An Examination of Management Competencies in Hospitality Higher Education: an Eastern Culture Context

An Examination of Management Competencies in Hospitality Higher Education: An Eastern Culture Context

Author Hsu, I-Cheng

Published 2016

Thesis Type Thesis (PhD Doctorate)

School Griffith Business School

DOI https://doi.org/10.25904/1912/729

Downloaded from http://hdl.handle.net/10072/368000

Griffith Research Online https://research-repository.griffith.edu.au

An Examination of Management Competencies in Hospitality Higher Education: An Eastern Culture Context

I-Cheng HSU Master of Arts

Department of Marketing Griffith Business School Griffith University

Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

June, 2015

Abstract

The competency-based approach to curriculum design has received much attention, particularly in the context of hospitality higher education. However, in order for the competency-based approach to remain effective in producing graduates with the skills commensurate with current industry needs and with the capability of pursuing career success, management competencies need to be constantly updated. Thus, the need for research in this area is ongoing. However, there are a number of key stakeholders (e.g., educators, industry, early career graduates and students) who need to be considered if a thorough understanding of management competencies is to be gained. While past research has been instrumental in comparing the perspectives of industry and educators, there has been little research that has adopted a truly multi-perspective approach. Furthermore, as culture has a substantial impact on peoples’ beliefs, thinking patterns, preferences and expectations of performance in work environments, it could well be argued that generalising Western competency models in an Eastern cultural context may not be appropriate. However, there has been a tendency to do just that because most of the literature, with this focus, reflects the Western context, with little being known of the Eastern perspective. This being the case, the proposed study addresses both of these gaps, by contributing a multi-perspective approach to management competencies in the context of Eastern hospitality education.

To this end, this study examines the management competencies that hospitality graduates need for occupational success in Eastern cultures, (e.g. Taiwan) from the perspectives of four key stakeholder groups, i.e., hotel managers, hospitality graduates, educators and students. A mixed method approach is employed to answer two research questions. In the first qualitative phase, 13 industry practitioners (i.e., hotel managers and early career graduates) and 14 educational stakeholders (i.e., hospitality educators and students) participated in in-depth interviews. Adopting the technique of convergent interviewing, 72 management competencies are identified in four domains. They are generic and specific i competencies in both general business and hospitality management setting. The competency list is then used in the survey instrument in the following phase.

In the second quantitative phase, a total of 495 complete questionnaires (97 from hotel managers, 101 from hospitality graduates, 102 from educators and 195 from students) were collected via mail survey. Through factor analysis of the resultant data, the four domains emerged representing eight specific segmentations. As a result, the separation between generic and specific competencies, as well as business and hospitality management competencies, was validated and, thus, research question one was addressed. Furthermore, the results of MANOVA revealed that the significant differences amongst stakeholder groups, in terms of perceived importance level of competencies, were found in the domains of hospitality traits (Gi2), hospitality communication capacity (Gi4), and hospitality public relation (Si2). The discriminant analysis validated this result by showing that hospitality traits (Gi2), hospitality communication capacity (Gi4) and business operation (Si1) were powerful discriminators in separate functions. Hence, research question two was addressed.

Although there are several methodological limitations in this study, there are a number of theoretical and practical implications realised. In theoretical terms, this study provides the first multi-perspective, empirically tested model of management competencies specific to Eastern cultural contexts. By identifying both generic and specific competencies, as well as business-focused and hospitality-focused categorisations, the eight resultant management competency domains contribute to the understanding and interpretation of important knowledge, skills and attitudes perceived by Eastern education stakeholders. In practical terms, valuable information is drawn from the findings, which will assist educators in hospitality curriculum design; industry in relation to personnel selection, performance review and career development; and students in relation to expectations and performance management. Furthermore, the findings provide a solid platform for future research in this important research domain.

Academic Declaration

This work has not been submitted for a degree or diploma in any university. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously published or written by another person except where due reference is made in the thesis itself.

I-Cheng HSU June, 2015

iii Table of Contents

ABSTRACT…………….……………………………………………………………………………………….….….. i

ACADEMIC DECLARATION………………………………………………………………………….………….. iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS…………………………………………………………………………………………. x

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ...... 1

1.1 RESEARCH PROBLEM ...... 2 1.2 RESEARCH CONTEXT ...... 3 1.3 RESEARCH GAPS ...... 7 1.4 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES ...... 8 1.5 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY ...... 9 1.6 FORMAT OF THE THESIS ...... 10 1.7 CONCLUSION ...... 10

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW...... 12

2.1 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND: COMPETENCY-BASED EDUCATION ...... 12 2.1.1. PHILOSOPHICAL ROOTS ...... 13 2.1.2. SOCIAL ROOTS ...... 14 2.1.3. EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES AND COMPETENCIES ...... 15 2.1.4 SUMMARY ...... 17 2.2 DEVELOPMENT OF COMPETENCY-BASED EDUCATION ...... 18 2.2.1. HISTORY OF COMPETENCY-BASED EDUCATION ...... 18 2.2.2. IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETENCY-BASED EDUCATION ...... 19 2.2.3. PROS AND CONS OF COMPETENCY-BASED EDUCATION ...... 20 2.2.4. SUMMARY ...... 22 2.3 COMPETENCY-BASED APPROACH IN HOSPITALITY HIGHER EDUCATION .... 23 2.3.1 SUMMARY ...... 25 2.4 CONCEPTUALISING HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT COMPETENCIES ...... 26 2.4.1. CONCEPTUALISING HOSPITALITY COMPETENCIES ...... 26 2.4.2. CLASSIFICATION OF MANAGEMENT COMPETENCIES ...... 33 2.5 MODELS OF HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT COMPETENCY ...... 38 2.5.1. KATZ’S THREE-SKILL APPROACH (1955) ...... 39 2.5.4 HOSPITALITY COMPETENCY MODELS: EAST VERSUS WEST ...... 50 2.5.4.1 THE IMPACT OF CULTURE ON HOSPITALITY PROVISION...... 56 2.5.4.2 THE IMPACT OF CULTURE ON EDUCATION PROVISION ...... 61 2.5.5 SUMMARY ...... 65 2.6 RESEARCH ON HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT COMPETENCIES ...... 66 2.6.1 PERCEPTIONS OF HOSPITALITY MANAGERS ...... 66 2.6.2 PERCEPTIONS OF HOSPITALITY STUDENTS ...... 68 2.6.3 PERCEPTIONS OF HOSPITALITY GRADUATES ...... 69 2.6.4 PERCEPTIONS OF HOSPITALITY EDUCATORS ...... 70 2.7 CONCLUSION AND CONCEPTUAL MAP FOR THIS STUDY ...... 74 iv

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHOD ...... 77

3.1 RESEARCH DESIGN ...... 77 3.2 TARGET POPULATION AND SAMPLING FRAME ...... 79 3.3 PHASE ONE: IN-DEPTH INTERVIEWS ...... 81 3.3.1 SAMPLING AND ADMINISTRATION PROCEDURES ...... 82 3.3.2 INSTRUMENT ...... 85 3.3.3 DATA ANALYSIS ...... 87 3.4 QUESTIONNAIRE DEVELOPMENT ...... 91 3.4.1 MEASUREMENTS OF MANAGEMENT COMPETENCIES ...... 91 3.4.2 DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION ...... 92 3.4.3 PILOT TEST ...... 96 3.4.4 TEST OF CONTENT VALIDITY ...... 97 3.4.5 TEST OF RELIABILITY ...... 99 3.4.6 FORWARD AND BACKWARD TRANSLATION ...... 100 3.5 PHASE TWO: QUESTIONNAIRE ...... 101 3.5.1 SAMPLING AND ADMINISTRATION PROCEDURES ...... 102 3.5.2 DATA ANALYSIS ...... 104 3.6 RESEARCH ETHICS ...... 108 3.7 CONCLUSION ...... 109

CHAPTER 4: QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS ...... 110

4.1 DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION OF INTERVIEWEES ...... 110 4.2 DATA ANALYSIS PROCESS ...... 112 4.3 GENERIC COMPETENCIES IN BUSINESS MANAGEMENT...... 114 4.4 GENERIC COMPETENCIES IN HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT ...... 119 4.5 SPECIFIC COMPETENCIES IN BUSINESS MANAGEMENT ...... 125 4.6 SPECIFIC COMPETENCIES IN HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT...... 130 4.7 THEMATIC ANALYSIS OF IMPORTANT COMPETENCIES ...... 134 4.8 CONCLUSION ...... 139

CHAPTER 5: QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS ...... 140

5.1 FACTOR ANALYSIS ...... 140 5.2 DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION OF THE RESPONDENTS ...... 150 5.3 MANOVA ...... 151 5.3.1 DATA TREATMENT ...... 151 5.3.2 APPROPRIATENESS AND ASSUMPTIONS TESTING ...... 152 5.3.3 MODEL TESTING ...... 154 5.4 DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS ...... 155 5.4.1 APPROPRIATENESS AND ASSUMPTIONS TESTING ...... 155 5.4.2 MODEL TESTING ...... 157 5.5 CONCLUSION ...... 160

CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION AND SUGGESTIONS ...... 161

6.1 DISCUSSION OF RESEARCH QUESTIONS ...... 161 6.1.1 RESEARCH QUESTION 1 ...... 161 6.1.1.1 IMPORTANCE OF MANAGEMENT COMPETENCIES ...... 165 6.1.2 RESEARCH QUESTION 2 ...... 169 6.2 DIFFERENCES IN MANAGEMENT COMPETENCIES BETWEEN EASTERN AND WESTERN CULTURES ...... 171 6.2.1 SHIFTING DOMAINS ...... 171 6.2.2 CULTURE-COMPARABLE AND CULTURE-SPECIFIC COMPETENCIES ...... 178 6.2.2.1 CULTURE-COMPARABLE COMPETENCIES: ...... 178 6.2.2.2 CULTURE-SPECIFIC COMPETENCIES ...... 180 6.3 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN INDUSTRY AND EDUCATION ...... 184 6.3.1 MANAGEMENT COMPETENCIES MORE IMPORTANT IN THE INDUSTRY .... 184 6.3.2 MANAGEMENT COMPETENCIES MORE IMPORTANT IN HOSPITALITY HIGHER EDUCATION ...... 186 6.4 IMPLICATIONS ...... 187 6.4.1 THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS ...... 187 6.4.2 IMPLICATIONS FOR HOSPITALITY PRACTITIONERS ...... 194 6.4.3 IMPLICATIONS FOR HOSPITALITY EDUCATORS ...... 195 6.4.4 IMPLICATIONS FOR HOSPITALITY STUDENTS ...... 197 6.5 LIMITATIONS ...... 198 6.6 SUGGESTED FUTURE RESEARCH ...... 199 6.7 CONCLUSION ...... 202

REFERENCES 205

APPENDICES 236

APPENDIX A. EMPIRICAL STUDIES OF HOSPITALITY ...... 236 APPENDIX B. LIST OF TOURIST HOTELS IN TAIWAN ...... 240 APPENDIX C LIST OF FOUR-YEAR HOSPITALITY EDUCATION PROGRAMS ...... 241 APPENDIX D INFORMATION FOR IN-DEPTH INTERVIEWS ...... 243 APPENDIX E. INFORMATION FOR SURVEYS ...... 252 APPENDIX F. CERTIFICATE OF ETHIC CLEARANCE ...... 281

Table of Tables

Table 2.1: Summary - Theory of Competency-Based Education ...... 18 Table 2.2: Cluster Comparison of the APEC-TWG and the ASEAN Frameworks ...... 31 Table 2.3: Competency Importance Ranking in the Applications of Katz’s Model ..... 40 Table 2.4: Comparison of the Essential Competencies (Sandwith’s Model) ...... 42 Table 2.5: Comparison of Management Competency Models ...... 47 Table 2.6: Research on Hospitality Competencies by Regions ...... 51 Table 2.7: Comparison of Competency Interpretation between Cultures ...... 56 Table 2.8: Cultural differences in Wester and Easter Cultures ...... 57 Table 3.1: Sampling Frame of Hotels ...... 80 Table 3.2: Sampling Frame of Schools Offering Hospitality Programs ...... 81 Table 3.3: Sample Size of In-Depth Interviewees ...... 83 Table 3.4: Chi-square Tests of the Target Population and Sample ...... 84 Table 3.5: Domains of Management Competencies ...... 86 Table 3.6: Domain and Competency Statement Counts in Each Interview Round ... 89 Table 3.7: Variable Description of Hospitality Management Competencies ...... 94 Table 3.8: Response Rate of the Pilot Test ...... 97 Table 3.9: Evaluation of the Questions ...... 98 Table 3.10: Reliability Test of Variables ...... 99 Table 3.11: Response Rate of the Mail Survey ...... 102 Table 3.12: Chi-Square Tests of the Target Population and Sample ...... 103 Table 3.13: Chi-Square Test of Demographic Variables ...... 104

vii

Table 4.1: Demographic Information ...... 111 Table 4.2: Generic Competency Statements and Counts in Business Mgnt ...... 115 Table 4.3: Generic Competency Statements and Counts in Hospitality Mgnt ...... 120 Table 4.4: Specific Competency Statements and Counts in Business Mgnt ...... 127 Table 4.5: Specific Competency Statements and Counts in Hospitality Mgnt ...... 132 Table 4.6: Coding Process of Important Competencies ...... 134 Table 5.1: Factor Analysis of Generic Competencies ...... 143 Table 5.2: Factor Analysis of Specific Competencies ...... 145 Table 5.3: Variable Description of Management Competencies ...... 148 Table 5.4: Descriptive Statistics of Four Sample Groups ...... 153 Table 5.5: Univariate Tests (Between-subjects Effects) ...... 155 Table 5.6: Differences of Group Means ...... 156 Table 5.7: Group Centroids of all Discriminant Functions ...... 157 Table 5.8: Discriminant Coefficients and Loadings in Functions ...... 158 Table 5.9: The Total Discriminating Effect of Each Predictor ...... 159 Table 6.1: Grouping of Management Competencies ...... 162 Table 6.2: Ranking of Management Competency Domains ...... 165 Table 6.3: Ranking of Competency Statements ...... 167 Table 6.4: Comparing Previous Models with This Study...... 175 Table 6.5: Culture-comparable and Culture-specific Mgnt Competencies ...... 190 Table 6.6: Ranking of Management Competencies across Samples ...... 193

viii

Table of Figures

Figure 2.1: Structure of Literature Review…………………………………………………… 12 Figure 2.2: Tyler’s Curriculum Cycle…………………………………………………………….. 16 Figure 2.3: Summary of Competency-Based Education Development…………. 23 Figure 2.4: Application of Competencies in Hospitality Education……………….. 26 Figure 2.5: Revised Model of Professional Competence……………..……………….. 34 Figure 2.6: Classification of Competencies…………………………………………………… 36 Figure 2.7: Defining Hospitality Management Competencies………………………. 38 Figure 2.8: Summary of Hospitality Management Competency Models………. 66 Figure 2.9: Multi-Perspective Approach to Hospitality Compet. Research…… 74 Figure 2.10: Conceptual Map………………………………………………………………………… 76 Figure 3.1: Research Process…………………..…………………………………………………… 78

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my most sincere gratitude towards my supervisory team, Professor Debra Grace and Dr. Mitchell Ross. I believe I am very blessed to be one of the few PhD students who have fully supportive principle and associate supervisors, particularly for international students whose first language is not English. Their expertise in the field and constructive guidance during different stages of my long PhD journey benefited my study and personal life. Their very direct and straight forward style really facilitated all communication and discussion. I felt I was blessed because of them.

I would also like to thank all of those who accompany and assist me during my stay at Griffith University. Finally, I would like to thank my family’s help and accompany, my wife Pei-Yi and three lovely sons, Zi-Yun, Zi-Xiu and Zi-Chun. Because of them, I gained the power and determination to complete this very long and not lonely journey.

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Since 1922, which saw the establishment of the first hotel administration program at Cornell University, the provision of degree-level hospitality education has increased steadily in response to the continuous demand for workers in the hospitality industry. Today, hospitality bachelor degree programs in the United States number over 200 (Annaraud, 2006; Sisson & Adams, 2013). This growth in hospitality programs, which has paralleled the uninterrupted growth in the tourism and hospitality industry, is not limited to America as similar trends have been identified in other nations, such as the United Kingdom and Australia, and more recently China and Taiwan (Breakey & Craig-Smith, 2007, 2008; Horng & Lee, 2006; Chang & Hsu, 2010; Li & Li, 2013). However, even though the number of hospitality degree programs has grown at a very rapid pace, the field of hospitality is a relatively new academic pursuit (Breakey & Craig-Smith, 2008).

One of the main drivers of the increase in hospitality and tourism programs is the significant economic contribution and employment opportunity the industry offers (Fidgeon, 2010). According to the benchmark report of the World Travel & Tourism Council (November, 2013), the direct industry gross domestic product is US$2.1 trillion, representing nearly 2.9% of world GDP. About 102 million people are directly employed in the industry and 266 million jobs were provided in 2013, accounting for 8.8% of world employment and creating more career opportunities than many other industries, such as manufacturing, banking, and chemicals (World Travel & Tourism Council, November, 2013). Hence, students enrolling in hospitality programs are motivated by the anticipated vocational and career prospects (Lee, Kim & Lo, 2008; Raybould & Wilkins, 2006; Fidgeon, 2010), making hospitality education more industry-driven. The curriculum design, particularly by including internships in the curricula (Zopiatis & Theocharous, 2013), thus aims to equip students with competencies and skills that are required for performing effectively in managerial

1 positions (Wadongo, Kambona & Odhuno, 2011; Sisson & Adams, 2013). Indeed, as job requirements in the hospitality industry become more demanding in terms of more skilful soft competencies such as customer relations and leadership, practising managers progressively tend to hire hospitality graduates with bachelor degrees for entry-level management positions (Sisson & Adams, 2013; Williams, 2003). Additionally, hotel managers have higher job competency expectations for management trainees who have earned hospitality degrees than for those who hold non-hospitality degrees (Ricci, 2010). Hospitality managers have recognised that students who possess a degree in hospitality management have a base of job- specific knowledge that will assist them in succeeding in the industry (Barrows, 1999; O’Leary & Deegan, 2005).

1.1 Research Problem The competitive environment in the hospitality industry has resulted from the influence of globalisation, advances and innovations in technology, and emphasis on high-quality customer service (Agut, Grau & Peiro, 2003; Kay & Moncarz, 2004; Millar, Mao & Moreo, 2010). For example, in terms of quality and environmental management, high-quality management (leading, for example, to a decrease in customer complains) and strong environmental management (such as efforts aimed at recycling and lowering the consumption of water and energy) can improve the competitive advantages of a hotel (Molina-Azorín, Tarí, Pereira-Moliner, López- Gamero & Pertusa-Ortega, 2015). These shifts in emphasis challenge the competencies of present and future hospitality managers as well as the relevance of hospitality curricula. To assess the bearing of hospitality education on graduates’ performance, considerable research has investigated the essential competencies hospitality graduates need from the perspective of various stakeholders. For example, Tas (1988), Kay and Russette (2000), Chung-Herrera, Enz and Lankau (2003), and Tesone and Ricci (2006) have developed different sets of competency statements based on the input of hospitality managers. Mayo and Thomas-Haysbert (2005) and Millar et al. (2010) identified the required competencies based on evaluations by both educators and employers, whereas Annaraud (2006) compared

2 the perceptions of employers, academics, and students to derive expected competencies. The findings of these researchers are important for educators and curriculum developers in setting clear and practical learning objectives for courses and programs.

As out-dated and unplanned curricula may lead to poorly prepared hospitality graduates (Millar et al. 2010), a curriculum revision process that incorporates the input of various education stakeholders is likely to bridge the gap between what is taught to students and what practising managers expect of graduates (Dopson & Tas, 2004; Morgan, 2004; Okeiyi, Finley & Postel, 1994). Research finding that employers perceived hospitality students to be lacking transferable skills for the workplace concluded that program providers should closely examine how important competencies can be developed during the learning process (Spowart, 2011). In sum, prior researchers emphasise the need for hospitality graduates to have a thorough understanding of the relevant competencies that are vital to their success in today’s changing world, especially with respect to diversity of hospitality and tourism productions, customer preferences, and advancement in technology (Millar et al., 2010). Hospitality educators are thus challenged to find innovative ways to develop these competencies in coursework.

1.2 Research Context The aim of this research is to investigate important competencies for hospitality graduates in the context of Eastern cultures, with particular interest in the culture of Taiwan. In accordance with Confucian philosophy, Eastern education systems differ from Western cultures in their approaches to the value of education, knowledge transition, course delivery, and learning style (Chang, 2004; Cheng, 1998). Owing to high power distance, collectivist values and a hierarchical relationship between teachers and students are evident in the Taiwanese education system (Chang, 2004) and society (Wang & Tamis-Lemonda, 2003). In examining the performance of managerial competencies, Chong (2008) found that Taiwanese managers were more similar to their Singapore counterparts than were either Malaysian or Philippine

3 managers. The findings suggested that the similarity of Taiwan and Singapore possibly resulted from the influences of Confucianism in both countries. Taiwan has been cited as “the only [Asian] country where Confucianism is officially worshipped” (Rozman, 2002, p. 10). Thus the Taiwanese context reflects the values of Confucianism in both the educational and the managerial environment and is distinct from Western cultures in terms of educational systems and management competencies. Taiwan affords an appropriate context for this study because it provides a valid representation of an Eastern culture.

Furthermore, hospitality higher education programs in Taiwan have increased similarly to their Western counterparts. From 2001 to 2013, the number of employees in the Taiwanese hospitality industry grew from 532,000 to 785,000 (National Statistics, Taiwan, 2014). To satisfy the rising demand for qualified hospitality employees, programs at the four-year baccalaureate level have also increased markedly, from two in 1998 to 50 in 2014 (Ministry of Education, Taiwan, 2015). However, Taiwanese industrial managers have complained about the unpreparedness of hospitality graduates (Liu, 2004), particularly in terms of communication skills and management analysis techniques (Lin, 2002; Hsiao & Hsiao, 2007). This criticism is noteworthy, as hospitality managers and educators differed in their perspective as to what skills were most central. Hospitality managers perceived interpersonal competencies to be more important, whereas educators valued the development of technical and administrative competencies more highly (Tsai, Goh, Huffman, & Wu, 2006).

Given the criticism regarding the quality of higher education provision, several initiatives have been undertaken to improve the teaching and learning of higher education programs by Taiwanese governmental parties. Along with the impact of globalisation, popularised undergraduate programs, decline in birth rate, and academic-industry gaps, since 2002, the Ministry of Education has initiated different plans to reform universities and colleges (Ministry of Education, November 6, 2015). In Taiwan, hospitality and tourism bachelor programs are provided in two higher education systems (i.e. academic and vocational), with the vocational system being 4 more prevalent (Chang & Hsu, 2010; Horng & Teng, 2011). While the academic system (general universities and colleges) provide four-year bachelor programs, with a managerial and higher-level orientation, the vocational system provides 2-year and 4-year bachelor programs with a technical orientation (Horng, 2003; Horng, Song & Lu, 2005). For the academic system, the government focuses on establishing featured universities through (1) improving strategy management of universities, (2) encouraging innovation in learning, (3) evaluating learning outcomes, (4) assuring educational quality, (5) cultivating young researchers, (6) aligning with other educational institutions for sharing resources and information, and (7) cooperating with local or regional governments, schools at all levels, industries and the general public (Ministry of Education, November 6, 2015). For the vocational system, the focus of the latest reform plan (which commenced in 2010) is on (1) empowering teachers and students in terms of department/programme positioning, (2) constructing professional core competencies, (3) involving industrial practitioners in on-campus lectures, (4) cultivating employability of students and (5) academic- industry collaboration (Ho & Yang, 2011). These initiatives exemplify the importance of curriculum development and re-design in the two higher education systems in Taiwan.

The curriculum development in academic and vocational systems is usually led by the schools missions and positioning. According to Article 24 of Rules of the University Act (Ministry of Education, March, 2014): “Universities shall plan the curriculum according to their features of development, which shall be approved by related university-level meetings before implementation and shall be reviewed or amended regularly.”

In other words, the courses that are included in a hospitality bachelor program mainly depend on the developing direction and strategic positioning of the educational institutions, the expertise of the faculty and the availability of equipment and resources. The decision making process indeed requires consultation with various education stakeholders, i.e., industry experts and associations, students, alumni, parents and the governmental agencies; however, there are no national 5 standards to facilitate curriculum development (Horng, 2003; Horng, Teng, Lee & Liu, 2006). On the other hand, the Ministry of Education (November, 2015) develops clear curriculum outlines for hospitality related courses taught in vocational schools; however, they are only applicable to middle-level technological and vocational education schools, which include technical skills programs at junior high schools, senior vocational schools, professional programs at general high schools and/or the vocational programs at comprehensive high schools.

In Australia, a similar approach has been adopted in its vocational education and training system, equivalent to that of the middle-level technological and vocational education in Taiwan. The National Training Packages list specific occupational skills in terms of units of competencies, qualification framework and assessment, and serve as a guideline in vocational education and industry training (Department of Education and Training, Australian Government, July 17, 2015). In higher education, driven by the needs of evaluating quality of hospitality, tourism and event education at a national level, a set of Threshold Learning Outcomes act as pathways to link the vocational education and higher education (Whitelaw, Benckendorff, Gross, Mair & Jose, 2015). There are five learning domains (i.e. service and experience design, interdisciplinary Inquiry, collaboration, problem solving and professional responsibility) used to frame academic standards that facilitate quality assurance and curriculum design (Whitelaw et al, 2015). The Threshold Learning Outcomes function in a similar fashion to benchmark statements developed by the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education for the bachelor degree in the UK (QAA, 2008). Although benchmark statements are not grouped as domains, they clearly describe the generic and subject-specific learning outcomes that graduates, of a bachelor degree in hospitality, leisure, sports and tourism, should demonstrate (QAA, 2008). The initiatives that improve the quality of hospitality higher education provision have been well adopted in Western countries.

In comparison with those in the Western countries, such as the UK, Australia, the USA, and Switzerland, researchers contend that the development of hospitality and tourism higher education in Taiwan is less mature (Horng, 2003; Horng et al, 2005; 6

Horng & Teng, 2011; Liu, 2011). Hence, in the past decade, hospitality curricula have begun to attract researchers’ attention. Researchers agreed that inadequate curriculum revision and insufficient connection between educators and industry practitioners could result in hospitality graduates’ failure to meet industry requirements, and further limiting the capability of life-long learning and self- development (Chang & Hsu, 2010; Liu, 2004; Tsai et al., 2006). Horng and Lee (2006) noted that the majority of hospitality curricula were developed in congruence with the existing curriculum structures of similar programs from Western cultures and were merely adjusted according to the institutional missions and orientations. Horng et al (2006) further suggest there is a need to establish academic standards, or benchmark statements, associated with learning outcomes at a national level. Although several studies (refer Horng, 2007), have been initiated to build management competencies and provide example curricula for hospitality programs in vocational higher education, the application in the educational context has not been widespread and a continual investigation for developing learning outcomes in curriculum design of hospitality undergraduate programs is warranted (Teng, Horng & Baum, 2013). Hence, this study is important in redirecting Taiwanese hospitality programs by addressing industry needs and educational values in Taiwan.

1.3 Research Gaps Although considerable management competency research has occurred since the 1980s (Millar et al., 2010), a review of the literature reveals two gaps that are relevant to this study. The first gap occurs because most competency research has been conducted in Western countries, with few studies examining Eastern cultures. Given the influence of globalisation and acculturation, inevitably some hospitality competencies, particularly those that are transferable and generic, are essential across cultures (Chong, 2013). However, limited empirical evidence supports the assumption that the important management competencies do not differ between Western cultures and Eastern cultures. In fact, as more competency research has been conducted in China and Taiwan in recent years (Kong, Cheung & Song, 2011; 2012; Horng, Hsu, Liu, Lin & Tsai, 2011; Wang, 2013), some differences have become

7 evident, such as personal relationships and foreign language fluency. Certain competencies essential in Western cultures may be not compatible with Eastern cultures, particularly people-oriented competencies like leadership, decision-making, and staff development (Chong, 2008). Thus the first gap is that research has ignored broad cultural influences (e.g., Eastern vs. Western cultures), making existing competency models inadequate. A crucial aim of the current study is to redefine the competency models developed in Western cultures and to clarify what competencies are important across cultures (culture-comparable) and what competencies are important in the context of Eastern cultures (culture-specific) (Tsang, 2011).

The second gap lies in the lack of multiple perspectives adopted in competency research. When examining competencies important for hospitality graduates, most researchers investigate perspectives of either one or two stakeholders of hospitality higher education, namely industry managers and hospitality educators. These sources of information are arguably too narrow. More recently, researchers have advocated the adoption of a multiple-perspective approach, encompassing managers, educators, students, and graduates (Gursory, Rahman & Swanger, 2012). In the process of curriculum development, the sources of information influence the selection of educational objectives (Tyler, 1949). Multiple perspectives could provide educators with more inclusive information when designing course objectives, instruction techniques, evaluation methods, and learning outcomes. Thus, the second gap relates to the need to redefine hospitality competencies from the perspectives of multiple hospitality education stakeholders.

1.4 Research Objectives The purpose of this research is to address the gaps previously outlined. Thus, the two broad research objectives of this study are: RO1: To identify a comprehensive list of management competencies applicable to hospitality graduates in Eastern cultures.

RO2: To contrast the perspectives of managers, educators, students, and graduates regarding the desired management competencies for hospitality graduates in Eastern cultures.

1.5 Significance of the Study This research addresses two clear voids in research relating to management competencies for hospitality graduates in Eastern cultures and the development of a multi-perspective approach to understanding such competencies. In this sense, this project makes significant contributions to both theory and practice. In theoretical terms, this research adds to the body of knowledge by developing the first multi- perspective model of management competencies in the context of Eastern cultures. It is expected that this investigation will reveal new dimensions, such as English proficiency, value of harmony, and ethics, that are of significance in the Eastern culture context. Furthermore, this multi-perspective approach will enable a comprehensive understanding of outcomes important to all stakeholders. Finally, establishing a comprehensive model in the context of Eastern education systems will allow meaningful comparison between cultures (East vs. West). In practical terms, this study’s contribution is twofold. Firstly, the findings will be used to inform curriculum design in Taiwan and other Eastern cultures. One of the challenges facing hospitality educators is to find a means of developing a curriculum that meets the constantly changing needs of the industry and strikes a balance between the requirements of academic institutions and those of the industrial organisations. Several studies have attempted to identify the essential competencies in Taiwan. However, most of those investigations have considered the perspective of the industry (Chen & Hsu, 2007; Horng & Wang, 2003; Wu, 2005) and have overlooked other important perspectives of various education stakeholders, such as educators, managers, current students, and graduates. The findings of this research are expected to provide a comprehensive source list that facilitates the selection of effective educational objectives and learning outcomes in the process of curriculum development. Moreover, the findings will allow for educational outcomes that will benefit the graduate (as an individual), the educational institution (in terms of its performance), and industry (in terms of competence). Hence, the findings of this

9 research will mitigate the current imbalance between hospitality workforce expectations and the provision of hospitality higher education in Taiwan, as well as in other Eastern cultures.

Secondly, the findings will contribute to the development of human resources in the hospitality industry in Taiwan and other Eastern cultures. The conceptual model of this research will provide industry with a valuable tool useful in staff recruitment, performance appraisals, on-the-job training, and staff development. The conceptual model will be instrumental in assisting human resource management in hospitality in Eastern countries, resulting in lower employee turnover and attrition rates, greater job satisfaction, and higher quality customer service (Jauhari, 2006; Tesone & Ricci, 2006; Varoglu & Eser, 2006).

1.6 Format of the Thesis This chapter introduces the research background, research problem, research gaps, and research objectives. In Chapter Two, the relevant literature is reviewed and the research questions are formulated. Chapter Three describes the research methods, including the research design, sampling strategies, data collection techniques, and data analysis choices. Chapter Four reports the results of the qualitative analysis, which form the foundation to address research question one. Chapter Five reports the quantitative analyses, including descriptive statistics, factor analysis, comparative tests (i.e., MANOVA), and discriminant analysis, which address research objectives one and two. Finally, in Chapter Six the discussion of results, theoretical and practical implications, limitations, and suggestions for future research are outlined.

1.7 Conclusion Although much literature documents key hospitality competencies, limited research has focused on identifying generic and specific competencies that are crucial for hospitality graduates in pursuing their career and in their personal development, particularly in the context of Eastern cultures. As most competency research

10 identifies fundamental competencies for hospitality graduates from the perspective of hospitality practitioners, few investigations embrace the perspectives of multiple stakeholders of hospitality higher education when developing competency models— that is, the outlook of academics, students, managers, and alumni. The findings of this study are expected to inform hospitality educators on how to prepare competent graduates in their curriculum developing process.

The next chapter addresses the literature relating to management competencies in the field of hospitality and its relation to higher education and formulates research question one. Subsequently the importance of multiple stakeholders in the curriculum developing process is highlighted and research question two is articulated.

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter reviews the competency-based education literature, the structure of which is shown in Figure 2.1. The chapter begins by introducing the theoretical basis of competency-based education and the justification for using competencies in curriculum development. The application of a competency-based approach in hospitality higher education is then explained, and the remaining sections discuss the concepts, models and research findings of hospitality management competencies. The discussion facilitates the understanding of how hospitality management competencies are perceived by industry, educators and students and classified and investigated by researchers. The chapter closes by presenting the research questions.

Figure 2.1: Structure of Literature Review

Sec on 2.1 Sec on 2.2 Sec on 2.3 Sec on 2.4 Theore cal Basis of Development of Competency-Based Hospitality Management Competency-Based Competency-Based Educa on in Competencies Educa on Educa on Hospitality Higher (Using competencies as (Ra onale for using CBE) (Introduc on to CBE) Educa on observable performance)

Sec on 2.5 Sec on 2.6 Sec on 2.7 Hospitality Management Hospitality Management Conceptual Map Competencies Competencies of this Study (Ra onale for revising (Ra onale for Mul - (Research Ques ons competency model) Perspec ve Approach) One and Two)

2.1 Theoretical Background: Competency-Based Education Competency-based education is a process of developing students’ abilities and capacities to perform roles and tasks (Hoogveld, Paas & Jochems, 2005). Often used as a framework for developing curricula, the competency-based approach has both philosophical and social roots.

2.1.1. Philosophical Roots Various philosophies of education have incorporated theories of educational delivery, relying on different belief sets relating to values, reality and knowledge. These belief sets function as signposts for setting priorities and defining the scope of the curriculum development process (Beauchamp, 1975; Wiles, 2005).

Four major educational philosophies guide the curriculum development process: perennialism, essentialism, experimentalism, and reconstructionism (Oliva, 2005; Wiles & Bondi, 2007). Perennialism and essentialism follow the teacher-led, content approaches to curriculum development (Oliva, 2005). Perennialist educators focus on developing students’ ability to reason by teaching eternal truths from the great books of the past, such as the Bible (Wiles, 2005; Wiles & Bondi, 2007). Essentialist educators place less emphasis on the development of rationality and focus on cultural heritage (i.e., the accumulated and shared knowledge of a culture or society) and basic skills, such as reading, writing and arithmetic. Both schools believe that truth and reality are constants, and that students are passive participants in learning the selected academic disciplines and subject matter (Oliva, 2005).

In contrast to the teacher-led, content approach, experimentalism and reconstructionism advocate a student-led, process approach to teaching and learning (Oliva, 2005). Reconstructionists perceive the truth as a subjective choice and consider society to be unhealthy. Teachers act as group facilitators, assisting students in discussing their values, position in society, and social problems and solutions (Schiro, 2008). Instead of emphasising social issues, experimentalists pay attention to students’ interests, experiences, and needs, as well as the subject matter of social experiences. Reality is what is experienced, and truth is what presently functions (Wiles, 2005). Experimentalist teachers, on the other hand, constantly adapt curricula and pedagogy to the needs of learners and find ways to stimulate personal growth in relation to students’ abilities, competence and reflective thinking (Oliva, 2005). Consequently, education can make changes in a student’s behaviour and thought processes. Although both philosophies hold that the world is ever-changing and that students are active learners, experimentalism

13 directly influences competency-based education by revealing the importance of behaviour change in the learning process. The philosophical roots of competency-based education lie in three fundamental tenets of experimentalism (Klingstedt, 1972):

1. The world is constantly changing; 2. Educational practice should be based on psychological data, which implies that behaviour modification results from the process of step-by-step learning; and 3. Human behaviour is controlled and driven by physical, intellectual, social, economic and well-being motives. The educational practice of experimentalism is based on the notion of continuously seeking out the personal and social needs of students in a changing world—a perspective that parallels the fundamental thinking of competency-based education. Competency-based educators believe educational practice should cohere to those needs by translating them into educational objectives. That is, when objectives are set in terms of performance competence levels, students will learn what they need to know, and will be able to perform competently in varying and complex situations (Klingstedt, 1972). In accordance with experimentalist thinking, competency-based educators perceive education as a process of behavioural change, which is guided by educational objectives.

2.1.2. Social Roots In addition to having philosophical roots, competency-based education embraces a strong utilitarian ethos (Donahue, 2004). According to Schiro (2008), the late 1980s saw the beginning of a shift from traditional, or essentialist, philosophies to an ideology emphasising the social efficiency and accountability of education. Under pressure to ensure that money invested in education is well spent, schools have endeavoured to prepare students with skills and abilities that are directly relevant to the needs of society and employers rather than supplying them with traditional knowledge. As a result, educational objectives have tended to be specified in terms of student performance (Schiro, 2008). 14

2.1.3. Educational Objectives and Competencies In describing educational objectives in competency-based education, most researchers agree that these objectives can be presented in behavioural terms (Bowden & Masters, 1993; Dopson & Tas, 2004). In this regard, the rationale of Tyler (1949) is considered to be one of the strongest influences in the behavioural objectives movement (Bowden & Masters, 1993; Donahue, 2004; Kelly, 2004; Print, 1993; Smith & Cooper, 2000). Tyler’s rationale for developing curriculum connected educational objectives with learning experiences and was based on the following four principles:

1. Formulation of educational objectives; 2. Selection of appropriate learning experiences for attaining the educational objectives; 3. Organisation of learning experiences; and 4. Evaluation of the extent to which the objectives are attained.

Tyler (1949) held that educational objectives guide these four principles and represent the changes in students’ behavioural patterns that the educational institution seeks to bring about. Building on Tyler’s framework, Wiles (2005) explained the functions of the four principles as a continuing cycle of analysis, design, implementation and evaluation (Figure 2.2).

Figure 2.2: Tyler’s Curriculum Cycle

ANALYSE

EVALUATE DESIGN

IMPLEMENT

Source: Wiles (2005, p. 57) Owing to the significance of behavioural objectives, Tyler suggested a holistic analysis for selecting objectives, which should include information from subject specialists, the needs of learners, and important issues in contemporary life. On the basis of the formulated educational objectives, teachers can then determine the corresponding learning experiences, and with effective organisation of these experiences and evaluative measures, teachers can examine whether these objectives are being attained. The evaluation creates a feedback loop for constantly updating the curriculum process. For curriculum development, the starting point can be the educational objectives. For curriculum revision, the starting point can be any stage of the curriculum cycle, depending on the concerns of educators, the issues and problems identified in education, or the data obtained from the research of student behaviour (Sung, 2007).

Educational objectives are the core of curriculum development because they are “the criteria by which materials are selected, content is outlined, instructional procedures are developed and tests and examinations are prepared” (Tyler, 1949, p. 52). To effectively classify these objectives, Bloom (1956) and Krathwohl, Bloom and Masia (1964) proposed a taxonomy of educational objectives in the cognitive, affective and psychomotor domains that relied on the use of active verbs for

16 learning outcome statements. In line with this taxonomy, most research defines competencies as a person’s set of knowledge (cognitive domain), skills (psychomotor domain), and attitudes (affective domain) that relates to, and results in, effective job performance (Gangani, McLean & Braden, 2006; Gonczi, Hager & Oliver, 1990; Perdue, Ninemeier & Woods, 2002; Rausch, Sherman, & Washbush, 2002; Serpell & Ferrada, 2007). As a result, stating objectives in terms of observable behaviour becomes a primary feature of competency-based education.

The competency-based approach has emerged primarily from the link between workforce needs and learning outcomes that ensure the job-readiness of students (Boam & Sparrow, 1992; McAllister, 2005). Competency-based education programs use behavioural objectives as the basis of curriculum design, and criterion- referenced testing and evaluation can demonstrate that schools effectively meet the educational goals related to students’ future lives (Donahue, 2004; Klingstedt, 1972). Although competency-based education had strong beginnings in vocational and technical education programs, administrators and school board members subsequently embraced the competency movement (Donahue, 2004).

2.1.4 Summary The theoretical basis of competency-based education lies in the thinking of experimentalism and social efficacy ideology as reflected in curriculum development. In line with experimentalism, competency-based educators recognise that students are active learners and that educational practices should be aligned with the expected behavioural changes of students. Influenced by the work of Tyler (1949) and Bloom (1956), competency-based education is a systematic approach to curriculum development and the specification of educational objectives in terms of behaviours or competencies. In a constantly changing world, educational objectives should be continuously examined according to contemporary life, subject matter, and the needs of learners. Competency-based education is also rooted in the ideology of social efficacy, which advocates the link between learning outcomes and employable skills. Given that behavioural objectives can provide evidence of how

17 programs and curricula meet the needs of the workforce, schools have adopted a competency-based approach to demonstrate their accountability. Table 2.1 summarises the key concepts discussed in this section.

