Training in Hotels - An Expense or a Necessity?

Training is an issue that we Hoteliers are finding, all too often, is one that we know we should be attending to in more detail but also one that we know little about and one that disappears off the agenda as soon as bigger issues appear. Why is this? The answer is a complex issue but one that we can address here in some detail. In order to take a comprehensive look, we need to look at the training requirements of any business and in particular, those of a hotel. This is simple when you look at both the current skill levels of staff in general and the requirements of the jobs that we are asking our staff to do.

Lets look first at current skill levels. In working with many large Hotels from around Australia, I have assisted in conducting training/skill analyses on staff teams. Even with senior or mature staff members, there are usually a number of skill areas that are rated low. By skill areas, I am considering ‘punctuality’ and ‘presentation standards’ as well as ‘efficiency under pressure’ and ‘using initiative’. Now put together that low rating with high staff turnover, lethargy due to a high casual staff percentage and the enforcing of standards by managers that is invariably inconsistent and it’s easy to see why we all have a great time at Hotelier Get-togethers, sharing stories about rotten customer service and the inability to get good staff.

Secondly, let’s look at how the roles of our staff, even the most junior, have changed over the last few years. You only have to consider how many businesses we now run within each hotel – bars, bottleshops, bistros and restaurants, entertainment, gaming, TAB, accommodation – all aimed at a varied and ever-changing market base. Now add a renovation and the increased expectation of patrons, many new legislative demands and trading hours that continue to grow! When you consider that heady mixture, its no wonder that we require a higher calibre of staff.

It’s fairly obvious that there is a significant gap between the current skill levels and what we require. We then add the complicating issues that confront all of us in hospitality, such as high staff turnover, a high percentage of casuals and short-term employment needs. When we consider these, it only increases the need for better training in our industry.

A secondary issue is not that of the staff, but that of the ‘trainer’, either an off-the-job or an on-the-job person. One might be better skilled but isn’t able to follow up effectively and the other knows what has to be done but may not be able to communicate properly in a training environment. So, what is the best solution?

It’s obvious that we haven’t yet found a satisfactory way to resolve these issues. Is it better to send staff to an external training provider where the training is undoubtedly good but where the staff return and find it difficult to put any new skills into practice? Take RSA training for example. Here you have no choice in most States but to take training off-site and whilst the training is of value, there’s no doubt that there is far more to be learned when a staff member comes back to work. Although we have no choice but to train in this way, it’s not necessarily a bad thing, provided we have the ability to back up the training at work. How many hotels actively work to add on to their staff’s harm minimisation skills back at work? Very few, I believe. So, where are the training gains? I’d suggest that we are meeting legislation only and limiting any real advantage that we might get. When I say we, I’m suggesting that this is an industry concern and not one aimed necessarily at individual venues.

Let’s compare that to induction training. This must be conducted internally almost by definition, however in virtually every venue it falls short of it’s goals. This is mainly due to the fact that induction is not looked at as a period of low productivity but rather as a quick session before a first shift!

Induction training is carried out by someone who knows what to do themselves but isn’t necessarily adept at getting the message across. That, coupled with the fact that this manager is usually far too busy to train which is usually caused by the shortage of staff! In the hypothetical world it’s easy to see where mistakes are made, however the key to advice and consultancy work is making sense of the theory to see how it affects us in practice.

We can also contrast the RSA example with a typical ‘in-house’ training exercise. A group of staff are organised to meet at a time that doesn’t suit them all, several are late and a couple of others aren’t able to make it at all. Familiar story, I’m sure you would agree? Its also worth noting that the training was probably only organized because something had gone wrong at the Hotel. That being the case, have a think about the attitude of the staff attending. They are likely to be, at worst, downright negative and at best, more in the “it wasn’t me, I wasn’t on, it’s the others” mode of thinking. The gains to be made from this type of training are minimal.

I hear this comment frequently from hotel managers who are training internally; “we’ve fixed that problem, we had a training session with the staff ”. If only that was true! Here’s a typical result from such a training session. Let’s say that ten staff attended (don’t forget the two who never fronted!). It is likely that of those ten, four will try and put the things you talked about into practice and will succeed because they’re keen and able. Three more will try but will usually fail because they haven’t the skill or the application. The remaining three won’t even bother because they don’t care, they know that nothing will happen if they don’t do it and they see others not applying themselves.

What do you think of the ‘hit rate?’ Four out of ten, or in reality four out of twelve because two didn’t front – a hit rate of 25%. Apart from being a poor result it’s also true that it will actually diminish over time as even good staff see that others aren’t ‘putting in the hard yards’. Quality training is very much in the understanding that most work is done after the training session, in the testing, follow up and feedback. In the example above, we should be able to increase our hit rate to at least 70% or the gains will never be realized. We should never count on training unless we can be assured that the gains will be present.

I can illustrate that easily with the NSW Responsible Conduct of Gambling training example. With the relevant legislation and regulations in place, training was, and still is, coordinated in the marketplace by the AHA and others. Venue personnel had a period of time to undertake training, some six to eighteen months depending on their position. Some venues decided to train immediately and used the training to improve standards and the long-term viability of gaming in their establishment. Others, however, decided to wait until the last moment and only sent staff in the days prior to the due date. At these latter courses, staff were less keen, were less able to see why the course was necessary and in general were less positive about training and development than the staff who came to earlier training sessions! Where were the gains? Doing a course because of compliance really can lead to a waste of money if there are low expectations and limited or no follow up.

So, if we accept the fact that with relatively low current staff skill levels and higher and higher demands now being placed on staff, it is imperative that we are able, not only to train but also to monitor results, test on-the-job and follow up on poor performance. This requires training skill internally, usually at a senior or middle manager level.

What happens if you don’t train or only train for legislative reasons? Let me answer that by using a concept that I call the ‘deadhead’ percentage. I often ask managers who participate in my training programs or managers/owners to whom I consult, this question:
 

I get many and varied answers ranging from “keep the lot” to ‘flick the lot”, however a common or average answer might be “I’d hang on to about 65%”.

What does this mean? In general, we are hanging on to one third of our staff that we’d rather not have for reasons known to us all. Unfair dismissal, can’t get other staff, they’re good at some things, ‘the devil you know…’, ‘I’d have to train someone else’ etc. These are all legitimate of course but the key here is the degree to which the ‘deadhead’ percentage, in this case 35%, dominates the group of staff we’d keep. In most cases the smaller group, unless it’s very small (say less than 10%) will dominate the bigger especially if there are ‘big’ personalities involved in the smaller group. ‘Big’ personalities are individuals who are the leaders and/or initiators and ones that command respect within their peer group. These key staff will destroy any training initiatives you put into place if they decide they don’t want to take part.

What’s your ‘deadhead’ percentage? Have you got any ‘big’ personalities in there, working against your training initiatives or are they the type that simply cause you not to make a start in the first place?

By the way, these big personalities are often quite good at their job but they’re in the deadhead group because of their detrimental effect on other people. It’s often because they’re good that they get away with so much – in the end they’re downright dangerous to your business!

One can’t really talk about training without looking at all the skills required of us, as managers. External training is of vital importance provided that it’s relevant and that it is followed up in the marketplace. Internal training is as essential to your business as opening the doors in the morning – none of us will meet our profit and lifestyle goals without doing so, regularly, promptly and with due consideration to the effect!

Finally, to answer that old question ‘does training cost?’. The answer of course is ‘yes’, in dollars and in time and so it should! Come to think of it, so does stock and promotions, other integral aspects of hotel business! You might just say that it’s no use training someone because they might leave but what happens if they stay!

Back