition, acquisition, and assertiveness. Feministic cultures on the other hand ‘focus less on exceptional favours, but are more steady, long term, reliable and pleasant’ (Wursten et al. 2009, p.3). As such, guests from such a culture would not expect to receive any preferential treatment, but would in fact try to establish relationships for long-term business with the service providers. Uncertainty avoidance as identified by Wursten et al (2009, p.4) refers to the degree with which people in a specific culture prefer certainty (structured situations) over uncertainty (unstructured situations). Guests from cultures where uncertainty avoidance is high prefer to make their decisions based on facts and hence take no or little risks. Guests where uncertainty avoidance is low on the other hand have flexible expectations, and are easy to adjust to whatever customer service is availed to them. As such, they find it easier to moderate between their expectations and the actual service quality provided by the host. Long-term vs. short-term orientation cultures affect guest expectations regarding service quality because people from the former cultural orientation would expect service providers to try establishing long-term relationships with them. As such, their expectations are equally high. Those from the latter cultural orientation however perceive customer service provision as a short-term thing and therefore seek to attain maximal value without forming lasting relationships. The latter group are also more flexible in their choices, and do not expect too much from the service providers. 5. The impact of globalisation on patterns of food consumption There are no absolute answers as to whether globalisation is leading to homogenisation or differentiation of food consumption. With cultures such as what is now known as McDonaldization permeating the global markets, it can be argued that food consumption is becoming homogenised as globalisation becomes an everyday reality. Cato Policy Reform (2009, p. 2) observes that while the fast food industry has made fries, hamburgers and other standardised meals the norm in many countries, it would be hard to quantify their food production habits as a homogenisation of eating habits because, apart from the popular fast foods, other kinds of foods are offered therein. Additionally, even if homogenisation was attainable at the food production and retailing level, consumers’ tastes and preferences would put demand on the retailers to market diverse food items since food consumption habits are to some degree determined by cultural factors. Globalisation has however contributed to increased differentiation in the food consumption habits among people in the global arena. In a study conducted in Europe for example, Gil and Gracia (2000, pp 39-48) found out that food consumption habits were diverse within regions and specific European nations, and the consumers’ choices had even widened with increased food choices from the global marketplace. For example, tea lovers had a choice of buying Egyptian, Kenyan or Mexican tea depending on their tastes and preferences. However, they still had a choice for opting for other beverage-making products such as coffee, or cocoa, all which had been sourced from diverse world locations. Despite most such products appearing similar in their contents, they were diverse since some of them are perceived to have different tastes and qualities. Two people who drink tea may therefore be different owing to the source-location of the same tea. Globalisation has also affected food consumption habits by enabling different cultures to interact, and by so doing, merge or blend their cuisines. When such blending occurs, Mak, Lumbers and Eves (2012, p. 14) observe that a ‘new cuisine created by the interplay between globalisation and localisation’ occurs. Such blending of cuisines between cultures represents the global attitude that respects heritage, but also embraces modernity. Mak et al. (2012, p.14) further note that the merging and blending of cuisines exemplifies how the ‘global culture can be blended with local culture and happily co-exist to form a ‘creolised’ food culture’. References Cato Policy Reform 2009, ‘Globalisation and culture’, Policy Forum, viewed Oct. 25, 2012, Gil, J M & Gracia, A 2000, ‘Regional food consumption patterns in the EU’, Economies et Societes, no. 24, pp. 39-48. Hemmington, N 2007, ‘From service to experience; understanding and defining the hospitality business’, The Services Industries Journal, vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 1-19. Laws, E 2005, Improving tourism and hospitality services, CABI, Oxfordshire. Mak, A H N, Lumbers, M, & Eves, A 2012, ‘Globalisation and food consumption in tourism’, pp. 1-34, viewed Oct. 25, 2012, O’Gorman, K D 2005 Modern hospitality: lessons from the past. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 141-151. ISSN 1447-6770. Ritzer, G 2001 Explorations in the sociology of consumption: Fast food, credit cards and casinos, Sage, London; Thousand Oaks, CA. Ritzer, G 2003, The globalization of nothing, Pine Forge Press, Thousand Oaks, CA. Wood, R C, & Brotherton, B 2008, The SAGE handbook of hospitality management, Sage, London. Wursten, H, Fadrhoc, T, & Roersoe, P 2009, ‘Culture and customer service’, ITIM International, pp. 1-21, viewed Oct. 25, 2012, . Read More