Table 2.1: Summary - Theory of Competency-Based Education Philosophical root Four educational philosophies  Experimentalism Educational objectives  Tyler’s curriculum cycle  Learning outcome  Bloom’s taxonomy: knowledge (cognitive), skills (psychomotor) and attitudes (affective) of a person that relate to, and result in, effective job performance Social root Social efficacy and accountability of education  Linking learning outcomes and employable skills

2.2 Development of Competency-Based Education Kuhlmann (2009) noted that over the past 75 years, competency-based education has become steadily more dominant in curriculum construction within vocational education and higher education. In the following sub-sections, the history, implementation, and pros and cons of competency-based education are discussed.

2.2.1. History of Competency-Based Education Bowden and Masters (1993) noted that the use of competency-based education originated in teacher education in the United States in 1967–1968. To ensure the preparedness of teachers, program requirements of competency-based teacher education were derived from the practices of effective teachers and then stated as competencies. Course objectives, instruction and assessment in education programs were specifically related to competencies. As other disciplines sought to coordinate education with the needs of the workplace, the movement spread to other professional education programs such as dentistry, medicine, nursing, law and school administration in the United States in the 1970s, then to vocational training programs in the United Kingdom in the 1980s, and subsequently to vocational training and professional skills recognition in Australia in the 1990s. In the last decade, the competency-based approach has become one of the most important 18 and effective means of curriculum development for maintaining and improving the quality of instructional programs in higher education (Baartman, Bastiaens, Kirschner & Van der Vleuten, 2006; Brownell & Chung, 2001; Gursoy, Rahman & Swanger, 2012; Hoogveld et al., 2005).

2.2.2. Implementation of Competency-Based Education Competency-based education implies a shift in focus from instructional delivery to student performance (Voorhees, 2001). That is, the learner’s performance gains more attention than the teacher’s performance. In line with Tyler’s curriculum cycle (Wiles, 2005), Voorhees (2001) pointed out that competency-based programs require the conceptualising, identifying, delivering and evaluating of competencies. Ismail, Al-Zoubi, Rahman and Al-Shabatat (2009) also recognise that the organisation and specification of what is to be learned, and the provision of feedback in evaluation, are main features of competency-based programs. Selection and evaluation of competencies are crucial components of competency-based education.

In conceptualising and identifying competencies, the source of information and selection of competencies are the most critical aspects. Biemans et al. (2004) described competency as context-bound, indivisible (i.e., knowledge, skills and attitudes are integrated), subject to change, connected to activities and tasks, and interrelated. Competencies are thus integrated abilities displayed in the context of a selected professional task at an appropriate level. Given the complex nature of competencies, educators should identify the particular competencies that are essential for their students through formal techniques and in partnership with relevant groups (Jones, 2001). Techniques include interviews (e.g., critical incident technique), surveys (e.g., Delphi), convened groups (e.g., Develop a Curriculum, or DACUM), and other analytical approaches (e.g., functional analysis, observation, Comprehensive Occupational Data Analysis Programs, or CODAP) (Gonczi, Hager & Oliver, 1990). Informants should include significant stakeholders of education, such as current faculty, undergraduate students, alumni and employers of the program’s graduates (Jones, 2001). On this basis, educators can select the most relevant

19 competencies for their students and judge whether students possess the required competencies.

In delivering and evaluating competencies, educators should engage in new delivery paradigms and evaluation tools that correspond to the specified competencies (Voorhees, 2001). Appropriate pedagogy and instruction design result in the expected learning outcomes, and hence should facilitate the choice of evaluations. However, although a crucial task, developing valid, reliable and objective evaluation tools is difficult (Biemans et al., 2004; Yip et al., 2001). General education, for example, employs trait-based scales and scoring rubrics to describe competencies, with specific conditions at specific levels, and commonly uses these to guide the evaluation of learning outcomes (Voorhees, 2001), resulting in standardised scoring and consequently a more objective and reliable evaluation across faculty. Evaluation tools include multiple-choice tests, oral questioning, written responses, project reports, self-reports, skill tests, direct observation of work activities, and supervisor ratings, as well as others (Boritz & Carnaghan, 2003).

In this learner-centred paradigm, the needs and expected outcomes of learners should be examined in a rigorous manner. Educators play important roles in defining important competencies, designing adequate instruction methods and evaluating students’ performance objectively. If competency-based education is implemented properly, students can achieve the desired performance and educators can identify the strengths and weaknesses of programs.

2.2.3. Pros and Cons of Competency-Based Education Many educators believe that competency-based education offers practical and systematic direction for higher education, and especially for professional preparation programs (Boritz & Carnaghan, 2003; Garman & Johnson, 2006). Furthermore, educators can identify the instructional intents of the program and learning outcomes that will facilitate the development of teaching delivery and student assessment, and consequently prepare students with the required competencies.

According to Klingstedt (1972), the step-by-step process of competency-based education serves to bring about changes in students’ behaviour that meet the educational objectives. Chung-Herrera et al. (2003) concur that using competencies in curriculum design can assist professionals in meeting the industry’s future needs. Under competency-based education, students acquire not only knowledge, skills, abilities and attitudes, but also the capacity to use those competencies in recognising and solving complex problems in their domains of study or future work (Hoogveld et al., 2005; Chyung, Stepich & Cox, 2006). Thus, competency-based education can enhance both the link between theory and practice and that between knowledge and performance in real-life scenarios (Koenigsfeld, Kim, Cha, Perdue & Cichy, 2012).

Although the competency-based approach is recognised as an effective means of curriculum development for professional preparation programs, it has been criticised as being overly specific regarding occupational performance. Bowden and Masters (1993) and Brady (1995) have argued that its emphasis on behavioural objectives and outcomes may lead to utilitarianism, which neglects the broad aspects of education, especially when the education concentrates on particular jobs. When professional development or learning experiences are specified into discrete competencies, the focus may be on the end goals instead of the learning process. Similarly, Gonczi (2000) noted that discrete competencies make the learning outcomes fragmented. Other researchers have observed that the applicability of competencies in real-life scenarios is questionable unless the sequencing of the experiences in curriculum and pedagogy design is considered. Donahue (2004) asserted that because competency-based education oversimplifies personal and professional development, it tends to reduce the profession to a set of specific skills and transfers attention away from processes and back to end products. Brady (1995) concluded that the narrowing effect of competency-based education limits students’ maximal potential and overlooks the rigour of the underpinning knowledge and the purpose of education.

These criticisms reinforce the continuous challenges for competency-based curriculum educators to achieve an appropriate balance in all aspects of higher education. Tyler (1949) articulated that the selection of educational objectives requires a comprehensive philosophy for guidance, as judgments may be sourced from learners‘ needs, accumulated knowledge, the analysis of problems in contemporary society, or philosophical values in life. Foucar-Szocki and Bolsing (1999) and Coll and Zegwaard (2006) also argued that good curriculum development requires an understanding of the perceptions of all education stakeholders given that each of these sources has certain values to be considered. Therefore, a full examination of the worth of each educational objective is critical for the curriculum development of competency-based education.

Competency-based education emphasises learning outcomes, which can be measured by the changes in students’ thinking, feeling and behaviours. When life- long learning is central to the purpose of higher education, competency-based education is expected not only to provide students with the ability to perform entry- level competencies within the profession, but also to give students life-long skills in their personal, vocational, and social life (Donahue, 2004; Gursoy & Swanger, 2004; Fidgeon, 2010; Swanger & Gursoy, 2007). Preparing well qualified graduates and meeting the needs of students, industry and society requires curriculum developers to comprehensively re-examine their educational objectives.

2.2.4. Summary The development of competency-based education began in teacher education in the United States in 1967 and 1968 and was followed by implementation of similar programs in the United Kingdom and Australia in the 1980s and 1990s. Although the advantages of competency-based education are well recognised amongst educators and practitioners, many professionals have concerns regarding the seemingly excessive specification of occupational performance and the apparent disregard for the learning process associated with this goal-oriented education. In fact, the focus on learning outcomes may lead to the simplification of personal and professional

22 development. However, comprehensively selecting educational objectives will assist competency-based educators in meeting the needs of learners, transmitting the body of knowledge of the past, considering problems in contemporary society, and incorporating philosophical values into the curriculum design process. Hence, competency-based education can provide students with life-long skills in their personal, vocational and social life. Figure 2.3 summarises the important concepts discussed in this section.

Figure 2.3: Summary of Competency-Based Educa on Development

History of Competency-Based Educa on

Implementa on of Competency-Based Educa on

Support of Cri cism of Competency-Based Competency-Based Educa on Educa on

Conclusions of this Study: Comprehensively selec ng educa onal objec ves can help to overcome the deficiencies of competency- based educa on Source: Developed for this Study

2.3 Competency-Based Approach in Hospitality Higher Education Over the past two decades, the competency-based approach has been adopted in the development and review of hospitality curricula of undergraduate programs (Buergermeister, 1983; Dopson & Tas, 2004; Gursoy & Swanger, 2004, 2005; Gursoy et al., 2012; Swanger & Gursoy, 2007; Tas, 1988). Buergermeister (1983) and Tas (1988) evaluated the hospitality management curriculum of undergraduate programs by assessing the competencies required for beginning hospitality

23 managers. Buergermeister (1983) found that the most important hiring criteria for beginning managers were the abilities of customer satisfaction management, effective communication, personnel motivation and training, and producing profit for organisations. Hospitality educators were therefore encouraged to integrate these human and conceptual competencies as educational objectives. In another study relying on the perceptions of hotel general managers, Tas (1988) identified 36 required competencies for hotel management trainees. Tas (1988) claimed that to enable students to develop the required competencies, hospitality programs should focus on learning experiences (both in the classroom and in the field) involving lectures, laboratory activities and internships.

In the past decade, Dopson and Tas (2004) employed Tyler’s (1949) rationale to review and revise the curriculum of the hospitality management program at the University of North Texas. To compile a comprehensive list of educational objectives, the authors conducted a competency study to examine the perceptions of industry professionals, students, and the hospitality faculty. The faculty team then screened the compiled management competencies on the basis of their philosophy of education and the psychology of learning. The final list consisted of 173 competencies, which were identified as educational objectives, and comparison of these competencies with the course contents of the hospitality program revealed major deficiencies of the current curriculum (Dopson & Tas, 2004). Through discussion about the structure, content areas and instruction of the revised curriculum, the faculty team proposed new courses on hospitality managerial accounting, hospitality finance, hospitality law, and hospitality marketing and sales, and recommended a course on hospitality human resources as a new compulsory course.

Swanger and Gursoy (2007) adopted an industry-driven approach to identify the learning outcomes of a hospitality program. To determine the qualifications and competencies the industry desired from new hospitality business management graduates, they surveyed a sample of 2,339 industry professionals to evaluate the importance of 40 hospitality courses and 128 course areas for success in the industry. 24

Discussions with industry experts and faculty members led to a set of program learning outcomes for the undergraduate hospitality core curriculum. In accordance with the educational goals of the university, an assessment scoring form for program learning outcomes was developed for measuring individual student progress over time throughout each student’s academic career (Gursoy & Swanger, 2004, 2005; Swanger & Gursoy, 2007).

Although hospitality higher education has recognised the competency-based approach as an effective method of curriculum development and evaluation of students’ learning experiences, identifying the relevant competencies is the most important and difficult challenge for hospitality educators.

2.3.1 Summary Competency-based education has been applied in the field of hospitality and tourism since the 1980s, when researchers adopted the competency-based approach to identify the appropriate skills, knowledge, and attitudes for entry-level hospitality professionals and to review the current hospitality curriculum. Results show that the competency-based approach can identify current needs and result in a timely revision of the curriculum. However, how to identify the expected competencies in the industry is a continuous challenge. Figure 2.4 shows how the competency-based approach has been used in hospitality higher education.

Figure 2.4: Applica on of Competencies in Hospitality Higher Educa on

Competency-Based Approach

Develop hospitality Review hospitality curricula curricula

Screen management Assess competencies competencies based on needed for beginning views of educators, hospitality managers students and prac oners

Give sugges ons on curriculum design Constant evalua on: Develop an assessment scoring form for measuring individual student learning outcomes

Give sugges ons on curriculum design Source: Developed for this Study

2.4 Conceptualising Hospitality Management Competencies According to Dimmock, Breen and Walo (2003), the concept of “competency” is surrounded by controversy with no agreement among the different perspectives and agendas of those involved in the competency movement. The following sub-sections discuss the definition and classification of management competency.

2.4.1. Conceptualising Hospitality Competencies In an attempt to clarify the differences in the conceptualisation of competencies, Hoffmann (1999) and Brophy and Kiely (2002) defined competencies as the underlying attributes of a person, observable behaviours, or performance standards. Each conceptualisation works toward different purposes, and these differences provide the basis for the ensuing discussion.

Underlying Attributes of a Person: When competency is conceptualised as the underlying attributes of a person, the focus in terms of competent performance is on the input of the individual rather than the output (Dimmock et al., 2003; Markus, Cooper-Thomas & Allpress, 2005). The underlying attributes of an individual include 26

“a motive, trait, skill, aspect of one’s self-image or social role, or a body of knowledge which he or she uses” (Boyatzis, 1982, p. 21). Hoffmann (1999) and Brophy and Kiely (2002) claimed that this conceptualisation helps to identify the necessary knowledge, skills and attitudes for desired performance and thus assists in designing syllabi and content of training and education programs.

On the basis of this conceptualisation, hospitality competencies are generally grouped under knowledge, skills/abilities, and attitudes. Ricci (2010) compared job competency expectations for newly hired employees with and without a hospitality management baccalaureate degree. Ricci (2010) found that hotel managers held significantly higher expectations of competencies for new hires with a hospitality degree than for those with a non-hospitality degree. Similarly, Horng and Wang (2003), Wu (2005), and Tesone and Ricci (2006) used knowledge, skills/abilities and attitudes to examine practising managers’ perceptions of the importance of competencies for job positions. Tesone and Ricci (2006) reported that, for entry-level hospitality employees, managers in the United States considered job competencies in the skills area (e.g., ability to work as part of a team, effective listening, verbal and written communication skills, and ability to project a professional image) to be more important than competencies related to knowledge and attitudes. However, research in Taiwan showed that attitude-related competencies (e.g., enthusiasm for serving customers, professional ethics) were rated more important for food and beverage managers and headwaiters (Horng & Wang, 2003; Wu, 2005). Thus, in different cultural settings and for different positions, hospitality managers may have different perceptions about important competencies in terms of knowledge, skills and attitudes.

One advantage of taking this perspective lies in the ability to focus on a relatively small number of underlying attributes that are essential for competent performance (Gonczi et al., 1990). However, the relationship between knowing what to do and actually doing it is unclear (McAllister, 2005). Gonczi et al. (1990) suggested that this perspective ignores the specific competencies required for occupational practice. In

27 real-life situations, the discrete components of knowledge, skills and attitudes are usually integrated and coordinated in different ways under different circumstances.

Observable Performance: In the second conceptualisation, competencies are a set of observable performances of individuals. Rather than focusing on underlying attributes, this approach views competencies in terms of discrete behaviours and a series of tasks to be completed. Therefore, given that competencies are observable and measureable, they can be used as assessment criteria for competent performance (Hoffmann, 1999).

Baum (1991) and Christou (2002) considered the study of Tas (1988) to be one of the most innovative and pioneering hospitality management competency studies. Tas defined competencies as “those activities and skills judged essential to perform the duties of a specific position” (1988, p. 41)—a definition that emphasises one’s ability to accomplish specific job-related tasks. To identify the most important competencies for hotel management trainees, hotel general managers were asked to rate the importance of 36 competencies. The findings revealed six essential competencies that centred primarily on human-relations skills. They are:

 managing guest problems;  maintaining professional and ethical standards;  demonstrating professional appearance and poise;  communicating effectively both in writing and orally;  developing positive customer relations; and  striving to achieve positive working relationships (Tas, 1988).

The study by Tas (1988) was replicated by Baum (1991) for hotel management trainees in the United Kingdom, and by Christou and Eaton (2000) and Christou (2002) for hospitality graduate trainees in Greece. The results of these studies were similar to the findings of Tas (1988) but with some variation. In all of these studies, hospitality practitioners highly valued interpersonal skills, and hotel managers rated

28 competency in managing guest problems with understanding and sensitivity as most important. However, the ranking of essential competencies diverged. For example, hygiene and safety regulation-related competencies were rated higher in the United Kingdom than in the United States and Greece, and identification of operational problems was perceived as more important in Greece than in other countries. Christou (2002, p. 32) explained that these differences might result from “secondary cultural differentiation and the application of different management philosophies” of each country.

Conceptualising competencies in terms of observable performance is advantageous for assessing job performance and developing behavioural objectives in education and training (Hoffmann, 1999). However, Gonczi et al. (1990) argued that dividing a professional practice into discrete observable units of behaviour could overlook the complexity of the profession and the dynamic nature of the workplace. Education may need to do more than train students to perform specific competencies separately. A more critical undertaking may be to teach students how to integrate and coordinate these competencies in the actual workplace (McAllister, 2005). Performance Standards: The third conceptualisation of competency is to perceive competencies as constituting a standard of job performance, which could refer to a minimum acceptable level of performance (Brophy & Kiely, 2002; Hoffmann, 1999). That is, the minimal competencies identified can be used to distinguish a competent performance from an incompetent performance. In setting the standards to reach, the required knowledge, skills, abilities, and attitudes are analysed in the context of the performance of realistic professional tasks. Therefore, this conceptualisation integrates both underlying attributes and observable performance into a single framework (Gonczi et al., 1990; Hoffmann, 1999).

In the field of hospitality, Penhall, Cooper, Trisnasari and Allen (2005) identified the minimum common competency standards for hospitality and tourism professionals in ASEAN countries. The term “minimum” refers to the essential basic skills and competencies required by a particular job description. This framework of competency standards serves as an essential benchmark for anyone wishing to apply

29 for a hospitality position in the ASEAN member countries. The framework is presented in two forms. First, the minimal competencies are grouped according to job titles, such as front office managers, housekeeping managers and restaurant managers. Each job position requires three skill groups: core competencies, generic competencies and functional competencies. While core competencies are applicable to all job positions in hotel services, generic competencies are the minimal requirements for all positions at the same department. Functional competencies are the minimum standards for a specific job position. In the second form, all competency standards are categorised into 14 clusters in terms of job roles in the workplace. Some are general, such as common core competencies and general administration, whereas others are more specific, such as housekeeping and commercial cookery.

Extending the clusters identified in the ASEAN competency standards framework, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Tourism Working Group (APEC-TWG, 2000, 2006) developed hospitality and tourism competency standards in the APEC region. Similar to the ASEAN framework, competency standards consist of numerous small skill standard units, each covering the required knowledge, skills and attitudes for completing a certain duty within the workplace operation. The clusters of the APEC- TWG standards also resemble those in the ASEAN framework. Comparison of the clusters related to hospitality services in both standards shows that the APEC-TWG framework contains seven additional clusters, including computer information systems, environment and community integration, gardening, maintenance, tourism core, sports and recreation as well as gaming (Table 2.2). In spite of comprising different clusters, these two frameworks have a common goal: to improve the quality of service as well as the mobility of tourism and hospitality industry human resources within each region.

Table 2.2: Cluster Comparison of the APEC-TWG and the ASEAN Frameworks Grouping ASEAN APEC-TWG General Common core General core units General administration General administrative English language proficiency Workplace English Computer and management

information system Environment and community

integration General Customer service, sales and Customer service, sales and vocational marketing marketing units Financial administration Financial administrative Human resource development Human resource development Security services Security Resource management APEC skill standards training, (management and leadership) assessment and application Gardening and landscaping Maintenance and engineering Hospitality Food and beverage service Food and beverage service operation industry Hotel front office Front office operation units Housekeeping Housekeeping and laundry Commercial cookery Cookery Commercial catering Catering Patisserie Patisserie Tourism core Functions, sports and recreation Gaming Source: APEC-TWG (2000, 2006) and Penhall et al. (2005)

Using competencies as standards of individual performance has advantages, especially in recruitment, promotion and training (Gangani et al., 2006; Penhall et al., 2005). This perspective allows simultaneous focus on both essential tasks and essential general attributes to implement effective management assessment procedures in terms of time and cost. It could be applied as a practical tool to determine whether an individual has sufficient knowledge and skills, as well as appropriate attitudes, to undertake occupational activities or perform a task to an agreed-upon standard. In addition, the standard could be appropriate for or

31 adaptable to assessment of different levels of actual workplace operation, such as entry-level achievement or outstanding performance (Gonczi et al., 1990; McAllister, 2005). However, while a lengthy list of essential tasks is required for competent performers, determining general attributes and the level of each professional performance may be a complicated and challenging task.

To summarise, three conceptualisations of competencies are present in the literature. Firstly, perceiving competencies as underlying attributes focuses on what competent performers need to know and are able to do. Secondly, perceiving competencies as job tasks or roles focuses on what competent performers need to do. Thirdly, perceiving competencies as standards or quality of performance focuses on both what competent performers need to know and what they are able to do for effective performance in a job. Each conceptualisation has its own advantages and limitations, but the common purpose of competency descriptions is to improve performance at work and to achieve a desirable level of performance (Brophy & Kiely, 2002; Hoffmann, 1999). According to Hoogveld et al. (2005), the analysis of competency is crucial for effective instructional design for competency-based education. Therefore, for the purposes of this research, competencies are viewed as tools for which educational objectives are set and outcomes are evaluated. In other words, competencies are observable and can be used to assess the quality of performance.

2.4.2. Classification of Management Competencies One well known classification of competencies distinguishes between generic and specific competencies (Becker, 1980, cited in García-Aracil & Van der Velden, 2008). While generic competencies are a combination of higher cognitive (academic) and interpersonal skills that are broadly transferable and applicable across work settings, specific competencies refer to the explicit knowledge and skills needed in a profession, such as theoretical knowledge and knowledge of methods and procedures in professional areas (Biesma et al., 2008). Palmer, Holt, Hall and Ferguson (2009) state that generic competencies are common to all or most graduates, whereas specific competencies relate to the student’s particular program.

Apart from perceiving competencies in generic or specific distinction, Cheetham and Chivers (1998) chose a complex definition of competencies to establish their model. With an aim to build a holistic model to explain the dynamics of management competencies adopted by competent (or reflective) managers, Cheetham and Chivers (1996; 1998; 2000) proposed, revised and tested their competency model. Although attracting various criticisms from academia and industry, Cheetham and Chivers (1998) mapped the complexity of professional competence in both generic and specific terms, listing competencies relating to knowledge/cognitive, functional, personal or behavioural, and values/ethical competence.

Knowledge competencies contain the traditional theory application and reflection in and after an activity, i.e., reflection-in-action and reflection-about-action, respectively (Cheetham & Chivers, 1998, pp.267). Functional competencies are similar to occupational skill standards and personal competencies, and ethic and value competencies are related to the attributes and attitudes of an individual. While the four groups of competencies are regarded as core competencies, “meta- competencies” represent another competency group (at a higher level) that help people to develop or enhance other competencies (Cheetham & Chivers, 1998, pp.268). These higher-level competencies are represented by transferable and generic skills, such as communication, creativity, problem solving, learning, self- development, mental agility, analysis and reflection (see in Figure 2.5). 33

Figure 2.5: Revised model of professional competence

Source: Cheetham & Chivers (1998), p.275

Cheetham and Chivers (1998) recognised that reflection, or so-called tacit knowledge, would affect the aacquisition of knowledge competencies and meta/trans- competencies and, hence, explained how professionals operate. However, their empirical findings suggested technical knowledge and theories are equally important in explaining professional practices. Specifically, the majority of their respondents used technical or specialist knowledge (more often than tacit knowledge) when problem solving, and reflection (e.g., repertories of previously successful solutions) was less useful for new professionals (Cheetham & Chivers, 2000). Although there is no best model to explain what competencies professionals need to have for successful performance in different occupations, the holistic model of Cheetham and Chivers (1998) shed some light on the importance of both generic (or transferable as the more important influence) and specific competencies in education and learning.

In education, generic competencies relate to learning outcomes that facilitate future learning, employment, personal development and socialisation (Holmes & Hooper, 2000). Generic competencies are referred to variously as core competencies, key competencies, generic skills, core skills, key skills, essential skills, common skills, employability skills, and personal or transferable skills (Barrie, 2006; Raybould & Wilkins, 2005, 2006). Those competencies generally encompass skills in critical thinking, information technology, planning and organising, communication, teamwork, self-managed learning (Allan, 1996; Kember, 2009), and individual characteristics such as flexibility, adaptability, motivation and personal traits (Agut et al., 2003; Kember, 2009). Generic competencies are indispensable for functioning in daily life and in society (Barrie, 2006; Kember, 2009).

Specific competencies are frequently described as technical skills applied in a particular area. As hospitality management education has targeted an area of the service industry that relates to the provision of food and beverage, accommodation, and relaxation away from home (Goodman & Sprague, 1991; Powers & Reigel, 1993), hospitality-specific competencies differentiate hospitality programs from other business programs, and attaining specific hospitality competencies may give graduates an advantage when pursuing a position in the hospitality industry.

While some hospitality researchers argue that generic competencies such as leadership, interpersonal skills, communication, teamwork and self-management are essential for hospitality graduates’ life-long learning (Chung-Herrera et al., 2003; Raybould & Wilkins, 2005, 2006; Tesone & Ricci, 2006), other investigators contend that specific skills such as food and beverage operations and front office operations are important (Chen & Hsu, 2007; Mayo & Thomas-Haysbert, 2005). Still others claim that to prepare students for a successful career in the industry, both generic and specific competencies should be emphasised in hospitality higher education (Rudolph, 1999; Swanger & Gursoy, 2007). Importantly, generic competencies do not replace specific competencies that are necessary for competent performance in certain situations and contexts (Barth, Godemann, Rieckmann & Stoltenberg, 2007). While specific competencies enable students to obtain their first job in the 35 hospitality industry, generic competencies help students gain promotion to a higher level or transfer to other business sectors. Both generic and specific competencies must be valued and developed since they are complementary to each other for hospitality graduates’ successful professional lives (Figure 2.6).

Many researchers report that both generic and specific competencies have changed in importance over time and in response to different contexts (APEC-TWG, 2006; Christou & Eaton, 2000; Christou, 2002; Penhall et al., 2005; Tas, 1988; Tesone & Ricci, 2006; Wu, 2005). For this reason, a model helps to systematically identify what management competencies are needed for performing effectively now and into the future. Use of the model will help to identify and examine the changes in management competencies required for hospitality positions and, hence, provide valuable information to hospitality educators and practitioners.

As the majority of competency research has investigated the management skills required of entry-level hospitality managers, few studies have focused on management competencies that hospitality graduates need for career and life success. In addition to developing professional skills (i.e., hard skills, technical skills, or specific competencies), higher education also enhances students’ employability and life-long learning capacities (Annie & Hamali, 2006; Haggis, 2004; Harvey, 2000; Jones, 2002)—that is, soft skills (Sisson & Adams, 2013) or generic competencies. In reviewing course structures in tourism and hospitality higher education, Fidgeon (2010) acknowledges that tourism and hospitality programs is reaching maturity in terms of combining generic and sector-specific subjects. However, an innovative and flexible curriculum continues to be necessary to increase the depth and breadth of this discipline. Hospitality higher education should expand vocational or occupational training by including competencies of a higher level, such as critical thinking, learning, self-management and analytic abilities. Hence, this study contributes to prior knowledge by identifying essential management competencies in domains that are crucial for hospitality graduates’ professional and personal lives.

2.4.3. Summary Prior literature has conceptualised competencies in various ways, but particularly in terms of underlying attributes, observable behaviours and performance standards. Within higher education, management competencies are classified as either generic or specific. These competencies are complementary, and all technical skills need a combination of various generic and specific competencies. In this study, hospitality management competencies are conceptualised as observable behaviours for setting educational objectives and assessing learning outcomes, and consist of generic and specific knowledge, skills and attitudes. Figure 2.7 illustrates the key concepts discussed in this section.

2.5 Models of Hospitality Management Competency Observable behaviour description and generic and specific classification are evident in research on modelling hospitality competencies. As discussed in section 2.4, past research justifies the choice of competency conceptualisation in this study. Chung- Herrera et al. (2003) contend that competency models can assist in educating future managers by guiding university educators in designing curricula. In the hospitality competency literature, most prior research has adopted previously established competency models or has modified existing models for testing in a specific context. In terms of applying existing models, the most frequently employed frameworks have been the models of Katz (1955) and Sandwith (1993).

2.5.1. Katz’s Three-Skill Approach (1955) One of the earliest management competency models is the “three-skill approach” introduced by Katz (1955). This model asserts that every successful manager relies on three basic personal skills—technical skills, human skills and conceptual skills— and a manager’s job level and specific job determine the relative importance of each type of skills. For example, technical skills are most important at the lowest or entry level of management and include “the specialized [sic] knowledge, analytical ability within that specialty, and facility in the use of the tools and techniques of the specific discipline” (Katz, 1955, p. 34). The specific field usually determines the procedures, processes or functions for which managers are responsible or in which they have expertise (Viitala, 2005). Human skills, the second type of skills, are necessary at all levels because competent managers must work effectively as a group member or team leader. Finally, conceptual skills are needed at the highest levels of management and in executive work to recognise the relationships between the enterprise and its internal and external environments. These skills enable managers to develop strategies and make policy decisions that maximise the benefit for the enterprise (Katz, 1955).

Katz’s (1955) model is useful for identifying management skills required at different functional levels and has been applied to hospitality curriculum development (Mariampolski, Spears & Vaden, 1980; Annaraud, 2006). To understand what competencies are needed by beginning food-service managers, Mariampolski et al. (1980) compiled a list of 62 competencies that were examined as being technical, human or conceptual. Confirming the findings of Katz (1955, 1974), Mariampolski et al. (1980) reported that the majority of technical and human skills were either essential or desirable, whereas most conceptual skills were beyond the responsibility of beginning food-service managers. They suggested that hospitality management curricula should assist students in developing technical and human skills.

However, Annaraud (2006) found different results when applying Katz’s (1955) model. Results of multiple studies in the United States and Russia to determine the skills necessary for career success for hospitality students upon graduation showed 39 that, in both countries, human relations skills were ranked as the most important, followed by conceptual skills and then technical skills. This research confirmed the findings of studies using the 36 competencies of Tas (1988) (e.g., Baum, 1991; Christou, 2002; Christou & Eaton, 2000). Arguably, on the basis of the findings of Mariampolski et al. (1980) and Annaraud (2006), the importance of management competencies for hospitality graduates entering the industry has shifted from technical to human skills (Table 2.3).

Table 2.3: Competency Importance Ranking in the Applications of Katz’s Model Domain Mariampolski et al. (1980) Annaraud (2006) Conceptual 3 2 Human 2 1 Technical 1 3 Note: 1 = First importance; 2 = Second importance; 3 = Third importance

2.5.2 Sandwith’s Competency Domain Model (1993) Expanding human skills from Katz’s (1955) model, Sandwith (1993) added leadership, interpersonal and administrative skills to develop the “competency domain model” with five domains. First, the conceptualisation/creative domain, which was extended from Katz’s (1955) conceptual skill set, referred to the “cognitive skills associated with comprehending important elements of the job” (Sandwith, 1993, p. 46). These competencies related to the organisational role of an individual and the creative aspects of the job, such as developing strategic plans and adapting to change. Second, the leadership domain included competencies that can turn conceptual and creative thoughts into action, such as empowering subordinates and building an effective team. Third, the interpersonal domain focused on communication and interaction skills, such as writing, speaking and listening. This domain also related to initiating, building and maintaining relationships with team members, leaders and customers. Fourth, the administrative domain included the competency areas from the interpersonal and technical domains, such as personnel management and accounting and finance, and focused on the managerial systems and procedures that are applicable to all departments in the organisation. Fifth, the technical domain was perceived in accordance with Katz (1955)—as comprising technical skills related to 40 the operation and management of the particular products and services the organisation specialised in.

Similar to Katz’s (1955) concept of the hierarchy of management competencies, Sandwith’s (1993) five domains apply differently at each level of management. If managers are at the higher levels, they must possess knowledge, skills and attitudes in the conceptual and leadership domains. At lower management levels, competencies in the technical and administrative domains are more important. Tas, LaBrecque and Clayton (1996) adopted this model to identify important hotel property management competencies, which were associated with maintaining or improving the value of the asset. Eleven of the 18 important competencies were administrative and technical competencies, such as organising and adapting to an effective record-keeping system and monitoring the energy-management program. However, the highest-rated (essential) competencies fell into the interpersonal and leadership domains, whereas the administrative domain skills were in the middle (considerably important) and the technical competencies were evaluated lowest (moderately important).

Kay and Russette (2000) reported findings similar to those of Tas et al. (1996), suggesting that leadership and interpersonal competencies were essential for managerial success. By comparing essential competencies across different functional areas (food and beverage, front desk, and sales) and position levels (entry and middle), Kay and Russette (2000) found essential competencies in all five domains that could contribute to career success. Leadership and interpersonal competencies were rated as essential for more than one functional area and management level, but leadership was the most important skill for managers in all areas at all levels. Adopting the competency domain model, Tsai, Gho, Huffman and Wu (2006) and Koenigsfeld et al. (2012) also reported results similar to those of Tas et al. (1996), finding important competencies in the leadership and interpersonal domains. Tsai et al. (2006) identified that leadership, interpersonal, and conceptual/creative competencies were more important than technical competencies for entry-level hotel managers in Taiwan. In the United States, Koenigsfeld et al. (2012) combined 41 the administrative and technical domains used in past research with the leadership, interpersonal and conceptual competencies of Sandwith’s model and identified two essential competency groups for private club managers in the domains of human resources management (in the administration domain) and leadership-interpersonal. These results suggest that the interpersonal and leadership domains are essential for hospitality management trainees across time and cultural contexts. These domains were categorised as human skills in Katz’s (1955) model. Thus in more recent hospitality management competency studies, human-related competencies, especially leadership and interpersonal skills, have been regarded as essential for managerial competency in the hospitality industry. The similarities and differences found in the studies discussed above are summarised in Table 2.

Table 2.4: Comparison of the Essential Competencies (Sandwith’s Model) Kay & Tas et al. Tsai et al. Koenigsfeld et al. Domains Russette (1996) (2006) (2012) (2000) Conceptual/ X X Creative Leadership X X X X Interpersonal X X X X Administrative X X (human resource) Technical X Note: X = Essential competencies

2.5.3 Other Models Clearly, when new management trends are introduced and business activities are broadened, managers’ tasks, responsibilities and priorities change (Koenigsfeld et al., 2012). The expansion of responsibilities has driven the need to modify existing models or propose new ones describing essential or required management competencies more extensively and precisely. For example, Agut et al. (2003) combined the traditional approach to competencies (knowledge, skills and attitudes) and reorganised management competencies into two sets, technical and generic. While technical competencies resembled the administrative and technical domains of Sandwith’s (1993) model, generic management competencies mainly related to the capacity for self-regulation and self-control and individual characteristics such as attitude, motivation or personality traits, which were needed for more general situations.

Koenigsfeld et al. (2012) applied Sandwith’s (1993) model by replacing the administrative and technical domains with sector-specific operational competency clusters (private clubs) and retained the conceptual, leadership and interpersonal domains. Seeing uniqueness of operation in different hospitality-related sectors, Millar, Mao and Moreo (2010) used Sandwith’s five domains as a discussion framework in their qualitative research, and compared the essential competencies of lodging and food and beverage industries, two important sectors in the field of hospitality. They identified some overlaps in generic competencies and numerous differences in technical competencies. For example, critical thinking and analytical and decision-making skills in the conceptual domain were deemed important in both sectors. However, in terms of technical skills, the focus differed. In addition to noting the difference in sector-specific competencies, such as purchasing and product knowledge of the food and beverage sector, the lodging managers reported important skills limited to finance and technology. Although no further investigation has explained the difference, skills included in a competency model can obviously be diverse, even though the framework is the same, owing to the nature of the industry, the business context, and the current or future trend.

Apart from the models created by modifying the work of Sandwith (1993), some models in other frameworks have been developed. To assist hospitality educators, students and industry practitioners in coping with a changing environment and an uncertain future, Chung-Herrera et al. (2003) proposed a leadership-competency model to identify the competencies needed in 2013 for hotel managers. Competencies in the self-management domain (such as ethics and adaptability) were rated as most important, whereas competencies in the industry knowledge, leadership and interpersonal domains were less important for future leaders. The researchers noted that competent managers could easily obtain industry-specific competencies and managerial skills through experiential learning. However, acquiring self-management competencies in the workplace would be more difficult, because these competencies relate to personal characteristics and generic competencies.

When applying this model in Asian countries in recent years, researchers have found different results. Cheung, Law and He (2010) showed that 38 Hong Kong hotel managers ranked leadership, industry knowledge and communication as the top three essential competencies. Similarly, Tavitiyamana, Weerakitb and Ryanc (2014) revealed that 503 hotel general managers in Thailand attached higher importance to team building and ethics, leadership, and communication skills compared to other competency domains. Again, although no investigation offers evidence to explain the difference, the importance of competencies in different geographical areas and different periods may result in discrepant findings.

In line with the increasing emphasis on self-management and leadership skills, Raybould and Wilkins (2005, 2006) also acknowledged the importance of developing generic competencies in hospitality higher education. They argued that the relatively advanced competencies, such as those in the conceptual/creative and leadership domains, were narrowly described in Sandwith’s (1993) model, which might limit students’ learning outcomes. They adopted an alternative generic skills framework with nine domains to identify the desired competencies for hospitality graduates. The generic skills approach emphasised transferable skills that contributed to the 44 employability of students for different settings (Raybould & Wilkins, 2005). In their study, hospitality managers rated interpersonal, problem-solving and self- management competencies as most important. Raybould and Wilkins (2006, p. 180) believed that the distinctive value of hospitality higher education is to cultivate students’ capacities for critical thinking, leading and solving problems and to prepare them “for life and lifelong learning, rather than simply for employment”. This perception corresponds to the argument made by Gursoy and Swanger (2004, p. 13) that teaching students the currently needed skills would help them get the first job, but teaching “higher order concepts” would enable them to get subsequent jobs or higher positions and to develop personally.

Moreover, with special focus on leadership and customer relation, Testa and Sipe (2012) compiled a three-domain model, consisting of 100 behaviours in 20 competency areas. Their results were generated from in-depth interviews of 110 industry managers in sectors of restaurants, hotels, attractions and tourism companies. Three domains emerged from the analysis of the multiple sectors. The first two domains, business and people savvy, involve competencies relating to business operation and people-related skills and have been extensively addressed in most previous studies. The third domain, self-savvy, is relatively less addressed (Testa & Sipe, 2012). Indeed, this cross-sector study contributes to the competency literature by balancing competencies in organisational, interpersonal and personal levels and putting much more emphasis on the self-development area. Testa and Sipe note that the more sophisticated categories they identified, such as accountability to organisational goals and a spirit of optimism, are not fully discussed in the model of Chung-Herrera et al. (2003). Other differentiating points include continuous improvement in business savvy and cultural alignment in people savvy. Both are directly related with organisational development and culture.

The competency models developed by Katz (1955), Sandwith (1993), Agut et al. (2003), Koenigsfeld et al. (2012) and Testa and Sipe (2012) range from simple to complex. Sandwith (1993) extended Katz’s (1955) three-skill approach by subdividing the human and technical domains. Augt et al. (2003) regrouped the conceptual and 45 human domains of Sandwith’s (1993) model, whereas Koenigsfeld et al. (2012) refined the administrative and technical domains by modifying the model used in the relevant industry (private clubs) and regrouped the original five domains into ten domains. Although Chung-Herrera et al. (2003) and Raybould and Wilkins (2006) adopted different frameworks to group management competencies, their groupings have some similarities with Sandwith’s (1993) competency domain model. The former have competency divisions that resemble the communication and technical domains. The latter has transferable competency groups that can be found in the conceptual, leadership and communication domains. Table 2.5 compares these competency models.

Table 2.5: Comparison of Management Competency Models Katz Sandwith Chung-Herrera Agut et al. Raybould & Wilkins Koenigsfeld et Testa & Sipe (2012) (1955) (1993) et al. (2003) (2003) (2006) al. (2012) USA USA USA Spain Australia USA USA

B: Continuous improvement Continuous B:

B: Results Results B:

oriented

G: Proactive G: behaviour G: Conceptual and X System B:thinking analytical

B: Planning B:

X Conceptual/ Critical thinking G: Problem solving Strategic B:

Conceptual X decision Creative making Strategic

(Adaptability and management

learning)

Implementation X B: Technical service X X X X X X S: Accountability X X X X X X S: Professionalism X X X X X X S: Spirit of optimism

P: Coaching P:

G: Job performanceJob G: efficacy

& training

Inspiration

G: Self G:

oriented Conceptual Leadership Leadership P: Team

G: Teamwork and P:

relationships

- leadership

controlsocialand

Interpersonal skills Leadership-

P: Networked P:

P: Interpersonal P: Interpersonal

communication Interpersonal P: Expressive

Human Interpersonal service G: Interpersonal skills

Communication

Katz Sandwith Chung-Herrera Agut et al. Raybould & Wilkins Koenigsfeld Testa & Sipe (1955) (1993) et al. (2003) (2003) (2006) et al. (2012) (2012)

G: Self G: G: Oral performance communication

efficacy

Human Interpersonal Communication Job G: X X

relationships - G: Written

controlsocialand communication

Strategic S: Change G: Adaptability and management management learning

Self X X S: Self development management G: Self-management X X S: Time management X X (S: Professionalism) G: Information X X (B: Technical service) management X X (Problem Solving) X Marketing Strategic (B: Networked) positioning X P: Cultural alignment Human X (B: Numberwise) X Accounting and Administrative B: Numberwise finance X Technical Human resources-legal Golf Sports and Technical recreation X Industry Food and Technical X knowledge beverage Facilities maintenance Club governance Note: G= Generic domain; X= Not applicable; S= Self savvy; P= People savvy; B= Business savvy Source: Developed for this study 48

Competencies in self-management and information management have obviously become important and have grown into a transferable competency group (Agut et al., 2003; Chung-Herrera et al., 2003; Raybould & Wilkins, 2006; Testa & Sipe, 2012). A few researchers have also recognised the value of intrapersonal attributes, such as a spirit of optimism, in shaping competent performance of higher education graduates and future managers (Evers, Rush & Berdrow, 1998; Hogan & Warrenfeltz, 2003; Viitala, 2005). Arguably, these new competency groups are worthy of consideration in the development of an inclusive competency framework for hospitality graduates. Besides the emergence of new competency groups, the differing importance levels of old and new competencies is evident in past research (Millor, 2010). Sission and Adams (2013) observe a paradigm shift from hard skills to soft skills in recent decades. While they agree that the people-related competencies of communication and leadership remain central to success, they contend that few studies identify industry-specific competencies as essential (Sission & Adams, 2013; Wadongo, 2011).

Some similar shifts are also evident from the perspective of subject areas in hospitality higher education. In Gursoy, Rahman and Swanger’s (2012) comparison of hospitality practitioners’ perceived importance of 29 hospitality subject areas from the results of their 2004 research, leadership, industry experience, preparation for industry employment and ethics retain their top four rankings, reinforcing the importance of leadership over a 5-year span. A decline in overall importance occurred in service management, principles of marketing and hospitality marketing strategy while revenue/asset management and finance increased in importance. These shifts might due to the economic downturn in 2008 and 2009, as the decrease in revenue growth makes practitioners strive to make profits and avoid unnecessary expenditures, such as salaries for middle managers and allocations for marketing activities (Gursoy et al., 2012).

As these studies show, important hospitality competencies shift owing to the change of industry environment and development over time. The difference may be more evident when the industry is situated in different regions or different cultures. 49

2.5.4 Hospitality Competency Models: East versus West In addition to exposing differences that develop over time, the literature also reveals some cultural differences between Eastern and Western cultures in terms of competency models and important competencies.

Culture influences people’s orientation regarding beliefs, values, thinking patterns, intentions, and behaviours (Doney, Cannon & Mullen, 1998; Hofstede, 1980; Yu, 2008) and exerts varying levels of influence. For example, Chen, Cheung and Law (2012) use Pizam’s hierarchy of national, industry, occupational and corporate cultures to discuss hotel management research conducted in the past 25 years. They examine the influence of globalisation on hospitality research themes since the 1990s and note that national and organisational cultures and cross-cultural issues are extensively discussed in top-rated publications. In line with the influence of globalisation on hospitality customers’ choice, managerial practices, economics and national development, they argue that future hospitality research should focus on investigating the influence of globalisation on the industry (Chen et al., 2012).

Tsang (2011) suggests that globalisation decreases national cultural differences in some management areas, such as technology and information. However, the management of human resources remains subject to the influence of national cultures. Importantly, much competency research has been conducted in Western countries, such as the United States, Australia and European countries (Table 2.6). Most hospitality competency models have been tested and examined in Western cultures, particularly the United States, with relatively little attention being paid to investigating the validity of these models in other cultural settings (Li, 2013; Tsang, 2011; Rodríguez-Antón, Alonso-Almeida, Rubio-Andrada & Celemín Pedroche, 2013). While in recent decades more competency studies have been conducted in Asian countries, the discussion of cultural differences is still limited.

Table 2.6: Research on Hospitality Competencies by Regions Region Authors/Year Australia Walo (2001); Dimmock et al. (2003); Raybould & Wilkins (2005, 2006); Koenigsfeld et al. (2012)

Greece Christou (2002); Christou & Eaton (2000)

Switzerland Fournier & Ineson (2010)

Spain Agut et al. (2003); Rodríguez-Antón et al. (2013)

Ireland Brophy & Kiely (2002)

The United Kingdom Baum (1991)

The United States of Mariampolski et al. (1980); Buergermeister (1983); Tas America (1988); Partlow (1990); Getty et al. (1991); Knutson & Patton (1992); Enz et al. (1993); Okeiyi et al. (1994); Partlow & Gregoire (1994); Ashley et al. (1995); Breiter & Clements (1996); Tas et al. (1996); Su et al. (1997, 1997/1998); Kay & Russette (2000); Nelson & Dopson (2001); Chung-Herrera et al. (2003); Kay & Moncarz (2004); Mayo & Thomas-Haysbert (2005); Cho et al. (2006); Tesone & Ricci (2006); Millar, Mao & Moreo (2010); Ricci (2010); Gursoy, Rahman & Swanger (2012); Testa & Sipe (2012); Weber, Crawford & Lee (2013); Ruetzler, Baker, Reynolds, Taylor & Allen (2014)

Canada Finch, Hamilton, Baldwin & Zehner (2013)

USA; Russia Annaraud (2006)

South Africa Wadongo, Kambona & Odhuno (2010); Spowart (2011)

China Kong & Baum (2006) Hong Kong Li & Kivela (1998); Siu (1998); Cheung, Law & He (2010)

Thailand Tavitiyamana, Weerakitb & Ryanc (2014)

South Korea Chung (2000)

Taiwan Lin (2002); Tsai et al (2006); Huang & Lin (2010); Horng, Hsu, Liu, Lin, & Tsai (2011); Wang & Tsai (2012); Horng & Lin (2013); Teng (2013) Source: Developed for this study

Tsang (2011) further argues that adapting competency models developed in foreign countries may overlook important domains that are unique to a particular culture. He suggests that to appropriately address the issues in hospitality management, a reliable and valid instrument should be developed locally and encompass both culture-specific (emic) and culture-comparable (etic) competencies. These emic and etic issues are also addressed in human resource management. When Chong (2008) compared the management competencies appraisal scores of practising managers from Western and Eastern backgrounds, no significant differences were evident in the performance of technical skills such as setting standards, planning and rational decision making. However, significant differences existed in performing human competencies such as communication and supervisory skills (Chong, 2008). The findings imply that cultural differences could have a significant influence on the required management competencies in terms of etic factors (beliefs and behaviours that transcend the norms established in any one culture) and emic factors (beliefs and behaviours that are shared within one culture) (Chong, 2008).

In a subsequent investigation, Chong (2013) found that cultural differences did not significantly alter managerial practices or theories and the competencies related to those practices in terms of ten competency domains that are most applicable across cultures (i.e., British and Singaporean cultures), as the evaluation of managerial practices and performance is either effective or ineffective. As a result, it is not surprising that most competency domains are not significantly different between the two cultures. However, in addition to 19 common competencies (e.g., organisational awareness, information collection, planning, leadership, persuasiveness, adaptability and oral expression), the study identified significant differences in two models. Competencies that differentiate high-advancement British managers are risk taking and decisiveness, while problem analysis, written communication, oral expression and oral presentation differentiate high-advancement Singaporean public-sector managers. Chong (2013) contends that the differences can be attributed to the industry-specific factor (i.e., the public sector), although further research is needed to generalise this finding. The two studies by Chong (2008, 2013) reinforce the assertion that if management competencies differ between cultures, cultural 52 differences are possibly the main contributing factor. However, the question remains unanswered as to what competencies are etic and transferable across national cultures or industry cultures or even occupational and organisational cultures and what competencies are emic and specific to a particular culture.

This observation also applies to the context of higher education, and it is expected that cultural differences will affect the perceptions of educators, managers and students in relation to essential competencies. After interviewing 88 social science experts from Europe (Germany, Great Britain) and Latin America (Chile, Ecuador, Mexico), Rieckmann (2012, p. 134) clearly articulated that although differences in key competencies may be due to some political factors, “universities must adapt their teaching and learning objectives to regional and cultural particularities.”

The discussion above leads to a strong call to investigate important competencies for hospitality graduates in the context of Eastern cultures, in this case Taiwan. Past research has provided evidence that essential management competencies are not fully identical in different geographical regions. Whether the differences result from timing, industry environment, organisational cultures or national cultures, or are simply a research design issue is hard to determine. Since most hospitality competency literature is situated in Western countries, using a broad cultural classification of the world—that is, Western and Eastern cultures—as the starting point can facilitate the comparison and provide empirical evidence of whether cultural differences lead to differences in conceptualisation and the importance of management competencies in the hospitality industry.

Most cross-culture research on management and education adopts the dichotomy of individualism and collectivism to describe the difference between Western and Eastern cultures (Choi & Kim, 2013; Hofstede & Bond, 1988; Triandis & Gelfand, 1998). While individualist societies are found in Western Europe and North America, collectivist societies are found in Asia, South America and Southern Europe (Hofstede, 1980; Smith, Dugan, Peterson & Leung, 1998). In individualist cultures, personal goals take precedence over goals of the in-group, whereas in collectivist 53 societies personal interests are sacrificed for the in-group’s interest (Smith et al., 1998). Importantly, certain competencies compatible with Western cultures may be incompatible with Eastern cultures, particularly people-oriented competencies like leadership, decision-making and people development (Chong, 2008).

In accordance with Confucian philosophy, Eastern education systems feature approaches to the value of education, knowledge transition, course delivery and learning style that differ from those in Western cultures (Chang, 2004; Cheng, 1998). Eastern cultures view education as a means of socialisation to equip students with the norms and expectations of the society, whereas the core value of Western education is to develop students’ self-esteem and self-respect (Cheng, 1998). While Eastern tradition values effort over ability in student learning, Western students are encouraged to develop according to their unique needs and potentialities (Cheng, 1998; Luk, 2006). In addition, Eastern teachers emphasise student knowledge acquisition, and consequently students perform well in learning subject content but less well in the self-learning, critical thinking and creativity skills that are more emphasised in Western education (Luk, 2006; Zhang, 2007).

With respect to the appraisal of hospitality graduates’ performance, Lin (2002) and Hsiao and Hsiao (2007) found that although hospitality managers rated the overall performance of graduates as acceptable, important competencies nevertheless needed to be developed, such as communication skills and management analysis techniques. Tsai et al. (2006) reported that hospitality managers perceived interpersonal competencies to be of high importance, whereas educators more valued the development of technical and administrative competencies. Those studies have reinforced the need to examine industry needs and educational values in Taiwan in particular.

Recently, researchers have directed attention to the examination of hospitality curricula. Horng and Lee (2006) have noted that the majority of hospitality curricula were developed in line with the existing curriculum structures of similar programs from Western cultures and were merely adjusted according to the institutional 54 missions and orientations. Kau (2003) and Liu (2004) point out that inadequate curriculum revision and insufficient connection between educators and industry practitioners could result in hospitality graduates’ inability to meet industry requirements. Tsai et al. (2006) support this view, suggesting that the curriculum design process has failed to incorporate the recent development of the industry in Taiwan. The gap was also observed by Huang and Lin (2010), who found a disparity between perceptions of hospitality managers and educators with respect to the importance of practical experience and skills, working knowledge of hospitality statutes, working knowledge of restaurant menus, and working knowledge of food and beverage costs, although managers and educators agreed that language proficiency or diversity is the most important skill for success.

Numerous other researchers have remarked on the importance of language or communication skills, especially in non-English speaking countries in Eastern cultures (Horng et al., 2011; Huang & Lin, 2010; Tavitiyamana, Weerakitb & Ryanc, 2014; Tsai et al., 2006). In addition to language proficiency, attitude toward work is frequently in the top-ranked competencies (Wang, 2013; Wang & Tsai, 2012). Horng et al. (2011) explicitly discuss the main cultural differences they identified in their study. Table 2.7 lists four areas that have culture-specific implications. This designation implies that even though the name or title of the competency domain is the same, what constitutes the domain or the interpretation may be different. The competencies listed are perceived to be relatively more important in Eastern cultures than in Western cultures. While these differences may be subtle in comparison with most transferable or generic competency domains identified across nations, cultures, industry sectors and time, they can substantially influence human management practices and the direction of curricula design and pedagogy application.

Table 2.7: Comparison of Competency Interpretation between Cultures Competency with Culture-specific Western Perspective Taiwanese Perspective Implications  Culture  Individualism Local culture   The dignity of culture and Organizational culture  individual Culture integration  Cultural differences   Foreign language skills Communication in N.A. language skills

Personal relationships  Not particularized  Personal and public  Separate between personal Relationships overlap and public relationships  Communication patterns Clear  Prevent  Precise embarrassment  Direct  Prevent rejection by  Explicit the other persons  Prevent conflicts among others  Indirect Source: adapted from Horng et al. (2011, p.1053)

2.5.4.1 The Impact of Culture on Hospitality Provision

Continuing the discussion of cultural influences in competency interpretation, culture also has profound impact on hospitality, or service provision. There has been rich discussion and investigation reagrding cultural differences in the service industry, especially in customer relations (O’Mahony, Sophonsiri & Turner, 2013). In fact, Sophonsiri and O’Mahony (2012) have compiled 16 distinct cultural differences that influence the quality of service encounters, specifically in customer satisfaction, customer expectations, the evaluation of service and service recovery. Table 2.8 summarises the cultural dimensions between Western and Eastern cultures.

Table 2.8: Cultural differences in Wester and Easter Cultures Category Western Cultures Eastern Cultures Space a greater space requirement a smaller space requirement Interaction individualism collectivism Time monochronic polychromic Communication instrumental expressive Status low power distance high power distance Communication informal formal Behaviour universalism particularism Value doing being and being-in-becoming Value achievement ascription Communication specific diffuseness Behaviour low uncertainty avoidance medium uncertainty avoidance Interaction good mixed good and evil Time present-oriented past-oriented Communication low context high context Decision-making affective neutrality affective Body contact contact non-contact Source: Adapted from O’Mahony & Sophonsiri (2012)

Hofstede’s national cultural dimensions comprise the most frequently used frameworks in cultural studies (Chong, 2008; Mitsis & Foley, 2009). Five indexes are used to identify the cultural characteristics of nations, namely, individualism (versus collectivism), power distance (small versus large), masculinity (versus femininity), uncertainty avoidance (flexible versus rigid), and Confucian dynamism (long-term versus short-term orientation), which is an Eastern-aspect inclusion derived from the work of Bond’s Chinese Value Survey (Hofstede, 1984; 2007). In addition to the Western culture clusters consisting of Western European and Anglo countries (such as Australia, New Zealand, the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Finland, Germany, Netherlands, Switzerland, and France), Mitsis and Foley (2009, p.241) reported that non-western culture clusters were mainly recognised in the Asia region, including “China, Japan, South America/ Korea (Korea), Asia/Africa (Pakistan, 57

Iran, Indonesia, Thailand, and Taiwan), and the Former British or American Colonies (Malaysia, the Philippines, India, Hong Kong, and Singapore)”.

When comparing Western and Eastern countries, Hofstede (2007) noted individualism, power distance and Confucian dynamism were found to be the more discriminative dimensions (as opposed to uncertainty avoidance and masculinity) between the two groups. In individualistic cultures, people tend to act as individuals (i.e., I) rather than as part of a group (i.e., we) and value the independence in the society (Hofstede, 1984). Western countries were ranked on the top in this extreme, in contrast to Eastern countries. Power distance indicates the hierarchy and equality in societies. People in large power distance countries tend to accept inequality and power differences. Hofstede (2007) reported Eastern countries scored higher, in relation to power distance, than Western countries. Specifically, Malaysia, Philippines, and Indonesia scored high on the power distance scale, while Japan, Pakistan, Taiwan, and Iran scored mid-range.

In terms of host-guest relations, Western and Eastern differences, in the context of hospitality and tourism industry, have been investigated extensively. Truong and King (2006) saw cultural values as an internal factor which would result in different tourist perceptions and, hence, influence the interaction between tourist and hosts and eventually could have an impact on the level of holiday satisfaction. Reisinger and Turner (1997; 2003) also acknowledged the effect of cultural value in tourist satisfaction in terms of host-guest relations and reported different behaviours of Asian tourists based on their nationalities, including Thai, Indonesian, Japanese, Korean, and Chinese. Specifically, Reisinger and Turner (1997) revealed that Thai tourists expressed high inclination to social harmony and conflict-avoidance so that superficiality and indirect communication were emphasised in interpersonal relationships. These group-oriented values are in contrast to individualism-oriented cultures. For example, Australian hosts, as discussed in the study of Reisinger and Turner (1997), valued independence and accepted disagreements and criticisms. They focused on achievements and tasks, not social relationships. Therefore, in

58 interpersonal relationships, meaningful conversation and straightforward communication were encouraged (Reisinger & Turner, 1997).

Other Asian tourists also showed similar tendencies as Thai tourists. Based on the findings from samples of five Eastern culture background tourists, Reisinger and Turner (2003) reported Asian tourists, rooted in high uncertainty avoidance and formal cultures, exhibited preservative ways of expressing feelings in public, e.g., not asking personal questions, saving face by using respectful language and not damaging people’s reputation, showing extremely politeness, not giving negative judgements. Cultural differences were also evident in perceptions of service (communication styles), preferred social interaction and service satisfaction between Asian tourists and Australian hosts. Such different social behaviours may hinder Western hosts from identifying dissatisfaction of the service provision. Reisinger and Turner (2003) found that rules of behaviour (feeling display) and cultural values significantly influenced tourist satisfaction. Furthermore, although the perception of service and communication styles, in this case, did not directly influence satisfaction, they exhibited a significant effect on the preferred forms of social interaction and, subsequent, service satisfaction. Eastern and Western cultural differences, as discussed by Sophonsiri and O’Mahony (2012) in terms of value (achievement and ascription), behaviours (low and high uncertainty avoidance), interaction (individualism and collectivism), and communication (informal and formal, specific and diffuseness), are well supported in empirical findings in the context of tourism.

In the setting of hospitality, e.g., hotels and restaurants, cultural differences are evident when discussing customer expectations and service quality evaluation. Armstrong, Mok, Go and Chan (1997) recognised significant cultural differences in service expectations of hotel customers, in terms of Asian, English, European heritage backgrounds. Similarly, Lee and Ulgado (1997) identified significant differences in perception-expectation gaps in five dimensions of service quality between American and Korean fast-food restaurant customers. They further revealed low food prices were the most significant contributor to American customers’ satisfaction; however, reliability of promised service performance was 59 the most important predictor for Korean customers’ satisfaction. Their findings implied that the collectivist value on family and social interaction may shape the concept of “good restaurants” and, thus, led to the differences in evaluating service quality.

Mattila (1999) further supported the notion that cultural values, in terms of high-low context communication and large-small power distances, had important impact on evaluating the quality of service. In comparing Western and Eastern leisure travellers, in the context of hotel perceptions, Asian leisure travellers rated the routine and brief service interaction, i.e., check-out in this case, relatively lower. Mattila (1999) explained that Asian travellers expected to have high-context communication in people-oriented service encounters, instead of efficient and goal-completion communication related to service. Moreover, Asian travellers perceived large power distance in customer and employee relationships and, therefore, routine and speedy services might not satisfy their expectations of high-quality service.

In situations where service provision does not meet customers’ expectation, the management of customer complaints and service recovery become crucial, particularly in the cross-cultural context (Wong, 2004). When examining customer complaints, Hernandez, Strahle, Garcia, Hector and Sorensen (1991) found that Puerto Ricans were less likely to complain, especially in public, than American customers; citing passiveness, internal attribution, dependence, uncertainty avoidance and fatalistic orientations, associated with Puerto Rican values, as likely reasons.

Seeing the importance of pursuing social harmony and avoiding “loss of face”, Mattila and Patterson (2004), in their study of service recovery, also found that Asian respondents did not value compensation, or personal gains, as effective service recovery strategies, as opposed to Americans. They further revealed that American respondents might attribute service failure to external situations when receiving explanation, thus, enhancing post-recovery satisfaction. However, this service recovery strategy might not seem as acceptable to Asian respondents. Wong (2004) 60 also testified that apology (with compensation) improved the satisfaction of American respondents by indicating their willingness to repurchase and give positive word-of-mouth, but not for Australian and Singaporean respondents. Offering sincere apology alone was believed to be more effective than compensation for their Australian and Singaporean respondents. Wong (2004) argued the value of high power distance and restoring face might reinforce the power of apology in improving customer satisfaction for Singaporean respondents. This notion is supported by O’Mahony, Sophonsiri and Turner (2013) who found that Thai respondents preferred to receive a genuine and sincere apology from senior managers. These findings imply that effective ways of handling customer complaints and service recovery may depend on cultural values attached to customers.

In short, the managerial implications of the findings discussed in cross-cultural research may determine what to include in employee education and training. For example, the practice of empowerment may be effective in Western cultures; however, it may not seem as meaningful in Eastern cultures where featured with high power distance (Fock, Chiang, Au & Hui, 2011). Hence, understanding cultural differences will facilitate effective management practice and, subsequent, successful service provision.

2.5.4.2 The Impact of Culture on Education Provision Culture also plays a role in shaping students learning and has significant influence on learning outcomes. Most education literature concludes that learning is maximized if teaching and learning styles are matched (Stratman, Vogel, Reck & Mukesh, 2008). In the field of hospitality education, researchers have put their attention to identifying the dominant learning styles and making comparison across educational stakeholders (i.e., students, managers, and educators) and cultural backgrounds. Several scholars have proposed correlations between culture and learning styles (De Vita, 2001). In particular, learning style research, using Honey and Mumford’s Learning Style Questionnaire, has revealed that learning styles of hospitality students vary across cultures (Barron & Arcodia, 2002; Charelesworth, 2007, 2008; Lashley & Barron, 2006). While Western hospitality students show a preference for activist

61 learning, Eastern hospitality students display strong reflector learning preferences (Barron & Arcodia, 2002; Charelesworth, 2007, 2008; Lashley, 1999; Lashley & Barron, 2006). However, when studying in Western universities, the learning style preference of Eastern students will change during their study experience (Charelesworth, 2007). In fact, Barron and Arcodia (2002, p. 24) investigated “Confucian Heritage Culture” students studying hospitality and tourism management, in Australia, and found that these students “adopt an activist style of learning preference similar to their western peers”. This suggests that international students are very adaptable to the demands of the academic learning environment in which they are situated. Although culture may well be a differentiating variable, students in the same cultural background can also have different learning preferences. This represents a continuing challenge for hospitality educators in their plight to accommodate all learning styles in the classroom.

With a closer look at the relation between cultural backgrounds and learning styles, many researchers advocated the influence of culture on students’ learning preference (Romanelli et al., 2009). De Vita (2001) contend that culture potentially affects the way people think and behave and, therefore, conditions people’s preferences for learning. This partially explains the effectiveness of various teaching methods (e.g., group discussion, lecture, on-line learning) in different cultural settings. Pre-existing knowledge and mindset tends to differentiate one group from another and represent a distinct behavioural pattern, which interests researchers and educators when searching for matched teaching-learning models.

The values perceived to be important in Confucian dynamism (or long-term orientation dimension) (Hofstede & Bond, 1988) include perseverance, ordering of relationships by status, thriftiness, and sense-making (in relation to shame). In contrast, the value of personal steadiness and stability, protecting “face”, respect for tradition, and reciprocation of greetings, favors, and gifts are relatively important in short-term orientation dimension (Hofstede, 2007). Most Asia countries score high in long-term orientation, and Western cultures represent short-term orientation. In

62 fact, the top long-term scorers include China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan, and Korea while the USA, Britain, and Canada score as short-term orientation (Hofstede, 2007).

Confucianism has been regarded as an important influence on education in Eastern cultures (Chan, 1999). It has impact, not only on the Chinese cultures, such as China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore and Malaysia, but also cultures in Northern and Southern Asia (Barron & Arcodia, 2002). In the teacher-student relation, teachers are respected in Confucian cultures. They teach and guide students as well as act as a moral role model (Barron & Arcodia, 2002). The typical learning characteristics of students include attending all classes, taking detailed notes, being well-disciplined and quiet, avoiding class discussions, and only asking questions in private with the teacher (Barron & Arcodia, 2002; Mitsis & Foley, 2009). However, these characteristics do not attract the same importance in Western cultures. Therefore, good learning and teaching may be defined differently among cultures.

With the attempt on linking cultural differences and learning styles, Mitsis and Foley (2009), in their comparison study with 364 business student in Australia, reported that cultural values can better predict students’ learning styles than the traditional segmentation of international and domestic students. In their investigation, students with a student-driven learning style (activist and pragmatist) were positively related to the characteristics of individualism, low power distance, masculinity, low uncertainty avoidance, and short-term orientation, while students with a teacher- driven learning style (reflector and theorist) were not. The results led to the conclusion that teacher-driven learning styles attract students who affiliate with collectivism, high power distance, femininity, high uncertainty avoidance and high long-term orientation (Confucianism). This implies that Asian students are more likely to have reflector and theorist learning preferences, while Western students are more likely to be activists and pragmatists in learning. In summary, teacher-driven students prefer to learn in a structured environment, follow teacher-led methods and tasks, and obtain knowledge using theoretical frameworks and integrating existing information (Mitsis & Foley, 2009).

Other cross-cultural research in learning styles echo the arguments by Mitsis and Foley. Auyeng and Sands (1996), employing the Kolb’s model, reported Australian accounting students preferred an accommodator learning style, while students from Hong Kong and Taiwan preferred an assimilator style. Lashley and Barron (2006), using Honey and Mumford’s instrument, found that students from the UK, Australian and other non-Confucian heritage countries (i.e., European, American, African, Indonesian and Thai) revealed a strong activist learning style preference, while students from Confucian cultures scored low on activism but relatively high on reflector learning style. Therefore, understanding the learning style preferences, across students of different cultural backgrounds, is vitally important to facilitate students’ learning through the achievement of learning outcomes.

In short, through the influence of globalisation, the cultural difference between Eastern and Western cultures has decreased, and some profound traditional values are fading (Tsang, 2011). In pursuing globally portable models and transferable competencies to gauge competent performance in the hospitality industry, do practitioners, educators, students and other higher education stakeholders in Eastern cultures benefit more by adopting modified universal models, if any exist? To what extent can the competency models developed in a particular culture be generalised in a similar context, in the face of advanced development across time and the dynamic nature of industry and organisation cultures? While the answers to these questions lie beyond the scope of this study, some competencies nevertheless may be important across cultures, or be more important in a specific culture, so as to make the definition of competence in hospitality work differently. Eastern-cultural educators can benefit greatly from knowing how to make their graduates more marketable with competitive advantages.

Over time, continued examination of the essential competencies will reveal some similarities and differences—findings that are useful for constructing the competency models and facilitating comparison in future research. Given the importance of both culture-specific and culture-comparable competencies, this study is designed to examine important competencies from a single culture to 64 facilitate comparison with research findings in different contexts at different times. The results are anticipated to contribute to the competency literature with respect to Eastern cultures and to offer practical benefits to hospitality managers and educators in the corresponding context, in this case Taiwan.

To contribute to the body of knowledge in hospitality management competencies in the Eastern cultural context and facilitate future culture comparison research, the first research question of this study is the following:

Research Question 1: What are the management competencies that hospitality graduates, from an Eastern culture, need to ensure occupational success?

2.5.5 Summary Competency models have been developed to assist in identifying weaknesses in curricula and improving the quality of hospitality education and training. Although numerous researchers have applied and extended the models of Katz (1955) and Sandwith (1993), the importance of managerial competencies changes over time and as cultures change. For example, human-related competencies like leadership have been ranked higher in more recent research, and Taiwanese managers perceived administrative and technical competencies as less important than managers in Western cultures. In addition, the competency models have become increasingly stratified, particularly when generic or transferable skills are emphasised. The lack of hospitality competency models developed in the context of Eastern cultures and the limited discussion of cultural differences in essential competencies reinforce the need for a competency model for Eastern cultures to identify what management competencies hospitality graduates need for future success. Figure 2.8 summarises the key concepts discussed in this section.

2.6 Research on Hospitality Management Competencies In addition to the models used in prior hospitality competency research, the opinions of different education stakeholders have strong influences on curriculum design and revision. Considerable research has investigated the essential competencies for hospitality management graduates from different perspectives (see Appendix A). The major stakeholders of hospitality higher education include industry managers, students/graduates and academics. The following sections review different stakeholder perceptions of hospitality management competencies.

2.6.1 Perceptions of Hospitality Managers Undoubtedly, one of the major objectives of hospitality higher education is to provide a quality workforce for the industry. In developing curricula, educators generally value the input from practising professionals (Gursoy & Swanger, 2004,

2005; Ravichandran & Arendt, 2008; Swanger & Gursoy, 2007), as aligning learning outcomes with the expectations of the industry could result in hospitality graduates who are well qualified and competent to enter the workforce (Alexander, 2007; Christou, 2002; Nelson & Dopson, 2001). This belief leads to the prevalence of adopting managers’ perceptions in most research on hospitality competencies.

Findings from these studies highlight a general concern regarding the importance of human relations competencies (Annaraud, 2006; Kay & Russette, 2000; Mariampolski et al., 1980; Tas, 1988; Tesone & Ricci, 2006). However, different studies stress different clusters of human relations competencies. While Mariampolski et al. (1980) and Kay and Moncarz (2004) value the importance of staffing and employee relations competencies for entry-level hospitality managers, Tas (1988), Baum (1991) and Kay and Russette (2000) emphasise competencies regarding customer problems and customer relations management. Others (Annaraud, 2006; Kay & Russette, 2000; Kong & Baum, 2006; Siu, 1998) focus on interpersonal competencies such as listening, oral, written, and phone communication skills. Through a review of past research, Johanson, Ghiselli, Shea and Roberts (2011) reported that the common themes of important competencies include communication skills, customer relations skills, computer-related skills and security and safety skills. However, the area of focus in each skill group changed to a certain extent because of the changing environment in the industry. For example, in recent years, the learning focus for computer skills has been on how to use basic document-processing software such as Microsoft Word and Excel. With the continuing advances in computers and technology, the use of social media and other skills relating to gaining business opportunities may become important area for further development in computing.

In Taiwan, similar findings have been identified from the perceptions of industry managers. Researchers agree that communication and leadership skills should be emphasised for hospitality students (Horng & Wang, 2003; Hsu & Gregory, 1995; Tsai et al., 2006). Owing to the people-centred essence of the hospitality industry, human relations competencies could be viewed as essential for hospitality managers. 67

Apart from the examination of management competencies, Tews, Stafford and Tracey (2011) revealed that personality is more important than the ability to learn and solve problems (or intelligence) in the recruiting process. They found hospitality managers, especially in hotels and restaurant chains, valued personality, i.e., agreeableness, conscientiousness, and emotional stability, higher than general mental ability (or intelligence), which has been tested as a strong predictor of job performance in the human resource literature. They argued that one of the possible explanations, regarding the importance attached to personality, is the people- centred nature of the industry. However, it could also imply that managers did not anticipate that entry-level positions need skills and knowledge at a higher level. This perception may open discussions for educators in curriculum planning.

Essential management competencies change over time as changes occur in the hospitality environment. Following Sandwith’s (1993) domain model, Kay and Russette (2000) identify leadership competencies as most important, followed by technical, interpersonal, administrative, and conceptual/creative competencies. Although Kay and Moncarz (2004) agree that human resources management competencies are of the highest importance for hotel management success, the importance of leadership is not evident in the study conducted by Chung-Herrera et al. (2003), who reported that leadership competencies may be some of the least- essential skills for future hospitality leaders because they are pre-requisite skills. Therefore, the continuous shift in responsibilities of hospitality managers makes updating critical for reviewing and revising hospitality curricula in terms of essential management competencies.

2.6.2 Perceptions of Hospitality Students In addition to investigating the perceptions of hospitality managers, researchers have examined the differences between the perceptions of managers and students regarding the importance of competencies relative to success in the industry and found that managers and students differ in their expectations of management competencies (Li & Kivela, 1998; Raybould & Wilkins, 2005, 2006; Annaraud, 2006). 68

For example, managers rated interpersonal, problem-solving and self-management skills as most important, whereas students rated the conceptual and analytical domain and the oral communication domain substantially higher (Raybould & Wilkins, 2006). These findings have valuable implications for hospitality educators attempting to improve the current curricula.

From a different angle, some researchers investigated students’ perception of their level of preparedness and identified areas needing improvement in educational practices and curricula (Lolli, 2013). One area frequently mentioned as deficient is interpersonal communication skills, which many hospitality stakeholders consider to be one of the most important skills. Although Mahachi (2012) reported students of one hospitality program in Botswana perceived they were competent in interpersonal skills in general terms, the students believed they were not competent in oral presentations. Lolli (2013) found that hospitality alumni in the United States considered the areas of deficiency to be verbal language skills (such as giving feedback and customizing a conversation to an individual) and conduct skills (such as conversing as a motivational strategy). Follow-up interviews showed these deficiencies were related to a lack of experience in leadership and dealing with confrontational situations. The level of preparedness may become one of the sources that hospitality educators can refer to when developing curricula or teaching methods.

2.6.3 Perceptions of Hospitality Graduates Owing to their real-world experience, knowledge and maturity, hospitality graduates have provided salient feedback regarding hospitality education, especially those graduates who are within three years of their graduation (Foucar-Szocki & Bolsing, 1999; Lewis, 2006; Pizam, 1995). Some researchers have used the perceptions of graduates to examine the relevance of hospitality higher education programs to the important competencies (Chung, 2000; Partlow & Gregoire, 1994). Others have identified the most important competencies for hospitality professionals from the aspects of managers and graduates (Christou, 2002; Kay & Moncarz, 2004).

Partlow and Gregoire (1994) evaluated the relevance of hospitality postgraduate courses to the competencies graduates needed in their current jobs. They highlight that business-related concepts (e.g., accounting, human resources and strategic marketing) and communication skills should be reinforced in master’s degree programs. Chung (2000) agrees that courses in accounting and finance management as well as in marketing and human resources management significantly contribute to graduates’ career success in the field of hospitality. Kay and Moncarz (2004) also support the notion that knowledge of financial management is the key to hotel managers’ advancement to higher positions.

In addition to investigating essential competencies for hospitality graduates, researchers have examined whether employability contributes to satisfaction with the programs and services that higher education institutions provide (Eurico, da Silva & do Valle, 2015). Although the employability graduates perceived was not directly associated with their satisfaction, the explanatory effect did exist through image. These researchers contended that higher education institutions should include employability in their practice and promotional strategies to improve their image and subsequently raise graduates’ satisfaction level. This finding reinforces the importance of employability that hospitality graduates perceived when evaluating the value of their programs and institutions.

Given that hospitality graduates have completed the learning process in hospitality programs and have work experience within the industry, their opinions regarding career success, satisfaction of hospitality education and school recommendation may differ from that of current students. This information will be used to examine the contribution of management competencies to graduates’ career success and their evaluation of program quality.

2.6.4 Perceptions of Hospitality Educators As hospitality educators are the developers of the curricula, perceptions of faculty regarding the required competencies for hospitality graduates are relevant (Mayo & Thomas-Haysbert, 2005). Su et al. (1997) found that program administrators

70 perceived people skills, such as oral communication, listening, and a service orientation, to be the most important competencies for hospitality graduates. However, the findings of Mayo and Thomas-Haysbert (2005) did not support this result in a comparison of the perceptions of educators and managers. These researchers found results similar to those of Kay and Moncarz (2004)—that the top two essential competencies were the finance-related skills of revenue management and financial and accounting operations. In addition, an increasing number of studies have adopted multiple perspectives to identify the gaps amongst managers, educators, students and graduates in relation to important competencies (Annaraud, 2006; Cho et al., 2006; Enz, Renaghan & Geller, 1993; Nelson & Dopson, 2001; Okeiyi et al., 1994; Phelan & Mills, 2010).

Countries of origin could also result in educators’ dissimilar perceptions of important competencies. Annaraud (2006) reported that while American educators rated human relations competencies as the most important, Russian educators rated conceptual competencies the highest. Further comparison of the perceptions of American and Russian educators revealed significant differences in the meanings of each competency. American educators perceived dependability, employee relations, leadership and written communication skills to be more important than did the Russians (Annaraud, 2006). Russian educators rated foreign language skills higher than did the Americans (Annaraud, 2006). These dissimilarities might result from the different government systems, economic structures, national cultures, values and lifestyles of these two countries (Annaraud, 2006; Christou, 2002; Li & Kivela, 1998).

In the investigation of knowledge, skills and attitudes that are important to students majoring in convention management, Phelan and Mills (2010) reported that both educators and alumni, who were employed in the convention industry, valued the importance of planning skills, professionalism, work ethic, personality traits, and self- management. Although both parties placed similar level of importance to planning skills (e.g., organization), and self-management (e.g., being flexible), educators regarded some abilities in professionalism and work ethic more important than industry practitioners did. These abilities included verbal and written communication,

71 and understanding how industry operates. These different perspectives may well inform educators in pedagogy and curriculum design.

In line with the debates regarding specific and generic competencies, researchers have had discussions with respect to vocational versus generic approaches to curricular design. While the vocational approach focuses on skills training and the needs of the industry (Connolly & McGing, 2006), the generic approach emphasises personal development of students with thinking and self-learning skills (Morgan, 2004). To prepare students for both short-term and long-term success in hospitality or any other business, other researchers have indicated that these two approaches to curriculum should be integrated in order to prepare students with vocational competencies and life-long learning skills for a successful career in hospitality (Dopson & Tas, 2004; Gursoy & Swanger, 2004). Thus, this study will examine management competencies in terms of both approaches for the purpose of discussing the contribution of hospitality higher education to students’ career development and its relation to curriculum design.

In conclusion, the major stakeholders of hospitality education are the hospitality industry (the main customer), the educational institutions (the providers), and the students and graduates (the products of the educational experiences) (Cho et al., 2006). The theoretical foundations of Tyler’s (1949) classic approach to curriculum development point to the importance of considering the needs of the hospitality community, the needs of education and the needs of students (Nelson & Dopson, 2001). Fully understanding the claims of various stakeholders is critical for ensuring the quality of academic programs. Satisfying the stakeholders in hospitality education is a continuous process, because the requirements change over time (Christou, 2002). Therefore, examination of the similarities and differences associated with the different stakeholders of competency research will provide a fruitful avenue of enquiry.

2.6.5 Summary

Perspectives of different education stakeholders can influence how curricula are designed and revised. According to Tyler’s (1949) classic approach to curriculum development, understanding the claims of important stakeholders and satisfying their needs are crucial factors for success. The major stakeholders are hospitality managers, students, graduates and educators. Hospitality educators have long regarded the expectations of practising professionals as an important source for setting learning outcomes, and the continuous shift in managers’ responsibilities requires an ongoing updating of essential management competencies based on the feedback of managers. Students’ opinions can also help educators to identify deficiencies in curriculum design. The feedback of hospitality graduates can be salient to understanding the gap between education and the industry, and the opinions of hospitality educators can be compared with other stakeholders, providing an important source of information when revising or designing hospitality curricula. Therefore, the examination of the similarities and differences of stakeholders’ perceived essential competencies will have practical implications for hospitality educators. Figure 2.9 summarises the key concepts discussed in this section, and the above discussion leads to research question 2. Research Question 2: In Eastern cultures, do the various stakeholder groups (managers, educators, students and graduates) differ in the importance they attach to specific management competencies?

2.7 Conclusion and Conceptual Map for this Study Underpinned by the thinking of experimentalism and social efficacy ideology, competency-based education has been characterised by the specification of educational objectives in terms of behaviours and has emphasised the link between learning outcomes and employable skills. Since the 1980s, hospitality higher educators have perceived the competency-based approach to be a practical means of providing systematic directions in curriculum design and revision. Although researchers have criticised competency-based education for the simplification of personal and professional development, comprehensively selecting educational objectives on the basis of suggestions of key stakeholders of education in a continual manner can help overcome these deficiencies.

Defining and modelling hospitality competencies is an important step in setting educational objectives. Amongst the different ways of conceptualising competencies, observable behaviours best describe educational objectives and learning outcomes. In terms of contents, generic and specific competencies best classify the knowledge, 74 skills and attitudes that are necessary in students’ personal, vocational and social life. In addition to conceptualising competencies, researchers have grouped competencies differently for facilitating curricula improvement (e.g., Katz, 1955; Sandwith, 1993; Chung-Herrera et al., 2003; Raybould & Wilkins, 2006). It is evident that important competency groups change over time and from culture to culture. In light of the lack of research examining what competencies are global (that is, applicable across time and cultures) and what are context-specific (applicable during a specific time frame or in a specific cultural context), a need exists to identify hospitality competencies in a single cultural context, the Eastern cultures in this case, and therefore leads to first research question of this study.

Tyler’s (1949) classic approach revealed the importance of understanding and satisfying the needs of key stakeholders—that is, hospitality managers, students, graduates and educators. Comparisons across these stakeholders offer important sources of information when revising or designing hospitality curricula, leading to the need to examine the similarities and differences of stakeholders’ perceived essential competencies in the context of an Eastern culture, and therefore generating the second research question of this study. Figure 2.10 summarises the key concepts discussed in this section.

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHOD

This chapter provides details of the methods used in this investigation. Section 3.1 discusses the research design chosen for this study, and Section 3.2 describes the target populations and sampling frame. Section 3.3 explains the first phase of data collection, which involved in-depth interviews to explore the opinions of hospitality managers, educators, current students and early career graduates regarding competencies required of hospitality graduates. Section 3.4 addresses the development of the questionnaire instrument used in Phase Two to measure generic and specific hospitality management competencies. Section 3.5 describes the data collection for Phase Two, which examines the perceptions of the four groups of interviewees across a larger sample so that generalisations can be made. Finally, Section 3.6 reports the ethical clearance of the strategies used in this study.

3.1 Research Design Research method selection typically begins with choosing from among quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods. While quantitative research emphasises deduction, confirmation, theory or hypothesis testing, explanation, and statistical analysis, qualitative research focuses on induction, exploration, theory or hypothesis generation, and qualitative analysis (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). “Mixed methods” refers to the combining of quantitative and qualitative methods in varying ways and degrees (Jennings, 2001; Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). That is, quantitative and qualitative approaches can be viewed as complementary and may be used concurrently or sequentially in the same study (Curry, Nembhard & Bradley, 2009; Gay & Airasian, 2000). Use of mixed methods can incorporate the strengths and overcome the weakness of both methodologies: because quantitative research focuses on theories or hypotheses, the researcher may overlook emerging phenomena (resulting in confirmation bias), while qualitative research presents difficulties in achieving quantifiable predictions (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). A

77 mixed method approach, however, capitalises on the strengths of both qualitative and quantitative approaches (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2007). Additionally, in making research design decisions the researcher must consider the nature of the research questions and the research objectives (Saunders et al., 2007). As this study seeks to initially determine the required management competencies and then test them across a larger sample, a sequential mixed method approach involving qualitative (in-depth interviews) and quantitative (questionnaires) methods will be adopted. First, the required management competencies for hospitality graduates in Taiwan will be developed from in-depth interviews with hospitality managers, academics, current students and early career graduates. Subsequently, to compare differences of opinion for these four groups, a quantitative instrument will be developed from the results of the first phase.

Figure 3.1 Research Process

Research Purpose of Process the Process

Compile a List of In-Depth Management Interviews Competencies

Develop Develop Survey Instrument Dra

Revise Survey and Pilot Test Data Collec on Test Procedure

Mail Answer Research Survey Ques ons

Source: Developed for this Study

3.2 Target Population and Sampling Frame The target population for this research includes hospitality managers, early career graduates, educators, and current final-year undergraduate students enrolled in hospitality-related management programs. The target populations of hospitality managers and early career graduates were drawn from a sampling frame of 84 hotels in Taiwan (Appendix B presents a list of tourist hotels in 2012).

Before 2009, only one hotel classification system existed in Taiwan, comprising three categories: hotel enterprises, standard tourist hotels and international tourist hotels (Tourism Bureau of Taiwan, 2008). In 2009, the Tourism Bureau of Taiwan (2012a) introduced the hotel star-based rating system in the hope of tapping into the international standards. Although at present no single international star rating system applies globally, many countries have developed their own hotel classification systems, such as the crown classification of English Tourist Boards in the United Kingdom, the diamond-based rating system of the American Automobile Association (AAA) in the United States, and the star-based rating system of the National Tourism Administration in China (Su & Sun, 2007). Although the evaluation method and measures are not identical across the different systems, physical attributes and services are always the focus of evaluation (Su & Sun, 2007).

To ensure that the scale of operation and management are equivalent to international standards in general terms, for this study 84 hotels rated above four stars were used as the sampling frame for sourcing managers and early career graduates (Tourism Bureau of Taiwan, 2012b). Most tourist hotels in the old system are rated higher than four stars. The higher the rating of the hotel, the better the facilities and services it needs to provide. Hence, these hotels require more employees and their human resources management is more complicated than that of lower-rated, smaller hotels. The hotels of different star levels and their original classes are summarised in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1: Sampling Frame of Hotels Hotel Standard International Count %

Enterprises Tourist Tourist Four-star 18 7 1 26 31 Five-star 13 5 40 58 69 Subtotal 31 12 41 84 100

Although no official data are kept as to the specific number of hotel managers, the estimated number in this target population is 336. This estimate assumes that each hotel has at least four departments or divisions, including front office, room service, food and beverage, and administration. The staff in charge of each department serve as the research samples (i.e., 84 multiplied by 4). The second target population comprises early career graduates from hospitality institutions. As no exact number is available to provide the size of the target population, the researcher sought assistance from managers of 84 hotels to identify hospitality graduates who were currently working in the industry and who had graduated within the previous three years.

The third and fourth target populations—educators and current students—were sourced from a sampling frame of 47 hospitality-related management programs at four-year bachelor degree programs in Taiwan (Appendix C lists the four-year hospitality programs offered in 2012). Higher education in Taiwan follows two tracks: general university (and college) and higher-level technical and vocational schools, which include junior colleges, colleges of technology and universities of science and technology (Ministry of Education, Taiwan, n.d.). Both tracks provide hospitality bachelor programs. To ensure that preparing students for entry into the hotel industry is a principal educational objective of these programs, this study included only programs with “hospitality” or “hotel” in their title. The schools that provide hospitality programs within the different segments are summarised in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2: Sampling Frame of Schools Offering Hospitality Programs School Segmentation Count % General university 15 32 Technical/vocational college 32 68 Subtotal 47 100

According to the data of Taiwan Ministry of Education (2012), the population of full- time hospitality academics was 521, including department heads, professors, associate professors, assistant professors and lecturers in the colleges and universities from the sampling frame. These academics were included as potential samples. The fourth target population is drawn from the current undergraduate students enrolled in bachelor-degree level hospitality-related management programs in Taiwan. Current hospitality students in Taiwan numbered 16,419 in 2012 (Ministry of Education, Taiwan, 2012), of whom 2,681 were students in the final year of their study. This number is the size of the fourth target population for this study.

3.3 Phase One: In-Depth Interviews To obtain a valid list of management competencies deemed important to hospitality graduates’ life and career success, in-depth interviews were conducted with senior hotel managers, hospitality program directors, students, and graduates. A convergent interviewing technique was used. Convergent interviewing involves a series of unstructured interviews occurring within a cyclical and structured procedure and is used for collecting qualitative data (Dick, 1990). The procedure starts with a broad question, or theme, in early interviews. In later interviews, concepts become more shaped and specific through incorporation of the findings of previous interviews into the interview questions (Angell, Heffernan & Megicks, 2008; Dick, 1990). This converging process contributes to internal validity and reliability by identifying key themes through a structured approach to sample selection (Jepsen & Rodwell, 2008). The following sections address the process of data collection and the strategies used for data analysis.

3.3.1 Sampling and Administration Procedures The potential interviewees in these four groups were identified through purposive sampling, which implies that the sample selection is based on the researcher’s judgement (Neuman, 2006). To collect rich information about key management competencies from the four groups, maximising the variation of interviewees is important. To obtain a wide range of opinions, the selection criteria for hotel managers and hospitality graduates consisted of hotel types (four or five stars) and the respondent’s responsibilities (front office, room service, food and beverage, or administration). For hospitality educators and students, the main criterion was the track of higher education (general university or technical and vocational college). To ensure diversity, interviewees from different backgrounds were invited to each round of interviews.

Invitations for the first round of interviews were issued in May 2012, when academic schedules were undemanding and hotels were waiting for the high season. Potential interviewees were invited via telephone or e-mail. The research aim, selection basis, voluntary nature of participation, privacy issues and contact information were briefly explained and provided to interviewees. A consent form was attached to the invitational e-mails or was recited in the telephone invitation (see Appendix D). The interview schedule was made after obtaining respondents’ consent to participate.

The total number of interviewees was 27. The number of interviewees in each round is shown in Table 3.3. The first round, with nine interviewees, was completed in September 2012. The prospective interviewees for the next round were identified either from recommendations of previous interviewees or from the sampling frame, and the second round of interviews, with eight interviewees, was finished in October 2012 and resulted in the development of new themes. The third round, with six interviewees, was completed in November 2012 after gaining new items under different themes and deleting some themes. The final round, with four interviewees, was concluded in December 2012.

Table 3.3: Sample Size of In-Depth Interviewees Sample Type of Round Round Round Round Sum Organisation 1 2 3 4 Managers Four-star 1 0 1 0 2 Five-star 1 2 1 1 5 Graduates Four-star 1 0 1 0 2 Five-star 1 2 0 1 4 Educators General 1 1 1 0 3 university Technical 1 1 1 1 4 college Students General 1 1 1 0 3 university Technical 2 1 0 1 4 college Subtotal 9 8 6 4 27

To confirm the diversity of the samples, chi-square tests were performed to examine the difference of categories in each organisation (i.e., hotel star level and school type) distributed in the target population and the sample. As Table 3.4 shows, the p values of the chi-square tests were all larger than the critical value of 0.05, suggesting that the proportions of each sample did not differ significantly from the target population. Therefore, the samples in the interviews reflected the opinions of diverse organisational levels in a proper proportion and the influence of non-response bias is limited.

Table 3.4: Chi-square Tests of the Target Population and Sample Type of Target Population Sample Chi-square Category 2 Organisation Count Count (χ 0.05, 1 ) Hotel Manager Four-star 26 2 .017, Five-star 58 5 p=.896 > .05 Subtotal 84 7 Graduates Four-star 26 2 .015, Five-star 58 4 p=.903 > .05 Subtotal 84 6 School Educators General university 15 3 .328, Technical 32 4 p=.567 > .05 college Subtotal 47 7 Students General university 15 3 .328, Technical 32 4 p=.567 > .05 college Subtotal 47 7

Each interview started with an introduction to the research and clarification of confidentiality and anonymity. The interviewees were also asked for permission to record the interview and to allow the researcher to take notes. The interviews lasted about 30 to 50 minutes. Interviewees were first asked to discuss management competencies that hospitality graduates must possess in generic and specific domains. They were then asked to mention additional competencies that should be included in each domain. Before the end of interview, the researcher confirmed the notes taken with the interviewees to ensure the absence of misunderstanding or inappropriate interpretation. Interviewees were also asked to nominate possible participants who might be willing to participate and contribute to the process. The next prospective interviewees were contacted on the basis of the nominations or the sampling list if they met the selection criteria of diversity. 84

After preliminary competencies were listed, interviewees in the following rounds were asked to express their agreement on each competency statement and modify the statement descriptions if necessary. The process of developing competency domains and statements is described in greater detail in the next section. Data collection ceased when data reached saturation, with 72 competencies having been compiled and no new themes (i.e., competency statements) having emerged.

3.3.2 Instrument In line with the exploratory nature of the convergent interview, the questions used in the interviews were changed from unstructured to semi-structured. In the first round, a very general opening question was used to start the conversation: “In your opinion, what competencies are important for Taiwanese hospitality university students in order to achieve their career success?” Then, a specific follow-up question was asked to guide the discussion of important management competencies: “In your opinion, what competent performance or behaviours best describe the competency you identified?” Some probing questions were then employed to help move the interview forward and to make comparison of topics or themes possible. The probing questions included “Do you have an example of a self-management skill?”, “Could you tell me more about industry knowledge?”, “What exactly did you mean by communication abilities?”, and “How was it different from a personal relationship?” Prior literature (Convergent Interviewing, 2008) can help to identify priority issues that are relevant to the research and thus sharpen the interview’s focus. When necessary, the table of domains (Table 3.5), which was derived from competency models of previous research (Agut et al., 2003; Chung-Herrera et al., 2003; Horng, Hsu, Liu, Lin & Tsai, 2011; Katz, 1955; Koenigsfeld, 2007; Raybould & Wilkins, 2006; Sandwith, 1993), was provided during the interview to pursue agreement or disagreement on important competences.

Table 3.5: Domains of Management Competencies Category Domain (Topic) Generic management Conceptual competencies Leadership Creativity Analysis Communication Personal relationship Interpersonal Foreign language Adaptability and learning Attitude Culture Job performance efficacy External and governmental influences Implementation Crisis management Problem solving Strategic management Self-management

Specific management Industry knowledge competencies Field management Information management Marketing Accounting and finance Human and professional resources Food and beverage management Sports and recreation management Building and facilities maintenance

In the subsequent rounds, the domains generated were used as the guide in seeking confirmation of important competency statements. Competency statements that attained the greatest agreement were retained. Examples of competency statements generated are to “be able to work in a team”, “be persuasive”, “be familiar with a hospitality information system”, “select and employ proper employees”, “perform a cost-benefit analysis”, and “use the computer for document processing”. The interview guide for convergent interviews is built through analyses of the interviews according to the agreement and disagreement resulting from previous interviews (Convergent Interviewing, 2008). The process of developing a more structured instrument for the following rounds is described in the next section.

3.3.3 Data Analysis The data collected from the convergent interviews were analysed by comparing themes and through content analysis. Open, axial and selective coding were used in a search for emerging themes, which in this case took the form of competency statements. Open coding is used at the beginning of the analysis and proceeds by summarising interviewees’ responses into several keywords, or codes. For example, “staff”, “positive”, “attitudes”, and “smile” are the open codes for the interview transcript of “hotel people should have good and positive attitudes when working so the customers can feel the real smile on their faces”. Axial coding is the second stage and serves to organise and link open codes, while selective coding involves reviewing previous codes and deciding on the major theme of the developed concept (Neuman, 2006). Following the previous example, the axial coding process in this study is to compare the open codes between interviewees and then identify the common one, such as “attitude”. In the review of the overall categories and codes, the major theme of “attitude” was found in the concept of “generic competencies”.

Content analysis is also applicable to identifying the major themes generated (Jennings, 2001). In content analysis, researchers need to create a system to analyse, categorise and record the information from the data (Neuman, 2006). The method used in this study is to identify the repeated themes in convergent interviews by counting and then to use the themes that appeared most often in the analysis results. The compiled data were then transformed into a structured questionnaire.

A special feature of convergent interviews is that the process of searching for emerging themes is embedded in the interview rounds. Data analysis occurs in a comparative and reflexive manner that confirms emerging themes from early interviews in later interviews (Convergent Interviewing, 2008). Common themes are first identified in one round and then become key themes or issues if two or more participants raise the same themes in subsequent rounds (Jepsen & Rodwell 2008).

The grouping of domains in this study is presented in Table 3.6. In the first round, ten topics (subsequently developed into domains) emerged in the category of generic

87 management competency while eight topics appeared in specific management competencies. In the second round, more precise categorising and detailed description of competencies in each domain developed. In particular, generic and specific competencies were identified in the grouping of business management and hospitality management, as discussed in detail in Chapter 4, Section 4.4. Three- quarters of the participants (i.e., six interviewees) agreed that the separation of hospitality-specific competencies from those that are applicable in other business sectors is useful in articulating the unique nature of the industry. In the process of grouping, some new domains emerged (e.g., attitude), and some existing domains were renamed (e.g., from food and beverage management to skills certificate) and some were combined to form a new domain (e.g., culture). A total of 41 new themes converged in the second round.

In the following rounds, the domains remained stable, although some themes were added to a few domains (e.g., marketing, leadership) and other themes were deleted (e.g., implementation, personal relationship) because of the agreement and disagreement with respect to the coding. Some domains shifted to a different category (e.g., the culture domain changed to the category of generic competencies in hospitality management). In the final round, with minor changes in shifting themes in the self-management domain, 72 competency statements materialized. Those statements were included in the questionnaire for pilot testing and were used in the second phase of the study.

Table 3.6: Domain and Competency Statement Counts in Each Interview Round

Final Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round Statement Statement Statement Statement Category Domain (Topic) Count Domain (Topic) Count Domain (Topic) Count Domain (Topic) Count (Theme) (Theme) (Theme) (Theme) Analysis 1 Analysis 2 Analysis 2 Analysis 2 Job performance 1 3 Implementation 4 Implementation 3 Implementation efficacy Problem solving 1 Problem solving 2 Problem solving 3 Problem solving 3 Generic Communication 1 Communication 2 Communication 1 Communication 1 competencies in Leadership 2 Leadership 3 Leadership 4 Leadership 4 business Interpersonal 1 Personal relationship 3 Personal relationship 1 Personal relationship 1 management Creativity 1 Creativity 2 Creativity 2 Creativity 2 Self-management 1 Self-management 4 Self-management 2 Self-management 3 Adaptability and 1

learning Culture 2 Foreign language 4 Foreign language 6 Foreign language 6 Foreign language 6 Generic Attitude 4 Attitude 5 Attitude 5 competencies in Analysis 2 Analysis 2 Analysis 2 hospitality Self-management 2 Self-management 3 Self-management 2 management Culture 3 Culture 3

Final Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round Statement Statement Statement Statement Category Domain (Topic) Count Domain (Topic) Count Domain (Topic) Count Domain (Topic) Count (Theme) (Theme) (Theme) (Theme) Marketing 3 Marketing 5 Marketing 6 Business and 6 marketing Information 2 Information 4 Information 2 Information 2 Specific management management management management competencies Human and 3 Human resources 5 Human resources 7 Human resources 7 in professional business resources management Accounting and 2 Financial management 4 Financial 5 Financial 5 finance management management Crisis management 2 2 Crisis management 2 Food and beverage 1 Skill certificate 3 Skill certificate 7 Skill certificate 7 management Specific Field management 1 Customer relations 6 Customer relations 6 Customer relations 6 competencies Industry knowledge 1 in hospitality Crisis management 2 management Building and facilities 1 maintenance Total 27 Total 68 Total 72 Total 72

3.4 Questionnaire Development

The process of developing the questionnaire involved two steps: preparing items for inclusion in the questionnaire and pilot testing. Three questionnaires were developed for the four samples. The questionnaire for managers and graduates was identical and demographic information (age and working experience) was used to filter the two samples. The questionnaire consisted of three sections relating to hospitality management competencies and demographic information. The following discussion first describes the measurements and gives reliability results, and then reports the face and content validity. Finally, the procedure of the forward and backward translation of the questionnaire, which is written in Traditional Chinese, is described to ensure meaning conformity. This is important for results interpretation and discussion in the remaining chapters.

3.4.1 Measurements of Management Competencies

The first section asked all respondents to rate the importance level of management competency statements for hospitality graduates, which were 72 items generated from in-depth interviews. Respondents in the samples of students, managers and graduates were also asked to rate the level of satisfaction with the outcomes of competent performance.

The items were rated on a seven-point Likert scale, with 1 being the least important or satisfied and 7 being the most important or satisfied. The majority of past hospitality competency research has used a five-point Likert scale to measure perceive importance of competencies (e.g., Kay & Russette, 2000; Nelson & Dopson,

2001; Tesone & Ricci, 2006; Tsai et al., 2006). However, a seven-point scale could be more sensitive than a five-point Likert scale (Diefenbach, Weinstein & O’Reilly, 1993

91 cited in Cummins & Gullone, 2000). Table 3.7 lists the variables and description of hospitality management competencies in the four categories reported in Table 3.6.

In all, 19 items reflect generic competencies in business management and 18 items reflect generic competencies in hospitality management. With respect to specific competencies, 22 items were listed in the category of business management and 13 items were listed in hospitality management.

3.4.2 Demographic Information

The final section of the survey collected personal information for filtering sample groups and describing respondents. Basic background information was requested in the manager and graduate questionnaire, and the demographic information questions for educators and students were similar. All sample groups were asked about their gender, age and highest educational level. Managers and graduates were asked for information about their organisations, including the type of organisation

(i.e., four-star or five-star hotel), their position level (i.e., general staff, entry-level manager, senior manager or top manager) and responsibility (i.e., front desk, kitchen, dining and catering, room service, human resources, marketing, business operations, accounting). The option of “other” was provided in case a respondent could not identify the appropriate choice. Respondents were also asked to report their years of work experience. In distinguishing early career graduates from managers, the criteria were between the ages of 22 to 27 (for males, 22 to 29 to allow for two years of military service) and work experience of less than five years.

In addition to the three general questions, educators and students were asked for information about programs they worked for or studied in, including the type of school (i.e., general university or technical college) and department or major (i.e., hospitality management or other non-hospitality elements relating to tourism and 92 leisure management). Educators were asked to indicate their years of work experience, while students were asked about the year of their study to filter out those who were not in their final year.

Table 3.7: Variable Description of Hospitality Management Competencies Competency Importance Competency Statement Domain Variable Generic Know the current trends of society GBi1 competencies in Make the best decision among options GBi2 business Complete task in time GBi3 management Complete tasks within budget GBi4 Produce the desired result GBi5 Identify and analyse problems GBi6 Identify and implement solutions to the GBi7 problem Evaluate the effect of the solution GBi8 Be persuasive GBi9 Lead by personal example GBi10 Be trustworthy GBi11 Work in a team GBi12 Empower employees to make decisions GBi13 Have public relations skills GBi14 Facilitate creative development of the GBi15 organisation Plan innovative products and service GBi16 Manage stress and emotion GBi17 Control time effectively GBi18 Exhibit appropriate work ethics GBi19

Generic Be able to communicate in English GHi1 competencies in Be able to read in English GHi2 hospitality Be able to write in English GHi3 management Be able to communicate in Japanese GHi4 Be able to read in Japanese GHi5 Be able to write in Japanese GHi6 Have a strong interest in the hospitality GHi7 industry Have confidence GHi8 Be diligent and enjoy working hard GHi9 Enjoy interacting with others GHi10 Be active and positive GHi11 Analyse the present industrial condition GHi12 Analyse the future market trend GHi13 Be willing to learn GHi14 Maintain health GHi15 Have international perspective GHi16 Integrate with the local culture GHi17 Respect different cultures GHi18 94

Competency Importance Competency Statement Domain Variable Specific Understand the target market SBi1 competencies in Realize the missions of the organization SBi2 business Build brand image SBi3 management Conduct business negotiation SBi4 Plan marketing strategies and projects SBi5 Conduct events and activities SBi6 Use the computer for document processing SBi7 Know how to collect information SBi8 Allocate responsibility properly SBi9 Know the training needs of employees SBi10 Facilitate promotion and career development SBi11 of employees Evaluate performance and productivity of SBi12 employees Evaluate job satisfaction of employees SBi13 Establish and maintain positive employee SBi14 relationships Select and employ proper employees SBi15 Perform cost-benefit analyses SBi16 Set goals for operating revenue SBi17 Analyse financial statements SBi18 Plan and control budget SBi19 Predict and lower investment risk SBi20 Anticipate and prevent possible crises SBi21 Be able to deal with crises effectively SBi22

Specific Be familiar with a hospitality information SHi1 competencies in system hospitality Be competent in Chinese cuisine cookery SHi2 management skills Be competent in Western cuisine cookery SHi3 skills Be competent in hotel and restaurant service SHi4 skills Be competent in cocktail-making skills SHi5 Be competent in food baking skills SHi6 Be competent in beverage preparation skills SHi7 Be able to deal with customer complaints SHi8 Understand the needs of customers SHi9 Establish and maintain positive customer SHi10 relationships Follow hospitality-related laws and SHi11 regulations Establish quality management standards SHi12 Control the quality of products and services SHi13 95

3.4.3 Pilot Test

Prior to its implementation, the questionnaire was pilot-tested to ensure its face validity and reliability (Kelley, Clark, Brown & Sitzia, 2003; Gay & Airasian, 2000). The pilot test was undertaken to determine the

 appropriateness of the data-collection methods,

 face and content validity (completeness, clarity and comprehensiveness of

items) of the questionnaire, and

 reliability of the construct measurements.

The sampling procedure and data collection method used in the pilot test were identical to those used in the second phase of this study—that is, a mail survey—so that potential problems in the process could be foreseen and prevented. The invitational mail package contained

 a cover letter not only addressing the research background, purpose of the

survey, contact information, and the request for informed consent, but also

seeking approval and support from the general managers and program

directors to distribute the survey to all their managers/graduate employees

and educators/ students;

 the questionnaires; and

 pre-paid response envelopes.

Twelve hotels and five hospitality programs were randomly selected from the sampling frame. From the initial contacts, ten hotel managers and three hospitality program directors expressed their willingness to help with the distribution of the questions. Because two sample groups were in one organisation, eight invitation packages were mailed to each hotel and 20 packages to each department office in

January, 2013. 96

A postal mail survey was chosen to collect data because in general, the response rate of e-mail surveys is 20 per cent—significantly lower than that for postal mail surveys

(Shi & Fan, 2009). As an example, Chen (2012) conducted postal mail surveys in the

Taiwanese hotel industry and attained a response rate of 34 per cent (120 out of

350). Therefore, mail surveys were chosen as more appropriate for collecting data in the context of Taiwan. For the current study, 43 valid questionnaires were collected, excluding 29 incomplete responses and invalid cases, for a response rate of 31 per cent, implying that the response rate of the pilot test was reasonable in the current context. Table 3.8 summarises the response rates of each sample.

Table 3.8: Response Rate of the Pilot Test Groups Surveys Sent Surveys Received Response Rate %

Managers 40 11 27.5 Graduates 40 10 25.0 Educators 30 10 33.3 Students 30 12 40.0 Total 140 43 30.7

3.4.4 Test of Content Validity

To ensure the face and content validity of the questionnaire, respondents were asked to comment on the wording, clarity and their understanding of each item (Gay

& Airasian, 2000; Saunders et al., 2007). Face validity indicates the appropriateness of indicators that can measure the constructs based on the judgement of the social community (Newman, 2006). At the end of the questionnaire, respondents were asked if the questions were easy to answer, if the survey contained annoying features of wording or formatting and if the length of the survey was appropriate.

Content validity refers to the adequacy and representativeness of the indicators to

97 the domain of the conceptual definition of constructs (Pallant, 2007). Therefore, for each section the respondents were asked to identify questions that needed to be revised and to suggest how the revision should be made.

In terms of face validity, the results of question evaluation from the pilot test (Table

3.9) revealed that the majority of respondents felt that questions were easy to answer and had no annoying wording or formatting. However, some rewordings were made to the statements on the basis of the comments. For example, “obtain

Chinese cuisine cookery certificate” was reworded as “be familiar with Chinese cuisine cookery skills”. Additionally, slightly more than half (53.5%) of the respondents reported that the survey contained too many questions. This reaction may explain why the response rate was lower than expected. As respondents did not indicate any questions that should be excluded, the format and length of sentences were amended by condensing the margin and changing the font size to make the questionnaire page shorter and easier to follow. In terms of content validity, respondents did not report any new items that needed to be included in any section, implying that the important items were covered in the questionnaire.

Table 3.9: Evaluation of the Questions Frequency Percentage Questions Answer (N) (%) 1. Easy to answer YES 30 69.8 2. Annoying wording/formatting NO 35 81.4 3. Too many questions NO 23 53.5 4. Need to be revised or deleted in section NO 28 65.1 of hospitality competency statements 5. Need to be revised or deleted in section NO 43 100 of demographic information)

3.4.5 Test of Reliability

The reliability of a scale indicates how free it is from random error. A frequently used indicator of a scale’s reliability is internal consistency (Pallant, 2007). Cronbach’s coefficient alpha is one of the most commonly used statistics to examine the degree to which the items in each variable are measuring the same underlying attribute

(Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Pallant (2007) suggested 0.70 as a minimum level for

Cronbach’s alpha value. However, Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson and Tatham (2010) contended that for exploratory studies, the minimum value should be 0.60. Analysis of the 72 scale items in the instrument resulted in Cronbach’s alpha values of .98 and

0.99 for the total importance and satisfaction with items of importance respectively, thus exceeding the minimum level of .70. Table 3.10 shows the reliability statistics for each grouping, ranging from 0.95 (importance of specific competencies in hospitality management) to 0.99 (importance of hospitality management competencies). Hence, all items were retained. The overall reliability analysis implied that each variable in the study reached sufficient internal consistency.

Table 3.10: Reliability Test of Variables Cronbach’s Category Variable Item alpha Importance of hospitality management GBi1~GBi19 competencies GHi1~GHi18 72 .99 SBi1~SBi22 SHi1~SHi13 Importance of generic competencies in GBi1~GBi19 19 .97 business management Importance of generic competencies in GHi1~GHi18 18 .96 hospitality management Importance of specific competencies in SBi1~SBi22 22 .97 business management Importance of specific competencies in SHi1~SHi13 13 .95 hospitality management

The results of the pilot test showed that the sampling and data collection procedures were applicable. The validity (face and content validity) and reliability (internal consistency) of the questionnaire achieved an acceptable level after minor modification. Hence the questionnaire was used in the next phase, the main survey.

3.4.6 Forward and Backward Translation

One of the most frequently adopted translation techniques in cross-cultural research is forward and backward translation, which uses decentering for deriving cultural equivalent translation (Brislin, Lonner & Thorndike, 1973). As recommended by

Brislin (1970), the rigorous way to make translation meaningful and achieve cultural equivalence involves seven steps, which include:

1. preparing the translatable questionnaire in the source language,

2. recruiting translators who are familiar with the research context,

3. having the questionnaire forward translated by one bilingual translator and

then back translated from the target to source language by another,

4. asking independent raters to examine the original, target and the back-

translated questionnaires for errors,

5. pre-testing the translated questionnaire,

6. checking translation adequacy by comparing means, standard deviations and

correlation coefficients based on responses from the original and translated

version,

7. using a different criteria for equivalence to check the verdict of translation

adequacy

The respondents of this study read and write in traditional Chinese, so the questionnaires are written in Chinese. As such, the Chinese version was forward 100 translated by one pointed translator and back translated by another appointed translator. Both translators are bilingual and have experience in English-Chinese and

Chinese-English translation. The back-translated version was checked against the original one by one research assistant who is a native speaker and gives suggestions to wording and possible changes to avoid literal translation. The revision was made after consulting with two translators. For example, the competency statement “刻苦

耐勞” was first translated as “Endure working hard,” which means “忍受工作辛勞” in back-translation. It has a negative implication for the concept of hard working.

Therefore, after a consultation with translators, a better translation was determined as “Be diligent and enjoy hard working,” which means “勤奮接受辛勞工作.”

Since the translated version (English) was not employed in the current research, the steps involve in pre-test and translation adequacy were not conducted. It is more relevant for research where the “measurement error” of the translated version is the main concern (Liamputtong, 2010, p.151). Although the current research doesn’t involve both Chinese and English-speaking samples, the practice of back-translation at this stage can ensure that the findings and discussions, based on the results of the

Chinese questionnaire, are meaningful and conceptual equivalence is maintained.

3.5 Phase Two: Questionnaire

The purpose of this phase is to identify the most essential hospitality competencies and to compare the perceived importance level amongst four hospitality higher education stakeholders. The following sections outline the procedure of data collection and data analysis.

101

3.5.1 Sampling and Administration Procedures

Owing to the small sampling frames, all cases in the target populations were surveyed, excluding those who participated in the pilot study (12 hotels and five hospitality programs). As in the pilot test, initial contacts were made to 72 hotels and

42 hospitality programs. In this case, 64 hotel managers or officers agreed to distribute the questionnaire in their organisation and 37 program directors or secretaries agreed to help. Ten invitation packages were then mailed to each hotel and 20 packages to each department office in May, 2013. Foreseeing the possibility of a low response rate, as in the pilot study, several contacts were made to ask department secretaries of hospitality programs and front-line officers of hotels if they would kindly help with verbal or written reminders in the middle of June. In total, 614 questionnaires were received. Of these, 119 questionnaires were excluded owing to incomplete responses or invalid cases. Thus data analysis was performed on 495 responses (a response rate of 36%). The numbers of valid questionnaires collected before and after the reminding, as well as the response rate, are reported in Table 3.11.

Table 3.11: Response Rate of the Mail Survey First Second Response Groups Surveys Sent Response Response Sum Rate % Managers 320 66 31 97 30.3 Graduates 320 55 46 101 31.6 Educators 370 57 45 102 27.6 Students 370 102 93 195 52.7 Total 1380 280 215 495 35.9

To test for non-response bias, the proportions of organisation type (i.e., star levels and school tracks) were first examined by chi-square tests. As Table 3.12 shows, the difference between the target population and samples was not statistically

102 significant. The first and second responses collected from the main survey were then used to compare non-metric (or nominal) variables and metric (or scale) variables of respondents’ demographic information for testing the homogeneity proportions. As

Chen and Wong (2011) suggest that the characteristics and response patterns of later responses are similar to those who do not respond, the second responses in this study were used as the non-response sample.

Table 3.12: Chi-Square Tests of the Target Population and Sample Type of Target population Sample Chi-square Category 2 Organisation Count Count (χ 0.05, 1 ) Hotel Manager and graduate Four-star 20 15 .334, Five-star 52 49 p=.563 > .05 Subtotal 72 64

School Educator and student General 12 10 university .023, Technical 30 27 p=.897 > .05 college Subtotal 42 37

To test that two sample sets have a similar composition, the demographic non- metric variables were compared in cross-tabulations and chi-square tests, as shown in Table 3.13. In the personal variables, the position and educational levels of the two samples showed no significant difference based on the results of the test of homogeneity proportions. In the tests of metric variables, the t-test of age

(t(435.113)=-0.36, p=0.72>0.05) showed no significant differences between the first and second collected response. Hence the null hypothesis cannot be rejected.

However, the t-test of work experience (t(158.73)=-3.78, p=0.00<0.05) revealed a significant difference between the two sample groups. When the samples were split,

103 the means of educators (t(100)=0.36, p=0.72>0.05) were not statistically different.

However, for graduates (t(99)=2.361, p=0.02<0.05) and managers (t(95)=-13.44, p=

0.00<0.05), a difference in work experiences was observed. This difference suggested that the data set of hotel practitioners may not fully reflect the opinions of more senior practitioners, since the mean score of the second response samples

(M=7.83, SD=8.46) was higher than that of the first sample (M=4.72, SD=4.02).

Although most demographic information of the two data sets was relatively homogeneous, the generalisation of the analysis results from these data is still limited.

Table 3.13: Chi-Square Test of Demographic Variables Pearson First Second Variable Category Sum Chi-square Response Response (χ2) Gender All sample groups Male 143 120 263 1.098, df=1 Female 137 95 232 p=.295> .05 Subtotal 280 215 495 Level of Senior high school 142 104 246 .960, df=3 education Bachelor 93 70 163 p=.811> .05 Master 24 20 44 PhD 21 21 42 Subtotal 280 215 495

3.5.2 Data Analysis

The returned completed questionnaires were encoded to facilitate entering and processing the data through SPSS version 22 statistical software. To ensure the accuracy of data coding, data screening for missing values, outliers and normality was undertaken before analysis was performed (Jennings, 2001; Neuman, 2006).

104

The data were screened preliminarily using SPSS EXPLORE to identify missing values and univariate outliers in each variable and to examine the normal distribution of each variable. First, the missing values found in each variable from the case process summary were treated as invalid cases and excluded from the analysis. Second, univariate outliers were identified by calculating standardised scores (z scores) of each case in each variable and then observing the mild and extreme outliers in each z score box plot. Tabachnick and Fidell (2007, p. 73) contend that the threshold value of z scores for identifying potential outliers is 3.29 (p<0.001, two-tailed test). For larger samples, the threshold value can be set up to 4 (Hair et al., 2010, p.67). In this study, the 72 variables of important management competencies had 279 outliers with z scores exceeding ±3.29, with the maximum value of -3.831 from variable

SHi10, amongst 39 variables. For 72 variables of satisfaction management competencies, there were six outliers. Four (with z scores of -3.352) were from variable GBs3 and two (with z scores of -3.385) were from variable GBs11. For 38 cognitive style variables, 35 outliers (with z scores of -3.395) were detected from variable C2 while 34 (with z scores of -3.319) were found in variable C13. None of the above scores exceeded 4 and therefore all cases were retained unless the potential outliers appeared in the subsequent inferential analysis.

Third, normality was examined by graphically and statistically checking the distributions of each metric variable. Normal Q-Q plots were used to graphically check each variable. Generally speaking, more than half of the variables were considered to present normal distributions because all values of those variables fell along the diagonal with no extreme departures. However, further examination was necessary.

105

The statistical examination was made by inspecting the skewness and kurtosis of each variable. Chen and Wong (2011, p. 143) suggest that statistics of skewness and kurtosis within the range of ±2 indicate the variable is normally distributed. The skewness statistic values of 72 important management competency variables ranged from -0.476 (variable GHi6) to -1.475 (variable GBi12), while the kurtosis statistic values ranged from -0.243 (variable GHi6) to 2.053 (variable GBi12). For 72 satisfactory performance variables, the skewness statistic values ranged from -0.994

(variable GHs14) to -0.226 (variable GHs6) and the kurtosis statistics ranged from -

0.851 (variable GHs6) to 0.802 (variable SHs9). For cognitive style variables, the statistical values were from 0.669~2.881 (skewness) and -1.845~0.718 (kurtosis).

Hence, the statistics above implied that each separate variable met the standard level of normality. New variables derived from factor analysis were further examined in the subsequent inferential analysis.

After the data were screened, a descriptive analysis in terms of frequency and percentage was performed to provide demographic profiles of the four sample groups. Additionally, means and standard deviations were used to measure the central tendency and variability of each competency statement and competency domain. The mean was used to rank the importance and satisfaction level of the competencies and the competency domains (Altinay & Paraskevas, 2008; Saunders,

Lewis & Thornholl, 2007).

To answer Research Question 1, to develop a valid and reliable competency model in the context of an Eastern culture, in this case Taiwan, factor analysis was used to group competency statements generated from the in-depth interview for validation.

The construct validity (convergent and discriminant validity) could then be confirmed.

106

The reliability test of Cronbach’s alpha was employed to examine the reliability of each factor (i.e., competency domain). The results served as a platform for discussing the similarity and difference of competency models between Eastern and

Western cultures. The means of each domain were then used for the inferential analysis.

To answer Research Question 2, multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was applied to examine the differences in perceived importance of management competencies amongst the four sample groups (i.e., managers, educators, students, and early career graduates). Discriminant analysis was then conducted to discover the discriminating independent variables (i.e., important management competencies) across the groups. Using MANOVA instead of analysis of variance (ANOVA) has the advantage of avoiding Type I error, because MANOVA measures several dependent variables in combination and controls for possible correlations amongst dependent variables in multiple tests (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). The tested hypotheses were:

Hypothesis 1:

The perceived importance of hospitality management competencies differs significantly amongst hotel managers, hospitality graduates, educators and students.

Hypothesis 2:

The level of perceived importance of hospitality management competencies in eight domains can predict the classification of hotel managers, hospitality graduates, educators and students.

107

3.6 Research Ethics

Ethical clearance for this study was obtained in accordance with Griffith University’s expedited ethical review process. The ethical clearance was given by the Griffith

University human research ethics committee in accordance with the requirements of the Expedited Ethical Review Level 1 (E1). The University’s human research ethics arrangements are based upon the provisions of the National Statement on Ethical

Conduct in Research Involving Humans and international best practice. E1 applies to research without any significant ethical issues or risks. Documents regarding the confidentiality, anonymity, privacy, data storage, and informed consent were provided for the ethical clearance application. Approval of the application (GU Ref

No: HSL/21/08/HREC) was granted on 25 November, 2008.

The confidentiality, anonymity, and privacy of the interviewees in Phase One and the survey respondents in Phase Two were protected in the data analysis process. First, the information collected from the interviewees cannot be disclosed to third parties without their consent, except to meet government, legal or other regulatory authority requirements. Second, for interviewees, all recordings were destroyed after the interviews had been transcribed. Access to audio recordings of interviews and verbal transcriptions was limited to the researcher. For survey respondents, the data were entered in a random order so the source of the respondents—that is, hotel enterprises and educational institutions—was not identified. Finally, after the data were analysed, the summarised results of each phase of the research were provided to the relevant participants. The collected data were rendered anonymous by reporting in aggregate (Israel & Hay, 2006). The anonymity of research participants was safeguarded at all times.

108

Respondents’ participation in interviews and the survey was completely voluntary.

Respondents were advised in personalised e-mails, in writing and verbally at the start of the interview that they could refuse to answer any of the questions or withdraw from the interview at any time. Voluntary participation is considered to be an indication of informed content. Informed consent consists of two related activities. First, participants need to understand and comprehend what they are being asked to do and second, they need to voluntarily agree to their roles in the research (Israel & Hay, 2006). In this study, potential participants were advised of the research purpose, selection basis, contribution of the research, and feedback they would receive and were provided with the privacy statement. Interviewees showed their consent by replying to a consent form. For mail survey respondents, completion of the survey was deemed to constitute “passive consent” to participate

(Berg, 2007, p. 69). Mail questionnaire coversheets with consent information were provided at the beginning of the answering process. Participants in each phase were advised to retain the consent form for later reference.

3.7 Conclusion

This chapter presents the strategy, design, sampling, instrument development, data collection procedure, data analysis and ethical clearance of this research.

109

CHAPTER 4: QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS

To answer Research Question 1, which asks what management competencies do hospitality graduates need for success in Eastern cultures, this study adopts a qualitative approach to generate an initial list of management competencies for subsequent analysis through a quantitative approach. This chapter reports the findings of convergent interviews with 27 hospitality education stakeholders comprising hospitality managers, graduates, educators and students. After the demographic information of the interviewees is described, the development process of hospitality management competencies is presented in four sections encompassing generic business and hospitality management competencies as well as specific business and hospitality competencies. The results are summarised in the concluding section and the need for further analysis relating to the validity of the competency list is acknowledged.

4.1 Demographic Information of Interviewees

Table 4.1 summarises the respondents’ organisation type, gender, age, responsibility or specialty, and work experience. Overall, respondents of various backgrounds were interviewed to ensure that interviewees’ opinions represented those of key stakeholders of hospitality higher education. Seven managers participated in this study, most of whom worked for a five-star hotel (57.14%) and had work experience in the industry ranging from six years to over 20 years. Most were male (71.43%) and were between 35 and 50+. Of these managers, 42.86 per cent were general managers and the others were responsible for room service, food and beverage and the front office. In the group of six graduates, half were from five-star hotels and had

110 worked in the industry for 3.5 years. Two-thirds were female and worked in the front office. The average age was 26.5. Amongst the seven hospitality educators participating in the study, most were male (71.43%), were from technical and vocational colleges (57.14%) and were between 30 and 50+. Work experience in terms of teaching ranged from two to over 25 years. Their expertise was a mixture of hotel management, leisure and tourism, food and beverage, finance and marketing.

Finally, of the seven senior hospitality students, 57.14 per cent were male with an average age of 21.1. The students were majoring in hotel management in technical or vocational colleges.

Table 4.1: Demographic Information Group Type No. Gender No. Age Area of No. Work Exp. Employment Manager Four-star 3 Male 5 30-50 General manager 3 6 – 20+ yrs Five-star 4 Female 2 Room service 1 Food and beverage 1 Administration and 2 front office

Graduate Four-star 3 Male 2 26.5 Food and beverage 1 3.5 Five-star 3 Female 4 Administration 1 Front office 4

Educator General 3 Male 5 30-50 Hotel management 2 2 – 25+ yrs Technical 4 Female 2 Leisure and tourism 2 Food and beverage 1 Finance 1 Marketing 1

Student General 3 Male 4 21.1 Hotel management 7 Senior Technical 4 Female 3 students

111

4.2 Data Analysis Process

As reported in section 3.3.3, the procedures of qualitative data analysis involved open, axial and selective coding when searching for emerging themes of competency domains. Convergent interviews rely on prior literature to allow the discussion to reflect reality accompanied by theoretical underpinning (Convergent Interviewing,

2008). Past literature on hospitality management competencies (Agut et al., 2003;

Chung-Herrera et al., 2003; Horng, et al., 2011; Katz, 1955; Koenigsfeld, 2007;

Raybould & Wilkins, 2006; Sandwith, 1993) offers rich information. The purpose of this phase of the study was not only to examine whether the convergent interviews would bring out new perceptions of hospitality management competencies not disclosed in previous research but also to test whether theory and practice are consistent in their perspectives of important hospitality management competencies and also to identify competencies needed in the Eastern context.

The data collected from the interviews were processed in four rounds. Whether to retain or delete a theme (i.e., a competency statement) generated from each round was decided from calculating the responses. Three types of outcome were possible for each theme: agreement (Y), disagreement (N) and no opinion (O). A competency statement was retained when it had higher frequency of agreement than the summated counts of disagreement and no opinion.

At the beginning, ten topics emerged relating to generic competencies and eight emerged relating to specific competencies, all derived from responses of nine interviewees (i.e., two managers, two graduates, two educators and three students).

In the second round, six of eight interviewees (i.e., two from each sampling group) agreed that the generic and specific competencies should have sub-categories of

112 business and hospitality management, as this distinction could show that “hospitality education is not a copycat of business management or a useless subject”

(interviewee E3) and thereby facilitate the discussion and generate more profound perceptions. These designations were not altered in the subsequent rounds, implying that such a segmentation was an appropriate way to conceptualise hospitality management competencies. In the next sections, the changes in topics and themes in each round are presented under the four categories of generic or specific competencies in business management and generic or specific competencies in hospitality management.

The process of coding happens during the interviews. Some key themes emerged in earlier interviews and, thus, these themes were mentioned in following interviews for confirmation the consistency. As achieving convergence is the major objective of this qualitative phase, detailed interpretation or explanation of each emerging theme may not occur in every interview. Only themes that interviewees regarded as particularly important would be prompted for further elaboration. The coding process resulting in forming, deleting or shifting themes that contributed to the development of important competency statements (as reported in section 4.7) to demonstrate how the data collected was coded and analysed. As the interviews were conducted in Chinese, only the results of thematic analysis, instead of the transcripts and field notes of the interviews, were translated and back-translated for reporting to minimise the errors that may be caused by translation.

113

4.3 Generic Competencies in Business Management

Of the original ten topics in the first round of convergent interviews, nine were developed into domains in generic business management competencies. In extension from the ten statements in the first round, 19 competency statements were compiled (Table 4.2). In the following rounds, in each domain some themes were retained (e.g., GB11 and GB12 in the leadership domain) while other themes were added (e.g., GB7 and GB8 in the problem-solving domain) or deleted (e.g.,

“know how to negotiate” and “use body language” in the communication domain).

For example, in the domain of implementation, the first statement of “accomplish task in time” attained consistent agreement until the final round. The statements of

“accomplish task within budget” and “produce the desired result” received attention in the second round and were eventually regarded as competency items. However, the statement of “make strategic plan" was ruled out after the third round as

“repeating the concept of controlling time and money as well as targeting in managing a project” (interviewee E6).

114

Table 4.2: Generic Competency Statements and Counts in Business Management

Generic Competencies in Interviewees Count Business Management Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Competency M M M M M M M Domain G1 G2 E1 E2 S1 S2 S3 G3 G4 E3 E4 S4 S5 G5 E5 E6 S6 G6 E7 S7 Y N O Code Statement 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Analysis Know the current Y Y O Y Y Y O O Y Y Y Y Y O Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 23 0 4 GB1 trends of society Analysis Make the best Y Y O Y Y Y Y Y Y Y O Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 16 0 2 GB2 decision among options Implementation Complete task in time Y O Y O Y O Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y O Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y O Y 21 1 5 GB3 Implementation Complete task within Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y 17 1 0 GB4 budget Implementation Produce the desired Y Y Y O Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y 15 2 1 GB5 result Implementation Make strategic plan N Y N Y Y O Y Y O O N O N N 5 5 4 X Problem-solving Identify and analyse Y Y O Y Y O Y O Y Y Y Y Y O Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y 22 1 4 GB6 problems Problem-solving Identify and Y Y O Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y O Y 15 1 5 GB7 implement solutions to the problem Problem-solving Evaluate the effect of Y Y Y O Y Y Y O Y Y 8 0 2 GB8 the solution

115

Generic Competencies in Interviewees Count Business Management Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Competency M M M M M M M Domain G1 G2 E1 E2 S1 S2 S3 G3 G4 E3 E4 S4 S5 G5 E5 E6 S6 G6 E7 S7 Y N O Code Statement 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Communication Know how to O Y N O Y O Y Y Y O N O Y N N Y N 7 5 5 X negotiate Communication Be persuasive Y Y Y O Y Y Y Y Y Y O Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 16 0 2 GB9 Communication Use body language N O O Y O O 1 1 4 X Leadership Lead by personal Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y O Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y O Y Y Y O Y Y 22 2 3 GB10 example Leadership Be trustworthy Y Y O Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y O Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y O Y 21 3 3 GB11 Leadership Work in a team Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y O Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 17 0 1 GB12 Leadership Empower employees Y Y O Y Y O Y O Y Y 7 0 3 GB13 to make decisions Personal relationship Have public relations Y Y Y O Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y O Y Y Y Y Y Y Y O Y Y Y Y Y 23 1 3 GB14 skills Personal relationship Know how to listen Y Y O Y O Y N Y O O N O O O 5 2 7 X Personal relationship Be active in O Y O Y Y O Y O O N Y N O N 5 1 8 X conversation Creativity Facilitate creative Y Y Y O Y O Y Y Y Y Y Y O Y Y Y Y Y Y Y O Y Y Y Y O Y 22 0 5 GB15 development of the organisation

116

Generic Competencies in Interviewees Count Business Management Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Competency M M M M M M M Domain G1 G2 E1 E2 S1 S2 S3 G3 G4 E3 E4 S4 S5 G5 E5 E6 S6 G6 E7 S7 Y N O Code Statement 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Creativity Plan innovative Y Y O Y Y O Y N Y Y Y Y O Y Y Y Y Y 14 1 3 GB16 products and service Self-management Manage stress and Y Y Y Y O Y Y Y Y Y Y O Y O Y Y Y Y Y O Y Y Y Y Y Y O 22 0 5 GB17 emotion Self-management Be willing to learn O Y N O O Y O Y Y Y N Y Y Y O Y N N N O N O Y 10 6 7 GH14 Self-management Exhibit appropriate Y Y O Y O Y Y Y Y Y N Y O Y Y Y Y Y 14 1 3 GB18 work ethics Self-management Achieve a balance Y O O Y O Y O Y Y O N Y N N 6 2 5 X between work and family Self-management Control time Y O Y N Y N Y Y Y O 6 2 2 GB19 effectively Culture Have an international Y N Y O Y N O Y N O Y N O N 5 5 4 GH16 viewpoint Culture Integrate with the N Y N Y Y O Y Y O Y N O O O 6 3 5 GH17 local culture M= Managers, G= Graduates, E= Educators, S= Students, Y = Agreement, N = Disagreement, O = No opinion

117

The domain of personal relationships formed because seven of nine interviewees noted the importance of interpersonal relationships in the first round. Although in the second round two themes relating to this topic – “know how to listen” and “be active in conversation” – were mentioned, in the third round they lacked adequate support because, according to the interviewees from the hospitality education side,

“these were hard to define and put in practice” (interviewee S6) and “all this is about how you use or manipulate your communication skills” (interviewee E5). Although four sample groups mentioned these themes, in the following round, there were more interviewees who showed no support on these issues. Thus, these themes were excluded.

In a narrative description of the important generic competencies, particularly relevant in business managerial works, four hospitality higher education stakeholders revealed hospitality graduates should exhibit their analytical and problem-solving skills in decision-making and competency in time and money management. They should also be creative in production and service provision. They should communicate in a persuasive way and be good at managing time and their emotions in their leading positions. Thus, the trustworthiness of their words and actions reinforces teamwork and public relations.

In addition to resulting in changes in themes, discussions in the interviews led to the shifting of some themes from a business management category to a more hospitality-focused one. The details are presented in the next section.

118

4.4 Generic Competencies in Hospitality Management

In the generic hospitality competency category, the first domain, foreign language, arose from the discussion of communication competencies in business management.

Because of the importance of visitors from English-speaking countries and because the second-largest market in Taiwan’s inbound tourism comprises visitors from

Japan, “it is crucial for people working in the industry to be able to communicate in foreign languages, particularly the global language, English, and Japanese”

(interviewee E4). Hence, six competency statements emerged relating to English and

Japanese (GH1 to GH6). In total there were 18 competency statements in five domains. Table 4.3 illustrates the development process of these items.

119

Table 4.3: Generic Competency Statements and Counts in Hospitality Management Generic Competencies in Interviewees Count Hospitality Management Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Domain Competency Statement M1 M2 G1 G2 E1 E2 S1 S2 S3 M3 M4 G3 G4 E3 E4 S4 S5 M5 M6 G5 E5 E6 S6 M7 G6 E7 S7 Y N O Code Foreign language English communication O Y Y O Y O Y O Y O Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y O Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 21 0 6 GH1 ability Foreign language English reading ability Y Y Y Y N Y Y O Y Y Y Y Y Y Y O Y Y Y Y Y O Y Y Y Y Y 23 1 3 GH2 Foreign language English writing ability Y Y O Y Y O Y Y Y Y Y O O Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y O O Y 22 0 5 GH3 Foreign language Japanese communication Y Y Y O Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y O Y O Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 23 0 4 GH4 ability Foreign language Japanese reading ability Y Y O Y O Y Y Y Y Y O Y Y Y Y O Y Y 14 0 4 GH5 Foreign language Japanese writing ability Y O Y Y O Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 15 1 2 GH6 Attitude Strong interest in the Y Y Y Y Y O Y Y Y Y Y Y Y O Y Y O Y 15 0 3 GH7 hospitality industry Attitude Confidence O Y Y O Y Y Y Y Y Y O Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 15 0 3 GH8 Attitude Be diligent and enjoy Y Y Y Y Y N Y O O Y Y Y N Y Y O Y Y 13 2 3 GH9 hard working Attitude Enjoy interacting with Y Y Y O Y Y Y Y Y Y Y O Y Y Y Y Y Y 16 0 2 GH10 others Attitude Be active and positive Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 10 0 0 GH11 Analysis Analyse the present Y Y O Y Y O Y Y O Y Y O Y Y Y Y O Y 13 0 5 GH12 industry condition

120

Generic Competencies in Interviewees Hospitality Management Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Count Domain Competency Statement M1 M2 G1 G2 E1 E2 S1 S2 S3 M3 M4 G3 G4 E3 E4 S4 S5 M5 M6 G5 E5 E6 S6 M7 G6 E7 S7 Y N O Code Analysis Analyse future market Y Y Y O Y N Y Y Y O Y Y O Y Y O Y O 12 1 5 GH13 trends Self-management Be willing to learn Y Y Y Y Y Y Y O Y Y 9 0 1 GH14 Self-management Maintain health Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y O Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 16 1 1 GH15 Self-management Control time effectively Y N Y O Y N Y O N O N Y N Y 6 5 3 X Culture Have an international Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 10 0 0 GH16 viewpoint Culture Integrate with the local Y Y Y O Y Y Y Y O Y 8 0 2 GH17 culture Culture Respect different O Y Y O Y Y Y Y O Y 7 0 3 GH18 cultures

M= Managers, G= Graduates, E= Educators, S= Students, Y = Agreement, N = Disagreement, O = No opinion

121

With regard to the shifting of domains, the two domains of self-management and culture moved from the category of generic business management to the category of generic hospitality management. The first was the competency “be willing to learn”, which interviewees perceived as a topic of adaptability and learning in the first round but then regarded as an item in the self-management domain in the following rounds. Interviewees believed that “learning is part of the life journey and you cannot separate it from your life; [I mean] it is the way you manage your life”

(interviewee G4). In fact, this perception was so important in the context of the hospitality industry that it was transferred from the business management category to the hospitality management category. This transfer was supported because interviewees believed that because this market is full of change and uncertainty, being successful in the hospitality industry requires the ability to learn and then improve. As two of the practicing managers stated, “active learning is the only way you can do the business” (interviewee M6) and “in business, you need to learn from others but no one is going to teach you how” (interviewee M7).

The second shift was that of two competency statements to the new theme of culture, identified in the second round. The two statements were associated with internationalisation and localisation. Internationalisation, or globalisation, is not new to the hospitality industry or even to the whole economy. One manager mentioned

(interviewee M5):

While following the steps of other advanced countries, it is important to

position yourself in your own culture and define yourself if you want to be

successful in the future.

122

In addition to these two culture-related items, the statement of “respect different cultures” was also highlighted in the third round. In Taiwan,

We have multiple cultures that we are proud of, including Taiwanese Hokkien,

Cantonese, Hakka, and indigenous cultures, and even the new immigrants. It is

important that hospitality practitioners can reflect this value when providing

services (interviewee M7).

Consequently, the three culture-related themes were included in the category of generic competencies in hospitality management.

Furthermore, attitudes and analysis were emphasised in the second round. Five qualities were pivotal to work in the industry: interest in the field (GH7), confidence

(GH8), being diligent and hardworking (GH9), enjoying interactions (GH10) and being active and positive (GH11). One graduate noted (interviewee G6):

Working in the hotels is not like what you see on TV or from movies. It really

involves a lot of hard work. You don’t have a regular schedule and sometimes

regular meals. Only if you really want to do it and like it, you can enjoy the job. I

do like the hotel job and that’s why I am here.

As to the domain of analysis, two competency statements were associated with analysis of the industry. The statements of “analyse the present industrial condition”

(GH12) and “analyse future market trends” (GH13) were more hospitality-specific.

123

One hospitality educator mentioned (interviewee E6):

The environment of the hospitality industry changed [from] time to time and

what you know about the industry may not be applicable to what it is now, like

political influences between Taiwan and China and the source of employees.

Furthermore, interviewees also noted that market trends are changing in terms of customers’ needs. Therefore the way to satisfy the needs of customers may call for close analysis so that a better strategy can be developed. One hospitality graduate recalled (interviewee G5):

At school we learn how to provide service with quality, but these days more and

more Chinese tourists visit Taiwan…. Sometimes it is hard to keep the quality

we offer because they have different demands, like the need to hang their wet

clothes in the hallway…. We are really struggling with the way to accommodate

these guests.

In contrast, the domain of analysis in business management included two competency statements (“know the current trends of society” (GB1), and “make the best decision among options” (GB2)), and the concept was broader and was applicable in any business setting. For example, saving energy is a current trend in

Taiwan and businesses of all kinds are taking various initiatives to deal with the situation. Identifying the trend and making the best decisions are the first steps in terms of analysis, but looking into application options in the hotel industry is the important next step that a hospitality professional should take. Hence, GH12 and

GH13 were moved to the category of generic hospitality management and GB1 and

GB2 stayed in the category of generic business management.

124

4.5 Specific Competencies in Business Management

Determination of essential specific or technical competencies was directly related to the divisions in the hotel industry. As a result, the domains in two categories of specific competencies not surprisingly included marketing, human resources, information management, financial management and crisis management, food and beverage management and customer relations.

Specific competencies in business management numbered 18 items in five domains

(Table 4.4). In addition to five competencies in the marketing domain (i.e., SB1 to

SB5), the statement of “conduct events and activities” was articulated in the third round and formed as an item implying the marketing value of events and activities in hotels. Besides existing products such as rooms and restaurants, events, activities and programs are sometimes useful in market segmentation and may add value to the service. One student (interviewee S7) reported:

I didn’t have experience in hosting any events at school. But when I was an

intern in the hotel, I needed to participate in campaign activities or offering

special services in high seasons, such as helping in making bread in a bakery

class. It is interesting and I enjoy it. Of course the customers are also happy,

especially the kids.

The competencies in information management involved the information process in general terms (i.e., SB7 and SB8). However, the specific skills of “use different software” and “update information” were not regarded as critical to success in a hospitality career, at least by the interviewees in this study, mainly because these

125 proficiencies are not particularly relevant to most duties in hotels, such as making beds, preparing meals and checking in guests. Moreover, seven competency statements in the human resources domain (i.e., SB9 to SB15) and five in the financial domain (i.e., SB16 to SB20) received full support and were formed as items for measurement.

One domain that particularly drew the attention of interviewees was crisis management. Originally, the topic appeared in the discussion of natural disasters’ effects on hospitality management. Although interviewees agreed that when typhoons and earthquakes occurred crisis management was important in view of the low occupancy rate and numerous cancellations, such crises were undeniably enormously influential overall, and every industry would be affected. Consequently, the shift was made and two statements were coded as SB21 and SB22. Interviewees supported this viewpoint (interviewee M7):

The issue of crisis management is not just about us [hotels] but every sector in

the society and I think it is as important as marketing, as financial management

and as human resources management.

126

Table 4.4: Specific Competency Statements and Counts in Business Management Specific Competencies Interviewees Count in Business Management Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Domain Competency Statement M1 M2 G1 G2 E1 E2 S1 S2 S3 M3 M4 G3 G4 E3 E4 S4 S5 M5 M6 G5 E5 E6 S6 M7 G6 E7 S7 Y N O Code Marketing Understand the target Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y O Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y O Y Y 24 1 2 SB1 market Marketing Realize the visions and O Y Y O Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y O Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 23 1 3 SB2 missions of the organization Marketing Build brand image Y Y Y Y Y Y Y O Y O Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y O Y Y Y Y O Y 23 0 4 SB3 Marketing Conduct business N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y O 16 1 1 SB4 negotiation Marketing Plan marketing Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y O Y Y Y Y Y O Y Y 15 1 2 SB5 strategies and projects Marketing Conduct events and Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Y Y 8 2 0 SB6 activities Information Use computer for Y Y O Y Y Y Y O Y Y Y O Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y O O Y Y Y O Y 20 1 6 SB7 document processing Information Know how to collect Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y O Y Y Y Y Y Y Y O Y 24 1 2 SB8 information Information Use different software Y Y O N Y O N O N O Y N O O 4 4 6 X Information Update information O N Y Y N Y N N Y O N Y N O 5 6 3 X

127

Specific Competencies Interviewees Count in Business Management Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Domain Competency Statement M1 M2 G1 G2 E1 E2 S1 S2 S3 M3 M4 G3 G4 E3 E4 S4 S5 M5 M6 G5 E5 E6 S6 M7 G6 E7 S7 Y N O Code Human Plan manpower Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y O Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y O Y Y Y Y 25 0 2 SB9 resources allocation Human Know the training needs Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y O Y N Y Y Y Y Y O Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 23 2 2 SB10 resources of employees Human Facilitate promotion and Y Y Y O Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y O Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y O Y O 23 0 4 SB11 resources career development of employees Human Evaluate performance Y Y Y O Y Y Y Y Y Y Y O Y Y Y Y Y Y 24 0 3 SB12 resources and productivity of employees Human Evaluate job satisfaction Y Y Y Y Y O O Y Y O Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 23 0 4 SB13 resources of employees Human Establish and maintain O Y Y O Y Y Y Y Y Y 8 0 2 SB14 resources positive employee relationships Human Select and employ N O O O Y Y Y O O Y 4 5 1 SB15 resources proper employees

128

Specific Competencies Interviewees Count in Business Management Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Domain Competency Statement M1 M2 G1 G2 E1 E2 S1 S2 S3 M3 M4 G3 G4 E3 E4 S4 S5 M5 M6 G5 E5 E6 S6 M7 G6 E7 S7 Y N O Code Finance Analyse costs vs. Y Y Y Y O N O Y Y Y Y Y Y O Y N Y Y Y O Y Y O Y Y Y Y 20 2 5 SB16 benefits Finance Set goals for operating Y O Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y O Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N O Y 23 1 3 SB17 revenue Finance Analyse financial Y O Y O O Y Y Y Y Y Y O Y Y Y Y O Y 13 0 5 SB18 statements Finance Plan and control budget O O Y Y Y O O Y O Y O O Y Y Y O Y Y 9 0 8 SB19 Finance Predict and lower Y Y Y O Y Y Y O Y Y 8 0 2 SB20 investment risk Crisis Know and prevent Y Y O Y O Y Y O Y Y 7 0 3 SB21 management possible crises Crisis Deal with crises Y O Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y 8 1 1 SB22 management effectively

M= Managers, G= Graduates, E= Educators, S= Students, Y = Agreement, N = Disagreement, O = No opinion

129

4.6 Specific Competencies in Hospitality Management

As with the themes of generic competencies in hospitality management, domains that were unique to the industry or crucial in differentiating the industry from other business sectors were skill certificates and customer relations. In total, there were 13 competency statements in two domains (Table 4.5). These two domains related to the specific hotel divisions of room service, food and beverage services and front-line office. Seven themes in the skill certificate domain included cookery skills, drink preparation skills, service skills and applying hospitality information systems (i.e.,

SH1 to SH7). Each of these skills had a corresponding certificate at three levels issued by the Ministry of Labor (Skill Evaluation Center of Workforce Development Agency,

2011). By attending classes and passing the skills tests, the students can become qualified in the area for work as a professional. These skills are important to hospitality practitioners, particularly managers, because “if you are at the higher level, you need to know what your soldiers are doing and how good they are; it is also beneficial to prove you are eligible to take cross-division responsibilities”

(interviewee M5). For hospitality students, the merit of possessing these skills was also evident. One senior student recalled (interviewee S7):

I have three certificates in cookery and beverages preparation. I had fewer

problems in my internship in hotels compared to other interns who did not have

any certificates. I think having certificates does not just prove you know how to

do it but also gives you more confidence in doing things.

In terms of customer relations competencies, the six themes (i.e., SH8 to SH13) were indispensable for front-line officers and receptionists. One graduate mentioned

(interviewee G5):

130

I had a bad experience when I first worked as a front-line employee. I tried my best to find solutions for this customer but failed. Eventually, I realised I did not know what the customer really wanted. People have different standards for different things. If you want to do the job right, you need to know the standard first.

131

Table 4.5: Specific Competency Statements and Counts in Hospitality Management Specific Competencies in Interviewees Count Hospitality Management Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Domain Competency Statement M1 M2 G1 G2 E1 E2 S1 S2 S3 M3 M4 G3 G4 E3 E4 S4 S5 M5 M6 G5 E5 E6 S6 M7 G6 E7 S7 Y N O Code Skill certificate Be competent in Chinese Y Y Y Y Y O Y Y Y Y Y Y Y O Y Y Y Y O Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 24 0 3 SH1 cuisine cookery skills Skill certificate Be competent in Western Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y O Y O Y Y Y 16 0 18 SH2 cuisine cookery skills Skill certificate Be competent in hotel and O Y Y Y N O Y Y Y O Y O Y Y N Y O Y 11 2 5 SH3 restaurant service skills Skill certificate Be familiar with hospitality Y Y Y N Y Y Y O Y Y 9 0 1 SH4 information systems Skill certificate Be competent in cocktail- Y O Y Y Y O Y Y Y Y 8 0 2 SH5 making skills Skill certificate Be competent in food-baking Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 10 0 0 SH6 skills Skill certificate Be competent in beverage- Y Y Y O N Y Y O Y Y 7 1 2 SH7 preparation skills Customer Deal with customer complaints Y Y Y O Y Y O Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y O Y Y Y 24 0 3 SH8 relations skills

132

Specific Competencies in Interviewees Count Hospitality Management Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Domain Competency Statement M1 M2 G1 G2 E1 E2 S1 S2 S3 M3 M4 G3 G4 E3 E4 S4 S5 M5 M6 G5 E5 E6 S6 M7 G6 E7 S7 Y N O Code Customer Understand the customers’ Y Y Y Y O Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y O Y 15 1 2 SH9 relations needs Customer Establish and maintain positive Y O Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y 15 2 4 SH10 relations customer relationships Customer Follow hospitality-related laws Y Y O Y Y N Y O Y O Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 14 1 3 SH11 relations and regulations Customer Establish quality management Y Y Y Y Y O Y Y Y Y Y Y O Y Y Y Y Y 16 0 2 SH12 relations standards Customer Control the quality of products Y Y Y Y O Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y O Y Y 16 0 2 SH13 relations and services Industry Be aware of the know-how O Y N O Y N Y N Y 4 3 2 X knowledge Crisis Know and prevent possible Y Y O Y N O N Y N N O N O N 4 6 4 SB21 management crises Crisis Deal with crises effectively Y Y Y N O N N Y N O N N N Y 5 7 2 SB22 management Facilities Practice simple maintenance N O N O Y O N Y 2 3 3 X maintenance skills

M= Managers, G= Graduates, E= Educators, S= Students, Y = Agreement, N = Disagreement, O = No opinion

133

4.7 Thematic Analysis of Important Competencies According to the analyses, four hospitality higher education stakeholders expected that hospitality graduates should exhibit some generic and specific competencies for their future success. Some of them relate to business management while others are more hospitality-focused. There are four topics, i.e., leadership, culture, attitudes, and customer relation, that need more elaboration as they gained high emphasis in the interviews. Table 4.6 illustrates the detailed coding process that lead to the establishment of these competencies.

Table 4.6: Coding Process of Important Competencies Open codes Axial codes Selective codes/ Domain Themes

 leading  see example  Lead by example Leadership  workplace relation  be trusted  trustworthy  co-workers  trust  teamwork  customers  team  Empower  quanxi  empowerment employees  favor  friends  family  manage people  responsibility  trust  team  set examples  Made in Taiwan  Global view  international Culture  West  Western culture viewpoint  English  localised  integrate with  Taiwanese  Taiwan and China the local culture  local culture  respect  respect different  China cultures  Traditional

134

Open codes Axial codes Selective codes/ Domain Themes  hard working  interest  interest in the Attitude  days and night  enthusiastic industry  positive  Confidence  Confidence  interest  diligent  diligent and hard  talk to people  interacting with working  communication others  Enjoy interacting  smile  active with others  happy face  positive  active and  believe in yourself positive  confident  guanxi  Satisfy customers  customer Customer (relationship)  complaints Good quality of relations  Customer service  customers’ protection laws  Laws needs  problematic guests  Complain  positive  complain  Needs customer  lost  Handle complaints relationships  by heart  Follow laws and  sincere regulations  respect  quality  saving face management  solution standards  satisfaction  quality of  meet expectation products and  food security services  learning  balance between  Manage stress Self-  live and learn work and family and emotion management  stress resistance  willing to learn  work ethics  strawberry  EQ  Control time generation  work ethics effectively  work ethics  control time  health  time management  healthy  work and family  personal life  healthy body  sick  unreplaceable

135

Open codes Axial codes Selective codes/ Domain Themes  listen  communicate  public relations Personal   skills speak Interpersonal relationship  Coworkers  workplace  customer relation relation  active  know how to  quanxi listen  body body  active in conversation  Current society  current trends  current trends of Analysis  Changing  society society  Uncertain  best decision  make the best  What to do  win win win decision  Making decisions situation  Trends  Prediction  Analyse  Research  Benefit  task  time and money  be in time Implementat  project  do things right  do within budget ion  do things  strategic plan  Produce the  plan desired result  act  time and money  Certificates  National  Chinese cuisine Skill  examination cookery F&B certificate  Cooking  Hospitality  Western cuisine  Bakery certificates cookery  Making beds  F&B certificates  hotel and  Cocktails  Travel operation restaurant  Ministry of Labor certificates service  National exams  information  Making bread systems  Decorates cakes  cocktail- making  Restaurants  food-baking  Hotels  beverage-  Guest houses preparation  Mixed courses

136

First, as discussed in section 4.3, the leadership domain comprises of setting examples, being trustworthy, working effectively in a team, and empowering employees. Amongst these, team cooperation is articulated repeatedly over four stakeholders. For example, practitioners argue that managers devote considerable effort to establish the atmosphere of “family” within the firm; whereby the young respect and obey seniority in their organisations (i.e., interviewee M4 and M6). Hospitality graduates and students also believed “unity is strength (interviewee G3).” One student (interviewee S5) explained that “in class we have a lot of group projects…I believe that is how people do the things well in business.” Similarly hospitality educators regarded working in a team is (interviewee E6)

“an important learning process that facilitates the maximum gain and students need to learn how to negotiate and allocate jobs to the most appropriate one…to practice the real world“

If a team functions well, each team member can not only play their role well but also they can be empowered to take more responsibility.

Second, the cultural theme includes having international viewpoints, integrating with the local culture and respecting different cultures. In addition, to catch up with the global trend and development, political issues (such as claims of political parties, controversy over the country position of Taiwan, and its sovereign rights), have penetrated the society of Taiwan and influence the relationship between mainstream culture and local cultures. It seems that “politics have greater power than culture on people’s ideology” (interviewee E6). The new ideology reinforces the movement of localisation and influence the social behaviour of the general public. One manager said (interviewee M6), “we use MIT (made in Taiwan) products and emphasise Taiwan spirit in marketing because customers like them.” This patriotic movement influences the service and products provided in Tainwanese hotels.

Third, attitudes, consist of having interest in the industry, being confident, active and positive, diligent and hard working, and enjoying interacting with others. This aspect

137 attained much attention from the educators and managers. Seeing the nature of hospitality work, featured as “poor salary and hardwork” (interviewee S4), hospitality educators showed concern about the adaptability of the new generation, who were born after 1980 and 1990. One manager argued (interviewee M3) that:

“These strawberries (the generation born after 1980 and 1990) should learn the old tradition, bear the hardship and persevere in toil…They need to demonstrate their resistance to pressure…this virtue cannot be forgotten.“

Therefore, successful hospitality workers should exhibit positive, active, diligent attitudes toward their work and gain enjoyment in human interaction.

Finally, customer relation covers the competencies in processing customer complaints, identifying customers’ needs, establishing positive customer relationships, following laws and having quality management standards to control the quality of products and services. Amongst them, dealing with customer complaints was most frequently reported across stakeholder groups. In addition to the service failure experienced by interviewee G5, one manager further shared that (interviewee M2)

“customer-host guanxi (relationships) is like guests visiting our house…good employee needs to know who they are, where they come, what they do and possibly what they expect to have at this stay...talkative staff should restrain themselves when receiving guests who are introvert and shy and makes to the point when dealing with Western guests…they are always direct forward.“

This type of “good guanxi is hard to establish” if students were not familiar with human interaction, as recalled by interviewee S7. Although educators try to create the opportunity in class for students to practice these interactions, “students are usually good at handling complaints in words, not in action” (interviewee E5). As hotel guests are usually from multiple nations, how to establish customer relationships and how to handle complaints, effectively and efficiently, is what hospitality graduates need to demonstrate.

138

4.8 Conclusion The 72 management competencies deemed important for hospitality students were compiled from 27 in-depth interviews. Of the 72 important themes extracted from the interviews, 19 were categorised as generic competencies in business management while 18 were categorized as generic competencies in hospitality management, 22 as specific competencies in business management and 13 as specific competencies in hospitality management. Interviewees believed that, as in other industries, career success in the hospitality industry requires generic and specific competencies in business management and also generic and specific competencies that are unique to the industry. Although the interviews contained no deep discussion about the degree of importance of each competency to career success or the competencies’ relevance to higher education, the data from four key groups of stakeholders in hospitality higher education consolidate the importance of both generic and specific, as well as conceptual and technical, competencies in the general business management setting and in the specific field of hospitality management.

To answer Research Question 1, relating to the important management competencies that hospitality graduates need in Eastern cultures for future success, the development of this list of 72 competencies constitutes the first step. Ensuring the validity and reliability of the list requires further confirmation as a second step. The next chapter presents the results of a quantitative analysis regarding construct validity and other comparisons. The results of the qualitative analysis serve as the foundation for the quantitative analysis, which can properly and accurately answer Research Question 1.

139

CHAPTER 5: QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS

This chapter reports the results of a quantitative analysis of the qualitative data collected for this study. First, an exploratory factor analysis empirically tested the eight domains of management competency derived from the in-depth interviews in phase one of the study. The study’s first research question, which asks what management competencies hospitality graduates need to ensure occupational success in an Eastern culture, is addressed by the model and factor analysis results. The eight domains (factors) extracted by the factor analysis are then used as predictors to examine the differences in perceived importance amongst the four samples of respondents in the one-way multivariate analysis of variance (one-way MANOVA). Further discriminant analysis provided answers to the second research question, which asks whether the various stakeholder groups (managers, educators, students and graduates) differ in the importance they attach to specific management competencies needed in Eastern cultures.

5.1 Factor Analysis Three sets of factor analysis were performed to examine the grouping of variables, reflecting the importance of management competencies. The results of the three analyses are outlined in the following sections, and the reliability tests of each set are also reported.

The purpose of factor analysis is to reduce the number of variables (items) to make the analysis more manageable and to validate the dimensionality of each construct (i.e., competency domain). The analysis for this study relied on the responses of a sample of 495 participants comprising hospitality educators, hospitality senior students, early career hospitality graduates and hotel managers, who reacted to the 72 items of important competencies that emerged from the qualitative study. To test whether business and hospitality competencies can be grouped separately, as conceptualised in the convergent interviews, factor analysis was performed in two

140 sets, one on 37 generic competency items and one on 35 specific competency items. The analysis employed principal component extraction based on eigenvalues greater than 1 and varimax rotation. In total, two rounds for the generic competencies and six rounds for specific competencies ultimately generated four factors, as discussed below.

In the process of analysis, Bartlett’s test of sphericity and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy (MSA) first checked for the appropriateness of factor analysis (Hair et al., 2010). The tests of sphericity in the factor analyses revealed significant correlations amongst at least some of the variables (p< 0.000). All values of the overall MSA were above 0.9 (ranging from 0.963 to 0.967), indicating that the degree of inter-correlation among the variables was acceptable (Hair et al., 2010). The individual MSA values of each item were examined using anti-image correlation metrics (Hair et al., 2010). All individual MSA values in all analyses were above 0.9 (ranging from 0.922 to 0.980), which is higher than the acceptable level of 0.5 (Hair et al., 2010). Low communities are not desirable because they suggest that the factor solutions do not account for a large portion of the variance in an item (Hair et al., 2010). The minimum community exaction value was 0.546, which was also at the acceptable level. Hence no variables were omitted at this stage.

Inspection of the factor loadings of each item led to retaining values higher than 0.5 to ensure the significance level of the correlation between the variables and their corresponding factors (Hair et al., 2010). While all 72 items exhibited factor loadings higher than 0.5, six items were excluded from the analysis owing to cross-loading on two factors (GHi1 in the generic competency set and SBi12, SBi13, SBi14, SBi15, SBi22 in the specific competency set). Cross-loading indicates the items failed to converge to one factor (Hair et al., 2010). After removing these items one by one, four factors, in a composition of 66 items, were identified in the categories of generic and specific management competencies. The final round of factor analysis in generic management competencies revealed four factors in total. Two were related to business management as the number of the business management items (i.e., 11 items) is more than the hospitality management items (i.e., 3 items). In contrast, the 141 other two factors have more items in hospitality management, making these factors more hospitality-focused (Table 5.1). Similar results emerged in the final round of factor analysis of specific management competencies, with two factors relating to business management and two to hospitality management (Table 5.2).

Table 5.1 shows the final results of the generic competencies. The factor loading of each item was above 0.5 with no cross-loading. The percentage of total variance explained exceeded 50 (i.e., 70.59 %). These four factors indicated the unidimensionality of the items in each factor. Dimensionality presented in factor analysis implies that each item in one factor is strongly related and measures one concept (Hair et al., 2010). Similar findings were evident in the factor analysis of specific competencies (Table 5.2). Four factors emerged, with all items having a factor loading above 0.555 without cross-loadings. The percentage of total variance explained was also high (73.84%).

To address the reliability of the four factors of the generic and specific competencies, Cronbach’s coefficient alpha was employed. The reliability statistics for each factor ranged from 0.924 to 0.963 in the generic competencies and from 0.935 to 0.949 for specific competencies, which exceeded the recommended level of 0.70 (Hair et al., 2010). No increase in alpha would have resulted in the exclusion of any item that had recorded an item-total correlation of less than 0.5. For the total 66 items, the reliability statistics reached 0.985. Therefore, the overall reliability analysis suggested that all items in each factor reached the desired internal consistency. Overall, from an exploratory perspective, the factor analysis supported the segmentation of the important competencies as relating to business management and hospitality management.

142

Table 5.1: Factor Analysis of Generic Competencies

Variable Component 1 2 3 4 Communalities GBi5 .741 .727

GBi12 .734 .752

GBi11 .729 .731

GBi4 .724 .709

GBi7 .721 .704

GBi6 .712 .686

GBi9 .706 .731

GBi8 .693 .714

GBi3 .688 .709

GBi10 .687 .708

GHi18l .651 .652

GHi16 .616 .676

GBi13 .600 .546

GHi17 .593 .618

GBi1 .744 .747

GHi11 .743 .726

GHi8 .732 .678

GHi10 .723 .729

GHi9 .719 .714

GHi12 .706 .723

GHi7 .687 .634

GHi13 .638 .683

GBi2 .558 .654

GBi19 .798 .786

GBi18 .796 .789

GHi14 .792 .777

GBi17 .764 .755

GHi15 .749 .699

GBi15 .643 .625

GBi16 .617 .614

GHi6 .874 .810

GHi5 .866 .834

GHi4 .793 .758

GHi3 .766 .726

GHi2 .650 .675

GBi14 .568 .777

143

Variable Component 1 2 3 4 Communalities Total Sums of Squares 8.540 6.166 5.680 5.027 25.413 (eigenvalue) % of variance 23.723 17.127 15.778 13.963 70.591 Cronbach's alpha .963 .939 .934 .924 (reliability) Notes: Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy: .964. Bartlett’s test of shpericity: 17083.731, p= .000. Principal component analysis: varimax rotation with Kaiser normalization. Rotation converged in five iterations. Factor loadings of less than .450 have not been shown.

144

Table 5.2: Factor Analysis of Specific Competencies

Variable Component 1 2 3 4 Communalities SBi8 .770 .712

SBi7 .753 .691

SBi3 .750 .733

SBi6 .742 .698

SBi1 .738 .699

SBi2 .733 .717

SBi4 .720 .695

SBi5 .712 .709

SBi21 .631 .648

SHi12 .773 .785

SHi10 .730 .714

SHi13 .725 .760

SHi11 .715 .700

SHi9 .679 .696

SBi9 .672 .740

SHi8 .652 .623

SBi10 .603 .689

SBi11 .569 .682

SHi3 .885 .864

SHi5 .860 .837

SHi6 .846 .837

SHi2 .841 .802

SHi4 .816 .776

SHi7 .813 .771

SHi1 .555 .602

SBi19 .774 .824

SBi18 .746 .837

SBi17 .735 .787

SBi20 .678 .750

SBi16 .660 .772

145

Variable Component 1 2 3 4 Communalities Total Sums of squares 6.468 5.955 5.718 4.011 22.152 (eigenvalue) % of variance 21.559 19.849 19.060 13.371 73.839 Cronbach's alpha .943 .947 .949 .935 (reliability) Notes: Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy: .963. Bartlett's test of sphericity: 14748.769, p= .000. Principal component analysis: varimax rotation with Kaiser normalization. Rotation converged in five iterations. Factor loadings less than .450 have not been shown.

There are three approaches to applying factor analysis results: selecting the surrogate variable, using factor scores or creating summated scales (Hair et al., 2010). Use of a surrogate variable was ruled out because the surrogate may not be able to reflect all aspects of a factor and the threat of measurement error is high. The factor scores were not adopted owing to the difficulty of interpreting results and replicating in a different context. Therefore, the summated scales – that is, the mean of variables in one factor in this case – were chosen to facilitate interpretation and replication and to minimise the risk of measurement error (Hair et al., 2010).

To closely examine the validity and reliability of the factors, the summated scores of each factor were used. To address the convergent validity, the bivariate correlations were employed to test the relationship between the mean and each of the variables in the corresponding factors. Significant correlations were found in all pairs, with the alpha values ranging from 0.656 to 0.836. Discriminant validity was examined by comparing the correlations between eight summated scores with the reliability statistics of eight factors (King & Grace, 2010). No values of the correlations (ranging from 0.462 to 0.819) were higher than the Cronbach’s alpha values of the eight factors (ranging from 0.924 to 0.963). Therefore, the construct validity was at a satisfactory level.

146

Finally, the eight factors of hospitality management competencies in the factor analysis were renamed as new domains for use in further analysis. Table 5.3 shows the old and new domains in a comparison of the results of the convergent interviews and the factor analysis. Generally, most items in each factor belonged to either the business management or hospitality management category, as clearly shown in factors Gi1, Gi2, Gi3, Gi4, Si1 and Si2. For the remaining two factors, the items in Si3 were purely specific hospitality management competencies while the items in Si4 were all specific business management competencies. This result provided evidence of the separation between generic and specific competencies in business and hospitality management.

In the first six factors, the minor mixture of business and hospitality competencies implied that all items in each domain were equally important and should be treated identically. Gi1 comprised 14 items in implementation, problem-solving, communication skills, leadership, and personal relationship. These were all soft skills in conceptualisation and implementation. Hence, it was renamed as thinking and doing. Gi2 comprised nine items in attitudes and analysis that were more personal and conceptual and implied the quality of the prospective employees in hotels. Therefore, it was renamed as hospitality traits. Gi3 contained seven items in the creativity and self-management domains referring to how people manage their lives and work. Therefore, it was renamed as self-development. Gi4 was composed of seven items relating to foreign languages, which were important to hospitality stakeholders, and was renamed as hospitality communication capacity. Si1 contained nine items relating to business and operations management, information management and crisis management, reflecting the division of operations of a business. Therefore, it was renamed as business operation. Si2 comprised nine items in customer relations and human resources that indicated the importance of managing relationships amongst customers, employees and the government. Hence, it was renamed as hospitality public relations. The factor of Si3 related to certificate skills or qualification in the technical skills in hotels and was renamed as on-site management. Finally, as the factor of Si4 consisted of five finance items, the name of

147 financial management were retained. These eight factors were used for the subsequent MANOVA and discriminant analysis.

Table 5.3: Variable Description of Management Competencies Variable Competency Statement Old Domain New Domain GBi3 Complete task in time Implementation GBi4 Complete task within budget Implementation GBi5 Produce the desired result Implementation GBi6 Identify and analyse problems Problem-solving GBi7 Identify and implement solutions to the Problem-solving GBi8 Evaluateproblem the effect of the solution Problem-solving GBi9 Be persuasive Communication Thinking and doing GBi10 Lead by personal example Leadership (Gi1) GBi11 Be trust-worthy Leadership GBi12 Work in a team Leadership GBi13 Empower employees to make decisions Leadership GHi16 Have international perspective Culture GHi17 Integrate with the local culture Culture GHi18 Respect different cultures Culture GHi7 Have strong interest in the hospitality Attitude GHi8 Haveindustry confidence Attitude GHi9 Be diligent and enjoy hard working Attitude GHi10 Enjoy interacting with others Attitude Hospitality GHi11 Be active and positive Attitude traits (Gi2) GHi12 Analyse the present industrial condition Analysis GHi13 Analyse the future market trend Analysis GBi1 Know the current trend of society Analysis GBi2 Make the best decision among options Analysis GBi15 Facilitate creative development of the organisation creativity GBi16 Plan innovative products and service creativity Self- GBi17 Manage stress and emotion Self-management development GBi18 Control time effectively Self-management (Gi3) GBi19 Exhibit appropriate work ethics Self-management GHi14 Be willing to learn Self-management GHi15 Maintain health Self-management

148

Variable Competency Statement Old Domain New Domain GHi2 Be able to read in English Foreign language GHi3 Be able to write in English Foreign language Hospitality GHi4 Be able to communicate in Japanese Foreign language communication GHi5 Be able to read in Japanese Foreign language capacity GHi6 Be able to write in Japanese Foreign language (Gi4) GBi14 Having public relationship skills Personal relation SBi1 Understand the target market Business & marketing SBi2 Realize the missions of the Business & organization marketing SBi3 Build brand image Business & marketing SBi4 Conduct business negotiation Business & marketing Business SBi5 Plan marketing strategies and projects Business & operation marketing (Si1) SBi6 Conduct events and activities Business & marketing SBi7 Use computer for document Information processing SBi8 Know how to collect information Information SBi21 Anticipate and prevent possible crises Crisis management SHi8 Deal with customer complaints Customer relation SHi9 Understand the needs of customers Customer relation SHi10 Establish and maintain positive customer Customer relation relationships SHi11 Follow hospitality related laws and Customer relation regulations Hospitality public SHi12 Establish quality management standards Customer relation relation SHi13 Control the quality of products and Customer relation (Si2) services SBi9 Allocate responsibility properly Human resources SBi10 Know the training needs of employees Human resources SBi11 Facilitate promotion and career Human resources development of employees

149

Variable Competency statement Old domain New domain SHi1 Be familiar with hospitality Skill certificate information system SHi2 Be competent in Chinese cuisine Skill certificate cookery skills SHi3 Be competent in Western cuisine Skill certificate cookery skills Hospitality SHi4 Be competent in hotel and restaurant on-site Skill certificate service skills management (Si3) SHi5 Be competent in cocktails making Skill certificate skills SHi6 Be competent in food baking skills Skill certificate SHi7 Be competent in beverages Skill certificate preparation skills SBi16 Analyse cost-benefit Finance SBi17 Set goals for operating revenue Finance Financial SBi18 Analyse financial statement Finance management SBi19 Plan and control budget Finance (Si4) SBi20 Predict and lower investment risk Finance

5.2 Demographic Information of the Respondents In total, the 495 participants in this quantitative study included 101 hospitality educators, 195 hospitality senior students, 102 early career hospitality graduates and 97 hotel managers. In the group of hospitality educators, the majority were male (66.7%) and worked at technical colleges (75.5%). This group had a mean age of 45.87 years old (SD=7.51) and work experience of 7.62 years (SD=5.74). On average. 38.2 per cent held a doctoral degree and 32.4 percent held a master’s degree. As to senior students majoring in hospitality management, roughly half were male (50.3%) and 82.1 per cent studied at technical colleges. The average age was 20.87 (SD=0.66)

With respect to the samples from hotels, around half of the hospitality graduates were male (50.5%) and had graduated from technical colleges (48.5%). On average, they were 24.08 years old (SD=2.1) and had worked in the industry for 1.79 years (SD=1.3). In terms of employment, 95 per cent worked as general staff in hotels (96%) and guest houses (4%). Their responsibilities included dining and catering (40.6%), kitchen (23.8%), reception (15.8%) and room service (17.8%). As far as hotel

150 managers were concerned, more than half were female (52.6%) and had an average age of 35.41 (SD=9.7) and a bachelor’s degree (15.5% from technical colleges and 37.1% from general universities), having majored in subjects not related to hospitality (15.5%) or tourism (21.7%). Their average work experience was 8.62 years (SD=7.9). and 89.7 per cent worked in hotels with about half of them being top managers (49.5%). The other half were managers at the senior (21.6%) and entry (28.9%) levels in charge of areas such as room service (14.4%), dining and catering (12.4%), accounting (9.3%), human resources (5.2%), marketing (5.2%) and kitchen (2.1%).

5.3 MANOVA The eight summated scores of importance levels of competency were used to compare the differences amongst the 102 educators, 195 students, 101 graduates and 97 managers. To ensure the robustness of the inferential results, the summated scores were screened for missing data, outliers, and normality before the MANOVA.

5.3.1 Data Treatment The eight new variables exhibited no missing cases because the individual variables were free of missing cases in the preliminary data screening phase. The univariate outliers were then first examined by inspecting the z-scores of each mean variable. In total, 49 cases had z-scores higher than 3.29. To maintain the variance of cases, only cases that threatened the normality were deleted. Inspection of the skewness and kurtosis statistics of the eight variables showed that Gi1, Gi2 and Gi3 exhibited high kurtosis (higher than 2). After deleting 19 univariate outliers in three variables (i.e., five outliers in Gi1, six outliers in Gi2 and eight outliers in Gi3), the kurtosis statistics were reduced to 1.339, 0.477 and 0.421, respectively. Multivariate outliers were then detected by the Mahalanobis distance and its p-value. The Mahalanobis distance is the distance from the centroid (the multidimensional equivalent of a mean) for a set of scores for each of the independent variables in the analysis (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). The small value of the probability of Mahalanobis D² (d- squared), distributed as a chi-square statistic using the number of independent variables (i.e., eight in this case) as the degrees of freedom, implies that the case is 151 distant or different from other cases (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). If the alpha level of the probability is less than 0.001, the case is identified as an outlier. Of the 10 multivariate outliers, four appeared as univariate outliers and were thus deleted from further analysis.

The normality of each variable was inspected again. Although the non-normal distribution was not evident during inspection of the normal Q-Q plots and histograms, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov normality test showed only one variable (Si1) with an alpha level greater than 0.001. One explanation is that large samples (e.g., 200 or more) usually produce small standard errors for skewness and kurtosis and thus the null hypothesis is easily rejected – and the central limit theorem assumes that in large sample sizes the mean distributions are normally distributed (Tabachnick and Fidell (2007, p. 78, 251). Therefore, the univariate and multivariate normalities were not expected to alter the results of analysis in this case.

5.3.2 Appropriateness and Assumptions Testing Given the moderate correlations between eight dependent variables (ranging from 0.462 to 0.819 at a significance level of 0.001), MANOVA is appropriate for comparing groups (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). For this study, then, one-way MANOVA was chosen to test the differences in the perceived importance level of hospitality management competencies (i.e., Gi1~Gi4, Si1~Si4) amongst the four groups of hospitality education stakeholders.

A one-way MANOVA revealed a significant multivariate effect for the four sample groups. The Wilks’ lambda was 0.813 (F(24,1340.54)= 4.129, p=0.000) and the partial eta squared was 0.067. Power to detect the effect was 1, suggesting that significant differences were present amongst the four sample groups on eight competency domains. Although the unexplained variance in the sample groups was high, the results still implied that the use of MANOVA was appropriate. Table 5.4 contains the means and standard deviations on the dependent variables for the four groups.

152

Table 5.4: Descriptive Statistics of Four Sample Groups

Sample Groups Mean SD N Gi1 Educator 5.839 0.624 102 Student 5.860 0.899 191 Graduate 5.555 1.011 98 Manager 5.916 1.251 82 Total 5.802 0.951 473 Gi2 Educator 5.875 0.624 102 Student 5.595 0.952 191 Graduate 5.438 1.015 98 Manager 5.848 1.320 82 Total 5.666 0.993 473 Gi3 Educator 5.857 0.627 102 Student 5.875 0.972 191 Graduate 5.532 1.060 98 Manager 5.894 1.109 82 Total 5.803 0.962 473 Gi4 Educator 5.003 0.970 102 Student 5.599 1.119 191 Graduate 5.211 1.315 98 Manager 5.486 1.445 82 Total 5.371 1.215 473 Si1 Educator 5.477 0.778 102 Student 5.556 0.937 191 Graduate 5.383 0.981 98 Manager 5.818 1.301 82 Total 5.549 0.995 473 Si2 Educator 5.693 0.718 102 Student 5.898 0.916 191 Graduate 5.505 1.120 98 Manager 5.986 1.247 82 Total 5.788 1.002 473 Si3 Educator 5.283 0.994 102 Student 5.582 1.072 191 Graduate 5.270 1.173 98 Manager 5.580 1.419 82 Total 5.452 1.151 473

153

Sample Groups Mean SD N Si4 Educator 5.512 0.857 102 Student 5.753 1.032 191 Graduate 5.427 1.233 98 Manager 5.534 1.605 82 Total 5.595 1.166 473

In addition to making assumptions of normality and linearity, MANOVA also assumes the homogeneity of variance-covariance matrices (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). The results of Box's M test of equality of covariance showed a significant alpha and rejected the null hypothesis. Levene's test of equality of error variance also revealed a significant alpha of 0.000 in all variables except variable Si3 (p=0.015). Violation will result in a type I error (Hair et al., 2010). Therefore, Tamhane's T2 test was used in the post hoc tests when the multivariate tests resulted in statistical significance. A more conservative alpha level was adopted (0.05/8 = 0.00625, with 8 representing eight dependent variables) to ensure the validity and accuracy of the results (Hair et al., 2010).

5.3.3 Model Testing Univariate tests revealed significance for Gi2, Gi4 and Si2 (Table 5.5). The F value ranged from 4.579 to 6.385 with a significance level of less than 0.00625. The partial eta squared ranged from 0.028 to 0.039. With respect to the hospitality traits (Gi2), the post hoc tests showed that educators’ ratings were higher (mean difference=0.437, p=0.002) than those of graduates. Although a marginal difference (p=0.016) was also observed between educators and students, the difference was not supported in this data set. The thinking and talking groups were not significantly different from each other (p>.05). As to the importance of hospitality communication capacity (Gi4), educators’ ratings were lower (mean difference= - 0.596, p=0.000) than those of hospitality students. Finally, no statistical differences were identified at the corrected alpha level, although two marginal differences were revealed in hospitality public relations (Si2). Senior students perceived these communication skills as more important than graduates (mean difference= 0.394, p=0.018). Managers also rated hospitality public relations competencies higher than 154 did graduates (mean difference= 0.482, p=0.045). To sum up, significant differences amongst the groups were identified in generic competencies of hospitality management, and the opinions of hotel managers were not statistically different from those of the other three groups.

Table 5.5: Univariate Tests (Between-subjects Effects) Sum of Mean Partial Eta Observed DV Squares df Square F Sig. Squared Power Gi1 7.817 3 2.606 2.917 .034 .018 .694 Gi2 13.253 3 4.418 4.579 .004 .028 .887 Gi3 9.160 3 3.053 3.347 .019 .021 .759 Gi4 27.356 3 9.119 6.385 .000 .039 .968 Si1 9.182 3 3.061 3.131 .025 .020 .728 Si2 14.347 3 4.782 4.886 .002 .030 .908 Si3 10.743 3 3.581 2.732 .043 .017 .662 Si4 8.553 3 2.851 2.113 .098 .013 .539

5.4 Discriminant Analysis

To validate the results derived from one-way MANOVA, a multiple discriminant analysis with direct entering independent variables was performed to determine which predictor variables (i.e., the eight summated scores) best distinguish between the four sample groups.

5.4.1 Appropriateness and Assumptions Testing The data had been screened for missing cases, outliers, normality and linearity. The test of equality of group means (Table 5.6) revealed the possible predictors that maximized the variation between groups. Amongst eight tests, three (i.e., Gi2, Gi4, Si2) reached a significance level of less than 0.00625 while four (i.e., Gi1, Gi3, Si1, Si3) were at a significance level of less than 0.05. The Wilks’ lambda of these predictors with significant alpha ranged from 0.961 to 0.972, suggesting that significant

155 differences were present amongst the four sample groups on the eight competency domains. The overall model fit resulted in the same conclusion as the one-way MANOVA, implying the appropriateness of using discriminant analysis to identify the discriminant function for prediction.

Table 5.6: Differences of Group Means

Predictors Wilks' Lambda F df1 df2 Sig.

Gi1 .982 2.917 3 469 .034

Gi2 .972 4.579 3 469 .004 Gi3 .979 3.347 3 469 .019 Gi4 .961 6.385 3 469 .000 Si1 .980 3.131 3 469 .025 Si2 .970 4.886 3 469 .002 Si3 .983 2.732 3 469 .043

Si4 .987 2.113 3 469 .098

The assumption of homoscedasticity was subsequently examined. Box's M test also resulted in a significant alpha and rejected that the covariance matrices were equal. Transforming variables served as a remedy to the problem of heterogeneity (Hair et al., 2010) but increased the difficulty of interpretation. Therefore, a more stringent alpha level was used (0.05/8= 0.00625) in determining the significance of results.

The output table of log determinants diagnoses the problem of multicollinearity. The log determinant will approach zero and the number of rank will not equal the number of independent variables if multicollinearity exists (Rong, 2009). As the value of the log determinant ranged from -5.80 to -8.93 and the rank was eight, multicollinearity was absent from the variables and the analysis could be continued.

156

5.4.2 Model Testing The discriminant analysis yielded two discriminant functions at an alpha level lower than 0.00625 (i.e., 0.000). The first discriminant function explained 55.3 per cent of the variance with the canonical R2 of 0.107 (χ2 (24) = 96.38, p=0.000), whereas the second explained 28.9 per cent of the variance with the canonical R2 of 0.059 (χ2 (14) = 48.82, p=0.000). According to the group centroids of discriminant functions (Table 5.7), the first function best differentiated the educators (group mean = -0.637) from the other three groups while the second distinguished managers from the other three groups. Function three separated graduates from the other groups. However, as function three was excluded from the reporting owing to its insignificant model fit (p = 0.018 > 0.00625), the predictors that contributed to function three are not discussed.

Table 5.7: Group Centroids of all Discriminant Functions Function Group 1 2 3 Educator -.637 -.090 .050 Student .261 -.135 .143 Graduate .117 -.096 -.347 Manager .044 .541 .020 Unstandardized canonical discriminant functions evaluated at group means

The discriminant power of the eight predictors is shown in Table 5.8, which illustrates the discriminant coefficients and the discriminant loading of each predictor. While coefficients were most useful in computing discriminant functions, to identify the strong discriminators the focus was on the loadings. Predictors with loadings exceeding ±0.4 were considered important in the function (Hair et al., 2010). In function one, the importance of hospitality traits (Gi2) and hospitality communication capacity (Gi4) distinguished educators from the other groups. The importance of hospitality traits (Gi2) and business operations (Si1) distinguished managers from the other groups. Examination of the discriminant power of

157 predictors in separate functions showed that Gi2, Gi4 and Si1 were the best discriminators.

Table 5.8: Discriminant Coefficients and Loadings in Functions

Discriminant Discriminant Coefficients Loadings

Unstandardised Standardised

Predictors Function 1 Function 2 Function 1 Function 2 Function 1 Function 2 Gi1 -.351 -.968 -.332 -.915 -.036 .201

Gi2 -1.182 .181 -1.161 .178 -.347 .353

Gi3 -.298 -.300 -.285 -.286 -.051 .151

Gi4 .715 -.166 .854 -.198 .506 .118

Si1 .674 1.344 .667 1.329 .074 .484

Si2 .205 1.171 .203 1.158 .165 .329

Si3 .176 .074 .202 .084 .247 .168

Si4 .025 -.986 .029 -1.145 .171 -.130

(Constant) .590 -1.906

Since there were two significant discriminant functions, a potency index can properly describe the contribution of a predictor to all significant functions (i.e., discriminant loadings) and the contribution of a function to the overall classification (i.e., eigenvalues) (Hair et al., 2010, p. 371). The potency index is illustrated in Table 5.9. Since Si4 made no significant contribution to the discriminant function, the variables Si1, Gi1 and Gi2 were ranked as the top three predictors differentiating the groups.

158

Table 5.9: The Total Discriminating Effect of Each Predictor

Discriminant Function 1 Discriminant Function 2 Squared Relative Potency Squared Relative Potency Potency Predictor Loading Loading Rank Loading Eigenvalue Value Loading Eigenvalue Value Index Gi1 0.074 0.005 0.657 0.004 0.484 0.234 0.343 0.080 0.084 3 Gi2 0.165 0.027 0.657 0.018 0.329 0.108 0.343 0.037 0.055 4 Gi3 -0.051 0.003 0.657 0.002 0.151 0.023 0.343 0.008 0.010 8 Gi4 -0.036 0.001 0.657 0.001 0.201 0.040 0.343 0.014 0.015 7 Si1 0.506 0.256 0.657 0.169 0.118 0.014 0.343 0.005 0.173 1 Si2 0.171 0.029 0.657 0.019 -0.130 0.017 0.343 0.006 0.025 6 Si3 0.247 0.061 0.657 0.040 0.168 0.028 0.343 0.010 0.050 5 Si4 -0.347 0.121 0.657 0.079 0.353 0.125 0.343 0.043 0.122 2

Although attaining classification coefficient functions and predicted group membership was not the main purpose for conducting the discriminant analysis, validating the classification results helped rationalize the discriminating power of the predictors. In addressing the classification accuracy (i.e., the percentage correctly classified, or the hit ratio), the criterion for the acceptable level of a hit ratio is exceeding “any criterion value by at least 25 percent” (Hair et al., 2010, p. 369). Because the data set of this study contained unequally sized groups, one of the best estimates for the standard threshold is the proportional chance criterion, which is the sum of the squared size proportion of each group (Hair et al., 2010, p. 366). This criterion takes all members of each group into account instead of using the proportion of the biggest group as in the maximum chance criterion. In this study, the hit ratios for the original classification (46.1%) and the cross-validated classification (43.8%) exceeded the standard criterion (28.25%*1.25=35.32%), implying that the classification accuracy was at an acceptable level and the contribution of the predictors was thus verified. In summary, the importance of the hospitality trait (Gi2) is regarded as the most significant predictor that differentiates educators from other groups in both the MANOVA and discriminant analysis. These validating results also revealed the variables that were not identified in MANOVA, such as the importance of business operations (Si1) for managers. 159

5.5 Conclusion The results of the factor analysis show that four competency domains (constructs) were extracted from 36 generic competencies, with two domains being hospitality- focused and the other two business-focused. Similarly, four competency domains were extracted from 30 specific competencies, of which two were hospitality groups and two were business groups. These findings verified the results derived from convergent interviews, thus answering the first research question.

The results of one-way MANOVA indicated that the differences in the perceived importance of hospitality management competencies (in eight domains) amongst the four stakeholder groups were present in hospitality traits (Gi2), hospitality communication capacity (Gi4), and hospitality public relations (Si2). Therefore hypothesis 1, that there is significant difference in perceived importance of hospitality management competencies amongst hotel managers, hospitality graduates, educators and students, was supported.

The discriminant analysis validated this result by showing the hospitality traits (Gi2), hospitality communication capacity (Gi4) and business operation (Si1) were powerful discriminators in separate functions. Hospitality traits (Gi2), business operation (Si1), and thinking and doing (Gi1) were strong discriminators in combining functions. Therefore hypothesis 2, that the level of perceived importance of hospitality management competencies in term of eight domains can predict the classification of hotel managers, hospitality graduates, educators and students, was also supported.

160

CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION AND SUGGESTIONS

This chapter summarises research results of the qualitative and quantitative analysis in Section 6.1 and discusses the differences in management competencies between Eastern and Western cultures in Section 6.2. Section 6.3 describes the gaps amongst four key stakeholders of hospitality higher education. Implications of the findings for hospitality industry practitioners, hospitality educators and students are addressed in Section 6.4. Limitations of the study are reported in Section 6.5, and suggestions for future research are offered in Section 6.6. Finally, Section 6.7 summarises the results and discussions of this study.

6.1 Discussion of Research Questions In this section, the results of the study’s two research questions are summarised in line with the research objectives, research questions and hypotheses.

6.1.1 Research Question 1 The first research objective of this investigation was to identify a comprehensive list of management competencies applicable to hospitality graduates in Eastern cultures. Therefore, the first research question was: What are the management competencies that hospitality graduates, from an Eastern culture, need to ensure occupational success? This question was answered through convergent interviews, with the results verified by exploratory factor analysis.

The 27 interviews resulted in 72 management competency statements that represented 18 domains in four broad categories. Results reflected generic and specific competencies in areas of both business management and hospitality management. After several rounds of exploratory factor analysis, a total of 66 management competencies emerged, also in categories. The results of the quantitative analysis confirmed the four broad categories identified in the qualitative analysis. However, the 18 domains were re-grouped into eight new domains, which made the comparison of the four hospitality higher education stakeholders more 161 manageable and reinforced the importance of separating business-focused and hospitality-focused management competencies. Table 6.1 shows the groupings in detail.

Table 6.1: Grouping of Management Competencies Number of Category Competency Original Domain New Domain Statements 3 Implementation 3 Problem-solving Thinking and doing Generic 1 Communication competencies in (Gi1) 4 Leadership business management 3 Culture 2 Creativity Self-development 5 Self-management (Gi3) 5 Attitude Hospitality traits Generic 4 Analysis (Gi2) competencies in hospitality 5 Foreign language Hospitality management communication capacity 1 Personal relation (Gi4) Specific 6 Business & marketing Business operation competencies in 2 Information (Si1) business 1 Crisis management management Financial management 5 Finance (Si4) 6 Customer relations Hospitality public Specific relations competencies in 3 Human resources (Si2) hospitality Hospitality on-site management 7 Skill certificate management (Si3)

In the first two categories, generic competencies in both business and hospitality comprise domains relating to the conceptual and human domains in Katz’s (1955) model and similar to the conceptual/creative, leadership, and interpersonal domains in Sandwith’s (1993) model but in different groupings. In Katz’s and Sandwith’s models, conceptual and creative domains involve cognitive skills associated with the responsibilities of a job position and the position’s relationships with others, such as

162 a supervisor, subordinates, peers and customers. These domains were similar to the domains of implementation, problem-solving, and culture originally identified in this study. However, while Sandwith (1993) separated leadership from conceptual skills as an independent domain, in this study these skills were included in the new domain of thinking and doing (Gi1), along with those cognitive skills that were identified differently from the leadership domain in Sandwith’s model. As leadership was possibly regarded as being equally as important as those cognitive skills, the grouping of Gi1 is more similar to the grouping in Katz’s three-skill approach.

In terms of human skills in Katz’s (1955) model and interpersonal domains in Sandwith’s (1993) model, in this study these skills were distributed into the domains of thinking and doing (Gi1) and hospitality communication capacity (Gi4). As human and interpersonal skills encompass the abilities to interact with others, deal with conflicts and negotiate effectively, most of these skills were identified in Gi1 of this study. However, the communication skills pertaining to foreign languages were identified as a separate group by respondents. It is possibly because the way to communicate efficiently in a foreign language is different from the native language and this needs another learning process to manage. As Horng et al. (2011) suggested good foreign language skills can facilitate the communication and interaction with hospitality customers of different cultural background. Therefore, this type of skills was perceived as an independent group of competencies that was indispensable in the hospitality industry.

The new domain of self-development (Gi3) reinforced the importance of self- management, which was also recognised in earlier studies (Chung-Herrera et al., 2003; Raybould & Wilkins, 2006). In a small contrast to those studies, the Gi3 included an aspect of creativity in self-development. Creativity was perceived as a way to adapt to changes and uncertainty in Sandwith’s model (1993). Flexibility and creativity were also recognized in the self-savvy of the service-leadership competency model (Testa & Sipe, 2012).

163

The competencies identified in the Gi1 to Gi4 domains are regarded as generic competencies, soft skills or employabilities that apply to most occupations (Eurico et al., 2015; Raybould & Wilkins, 2006; Sisson & Adams, 2013). However, a clearer separation between the business-focused and hospitality-focused domains emerged: thinking and doing (Gi1) and self-development (Gi3) and hospitality traits (Gi2) and hospitality communication capacity (Gi4).

In the remaining two categories, specific competencies in both business and hospitality were identified in a similar manner. These domains related to the technical domain in Katz’s (1955) model and the administrative and technical domains of Sandwith’s (1993) model. They cover the areas of business operation, marketing, crisis management, finance, customer management, human resource management and on-site management. Specifically, in Sandwith’s model, the administrative domain consists of personnel and financial management skills, which were reflected in the domains of hospitality public relations (Si2) and financial management (Si4). However, in addition to human resource management, an element of customer relations was captured in the Si2 domain rather than in the interpersonal domain as in Sandwith’s model. This difference magnified the importance of customer relations skills as a part of administrative work that is applicable to all segments in the field of hospitality.

The technical domain in Sandwith’s model described the skills associated with functional work. The domain of business operation (Si1) and hospitality on-site management (Si3) were identified in this regard. Similar to the findings of Koenigsfeld et al. (2012), the functional areas in the hospitality industry were classified as technical skills in terms of using hospitality booking systems, Chinese and Western cuisine cookery skills, hotel and restaurant service skills and drink preparation skills. These skills were identical to the domains of golf, sports and recreation, food and beverage, facilities maintenance and club governance in the study of Koenigsfeld et al. (2012), in which private clubs were the sector in interest. These technical skills are usually perceived as hard skills or professional skills (Koenigsfeld et al., 2012; Sisson & Adams, 2013). Therefore, as with the grouping of 164 generic competencies discussed earlier, the four domains of specific competencies were also classified into the business-focused domains of business operation (Si1) and financial management (Si4) and the hospitality-focused domains of hospitality public relations (Si2) and hospitality on-site management (Si3).

6.1.1.1 Importance of Management Competencies To fully answer the question of “What are the management competencies that hospitality graduates, from an Eastern culture, need to ensure occupational success?”, ranking important competency domains in Table 5.4, as shown in Table 6.2, can facilitate interpretation. In term of the total ranking of all four stakeholders, the top four important management competency domains fall into self-management (Gi3), thinking and doing (Gi1), hospitality public relation (Si2), and hospitality traits (Gi2). This implies that generic competencies, especially the business-focused ones, are essential. It also reveals the specific competencies relating to public relations, such as customers and coworkers, are extremely important in occupational success, particularly in the field of hospitality. The ranking of each group clearly shows some similar perceptions regarding the importance of the competency domains across stakeholders. Those similarities imply the most important competencies for occupational success. For example, hotel managers and students agreed the competencies in hospitality public relation (Si2) is the most important and hospitality educators, students and graduate rated the self-development domain (Gi3) as the second most important competency.

Table 6.2: Ranking of Management Competency Domains Std. Sample groups Rank Mean Number Deviation Gi3 educator 2 5.857 0.627 102 Self-development student 2 5.875 0.972 191 graduate 2 5.532 1.060 98 manager 3 5.894 1.109 82 Total 1 5.803 0.962 473

165

Std. Sample groups Rank Mean Number Deviation Gi1 educator 3 5.839 0.624 102 Thinking and doing student 3 5.860 0.899 191 graduate 1 5.555 1.011 98 manager 2 5.916 1.251 82 Total 2 5.802 0.951 473 Si2 educator 4 5.693 0.718 102 Hospitality public student 1 5.898 0.916 191 relation graduate 3 5.505 1.120 98 manager 1 5.986 1.247 82 Total 3 5.788 1.002 473 Gi2 educator 1 5.875 0.624 102 Hospitality traits student 6 5.595 0.952 191 graduate 4 5.438 1.015 98 manager 4 5.848 1.320 82 Total 4 5.666 0.993 473 Si4 educator 5 5.512 0.857 102 Financial student 4 5.753 1.032 191 management graduate 5 5.427 1.233 98 manager 7 5.534 1.605 82 Total 5 5.595 1.166 473 Si1 educator 6 5.477 0.778 102 Business operation student 8 5.556 0.937 191 graduate 6 5.383 0.981 98 manager 5 5.818 1.301 82 Total 6 5.549 0.995 473 Si3 educator 7 5.283 0.994 102 Hospitality on-site student 7 5.582 1.072 191 management graduate 7 5.270 1.173 98 manager 6 5.580 1.419 82 Total 7 5.452 1.151 473 Gi4 educator 8 5.003 0.970 102 Hospitality student 5 5.599 1.119 191 communication graduate 8 5.211 1.315 98 capacity manager 8 5.486 1.445 82 Total 8 5.371 1.215 473

166

In order to further interpret the importance of competencies, Table 6.3 details the importance level of each competency found in both qualitative and quantitative results. The top 10 important competencies in quantitative results are found in the domains of the top four competency domains in Table 6.2. All of them were reported by more than 70 per cent of the interviewees in the qualitative phase. In other words, the most important competencies are in:  leadership and implementation in the domain of thinking and doing (Gi1)  self-management in the domain of self-development (Gi3)  customer relation in the domain of hospitality public relation (Si2)  attitude in the domain of hospitality traits (Gi2)

Table 6.3: Ranking of Competency Statements

Variable Competency Domain Rank Mean Std. Rank Frequency statement (Quan) Deviation (Qual) (Percentage) GBi12 Work in a Leadership 1 5.948 1.346 5 17/18 team Gi1 (94.4%) GBi11 Be trust- Leadership 2 5.881 1.371 50 21/27 worthy Gi1 (77.8%) SHi10 Establish Customer 3 5.867 1.270 62 15/21 and relation (71.4%) maintain Si2 positive customer relationships GHi14 Be willing to Self- 4 5.855 1.376 7 9/10 learn management (90.0%) Gi3 GHi10 Enjoy Attitude 5 5.844 1.362 11 16/18 interacting Gi2 (88.9%) with others GBi10 Lead by Leadership 6 5.812 1.391 38 22/27 personal Gi1 (81.5%) example GHi9 Be diligent Attitude 7 5.796 1.372 58 13/18 and enjoy Gi2 (72.2%) hard working GHi15 Maintain Self- 8 5.792 1.366 12 16/18 health management (88.9%) Gi3

167

Variable Competency Domain Rank Mean Std. Rank Frequency statement (Quan) Deviation (Qual) (Percentage) GBi3 Complete Implementation 9 5.790 1.377 49 21/27 task in time Gi1 (77.8%) SHi8 Deal with Customer 10 5.788 1.347 18 24/27 customer relation (88.9%) complaints Si2 Note: 1. Frequency is derived from interviews in the qualitative phase 2. Ranks and means are derived from surveys in the quantitative phase

Particular emphasis is then placed on the most important competencies in both qualitative and quantitative results. The competency statement that was most frequently reported and rated as the most important was to “work in a team (GBi12)” in the leadership domain. This finding reveals a strong collectivism inclination in occupational activities. Slightly different from this study, in the investigation of important competencies for club managers, Koenigsfeld, Youn, Perdue and Woods (2012) reported two leadership competencies, i.e., treat people with respect and leads by example, were the most important and the most frequently applied. However, the findings, here, imply that teamwork is more important than leading. This was also supported in the qualitative findings where interviewees believed “successful teams can bring success to the company (interviewee M4)” and “working with good co-workers helps you learn better (interviewee E5).”

Furthermore, co-worker relationships, or workplace relationships, (i.e., “guanxi”) are very important in Chinese cultures. This type of relationship is mainly personal and characterised by diffusing personal and public life and establishing a family-like bond between co-workers in a team (Chong, Peng, Fu, Richards, Muethel, Caldas et al, 2015; Yang & Lau,2015). This is well revealed in the qualitative analysis. One graduate reported, “our team (co-workers and the interviewee) usually have good relationships, like a big family…I enjoy the time spend with them both in the hotel and in private life” (interviewee G4).

168

As Testa and Sipe (2012) placed “being networked” as one of the key competencies of future leaders, and advocated that successful leadership involved collaborating, exchanging information and sharing resources with external practitioners, in order to advance industry development. Networking activities may include attending industrial events or professional gatherings in public forums. The resultant strong task-oriented and specificity-focused relationships are common in Western cultures (Chong et al, 2015; Sophonsiri & O’Mahony, 2012). In contrast, workplace relationships in Eastern cultures reside much more on a personal level.

Thus, in response to research question 1, essential management competencies, that hospitality graduates need to ensure occupational success in an Eastern culture, are both generic and specific.

6.1.2 Research Question 2 The second research objective of this investigation was to contrast the perspectives of managers, educators, students and graduates regarding the desired management competencies for hospitality graduates in Eastern cultures. The second research question was therefore: Is there a difference in the importance attached to specific management competencies, in Eastern cultures, across the various stakeholder groups (managers, educators, students and graduates)? Research question 2 was answered through quantitative analysis that addressed two hypotheses.

The first hypothesis predicted a significant difference in perceived importance of hospitality management competencies amongst hotel managers, hospitality graduates, educators and students and was supported by the results of one-way MANOVA. The eight domains in which a statistically significant difference was found were in hospitality traits (Gi2), hospitality communication capacity (Gi4), and hospitality public relations (Si2). To avoid the type I error, the alpha level of 0.05 was divided by the number of dependent variables in the post hoc tests of the significant difference (Hair et al., 2010). With a more rigorous alpha level of 0.00625, statistically significant differences were found only in the domain of Gi2 (i.e.,

169 educators rated higher than graduates) and the domain of Gi4 (i.e., students rated higher than educators).

A limited number of studies of competency have looked into group comparison (Fournier & Ineson, 2010; Huang & Lin, 2010; Wang & Tsai, 2012), and none has found evidence of educators’ emphasis on attitudes and analytical skills (Gi2). However, hotel managers and cruise directors identified the importance of positive attitude (Brownell, 2008), and industry experts and educators both reported the importance of attitude in the workplace (Wang & Tsai, 2012). Further, a recent study found that both hotel managers and educators placed language proficiency (Gi4) at the top (Huang & Lin, 2010). The differences between hospitality educators and students in terms of foreign language are not reported in the literature.

The second hypothesis stated that the level of perceived importance of hospitality management competencies in term of eight domains can predict the classification of hotel managers, hospitality graduates, educators and students and was supported by multiple discriminant analyses. The results showed that the perceived importance of hospitality traits (Gi2) and hospitality communication capacity (Gi4) significantly differentiated hospitality educators from three other groups while the importance level of hospitality traits (Gi2) and business operation (Si1) domains separated hotel managers from three other groups. Furthermore, on the basis of the potency index, the top three predictors that differentiated the groups were the domains of business operation (Si1), thinking and doing (Gi1) and hospitality traits (Gi2). Therefore, results showed significant differences in the importance attached to generic competencies of hospitality management in Eastern cultures across four stakeholder groups.

In summary, the two research questions were answered with appropriate support from both qualitative and quantitative analyses. To generate implications for practitioners and suggestions for academics, the next two sections present a comparison of management competencies between Eastern and Western cultures and the gaps between key stakeholders of hospitality higher education. 170

6.2 Differences in Management Competencies between Eastern and Western Cultures The similarities and differences between the management competencies identified in this study and those found in previous research relate to the domains changes in competency groupings and the issues of culture-comparable and culture-specific competencies.

6.2.1 Shifting Domains The eight competency domains revealed in this study depict some aspects of essential domains in Eastern cultures, at least in the context of Taiwan. Although most of the original domains had been identified in previous research (Agut et al, 2003; Chung-Herrera et al., 2003; Katz, 1955; Koenigsfeld, Kim et al., 2012; Raybould & Wilkins, 2006; Sandwith, 1993; Testa & Sipe, 2012), the new grouping shed light on competencies that were more important or unique to hospitality. The four hospitality-focused competency domains—hospitality traits (Gi2), hospitality communication capacity (Gi4), hospitality public relations (Si2), and hospitality on- site management (Si3)—described the industrial features in Taiwan and were separated from a broad concept of business management.

In terms of generic competencies, the domain of hospitality traits (Gi2) proposes that successful hospitality workers should have positive and active attitudes toward their work and be able to analyse market trends and the industrial and social environment. The emphasis on attitudes toward work was articulated in research in Taiwan (Wang, 2013; Wang & Tsai, 2012). Although attitudes and analytical abilities have been previously categorised in the conceptual domain (Katz, 1955; Sandwith 1993), in this study they were valued differently from the domains of implementation, problem-solving, leadership and culture, which were categorised as more business-focused competencies, or thinking and doing (Gi1). Attitudes were identical to the spirit of optimism and being positive, which was consistent with prior research (Testa & Sipe, 2012). However, being active and confident in human interaction is one of the missing attributes in a traditional Chinese culture.

171

People-related skills are usually perceived as essential in hospitality work (Sission & Adams, 2013), and the second generic competencies of hospitality management were in the domain of communication capacity (Gi4). Beyond general communication skills, particular areas needed more emphasis, especially foreign language skills, including reading, writing and speaking. The importance of foreign languages, particularly English, is recognised in most countries where English is not the first language (Horng et al., 2011; Tavitiyamana et al., 2014). As noted in the factor analysis, foreign language proficiency is intertwined with one personal relation skill, i.e., having public relationship skills (GBi14). This public relationship conveys the interaction with co-workers, supervisors, subordinates and particularly with customers. As referred to in the convergent interviews, one graduate mentioned “to establish ‘guanxi’ with your customers, you need to speak their language (interviewee G6).” The “guanxi” means relationships and is regarded as a form of social networking that is prevalent in East cultures (Yang & Lau, 2015). While “sometimes body language is insufficient in effective communication (interviewee M5),” learning to communicate in a foreign language can assist in understanding, leading to mutual benefits.

English proficiency in the workplace was identified as the general competency group, with proficiency determined by the international skill standards set out in the ASEAN Common Competency Standards for Tourism Professionals Framework and the Asia- Pacific Economic Cooperation Tourism Working Group framework (APEC-TWG, 2006; Penhall et al., 2005; see Table 2.2). While this specification is seldom made in research conducted in Western countries it is more prevalent in non-English speaking countries such as Taiwan, Thailand and Spain (Horng et al., 2011; Rodríguez-Antón et al., 2013; Tavitiyamana et al., 2014). This separation reinforced the importance of foreign language skills in the hospitality industry in Eastern cultures, where English is not the first language.

Similarly, the new group of hospitality public relations (Si2) highlighted the importance of interpersonal skills from a more administrative perspective in customer relations and human resource management. While customer relations and

172 human resource management are usually included in the administrative domain in the literature (Sandwith, 1993), these competencies, however, in this study, have been separated from the marketing, Information and crisis management domains. They were classified differently from those operational skills which were categorised in the specific domain of business operation (Si1).

Moreover, in terms of technical domains (Agut et al., 2003; Koenigsfeld, Kim et al., 2012), hospitality on-site management (Si3) was newly distinguished and was specified in terms of skills in cookery, baking, and beverage preparation, as well as hotel and restaurant services. Skills were also recognised in the ASEAN and APEC- TWG framework (APEC-TWG, 2006; Penhall et al., 2005). These are specific technical skills applied in the field and results implied that successful hospitality practitioners should be familiar with, or be qualified in, these technical procedures. The need for on-site hospitality management skills has not been identified in prior literature.

In comparing the findings of this study with previous competency models, as discussed in section 6.1, it is evident that the important management competencies are re-grouped and re-defined and, thus, reveal practical implications particularly to hospitality educators. As presented in Table 6.4, while Sandwith (1993) contributed to the body of knowledge in management competencies by separating leadership, interpersonal and administrative competencies from Katz’s (1955) three-skill approach, this study further identifies, in terms of interpersonal skills, that customer relations (i.e., in the domain of hospitality public relations (Si2)) and foreign language, (i.e., in the domain of hospitality communication capacity (Gi4)) are more relevant in the field of hospitality. While Koenigsfeld, Kim, et al (2012) expended Sandwith’s (1993) model by classifying four administrative competency domains and five technical competency domains with respect to the function of club managers, this study further identified the importance of obtaining professional certificates with respect to hotel management, i.e., hospitality on-site management (Si3). Additionally, the identification of attitudes and personal traits (Gi2), as being important in this study, reflects the research context (i.e. Taiwan), a society where collectivism and passivism is prevalent. This is not highlighted in other competency frameworks, such

173 as the study of Agut et al (2003), Chung-Herrera et al., (2003) as well as Raybould and Wilkins (2006).

In addition to the differences in hospitality-focused competencies in comparison with previous models, the inclusion of creativity competencies in the self- development domain (Gi3) is another nuance that distinguishes this study from the study of Chung-Herrera et al. (2003) and Raybould & Wilkins (2006). Another distinction is the emergence of cultural competencies identified in the domain of thinking and doing (Gi1). The conceptualisation of cultural values, including, are seldom presented in existing competency models. The discussion of this type of culture-specific competency is elaborated in the following section.

174

Table 6.4: Comparing Previous Models with This Study

Raybould & Koenigsfeld, Katz Sandwith Chung-Herrera et Agut et al. Wilkins Kim et al. Testa & Sipe (2012) This Study (1955) (1993) al. (2003) (2003) (2006) (2012) USA USA USA Spain Australia USA USA Taiwan

B: ContinB:

B: ResultsB:

oriented

G: G: Proactivebehaviour G: Conceptual and SystemB: thinking X analytical B: B: Planning

uous improvement Analysis Gi2

Problem-solving Gi1 Conceptual Critical thinking Creativity Gi3 G: Problem solving X StrategicB: Conceptual / X

decision making Crisis management

Creative Strategic Si1

(Adaptability and manage-

learning) ment

Implementation X B: Technical service Implementation Gi1 X X X X X X S: Accountability X X X X X X X S: Professionalism X X X X X X X S: Spirit of optimism Attitude Gi2

Inspiration

& training&

G: Self G:

Coaching

oriented

P: P: Team

Conceptual Leadership Leadership Job performanceG:

G: Teamwork and P: P:

relationships Leadership Gi1

control and social leadership

efficacy Interpersonal

Leadership- skills

P: InterpersonalP:

communication Inter- Networked Inter- Expressive Personal relation

service Human personal Gi4

personal P: P: G: Interpersonal Communication Gi1 Communication skills Customer relation

Si2 175

Raybould & Koenigsfeld, Katz Sandwith Chung-Herrera et Agut et al. Testa & Sipe Wilkins Kim et al. This Study (1955) (1993) al. (2003) (2003) (2012) (2006) (2012) G: Oral

G: Job performanceG:

Inter- Self G: communication Foreign language Human Communication X X personal G: Written Gi4

efficacy

relationships

control and social communication Strategic G: Adaptability and manage- S: Change management Creativity Gi3 learning ment

X X Self management S: Self development Self-management G: Self- X Gi3 X management S: Time management X X (S: Professionalism) X X X X X X X X X Culture Gi1 G: Information X X (B: Technical service) Information Si1 management X X (Problem Solving) X Business & Marketing Strategic (B: Networked) marketing Si1 positioning X P: Cultural alignment (Culture Gi1) Human Technical X (B: Numberwise) Accounting Finance Si4 Admini- X B: Numberwise and finance strative Technical X Human Human resources resources- X Si2 legal

176

Raybould & Koenigsfeld, Katz Sandwith Chung-Herrera et Agut et al. Testa & Sipe Wilkins Kim et al. This Study (1955) (1993) al. (2003) (2003) (2012) (2006) (2012) Golf X Sports and X recreation Food and Industry Skill certificate Si3 Technical Technical Technical X beverage X knowledge Facilities X maintenance Club X governance X X X X X X X Skill certificate Si3 Note: G= Generic domain; X= Not applicable; S= Self savvy; P= People savvy; B= Business savvy Source: Developed for this study

177

The purpose of comparing previous models is not to compete for the best or holistic competency model. The differences and shifts identified in this study merely reflect the cultural aspects of the research context and are intended to inform hospitality educators, particularly in Eastern cultures, in curriculum development, with the view to successfully preparing graduates entering into the hospitality industry. In a theoretical discussion of criticisms associated with the competency literature, Jamil (2015) contends that competency research purely employing the ideology of social efficiency theory and positivism, sometimes produces conceptualisations that oversimplify the complexity of managerial performance and, thus, are aimed t attaining profitability for organisations or enterprises. As most competency research adopts a utilitarian focus, it is important to include an interpretivism perspective, with “multiple ideologies”, in order to explain how competencies are applied and performed in different contexts (Jamil, 2015, p.48). In the field of hospitality higher education, there may be no standardised or universal competency model that could be compatible to all hospitality fields (i.e. across cultures); however, the eight domains identified in the current study clearly inform hospitality higher education stakeholders in Eastern cultures, with particular relevance to Taiwan.

6.2.2 Culture-comparable and Culture-specific Competencies A closer look at the individual domains revealed some competencies that were more culture-comparable (etic) and transferable across Western and Eastern cultures, as well as skills and abilities that were more culture-specific (emic) and unique to Eastern cultures. The culture-comparable competencies appear in the similarities between the 18 domains derived in this study and findings of prior research, while culture-specific competencies either were not revealed in prior literature or were identified only in a non-Western context.

6.2.2.1 Culture-Comparable Competencies: With respect to the culture-comparable competencies, 13 of the 18 domains originally derived from the convergent interviews could be regarded as transferable competencies that were applicable to and compatible in most business settings. Amongst the 13 competency domains identified, 11 were classified in line with the

178 domains reported in previous research (Cheung et al., 2010; Chung-Herrera et al., 2003; Sandwith, 1993). For example, implementation and problem-solving skills belonged to generic competencies in the conceptual domain of Sandwith’s model (1993) and to the domains of implementation and critical thinking in the study of Cheung et al. (2010). Similarly, self-management skills were regarded as essential competencies in the studies of Chung-Herrera et al. (2003) and Raybould and Wilkins, (2006). However, two domains were classified differently from previous research.

The first difference is with the separation of finance competencies (i.e., the financial management domain, Si4) from other business administration skills (i.e., the business operation domain, Si1). In the study of Chung (2000), courses in accounting and finance management could contribute to graduates’ career success. Kay and Moncarz (2004) also contended that knowledge of financial management is the key to advancement to senior positions. Similarly, Horng et al. (2011) ranked financial management as the most important technical competency. This separation not only supported the importance of finance-related skills articulated in previous research (Gursoy et al., 2012; Kay & Moncarz, 2004) but also reinforced the transferability of finance competencies in facilitating career success across cultures.

The second difference appeared in the business operation domain (Si1), with information skills (i.e., using computer for document processing and knowing how to collect information) being incorporated into administrative skills. This inclusion might indicate that basic computing skills had become part of regular business operation. However, more complicated computing applications in technology that have been adopted in the hospitality industry (Johanson et al., 2011), such as social media and booking and reservation systems, are not prevalent in Taiwan and were not perceived as required by respondents.

The importance of technology application and information management is recognised. Raybould and Wilkins (2006) categorised information management skills as an essential generic competency for hospitality graduates. These skills included information search skills, using tables, graphs and charts to communicate

179 information, designing and implementing basic primary research, using standard office applications, using electronic communications and data search applications, and demonstrating file management and data management skills. Contrary to their classification, respondents perceived these information management skills as specific competencies and grouped them in the administrative and operational domain (i.e., Si1).

However, the importance of information competencies was low in studies where these competencies were examined as an independent domain. Brownell (2008) reported that hotel managers and cruise directors did not regard use of technology (e.g., email and videoconferencing) as important in work effectiveness. Similarly, Horng et al. (2011) reported that the domain of information competencies, including knowing the function of information systems and being able to use technological products for operations management, were rated as least important by hotel experts. In this study, hotel managers categorised information competencies into the business operation domain (Si1). Thus, although the importance of information competencies differed across studies, the culture comparability of this domain was clear as it was discussed across cultures.

6.2.2.2 Culture-specific Competencies Five types of competency domains are unique in Eastern cultures. First, in the domain of thinking and doing (Gi1), three culture-related competencies emerged: having an international perspective, integrating with the local culture and respecting different cultures. This identification was also reported by Horng et al. (2011). however, their interpretation sees culture as a more ethnic issue. The notion of culture was also recognised but was conceptualised as an aspect of organisational culture (Testa & Sipe, 2012). These culture competencies were the cultural alignment in people savvy and included executing company standards and policies, communicating appropriate values for the organisation, aligning the team toward a vision by gaining buy-in and being able to operationalise the big picture. Thus, as this

180 cultural perspective was only identified in research conducted in Taiwan, it may reflect cultural difference in Eastern cultures.

Second, in the same domain (Gi1), leadership skills were not given as much importance as in Western cultures (Gursoy et al., 2012; Koenigsfeld, Kim et al., 2012; Raybould & Wilkins, 2006). Leadership skills were embedded in the broad concept of thinking and doing in the workplace. As cultural differences are described according to the dichotomy of individualism in Western societies and collectivism in Eastern societies (Choi & Kim, 2013; Hofstede & Bond, 1988), the implications of leadership in Eastern cultures in this study may relate more to teamwork (GBi12) and leading by example (iGBi10) than to supervisory skills such as being the leader and inspiring subordinates (Chong, 2008; Horng et al., 2011).

Furthermore, personal and public relationships normally overlapped in terms of social status, and communication patterns were usually indirect and aimed at avoiding embarrassment and conflicts in Eastern cultures (Horng et al., 2011). The influence of Chinese cultural values of hard work, a group orientation and harmonious interpersonal relationships made teamwork and co-worker support more relevant in human resource management (Tsang, 2011). These might explain why leadership competencies were combined into the domain Gi1 while customer and human resource management competencies were formed as an independent domain of hospitality public relations (Si2).

As discussed in section 4.7, properly handling customer complaints is particularly important in the analysis of convergent interviews. Literatures in service recovery suggest customers from non-West countries, e.g., Thailand, expected to receive the apology from senior managers (O’Mahony, Sophonsiri & Turner, 2013). Similar perception was exhibited in the convergent interviews. Since empowering employee (Gbi13) is also regarded essential in leadership, it is important that for supervisors to set appropriate complaint protocol to satisfy customers. The subordinates, on the other hand, should need to be sensitive to the customers need, i.e., restoring faces

181 for customers from East cultures, and utilise the empowerment to decide the best solutions to the complaints.

Third, the creativity domain (i.e., facilitating creative development of the organization and planning innovative products and services) was incorporated with self-management skills to form a new domain of self-development (Gi3). The notion of self-development was not identical to the self-development competencies in self- savvy, which was part of the service-leadership competency model developed by Testa and Sipe (2012). In their investigation, self-development competencies included learning from mistakes and failures, showing drive and initiative, self- control, anger management, lifelong learning and accepting feedback. In this study, more emphasis was placed on creativity, which was originally categorised in the conceptual domain in Sandwith’s (1993) model. Creativity implied that being creative and innovative in work (i.e., facilitating creative development of the organisation, plan innovative products and service) was necessary for self-development and career success in the context of Taiwan.

Fourth, foreign language proficiency was emphasised in the domain of hospitality communication capacity (Gi4). As Japanese inbound tourists formed the second biggest market after Chinese tourists, speaking, reading and writing abilities in both English and Japanese were the main focus in Taiwan (Tourism Bureau of Taiwan, 2015). Since these abilities directly influence the management of customer relations, foreign language skills were identified as generic competencies that facilitated the performance of public relations in the field of hospitality, particularly in the context of Taiwan.

Finally, as discussed in section 6.2.1, the domain of skill certificates was a new emergence in the context of Taiwan. Teng et al. (2013) indicated that Taiwan hospitality educators perceived professional licences or certificates as strong evidence of graduate qualifications since no national quality standards were available. This approach differed significantly from that in the UK, where professional

182 qualifications were included in the curricula and recognised in the “Qualifications and Credit Framework” (Teng et al., 2013, p. 238).

The importance of hospitality skills was also identified in the ASEAN and APEC-TWG frameworks (APEC-TWG, 2006; Penhall et al., 2005; see Table 2.2). These standard skill frameworks specified technical skills in food and beverage, service operation, front office operation, housekeeping and laundry, cookery, catering, patisserie and other tourism-related conduct, reinforcing the significance of hospitality-specific competencies and culture-specific elements in these skills.

This concept is also well exhibited in convergent interviews by both managers and educators. Managers recognised the “qualifications is something we are looking for in people’s CV” (interviewee M5). Hospitality students and graduates also recognised the importance of obtaining certificates when applying jobs. In this traditional collectivism, high power distance and high uncertainty avoidance society, some employees may get the position simply by “backdoor guanxi” (Yang & Lau, 2015, p.44). The idea of “if you don’t have insiders who can open the backdoor for you, at least you need to have a certificate” is prevalent amongst students (interviewee S5). Hospitality educators believed “helping students get qualified is not the ultimate goal of higher education” (interviewee E6). The importance of skill certificates implies that “certificates are no longer just having utilitarian meaning…they are, most of the time, symbolic to the identity of an employee” (interviewee E7). In the experience marketing proposed by Pine and Gilmore (1996), service industry has been moved from service provision to experiential memories. Possessing different types of skill certificates in Taiwan implies the potential of the hospitality graduates to create memorable service for customers in terms of entertainment, educational, escapist and aesthetic experience.

In summary, the differences in both generic and specific competencies in business and hospitality management were evident in domain grouping and individual competency specifications. Particular emphasis was placed on the importance of attitudes, self-development, leadership, customer and employee relations, foreign 183 languages and professional skill certificates in hospitality management in the context of Taiwan. In addition, culture-comparable competencies were identified in most generic competencies, whereas culture-specific competencies were identified in a mixture of generic and specific competencies.

6.3 Differences between Industry and Education

Qualitative and quantitative analyses revealed contrasting perceptions of hospitality higher education stakeholders (i.e., hotel managers, hospitality educators, graduates and students) regarding important management competencies in the context of Taiwan. The results of MANOVA and discriminant analysis identified the differences amongst the educators, students and graduates as well as the competency domains that managers valued the most. The gaps between industry and education are reflected in terms of what competencies were more important to which stakeholders.

6.3.1 Management Competencies More Important in the Industry The results of discriminant analysis revealed that hotel managers considered the business operation domain to be the most important (Si1, managers> students> educators> graduates, in terms of means in Table 5.4). This finding implied that managers valued the more technical and administrative skills relating to business operation, namely, marketing, information management and crisis management, more than more specific and hospitality-focused competencies.

In the search of important competencies in the industry, previous competency studies, particularly from the perspective of industry practitioners, found human- related skills, such as leadership, human resource management, customer relations and communication skills, to be more important (Chung-Herrera et al., 2003; Johanson et al., 2011; Kay & Russette, 2000; Tas, 1988; Tesone & Ricci, 2006). Koenigsfeld, Youn et al. (2012) similarly reported club managers place higher importance on leadership and interpersonal competencies than financial competencies, which were regarded as the most significant in earlier studies in the field of club management. Similar results were reported in the study of Horng et al 184

(2011) where the leadership domain received the highest importance within generic competencies and the business and market competency domain received the second highest weight, after financial management competencies, within technical competencies.

In past studies, using multiple perspectives, human-related skills were similarly perceived as more critical by industry practitioners than educators. For example, when managers placed higher importance on skills in human relations (such as acting in an ethical manner), customer relations (such as communication with clients), and leadership skills (such as taking a leadership position), educational faculty put more emphasis on conceptual thinking, cost control, current industry knowledge, and supervision (Enz et al., 1993; Okeiyi et al., 1994). Tsai et al. (2006) also revealed that hospitality professionals also placed more importance on the interpersonal competencies (such as oral and written communication, emotional quotient, guest requests management, attitudinal quotient, positive customer relation development, positive work relations), whereas hospitality educators rated technical and administrative competencies relatively higher (such as relationship with other departments employee motivation, contingency decision plan, health and safety regulations implementation, understanding of personnel policies and management procedure).

However, in taking the multiple-perspective research approach, the findings are somewhat different. In this study, for example, hotel managers seemed to highly value the technical and administrative skills in relation to general business operation more than other hospitality higher education stakeholders. Although the findings of this study contradicted the results of Tsai et al. (2006), who found hospitality educators valued the administrative competencies more than managers did, it did not necessarily mean these competencies were less important in the field, especially when these administrative works were interpreted as marketing, information and crisis management skills. The research of Huang and Lin (2010) showed that hospitality managers ranked practical experience and skills more highly than educators, possibly implying that hospitality managers are more concerned about 185 how employees apply what they learned from school in the workplace. As depicted in the qualitative analysis, hotel managers argued that (interviewee M5): One of the reasons I like hospitality graduates is they are sensitive to industry direction and markets…they are clear about the ecology (environment) of this industry and know how to use what they learn in marketing theories at school in their jobs.

6.3.2 Management Competencies More Important in Hospitality Higher Education Two domains were significantly different between educators and two hospitality higher education stakeholders, namely graduates (i.e., early career practitioners) and students. First, hospitality educators perceived hospitality traits (Gi2) that were composites of attitudes and analytical abilities to be more important than graduates perceived them to be. Although the importance of attitudes toward hospitality work (including interest in the industry and interaction with others) and positive attitudes (including being confident, diligent and active) have been repeatedly recognised in past research, particularly in the context of Taiwan (Tsang, 2011; Wang, 2013; Wang & Tsai, 2012), practitioners may find these personal qualities or characteristics to be too conceptual or abstract to relate to occupational success.

Although there was no further investigation into the reasons for the difference, the relative importance level of the eight domains may explain the situation. Hospitality graduates ranked the domain of thinking and doing (Gi1) and self-development (Gi3) as first and second among important competencies that hospitality students needed to possess (see Table 6.2 and Table 6.6). This finding implies to certain extent that hospitality graduates did not believe attitudes and analytical abilities to be important in contributing to their career success compared to more business-focused skills relating to thinking and doing and self-development in the workplace.

Second, the post hoc test results of MANOVA also revealed that hospitality students valued hospitality communication capabilities (Gi4), namely, foreign language proficiency, significantly higher than hospitality educators. The placement of foreign 186 language at the top in the ranking of important competencies from the perspectives of both practitioners and educators is not surprising (Huang & Lin, 2010). However, some past studies have revealed that hospitality managers believe hospitality students need to further develop skills in communication and analysis (Lin, 2002; Hsiao & Hsiao, 2007).

Thus the perception of students—particularly those with internship experience— that foreign language skills have a higher level of importance may imply a feeling of unpreparedness in terms of foreign language proficiency, suggesting an area for curricula improvement and revision. Spowart (2010) contends that when using work- integrated learning as a moderator to investigate the preparedness of hospitality students, students significantly gained more self-confidence after the work- integrated learning training. However, in this study, students felt more insecure about their performance, particularly in foreign language communication.

Although more follow-up research should examine the reasons for those differences, such as issues of timing, national cultures, industry cultures, organisational cultures, personal values or simply the research design and sample, the differences nevertheless offer a good departure point for encouraging better practices in human resource management by industry practitioners and curriculum development strategies by hospitality higher education academics in Eastern cultures, particularly in Taiwan.

6.4 Implications The theoretical contributions of this study and its implications for the industry practitioners, educators and students are outlined in the following sections.

6.4.1 Theoretical Implications Confirming the Existence of Generic and Specific Competencies The management competency list compiled in this study did not emerge from a single input (i.e., industry practitioners), as is the case in most previous research (Chung-Herrera et al., 2003; Sisson & Adams, 2013; Tesone & Ricci, 2006; Testa &

187

Sipe, 2012). The 66 generic and specific management competencies were identified through a multiple stakeholder perspective that included hotel managers, hospitality educators, students and graduates. This perspective recognised the importance of both generic (cognitive and interpersonal skills) and specific (technical skills used in a profession) competencies for career success of hospitality students. This multiple adoption allows identification of important competencies that can help hospitality students succeed not only in hospitality work, but also in other workplaces and in personal development.

While the generic competencies identified in this study—thinking and doing (Gi1), hospitality traits (Gi2), self-development (Gi3) and hospitality communication capacity (Gi4)—resembled the cognitive, creative, leadership and interpersonal domains in the models of Katz (1955) and Sandwith (1993), the specific competencies—business operation (Si1), hospitality public relations (Si2), hospitality on-site management (Si3) and financial management (Si4)—were similar to the administrative and technical skills in those models. The generic competencies consisted of areas in implementation, problem-solving, communication, leadership, culture, creativity, self-management, attitude, analysis, foreign languages and personal relations. Most had been reported in past research (Chung-Herrera et al., 2003; Raybould & Wilkins, 2006; Testa & Sipe, 2012). The specific competencies comprised business and marketing, information, crisis management, finance, customer relations, human resources and skill certificates, which were also well recognised in prior studies (Horng et al., 2011; Koenigsfeld, Kim et al., 2012). Therefore, the findings of this multiple-perspective study verified the existence of both generic and specific competencies for facilitating hospitality students’ career success.

Identifying the Hospitality-focused and Business-focused Competencies: When competency models were developed into more detailed segmentation, such as the eight-domain leadership-competency model of Chung-Herrera et al. (2003) and the service-leadership high-order competency model of Testa and Sipe (2012), the description of competencies became subject to various interpretations. As a 188 result, a different understanding and positioning of domains emerged. The clear differentiation of hospitality-focused and business-focused competency domains identified in this study contributed to the second theoretical implication. The results of convergent interviews showed that four stakeholders of hospitality higher education differentiated hospitality and business competencies. This differentiation was verified by the factor analysis. Both types consisted of generic and specific elements.

In more specific terms, customer relations skills, for example, were identified as part of interpersonal skills in Sandwith’s (1993) model. In the service-leadership high- order competency model, Testa and Sipe (2012) attached customer relations management to all three levels: accountability in self-savvy (i.e., standing by their word to ensure customer satisfaction), expressive service in people savvy (i.e., doing more than what is expected for customers) and technical service in business savvy (i.e., making things convenient for the customer). In this study, customer relations was understood as a specific competency with a focus on hospitality management. These customer-related competencies (i.e., dealing with customer complaints, understanding the needs of customers, establishing and maintaining positive customer relationships, following hospitality-related laws and regulations, establishing quality management standards and controlling the quality of products and services) fit more into the administrative domain in Sandwith’s (1993) model. This shift may be due to a strong hospitality feature attached to the people-related competencies in the industry.

Other similar identifications were reported in the discussion of the new emerging domains: culture competencies in the thinking and doing domain (Gi1), foreign language in the hospitality communication capacity domain (Gi4) and skill certificate in the hospitality on-site management domain (Si3). Also, some shifting was observed in the domains existing in the literature: leadership in the thinking and doing domain (Gi1), attitude in the hospitality traits domain (Gi2), creativity in the self-development domain (Gi3), information in the business operation domain (Si1), and finance in the financial management domain (Si4). These shifts helped to explain 189 the importance of these competencies from multiple perspectives and pinpoint the competencies, in both generic and specific terms, that were more relevant to the hospitality industry and those that were more applicable in general business.

Recognising Culture-comparable and Culture-specific Competencies: As this study was conducted in an Eastern context, some of the shifts may be due to cultural differences. Cultural implications of important competencies in terms of culture, language skills, personal relationships and communication patterns are discussed by Horng et al. (2011). Some of these implications emerged in the competency domains of this study. In Table 6.5, culture-specific or emic competencies appear in the domain of thinking and doing (Gi1), self-development (Gi3), hospitality communication capacity (Gi4) and hospitality on-site management (Si3). Competencies in hospitality traits (Gi2), business operation (Si1), hospitality public relations (Si2) and financial management (Si4) are categorised as culture- comparable or etic competencies.

Table 6.5: Culture-comparable and Culture-specific Management Competencies Culture-comparable Culture-specific Competency Domains Competencies Competencies Thinking and doing Implementation Culture (Gi1) Problem-solving Leadership Communication Leadership Hospitality traits Attitude Attitude (Gi2) Analysis Self-development Self-management Creativity (Gi3) Hospitality communication capacity Personal relations Foreign language (Gi4)

190

Culture-comparable Culture-specific Competency Domains Competencies Competencies Business operation Business & marketing (Si1) Information Crisis management Hospitality public relations Customer relations Customer relations (Si2) Human resources Hospitality on-site management Skill certificate (Si3) Financial management Finance (Si4) Source: developed for this study

First, in the domain of thinking and doing (Gi1), culture and leadership were conceptualised as culture-specific competencies that reflect an international perspective and respect different cultures. Although most hospitality literature acknowledges that the industry features the mixing of cultures and ethnicities (Brownell, 2008), this aspect has generally not been included in a competency model or mentioned as an independent domain. Culture and leadership were included in the model of Horng et al. (2011) from the perspective of hospitality professionals in Taiwan and were therefore recognised as culture-specific competencies. Within the competency of leadership, teamwork and harmony were emphasised in this study. Leading by example and empowering employees were more culturally comparable aspects.

Second, in the domain of self-development (Gi3), creativity was included along with self-management skills. Chinese values usually emphasise moral discipline and moderation in self-cultivation (Tsang, 2011). The new inclusion of creativity may reflect a contextual influence, particularly that of Taiwan, of creativity on the perception of how individuals should develop themselves. This combination may need further investigation to confirm its generalisability, but it is recognised for the importance of creativity for personal success.

191

Third, in the domain of hospitality communication capacity (Gi4), foreign language proficiency was identified and perceived as a culture-specific competency. While many competency models and frameworks developed in Eastern cultures note the importance of English in generic competencies (e.g., Horng et al., 2012; the APEC- TWG framework), this study also included Japanese, reflecting the culture-specific nature of the language skills that were deemed important in the context of Taiwan.

Finally, in the domain of hospitality on-site management (Si3), this study identified the new domain of hospitality skill certificates. That is, the functional skills that hospitality students learn should not only be mastered (Koenigsfeld, Kim et al., 2012) but also be certified and not just acknowledged. This emphasis may reflect the importance of technical training in both hospitality higher education and on-the-job programs.

Although most management competencies identified in this research have been reported in previous literature, these identifications reinforce the on-going importance of generic and specific, as well as the business and hospitality separation in management competencies. One may argue that most of the re-grouped domains are identical to both Eastern and Western cultures; however, the notion of cultural connotations in the convergent interviews contributes to the interpretation of the management competencies. This type of interpretation and conceptualization is usually absent in most previous competency researches and thus distinguish this study from previous researches. Therefore, the findings of this study help to redefine the competency domains identified in previous researches (Agut et al, 2003; Chung- Herrera et al., 2003; Horng et al., 2011; Katz, 1955; Koenigsfeld, Kim et al., 2012; Raybould & Wilkins, 2006; Sandwith, 1993; Testa & Sipe, 2012) with a more cultural- specific lens, particularly in terms of interpersonal skills, communication, culture values, attitudes, creativity and quality of performance. These form valuable implications for hospitality educators when developing curricular.

192

Identifying the Gaps amongst Hospitality Higher Education Stakeholders: One of the most important practical contributions of this study is the identification of the gap between hospitality higher education and industry in terms of preparing competent students. The findings reveal the top three important competencies for all groups, individually and collectively, to be self-development (Gi3), thinking and doing (Gi1) and hospitality public relations (Si2). Hospitality educators placed the hospitality traits domain (Gi2) in first place (see Table 6.6).

Table 6.6: Ranking of Management Competencies across Samples Top Three Competency Type of Sample Group Rank Domains Competency Managers 1 Hospitality public relations Specific, hospitality (Industry) (Si2) Generic, business 2 Thinking and doing (Gi1) Generic, business 3 Self-development (Gi3) Graduates 1 Thinking and doing (Gi1) Generic, business (Industry) 2 Self-development (Gi3) Generic, business 3 Hospitality public relations Specific, hospitality (Si2) Educators 1 Hospitality traits (Gi2) Generic, hospitality (Education) 2 Self-development (Gi3) Generic, business 3 Thinking and doing (Gi1) Generic, business Students 1 Hospitality public relations Specific, hospitality (Education) (Si2) Generic, business 2 Self-development (Gi3) Generic, business 3 Thinking and doing (Gi1)

Since comparison research has used ranks of the samples to discuss the industry- education gap (Cheung et al., 2010; Millar et al., 2010), the results of this study provide more rigorous findings with respect to the differences. As discussed in section 6.3, statistically significant differences were identified only between hospitality educators and graduates in the domain of hospitality traits (Gi2) and between educators and students in the domain of hospitality communication capacity (Gi4). The combined results of discriminant analysis showed the hospitality traits domain (Gi2) ranking as the most significant predictor that differentiated 193 educators from other groups and the business operation domain (Si1) as differentiating managers from other groups. In general, industry practitioners valued specific competencies in both business (i.e., marketing, information and crisis management) and hospitality (i.e., customer relations and human resources), whereas hospitality educators valued the generic competencies with a focus of hospitality management (i.e., attitudes and analysis). While most competency research has recognised people-related competencies such as leadership and interpersonal skills as being most important, this emphasis was not evident in the current study.

6.4.2 Implications for Hospitality Practitioners Management competencies in the hospitality industry have practical implications in terms of recruitment, performance evaluation and staff training. First, the eight domains can be used as check lists or scenario tests to examine applicants’ qualifications and responses in recruiting interviews. For example, human resource managers could consult with top-level managers regarding the required competencies of different positions at the entry, middle and senior levels, such as receptionists, front-desk supervisors and managers. Human resource managers then could develop a list of job responsibilities or performance standards in practical terms in line with the eight domains. Some competency statements are more relevant to certain positions. In the domain of hospitality traits, for example, “be diligent and enjoy hard working (GHi9)” may be interpreted as “check booking list and respond to any requirements from guests and supervisors” for the required performance of receptionists. For front-desk managers, “analyse future market trends (GHi13)” could be interpreted as “make market analysis report monthly.” The responsibility lists at different levels may be helpful in recruitment and appraisals.

Second, managers conduct performance appraisals in many ways. To improve service quality and attain economic success, competencies in the eight domains could be used as a framework when evaluating employees’ performance through multi-source feedback (or 360-degree feedback) (Horng & Lin, 2013). No standard or concrete

194 rubrics exist for determining what level of performance is satisfactory or for deciding on the best way to observe on-site performance. Thus, instead of simply adopting supervisor-subordinate direction or self-reported appraisal documents, firms could use 360-degree feedback to provide a comprehensive performance evaluation from the perspectives of supervisors, peers, and subordinates (Horng & Lin, 2013). This feedback could facilitate the scoring in performance appraisals and diagnose employees’ need for further training.

6.4.3 Implications for Hospitality Educators In curriculum design, setting educational objectives is the first step (Tyler, 1949). The eight competency domains derived from this study could be used to facilitate curriculum re-design in two ways. First, the four generic competency domains of thinking and doing (Gi1), hospitality traits (Gi2), self-development (Gi3), and hospitality communication capacity (Gi4) could provide the framework for establishing core competencies or employabilities that each course intends to achieve. Hospitality educators could design appropriate learning outcomes for facilitating the evaluation of how well these educational objectives are met.

Second, the four specific competency domains of business operation (Si1), hospitality public relations (Si2), hospitality on-site management (Si3) and financial management (Si4) could become the framework for designing professional subjects within courses. These subjects could be grouped into different modules in the curriculum mapping (for example, hotel management, food and beverage management, conference and banquet management). Each module could include more specific or detailed course subjects, such as hotel marketing strategies or crisis management in conferences and meetings. The modules could help students develop a clear plan for their careers and mitigate the gap between learning and application.

As for the significantly different perceptions between educators and graduates, as well as educators and students, educators can bridge the gap in two ways. First, hospitality graduates believed attitudes and analytical abilities were less important 195 than educators believed them to be. Since these abilities were identified as unique to hospitality management, educators could incorporate training in these abilities into practical courses, such as courses relating to front office operations, banquet settings, room service operations, and conference planning. If hospitality students could learn and practice how to apply these generic competencies before they graduate, they might be able to make flexible use of these competencies in different occupational situations after entering the workplace.

The second difference was that hospitality students thought foreign language proficiency was more important than hospitality educators believed it to be. To provide the maximum opportunities for students to learn and apply foreign languages, one approach may be to introduce flipped classrooms in foreign language courses, such as courses in English for specific purposes (e.g., hotel English, English for frontline officers, English in food and beverage services). The key feature of the classroom is to make a traditional lecture-led classroom become a student-led classroom. The purpose of attending class is not to absorb knowledge but to apply what students learn from the self-study and homework that teachers assign before class (Albert & Beatty, 2014; Findlay-Thompson & Mombourquette, 2014). In terms of second-language acquisition, particularly when the language needs to be applied in specific professions, actual practice in class is one of the most direct and efficient ways to evaluate how well the students could manage the language. In class, the responsibilities of the teacher should be to correct the mistakes and provide supplemental resources that students could apply in specific circumstances. In this way, students could actively learn speaking, listening, writing and communicating skills and practice those skills in class.

In addition to using the eight competency domains in curriculum development, embedding attitude and analysis aspects into practical hospitality courses and using the flipped classroom in foreign language courses, hospitality educators could establish close partnerships with the industry. Pizam, Okumus and Hutchinson (2013) reported a successful industry-university partnership in the University of Central Florida. Rosen College of Hospitality Management established a reciprocal 196 partnership to benefit the school and hospitality enterprises in central Florida. While the industry enterprises offered support in the form of financial donations, scholarships, industry advisory services, guest lecturers and mentors, the school offered the industry partners faculty research and consulting services, executive education and certificate programs, work-study programs, student internships, and use of college facilities. Through this cooperative process, hospitality educators could better understand the competencies that practising managers seek and subsequently incorporate these into curricula. Hospitality students thus potentially gain a competitive advantage in recruitment if they meet the necessary competencies. This type of strategic alliance not only narrows the gap between education and the hospitality industry but also facilitates the career success of hospitality students and graduates, maximises the contributions of educators and upgrades the knowledge and experiences of hospitality practitioners.

6.4.4 Implications for Hospitality Students Generic and transferable competencies are indispensable in life-long learning (Fidgeon, 2010; Swanger & Gursoy, 2007). From the perspective of students, self- learning is one of the best ways to improve self-development. The results of this study suggest two areas in which hospitality students could expand their management competencies. First, foreign language proficiency was regarded as important by hospitality students and was also identified as an important transferable competency, implying that students had strong motivation to learn. A good use of on-line resources in self-learning will be helpful. Students could have consultations with their teachers and collect information from multiple sources for enhancing their learning, such as from videos.

Second, hospitality students could pay more attention to the management competencies for career development that hospitality managers perceived as being more important—skills in marketing, information and crisis management (i.e., the business operation domain). Being skilful in these areas may demonstrate that students are ready for the workforce and able to deal with operational tasks. These 197 skills may help differentiate hospitality students from other candidates and increase the possibility of being employed. Students can also benefit from applying what they learn in the period of internships. To maximise their learning during internships, students are encouraged to actively raise questions to attain a comprehensive understanding of solutions to any problems they confront and to keep self- examining their performances on-site. They could also invite timely feedback from their industry mentors rather than waiting for the mentor reports the school requires after completion of the internship training.

6.5 Limitations Some cautions are in order regarding generalisation and interpretation of the findings. First, in the convergent interview phase, the variation of the selected sample came only from the category of organisations (i.e., four or five star hotels, and general university or technical college). Since the sampling frame was not subject to detailed segmentation, such as location of organisations and demographic variance amongst interviewees, the validity and reliability of the management competencies generated from interviews may be limited. Limitations also pertain to data analysis. The analysis of convergent interviews was undertaken by a single researcher. Although the researcher examined the interview transcripts and field notes twice before conducting the next interview, bias from self-examination might still be unavoidable. Without the confirmation of inter-rater reliability, bias and errors in relation to the coding and categorising might limit the interpretation and generalisation of the results.

Second, in the mail survey phase, the sampling procedure may not have provided fully representative samples from the target population since the average response rate of the four samples was 35.9%, particularly with a relatively low response rate of 27.6% in the sample of hospitality educators. Although the low season had been chosen to deliver questionnaires to hotel managers and hospitality graduates, and personal follow-up phone calls were made to department offices, non-response or incomplete questionnaires were still unavoidable. Further, although the response rate of this study was in line with that of Chen (2012) with a rate of 34%, a higher 198 response rate is always desirable. To test for non-response bias, chi-square tests were used to examine the difference of institutional categories (four- or five-star hotels and general universities or technical colleges) between the sample and target population and respondents’ demographic information between the first and second response samples. Although most tests revealed insignificant differences, the test of work experience of hospitality graduates and managers showed a significant difference. Therefore, non-response bias might limit the generalisation of the findings in terms of different perceptions of the four samples.

Finally, the data were collected within a single Eastern culture—Taiwan—and may not fully represent all Eastern cultures, such as Mainland China, Singaporean Chinese, Hong Kong and Macao Chinese or Malaysian Chinese. Although some similarities in important competencies were identified between this study and other research conducted in China (e.g., foreign languages were regarded as important skills specifically for front office staff in the study of Kong and Baum in 2006), concluding that the results and interpretation of the current study can be generalised to all Eastern cultures would be premature. Generalisation may require further investigation to obtain more empirical evidence.

6.6 Suggested Future Research The study’s limitations suggest several areas for future research. First, cross-cultural research should examine the influence of cultural difference on important competencies in depth and at different levels, such as national cultures, industry cultures, or organisational cultures (Chen, Cheung & Law, 2012). Differences may have significant implications for the understanding of the competency issues.

Specifically, in terms of national cultures, researchers can select a single sector in different cultural backgrounds, such as Australia versus China, and compare the perceived essential competencies amongst industry practitioners, educators and students. The hospitality sectors could include, for example, restaurants (culinary arts, food and beverage preparing), travel agencies (tour guiding, tour managing), cruises (hospitality, entertainment and safety), airlines (hospitality, service and 199 safety), conventions and exhibitions (venue management, event management). As mentioned previously, the broad segmentation of Western and Eastern cultures may comprise many different national cultures, making worthwhile the conduct of competency research in different national cultures. Hence the competencies that are specific to Eastern cultures may emerge in a more rigorous sense.

In addition, in a single cultural background, comparing between hospitality sectors may also provide some interesting findings about cross-sector competencies and sector-specific competencies that are applicable in a specific cultural setting. Examining the difference of industry cultures within a single national culture can mitigate the interference of national culture and show the distinction between sectors more directly. For example, while attitudes and analysis may be important competencies in terms of hospitality traits (Gi2) in hotels, leadership and problem- solving may be more important for cruise staff because of uncontrollable weather conditions. Thus these competencies may be included in the domain of a generic competency with a more sector-specific focus.

Another worthwhile comparison is that of organisational cultures, particularly in multinational organisations in the hospitality industry, such as chain restaurants, hotels and travel agencies. The essential competencies in chain enterprises may not be the same as those in small business enterprises. For example, managers of large enterprises may regard skills of analysis and business operation as more important while owners of a small business value the skills of communication and creativity, possibly because in a small business or personally owned company, the bosses are usually the employees. They need good communication skills for maintaining good customer relations and need to be creative in providing service and products.

Second, more rigorous sampling procedures should be adopted to ensure the representativeness of the samples, such as collecting full sampling frames from reliable sources and avoiding low response. Instead of passively waiting for responses, researchers may offer some reasonable incentives or personal invitations in the follow-up reminding to encourage a high response rate. 200

Third, as this study has identified important hospitality management competencies and different perceptions amongst higher education stakeholders in Eastern cultures, the next step is to examine and investigate how these competencies could be evaluated in terms of learning outcomes and what interventions could contribute to better performance. Most competency literature characterises competent performance in terms of self-reported preparedness of students or course grades (Mahachi, 2012; Lolli, 2013). In classroom settings, different competencies could be evaluated through different rubrics. For example, the way to evaluate the level of positive attitudes toward work differs from the way to examine communication skills. Thus, researchers could choose one group of competencies that could be evaluated under one rubric system or set of evaluation criteria and then examine the performance in more objective terms. Longitudinal research could track the improvement and examine the possible interventions that make improvements in learning outcomes.

Fourth, in terms of interventions, research has examined the effectiveness of internships and extra-curricular activities on students’ learning (Lau, Hsu, Acosta & Hsu, 2013; Ruhanen, Robinson & Breakey, 2013). Further research could investigate how these types of educational interventions contribute to which type of learning outcomes. Other interventions relating to teaching methods, such as the use of flipped classrooms or on-line courses, could be used in future investigations.

Fifth, the list of hospitality management competencies could be used to describe the profile of successful hotel managers and give direction to hospitality educators and prospective managers. The further investigation of how to develop these skills might take the form of a qualitative research design. The results can have valuable implications for on the job training and for curriculum development in hospitality programs. For example, Rathna and Vijaya (2009) used competencies in six domains (i.e., managerial behaviour, interpersonal behaviour, decisive behaviour, ethical orientation, venturing behaviour, enterprising behaviour and learning orientation competencies) to describe the differences and similarities of entrepreneurs and 201 intrapreneurs. They found that intrapreneurs perceived managerial behaviours such as managing innovation processes and helping to commercialise them within the organisation, as well as monitoring their own and others process in the performance of tasks and responsibilities, to be more important and these were more frequently adopted by the intrapreneurs than entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurs reported venturing behaviour competencies were more important and frequently adopted these in their jobs, such as analysing their current position and developing the necessary steps to reach their vision along with being aware of how strategies and tactics work in the marketplace. The profiling of the successful manager in different functional areas in the hospitality industry can therefore provide direct guidelines for training and educational programs.

Finally, this study focuses on the importance of hospitality management competencies in career development. Competent management performance is only one factor influencing career success and satisfaction. Other predictors of career success, such as job-seeking skills, work mobility, career choice, career self-efficacy, and personal value of job, may generate more practical implications for educators and practitioners (Wang, 2013).

6.7 Conclusion In light of the thriving development of tourism and the hospitality industry worldwide, the number of degree-level hospitality programs has been mounting in recent decades. This increase gives rise to concern about the quality of hospitality programs, particularly when the development of the industry has advanced and required skills and abilities of the workforce have become complicated. Hospitality educators need to examine whether they are using old knowledge to teach current students how to deal with the problems of the future and investigate how the higher education curriculum can be shaped to develop students’ skills for tomorrow’s job (Stanciulescu & Bulin, 2012; Wu, 2010).

Research on the important management competencies continues to take place to update the essential competencies that hospitality graduates require to ensure their 202 career success and personal development (Millar et al., 2010; Sisson & Adams, 2013). However, as most research was conducted in Western cultures, the results may not be applicable in Eastern cultures. To address the cultural issue in the curriculum development process, this study aims to identify currently important management competencies in both generic and specific terms from the perspective of Eastern cultures.

Drawing on the results of convergent interviews and a mail survey, this study identifies eight domains of important management competencies. Four domains are applicable in general business conditions and the other four are more specific to the field of hospitality. These four hospitality-focused domains of hospitality traits, hospitality communication capacity, hospitality public relations, and hospitality on- site management can be regarded as important competencies that differentiate hospitality major graduates from general business majors and should be the areas that hospitality educators need to concentrate on when re-designing curricula or teaching methods.

In addition to finding that competencies are separable into those that are business- and hospitality-focused, this study reveals five types of competencies that have culturally different implications, namely, leadership in interpersonal relations, self- development skills, application of information in business operation, foreign language proficiency, and acquisition of skill certificates in the field of hospitality. Although these differences could not be generalised to a wider context and it is hard to conclude that these differences are attributed to Western and Eastern cultural values, these differences nevertheless help with understanding culturally comparable and culturally specific competencies in the hospitality industry.

This study also contrasts the perceptions amongst hospitality higher education stakeholders comprising hotel managers, hospitality educators, students and graduates. The gaps were identified in two generic competency domains of hospitality-focused competencies: attitudes and analytical abilities and foreign

203 language proficiency. These findings are valuable to hospitality higher education stakeholders in Taiwan, particularly hospitality educators.

In Taiwan, the oversupply of hospitality programs and the declining birth rate in recent decades has led the Ministry of Education to announce a plan of university transformation, merger and closure. The low birth rates have reduced undergraduate student numbers for the 2016 academic year and enrolment will drop by about 300,000 students, causing a corresponding drop in university revenues, equivalent to the loss of NT$30 billion in the 2023 academic year (Ministry of Education, March, 2015). For Taiwanese hospitality educators, it is clearly time to examine how to prepare competent graduates, make hospitality programs marketable and retain the enrolment rate. Although the results of this study may not be generalised to other Eastern cultures, the study still has beneficial implications that educators could adopt to re-position the programs and re-design the curricula.

204

References

Agut, S., Grau, R., & Peiró, J.M. (2003). Competency needs among managers from Spanish hotels and restaurants and their training demands. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 22, 281-295. Airey, D. (1997). After twenty-five years of development: A view of the state of tourism education in the UK. In E. Laws (Ed.), The ATTT Tourism Education Handbook (pp. 9-13). London: The Tourism Society. Albert, M., & Beatty, B. J. (2014). Flipping the classroom applications to curriculum redesign for an Introduction to management course: Impact on grades. Journal of Education for Business, 89(8), 419-424. doi: 10.1080/08832323.2014.929559 Alexander, M. (2007). Reflecting on changes in operational training in UK hospitality management degree programmes. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 19(3). 211-220. Allen, L. (1996). Learning outcomes in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 21(1), 93-108. Allport, G. W.(1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. New York: Holt and Company. Altinay, L., & Paraskevas, A. (2008). Planning research in hospitality and tourism. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Angell, R.J., Heffernan, T.W., & Megicks, P. (2008). Service quality in postgraduate education. Quality Assurance in Education, 16(3), 236-254. Annaraud, K. (2006). A comparison of skills necessary for successful careers for American and Russian hospitality students upon graduation. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Education, 18(4), 33-44. Annie, W.M.N., & Hamali, J. (2006). Higher education and employment in Malaysia. International Journal of Business and Society, 7(1), 102-120. Armstrong, R., Mok, C., Go, F., & Chan, A. (1997). The importance of cross-cultural expectations in the measurement of service quality perceptions in the hotel industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management 16 (2), 181–190.

205

Ashley, R.A., Bach, S.A., Chesser, J.W., Ellis, W.T., Ford, R.C., LeBruto, S.M., et al. (1995). A customer-based approach to hospitality education. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 36(4), 74-79. Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Tourism Working Group (2000), Tourism occupational skill standards development in the APEC region- Bridging project. Singapore: APEC Secretariat. Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Tourism Working Group (2006), Tourism occupational skill standards development in the APEC region- Stage IV. Singapore: APEC Secretariat. Ayouna, B. M., & Moreob, P. J. (2008). The influence of the cultural dimension of uncertainty avoidance on business strategy development: A cross-national study of hotel managers. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 27, 65-75. Baartman, L.K.J., Bastiaens, T.J., Kirschner, P.A., & Van der Vleuten, C.P.M. (2006). The wheel of competency assessment: Presenting quality criteria for competency assessment programs. Studies in Education Evaluation, 32, 153-170. Barnett, B.R., & Bradley, L. (2007). The impact of organizational support for career development on career satisfaction. Career Development International, 12(7), 617-636. Barrie, S.C. (2006). Understanding what we mean by the generic attributes of graduates. Higher education, 51, 215-241. Barron, P., & Arcodia, C. (2002). Linking learning style preferences and ethnicity: international students studying hospitality and tourism management in Australia. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education, 1(2), 15-27. Barrows, C.W. (1999). Introduction to hospitality education. In C.W. Barrows & R.H. Bosselman (Eds), Hospitality management education (pp.1-20). New York: Haworth Press. Barth, M., Godemann, J., Rieckmann, M., & Stoltenberg, U. (2007). Developing key competencies for sustainable development in higher education. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 8 (4), 416-430. Baum, T. (1991). The U.S. and the U.K.: Comparing expectations of management trainees. The Cornel Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 32(2), 79-84.

206

Baum, T. (2006). Human resource management for tourism, hospitality and leisure: An international perspective. London: Thomson Learning. Beauchamp, G.A. (1975). Curriculum theory (3rd ed.). Wilmette, Illinois: The Kagg Press. Biesma, R.G., Pavlova, M., Vaatstra, R., Van Merode, G.G., Czabanpwska, K., Smith, T., & Groot, W. (2008). Generic versus specific competencies of entry-level public health graduates: Employers’ perceptions in Poland, the UK and the Netherlands. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 13, 325-343. Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: the classification of educational goals. Handbook 1-2. New York: McKay. Boam, R., & Sparrow, P. (1992). Designing and achieving competency: A competency based approach to develop people and organizations. New York: The McGraw-Hill Training Series. Boritz, J.E., & Carnaghan, C.A. (2003). Competency-based education and assessment for the accounting profession: A critical review. Canadian Accounting Perspectives, 2(1), 7-42. Bowden, J., & Masters, G. (1993). Implications for higher education of a competency- based approach to education and training, Canberra: AGPS. Boyatzis, R. (1982). The competent manager- A model for effective performance. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Brady, D. (1995). Competency-based education. In P. McKenzie, P. Mitchell & P. Oliver (Eds.), Competence and accountability in education (pp.1-18). Hants, UK: Ashgate Publishing Limited. Breakey, N.M., & Craig-Smith, S.J. (2007). Hospitality degree programs in Australian: A continuing evolution. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 14(2), 102-118. Breakey, N.M., & Craig-Smith, S.J. (2008). Trends and issues in tourism and hospitality degree education in Australia - Will the bubble burst? In S. Richardson, L. Fredline, A. Patiar, & M. Ternel (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2008 Council for Australian University Tourism and Hospitality Education Conference, Gold Coast, Australia.

207

Breiter, D., & Clements, C.J. (1996). Hospitality management curricula for the 21st century. Hospitality and Tourism Educator, 8(1), 57-60. Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross- Cultural Psychology, 1 (3): 185-216. Brislin, R., Lonner, W., & Thorndike, R. (1973). Cross-Cultural Research Methods. Wiley: New York. Brownell, J., & Chung, B.G. (2001). The management development program: A competency-based model for preparing hospitality leaders. Journal of Management Education, 25(2), 124-145. Brophy, M., & Kiely, T. (2002). Competencies: A new sector. Journal of European Industrial Training, 26(2/3/4), 165-176. Brownell, J., & Chung, B.G. (2001). The management development program: A competency-based model for preparing hospitality leaders. Journal of Management Education, 25(2), 124-145. Buergermeister, J. (1983). Assessment of education skills and competencies needed by beginning hospitality managers. Hospitality Education and Research Journal, 8(1), 38-53. Burbidge, D.J. (1994). Student perception of preparation for success: A view from Europe. Hospitality and Tourism Educators, 6(4), 45-50. Chan, S. (1999). The Chinese learner—A question of style. Education and Training, 41, 294-304. Chang, W.W. (2004). A Cross-Cultural Case Study of a Multinational Training Program in the United States and Taiwan. Adult Education Quarterly, 54(3), 174-192. Chang, S., Gong, Y., & Shum, C. (2011). Promoting innovation in hospitality companies through human resource management practices. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30(4), 812-818. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.01.001 Chang, T.Y., & Hsu, J.M. (2010). Development framework for tourism and hospitality in higher vocational education in Taiwan. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sports and Tourism Education (Pre-2012), 9(1), 101-109. Charlesworth, Z. (2007). Educating international hospitality students and managers: The role of culture. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 19(2), 133-145. 208

Charlesworth, Z. (2008). Learning styles across cultures: Suggestions for educators. Educating and Training, 50(2), 115-127. Cheetham, G., & Chivers, G. (1996). Towards a holistic model of professional competence. Journal of European Industrial Training, 20(5), 20-30. Cheetham, G. & Chivers, G. (1998). The reflective (and competent) practitioner: a model of professional competence which seeks to harmonise the reflective practitioner and competence-based approaches. Journal of European Industrial Training, 22 (7), 267-276. doi:10.1108/03090599810230678 Cheetham, G., & Chivers, G. (2000). A new look at competent professional practice. Journal of European Industrial Training, 24(7), 374-383. Chen, R. X. Y., Cheung, C., & Law, R. (2012). A review of the literature on culture in hotel management research: What is the future? International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31(1), 52-65. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.06.010 Chen, Y. Y., & Hsu, S. Y. (2007). An experiment and planning of curriculum for preparing practical competencies of hospitality management students. Asian Journal of Management and Human Sciences, 1(4). 577-589. Chen, L.C., & Tseng, C.Y. (2012). Benefits of cross-functional training: Three departments of hotel line supervisors in Taiwan. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 19(1), 115–122. DOI:10.1017/jht.2012.13 Chen, K.Y., & Wong, Z.H. (2011). Advanced statistical analysis using SPSS and AMOS. Taipei: Wunon. Cheung, C., Law, R., & He, K. (2010). Essential hotel managerial competencies for graduate students. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education, 22(4), 25-32. doi: 10.1080/10963758.2010.10696989 Cho, S., Woods, R. H., Jang, S., & Erdem, M. (2006). Measuring the impact of human resource management practices on hospitality firms’ performances. Hospitality Management. 25, 262–277. Chong, E. (2008). Managerial competency appraisal: A cross-cultural study of American and East Asian managers. Journal of Business Research, 61, 191-200. Chong, E. (2013). Managerial competencies and career advancement: A comparative study of managers in two countries. Journal of Business Research, 66(3), 345-353. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.08.015 209

Chong, M., Peng, T.K., Fu, P.P, Richards, M., Meuthel, M., Caldas, M.P., & Shang, Y.F. (2015). Relational perspectives on leaders’ influence behavior: The mediation of Western leader–member exchange and Chinese quanxi. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 46(1), 71-87. doi: 10.1177/0022022114554035 Christou, E. (1999). Hospitality management education in Greece: An exploratory study. Tourism Management, 20, 683-691. Christou, E. (2002). Revisiting competencies for hospitality management: Contemporary views of the stakeholders. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Education, 14(1), 25-32. Christou, E., & Eaton, J. (2000). Management competencies for graduate trainees. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(4), 1058-1061. Chung, K.Y. (2000). Hotel management curriculum reform based on required competencies of hotel employees and career success in the hotel industry. Tourism Management, 21, 473-487. Chung, Y.T., & Yang, C.C. (2013). Hospitality major vocational high school students' expectations on university education. Higher Education Studies, 3(4), 60-66. doi: 10.5539/hes.v3n4p60 Chung-Herrera, B.G., Enz, C.A., & Lankau, M.J. (2003). Grooming future hospitality leaders: A competencies model. The Cornel Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 44(3), 17-25. Chyung, S.Y., Stepich, D., & Cox, D. (2006). Building a competency-based curriculum architecture to educate 21st-century business practitioners. Journal of Education for Business, 81(6), 307-314. Connolly, P., & McGing, G. (2006). Graduate education and hospitality management in Ireland. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 18(1), 50-59. Convergent Interviewing. (2008). In L. M. Given (Ed.), The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods (Vol. 1, pp. 125-127). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Retrieved May 11, 2014, from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CCX3073600080&v=2.1&u=griffith &it=r&p=GVRL&sw=w&asid=7fba6b20f73127d3fbc3137c8ddc1b2d

210

Coll, R.K., & Zegwaard, K.E. (2006). Perceptions of desirable graduate competencies for science and technology new graduates. Research in Science & Technological Education, 24(1), 29-58. Cummins, R.A. & Gullone, E. (2000). Why we should not use 5-point Likert scales: The case for subjective quality of life measurement. Proceedings, Second International Conference on Quality of Life in Cities (pp.74-93). Singapore: National University of Singapore. Curry, L.A., Nembhard, I.M., & Bradley, E.H. (2009). Qualitative and mixed methods provide unique contributions to outcomes research. Circulation, 119, 1442- 1452. Damitio, J.W., & Schmidgall, R.S. (1989). A comparative analysis of lodging general managers’ and hospitality accounting educators’ views of the importance of accounting skills. Hospitality Education and Research Journal, 13(3), 43-52. De Vita, G. (2001). Learning styles, culture and inclusive instruction in the multicultural classroom: A business and management perspective. Innovations Education Teaching International, 38(2), 165-174. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14703290110035437 Department of Education and Training, Australian Government. (July 17, 2015). About the skills sector: Training packages. Retrieved December 4, 2015 from https://www.education.gov.au/training-packages Dick, B. (1990).Convergent interviewing. Brisbane, Australia: Interchange. Dimmock, K., Breen, H. & Walo, M. (2003). Management competencies: An Australian assessment of tourism and hospitality students. Journal of the Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management. 9(1), 12-26. Donahue, M.A. (2004). Differences in perceptions of the athletic training education domains: A comparison of practice setting. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, New Mexico University. Doney, P.M., Cannon, J.P., & Mullen, M.R. (1998). Understanding the influence if national culture on the development of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 601-620.

211

Dopson, L.R., & Nelson, A.A. (2002). Future of hotel education: Required skills and knowledge for graduates of U.S. hospitality programs beyond the year 2000- Part two. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Education, 14(3), 11-17. Dopson, L.R., & Tas, R.F. (2004). A practical approach to curriculum development: A case study. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Education, 16(1), 39-46. Driedger, S. M. (2008). Convergent Interviewing. In L. M. Given (Ed.), The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods (pp. 125-127). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Enz, C.A., Renaghan, L.M., & Geller, A.N. (1993). Graduate-level education: A survey of stakeholders. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 34(4), 90-95. ׳Eurico, S. T., da Silva, J. A. M., & do Valle, P. O. (2015). A model of graduates satisfaction and loyalty in tourism higher education: The role of employability. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 16, 30-42. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhlste.2014.07.002 Evers, F.T., Rush, J.C., & Berdrow, I. (1998). The bases of competence: skills for lifelong learning and employability. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Fidgeon, P. R. (2010). Tourism education and curriculum design: A time for consolidation and review? Tourism Management, 31(6), 699-723. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2010.05.019 Finch, D. J., Hamilton, L. K., Baldwin, R., & Zehner, M. (2013). An exploratory study of factors affecting undergraduate employability. Education + Training, 55(7), 681- 704. doi: 10.1108/et-07-2012-0077 Findlay-Thompson, S., & Mombourquette, P. (2014). Evaluation of a flipped classroom in an undergraduate business course. Business Education & Accreditation, 6(1), 63-71. Fock, H., Chiang, F., Au, K., & Hui, M. (2011). The moderating effect of collectivist orientation in psychological empowerment and job satisfaction relationship. International Journal of Hospitality Management 30, 619–629. Foucar-Szocki, R., & Bolsing, C. (1999). Linking hospitality management programs to industry. In C.W. Barrows & R.H. Bosselman (Eds), Hospitality management education (pp. 37-65). New York: Haworth Press. 212

Fournier, H., & Ineson, E. M. (2010). Closing the gap between education and Industry: Skills' and competencies' requirements for food service internships in Switzerland. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education, 22(4), 33-42. Doi: DOI:10.1080/10963758.2010.10696990 Gangani, N., McLean, G.N., Braden, R.A. (2006). A competency-based human resource development strategy. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 19(1), 127- 140. García-Aracil, A., & Van der Velden, R. (2008). Competencies for young European higher education graduates: labor market mismatches and their payoffs. High Education, 55, 219-239. Garman, A.N., & Johnson, M.P. (2006). Leadership competencies: An introduction. Journal of Healthcare Management, 51(1), 13-17. Gay, L.R., & Airasian, P. (2000). Education Research: Competencies for analysis and application (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Getty, J. M., Tas, R. F., & Getty, R. L. (1991). Quality assessment of hotel and restaurant management graduates: Are we meeting our mission? Hospitality Research Journal, 14(2), 393-404. Gómez, P., González, M.J., Gil, F., Lupiáneza, J.L., Morenoc, M.F., Ricoa, L., Romeroc, I. (2007). Assessing the relevance of higher education courses. Evaluation and Program Planning, 30, 149-160. Gonczi, A. (2000). Review of international trends and developments in competency based education and training. In A. Argüelles & A. Gonczi (Eds.), Competency based education and training: a world perspective (pp.15-40). Mexico: Noriega. Gonczi, A., Hager, P., & Oliver, L. (1990). Establishing competency-based standards in the professions. National Office of Overseas Skills Recognition research paper No. 1, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra. Greene, J.C., Caracelli, V.J., & Graham, W.F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255-274. Gursoy, D., Rahman, I., & Swanger, N. (2012). Industry's Expectations from Hospitality Schools: What has changed? Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education, 24(4), 32-42. doi: 10.1080/10963758.2012.10696679 213

Gursoy, D., & Swanger, N. (2004). An industry-driven model of hospitality curriculum for programs housed in accredited colleges of business. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Education, 16(4), 13-20. Gursoy, D., & Swanger, N. (2005). An industry-driven model of hospitality curriculum for programs housed in accredited colleges of business. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Education, 17(2), 46-56. Haggis, T. (2004). Meaning, identity and ‘motivation’: expanding what matters in understanding learning in higher education? Studies in Higher Education, 29(3), 335-352. Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E., & Tatham, R.L. (2006). Multivariate Data Analysis (6th ed). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Prentice Hall. Harvey, L. (2000). New realities: The relationship between higher education and employment. Tertiary Education and Management, 6(1), 3-17. Hearns, N., Devine, F., & Baum, T. (2007). The implications of contemporary cultural diversity for the hospitality curriculum. Education and Training, 49(5), 350-363. Hernandez, S., Strahle, W., Garcia, H., & Sorensen, R. (1991). A cross-cultural study of consumer complaining behavior: VCR owners in US and Puerto Rico. Journal of Consumer Policy, 14, 35–62. Ho, K. M., & Yang, L. H. (2011). A study of influences of student’s learning satisfaction and career self-efficacy to career choices: The case study of food and beverage management department of Tatung Technology Institute. Journal of Sport, Leisure and Hospitality Research, 6 (2), 80–107. Hoffmann, T. (1999). The meanings of competency. Journal of European Industrial Training, 23(6), 275-285. Hofstede, G. (1980). Cultures consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hill, CA: Sage. Hofstede, G (1984), Cultural dimensions in management and planning. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 1(2), 81-99. Hofstede, G (2007), Asian management in the 21st century. Asia Pacific J Manage, 24, 421-420. Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. H. (1988). The Confucius connection: From cultural roots to economic growth. Organizational Dynamics, 16(4), 5-21. 214

Hogan, R., & Warrenfeltz, R. (2003). Educating the modern manager. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 2(1). 74-84. Holmes, G., & Hooper, N. (2000). Core Competence and Education. Higher Education, 40(3), 247-258. Honigsfeld, A., & Dunn, R. (2003). High school male and female learning-style similarities and differences in diverse nations. The Journal of Educational Research, 96(4), 195-206. Hoogveld, A.W.M., Paas, F., & Jochems, W.M.G. (2005). Training higher education teachers for instructional design of competency-based education: Product- oriented versus process-oriented worked examples. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 287-297. Horng, J.S. (2003). The development of Taiwan’s hospitality education from the hospitality education models in the U.S. and Australia. Journal of Taiwan Normal University: Education, 48(2), 125-150. Horng, J.S. (2004). Curriculum analysis of foods and beverage management of technological and vocational education in Taiwan. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 9(2), 107-119. Horng, J. S. (2007). 餐旅課程發展與規劃[Development and Plan of Hospitality Curricula]. Taipei City: 師大書苑. Horng, J.S., & Lee, M.H. (2006). Tourism and hospitality higher education in Taiwan: Past, present, and future. Journal of Teaching in Travel and Tourism, 5(3), 167- 196. Horng, J. S., & Lu, H.Y. (2006). Needs assessment of professional competencies of F&B/hospitality management students at college and university level. Journal of Teaching in Travel and Tourism, 6(3), 1-26. Horng, J.S., Hsu, H., Liu, C.H., Lin, L., & Tsai, C.Y. (2011). Competency analysis of top managers in the Taiwanese hotel industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30, 1044-1054. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.03.012 Horng, J. S., & Lin, L. (2013). Training needs assessment in a hotel using 360 degree feedback to develop competency-based training programs. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 20(0), 61-67. doi: 10.1016/j.jhtm.2013.06.003

215

Horng, J. S., Song, H. J., & Lu, H. Y. (2005). The development of Taiwan's hospitality higher education from the hospitality higher education in the U. K. and Switzerland. Journal of Hospitality and Home Economics, 2 (2), 229~243. Horng, J. S., & Teng, C. C. (2011). Cross-cultural quality measurement of undergraduate hospitality, tourism and leisure programmes: Comparisons between Taiwan and the USA. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 10 (1), 49~62. doi:10.3794/johlste.101.293 Horng, J. S., Teng, C. C., Lee, M. H., & Liu, Y. A. (2006). Higher educational evaluation in UK: Implication on professional evaluation of hospitality, tourism and leisure undergraduate studies in Taiwan. Journal of Tourism Studies, 12 (4), 273~294. Horng, J.S., & Wang, L.L. (2003). Competency analysis profile of F&B managers of international tourist hotel in Taiwan. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 8(1), 26-36. Hsiao, C.Y., & Hsiao, Y.M. (2007) 國際觀光旅館對於餐旅館裡學生專業能力滿意度之研究：以大專院校為例 [A research of the satisfaction degree for students from food and beverage management department by international hotels- samples of the colleges]. 北台灣學報, 30, 135-150. Hsu, J.F., & Gregory. S.R. (1995). Development future hotel managers in Taiwan: From an industry viewpoint. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 14(3/4), 261-269. Huang, Y.L., & Lin, C.T. (2011). Management trainee core competencies in the hospitality industry: Differences between managers and scholars. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, 10(1), 1-13. doi: 10.1080/15332845.2010.500166 Ineson, E. M. (2011). The contribution of personality to graduate managerial training. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30(3), 630-638. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2010.11.008 Jamil, R. (2015). What is wrong with competency research? Two propositions. Asian Social Science, 11(26), 43-51. doi: 10.5539/ass.v11n26p43 Jarvis, P., & Parker, S. (2004). “Competencies for everything?” International Journal of Lifelong Education, 23 (2), 123-124.

216

Jauhari, V. (2006). Competencies for a career in the hospitality industry: An Indian perspective. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 18(2), 123-134. Jennings, G. (2001). Tourism research. Milton, Australia: John Wiley & Sons. Jepsen, D.M., & Rodwell, J.J. (2008). Convergent interviewing: A qualitative diagnostic technique for researchers. Management Research News, 31(9), 650- 658. Johanson, M., Ghiselli, R., Shea, L. J., & Roberts, C. (2011). Changing Competencies of Hospitality Leaders: A 25-Year review. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education, 23(3), 43-47. doi: 10.1080/10963758.2011.10697012 Johnson, R.B., & Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26. Jones, E. A. (2002) (Ed.). Transforming the curriculum: Preparing students for a changing world. The Association for the Study of Higher Education Higher Education Report (ASHE-ERIC), 29 (3), 1-101. Kassin, S. (2003). Psychology. USA: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Katz, R. L. (1955). Skills on an effective administrator: Performance depends on fundamental skills rather than personality traits. Harvard Business Review, 33(1), 33-42. Katz, R. L. (1974). Skills on an effective administrator. Harvard Business Review, 52(5), 90-102. Kay, C., & Moncraz, E. (2004). Knowledge, skills, and abilities for lodging management success, The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 45(3), 258-298. Kay, C., & Russette, J. (2000). Hospitality-management competencies: Identifying managers’ essential skills. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 41(2), 52-63. Kelly, A.V. (2004). The curriculum: Theory and practice (5th ed.). London: SAGE Publications. Kelley, K., Clark, B., Brown, V., & Sitzia, J. (2003). Good practice in the conduct and reporting of survey research. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 15(3), 261-266. 217

Kember, D. (2009). Nurturing generic capabilities through a teaching and learning environment which provides practise in their use. High Education, 57, 37-55. King, B., McKercher, B., & Waryszak, R. (2003). A comparative study of hospitality and tourism graduates in Australia and Hong Kong. International Journal of Tourism Research, 5(6), 409-420. King, C., & Grace, D. (2010). Building and measuring employee based brand equity. European Journal of Marketing, 44(7/8), 938-971. Klingstedt J.L. (1972). Philosophic basis for competency-based education. In R.W. Burns & J.L. Klingstedt (Eds), Competency-based education: An introduction (pp.3-6). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Educational Technology Publications. Knutson, B.J., & Patton, M.E. (1992). How prepared am I to succeed in the hospitality industry? What the students are telling us. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Educators, 4(2), 38-43. Koenigsfeld, J.P. (2007). Developing an industry specific managerial competency model for private club managers in the United States based on important and frequently used management competencies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama. (UMI No. 33018080). Koenigsfeld, J.P., Kim, S.H., Cha, J.M., Perdue, J., & Cichy, R.F. (2012). Developing a competency model for private club managers. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31, 633-641. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.08.007 Koenigsfeld, J.P., Youn, H., Perdue, J., & Woods, R.H. (2012). Revised competencies for private club managers. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 24(7), 633-641. doi:10.1108/09596111211258928 Kong, H.Y., & Baum, T. (2006). Skills and work in the hospitality sector: The case of hotel front office employees in China. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 16(6), 509-518. Kong, H., Cheung, C., & Song, H. (2011). Hotel career management in China: Developing a measurement scale. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30(1), 112-118. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2010.07.003 Kong, H., Cheung, C., & Song, H. (2012). Determinants and outcome of career competencies: Perspectives of hotel managers in China. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31(3), 712-719. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.09.007 218

Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Masia, B. B. (1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives: the classification of educational goals? Handbook II: affective domain. New York: McKay. Kuijpers, M.A.C.T., Schyns, B., & Scheerens, J. (2006). Career competencies for career success. The Career Development Quarterly, 55(2), 168-178. Kuo, C.M. (2003). 我國技專校院旅館系專業能力指標之建構 [The construct of index of professional ability of hotel management department in Taiwan]. In Tourism Bureau, Taiwan & the Chinese Tourism Management Association (Eds.), 突破觀光新困境觀光產業再造學術研討會文集 (pp.1-15), Taipei, Taiwan: Tourism Bureau, Taiwan & the Chinese Tourism Management Association Press. Laker, D. R., & Powell, J. L. (2011). The differences between hard and soft skills and their relative impact on training transfer. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 22(1), 111-122. doi: 10.1002/hrdq.20063 Lashley, C. (1999). On making silk purses: developing reflective practitioners in hospitality management education. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 11(4), 180-185. Lashley, C., & Barron, P. (2006). The learning style preferences of hospitality and tourism students: Observations from an international and cross-cultural study. International Journal of Hospitality management. 25(4), 552-569. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2005.03.006 Lau, H.H., Hsu, H.Y., Acosta, S., & Hsu, T.L. (2013). Impact of participation in extra- curricular activities during college on graduate employability: an empirical study of graduates of Taiwanese business schools. Educational Studies, 40(1), 26-47. doi: 10.1080/03055698.2013.830244 Lee, M.J., Kim, S.S., & Lo, A. (2008). Perceptions of hospitality and tourism students towards study motivations and preferences: A study of Hong Kong students. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education, 7(2), 45-58. Lee, M., & Ulgado, F. M. (1997). Consumer evaluations of fast-food services: A cross- national comparison. Journal of Services Marketing, 11(1), 39–52. doi:10.1108/08876049710158358

219

Lewis, A. (2006). Stakeholder informed tourism education: Voices from the Caribbean. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education, 5(2), 14- 24. Li, L., & Kivela, J.J. (1998). Different perceptions between hotel managers and students regarding levels of competency demonstrated by hospitality degree graduates. Australian Journal of Hospitality Management, 5(2), 47-54. Li, L., & Li, J. (2013). Hospitality education in China: A student career-oriented perspective. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 12, 109- 117. doi: 10.1016/j.jhlste.2012.12.001 Liamputtong, P. (2010). Performing Qualitative Cross-Cultural Research. Cambridge, GBR: Cambridge University Press. Lin, S.C. (2002). Exploring the relationships between hotel management courses and industry required competencies. Journal of Teaching in Travel and Tourism, 2(3), 81-101. Lin, L., Horng, J.S., Chen, Y.C., & Tsai, C.Y. (2011). Factors affecting hotel human resource demand in Taiwan. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30(2), 312-318. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2010.08.004 Lin, C.T., Huang, Y.L., Lee, I.F., & Lee, W.H. (2007). Shattering the myths of the core essential professional competencies in hotel industry. Proceedings of the 13th Asia Pacific Management Conference (pp. 813-821). Melbourne, Australia. Littlejohn, D. & Watson, S. (2004). Developing graduate managers for hospitality and tourism. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management. 16(7), 408-414. Liu, H.H. (2004). 餐旅人力資源部門主管觀點之觀光教育：教學、實習、就業、徵才暨合作夥伴關係的探討 [Tourism education from the hospitality human resource manager’s point of view: A study of teaching, internships, employment, recruitment and partnerships]. 高雄應用科技大學學報, 33, 101-113. Liu, G. S. (2011). Strategies of human resource development and reformation of higher education: From the perspective of core competencies. [從核心能力觀點論高等教育人才培育革新之策略]. Educators and Professional Development: Symposium Information [研習資訊]. 28 (4), 47-56. Retrieved December 3, 2015

220

from http://study.naer.edu.tw/UploadFilePath//dissertation/l028_04_07vol028_04_0 7.pdf Liu, M. (2000). Civics education in Taiwan: Values promoted in the civics curriculum. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 20(1), 73-81. Lolli, J. C. (2013). Interpersonal communication skills and the young hospitality leader: Are they prepared? International Journal of Hospitality Management, 32, 295- 298. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2012.02.010 Lowry, L.L., & Flohr, J.K. (2005). No student left behind: A longitudinal assessment of the competency-based framework used to facilitate learning a Capstone tourism course. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Education, 17(4), 28-35. Lu, Y.W. (1999). Important skills for Taiwanese hospitality and tourism graduates as perceived by hospitality educators and human resource managers. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Wisconsin-Stout. Lu, H.Y. (2003). 大專校院餐飲（旅）管理系科學生餐飲管理專業能力之需求評估研究 [Needs assessment of professional competences of food and beverage/hospitality management department students at college and university level]. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan. Luk, F. Y. Y. P. (2006). Hybridity in a guidance curriculum in Hong Kong. International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling, 28, 331–342. Mahachi, D. (2012). Students’ Perceptions of Managerial Competencies: A Study of Undergraduate Tourism and Hospitality Students at the University of Botswana. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, 11(3), 239-258. doi: 10.1080/15332845.2012.673087 Mariampolski, A.M., Spears, M.C., & Vaden, A.G. (1980). What the restaurant manager needs to know. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 21(3), 77-81. Markus, L.H., Cooper-Thomas, H.D., & Allpress, K.N. (2005). Confounded by competencies? An evaluation of the evolution and use of competency models. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 34(2), 117-126.

221

Mattila, A. S. (1999). The role of culture and purchase motivation in service encounter. Journal of Services Marketing, 13(4/5), 376–389. doi:10.1108/08876049910282655 Mattila, A. S., & Patterson, P. G. (2004). The impact of culture on consumers’ perceptions of service recovery efforts. Journal of Retailing, 80, 196–206. doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2004.08.001 Mayo, C. R. & Thomas-Haysbert, C. (2005). Essential competencies needed by hospitality and tourism management graduates as determined by industry professionals and hospitality educators. The Consortium Journal of Hospitality and Tourism. 9(2), 5-17. McAllister, S. (2005). Competency based assessment of speech pathology students’ performance in the workplace. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Sydney, Australia. McAshan, H.H. (1979). Competency-based education and behavioural objectives. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Educational Technology Publications. McKercher, B. (2002). The future of tourism education: An Australian scenario? Tourism and Hospitality Research, 3(3), 199-210. Millar, M., Mao, Z., & Moreo, P. (2010). Hospitality & Tourism Educators vs. The Industry: A competency assessment. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education, 22(2), 38-50. doi: 10.1080/10963758.2010.10696975 Ministry of Education. (October 24, 2013). Important policy: The curriculum in technological and vocational education system [重要政策: 技職體系課程]. Retrieved December 3, 2015 from http://depart.moe.edu.tw/ED2300/Common/HitCount.ashx?p=5654E57C0E0301 B1B751B7B5F1C5FC87AD99BF51E6C1AA66769E9B85CD3FACF9B1B5B17E3D1BD D848AA0FA30C38F56829A53425599E6601563E33E4D7F4B3748CF630E014BE34 F304D69883E3A0A4F99&type=FB01D469347C76A7&s=18C4DDDA9C3A7F09 Ministry of Education. (March 17, 2014). Enforcement Rules of the University Act. Retrieved December 3, 2015 from http://edu.law.moe.gov.tw/EngLawContent.aspx?Type=E&id=181

222

Ministry of Education. (March, 2015). Proposal of innovating and transforming higher education universities [高等教育創新轉型方案]. Retrieved April 5, 2015m from http://www.edu.tw/news1/detail.aspx?Node=1088&Page=26825&Index=1&WID =6635a4e8-f0de-4957-aa3e-c3b15c6e6ead Ministry of Education. (2015). Database of Education Statistics [Data file], available from Ministry of Education, Taiwan Web site, Retrieved March 2, 2015, from http://www.edu.tw/pages/detail.aspx?Node=3752&Page=26208&Index=7&WID =31d75a44-efff-4c44-a075-15a9eb7aecdf Ministry of Education. (November 6, 2015). Proposal: The blueprint of higher education development [高等教育發展藍圖方案草案]. Retrieved December 3, 2015 from http://depart.moe.edu.tw/ED2200/News_Content.aspx?n=38E925417DBAF594& sms=A882C6AAB4E9A0CC&s=0108A124A2175C5C Ministry of Education. (November, 2015). Proposal of curriculum outlines in 12-year compulsory education: hospitality-group courses in technical senior high school [十二年國民基本教育課程綱要: 技術型高級中等學校餐旅群餐旅群群科課程綱要草案]. Retrieved December 3, 2015 from http://12basic- forum.naer.edu.tw/sites/default/files/12.%E9%A4%90%E6%97%85%E7%BE%A4% E8%AA%B2%E7%B6%B1%28%E8%8D%89%E6%A1%88%29_1106.pdf Mitsis, Ann and Foley, Patrick (2009) Do Business Students’ Culturally Anchored Values Shape Student-Driven or Teacher-Driven Learning Style Preferences? Journal of Marketing Education, 31(3). 240-252. Molina-Azorín, J. F., Tarí, J. J., Pereira-Moliner, J., López-Gamero, M. D., & Pertusa- Ortega, E. M. (2015). The effects of quality and environmental management on competitive advantage: A mixed methods study in the hotel industry. Tourism Management, 50, 41-54. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2015.01.008 Morgan, M. (2004). From production line to drama school: higher education for the future of tourism. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 16(2), 91-99.

223

Morrison, A., & O’Mahony, G.B. (2002). Hospitality: A liberal introduction. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 9(2), 189-197. Morrison, A., & O’Mahony, G.B. (2003). The liberation of hospitality management education. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 15(1), 38-44. Nakhata, C. (2007). The effects of human capital and entrepreneurial competencies on the career success of SME entrepreneurs in Thailand. The Business Review, 9(1), 62-69. National Statistics, Taiwan (2014). 102年人力資源調查統計年報 [2013 Yearbook of manpower survey statistics], Retrieved July 2, 2014, from http://www.stat.gov.tw/ct_view.asp?xItem=35670&ctNode=518 Nelson, A.A., & Dopson, L. (2001). Future of hotel education: Required skills and knowledge for graduates of U.S. hospitality programs beyond the year 2000- Part one. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Education, 13(5), 58-67. Neuman, W.L. (2006). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson education/Allyn and Bacon. Nield, K. (2004). Questioning the myth of the Chinese learner. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 16(3), 189-196. Ng, T.W.H., Eby, L.T., Sorensen, K.L., & Feldman, D.C. (2005). Predicators of objective and subjective career success: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 58, 367- 408. Nolan, C., Conway, E., Farrell, T., & Monks, K. (2010). Competency needs in Irish hotels: Employer and graduate perspectives. Journal of European Industrial Training, 34(5), 432-454. doi: 10.1108/03090591011049800 Ogbeide, G.C. (2006). Employability skills and students’ self-perceived competence for careers in the hospitality industry. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri-Columbia. Okeiyi, E., Finley, D., & Postel, R.T. (1994). Food and beverage management competencies: Educators, industry, and student perspectives. Hospitality and Tourism Educator, 6(4), 37-40.

224

O'Leary, S. & Deegan, J. (2005). Career progression of Irish tourism and hospitality management graduates. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 17(5), 421-432. Oliva, P.F. (2005). Developing the curriculum (6th ed.). Boston : Allyn and Bacon. O’Mahonya, G. B., Sophonsirib, S, & Turner, L. W. (2013). The impact of the antecedents of relationship development on Thai and Australian resort hotels guests. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 34, 214-226. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2013.03.009 Palmer, S., Holt, D., Hall, W., & Ferguson, C. (2009, March 19). An evaluation of an online student portfolio for the development of engineering graduate attributes. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, Retrieved May 1, 2009, from http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/116835322/issue Partlow, C.G. (1990). Identification of graduate level competencies in hospitality management. Hospitality Research Journal, 14(2), 239–229. Partlow, C.G., & Gregoire, M.B. (1994). Is graduate hospitality education relevant? Ask graduates. Hospitality and Tourism Educators, 6(3), 13–16. Patterson, P. G. & Smith, T. (2003). A cross-cultural study of switching barriers and propensity to stay with service providers. Journal of Retailing, 79(2), 107–120. doi:10.1016/S0022-4359(03)00009-5 Penhall, G., Cooper, C., Trisnasari, I., & Allen, R. (2005). The ASEAN common competency standards for tourism professional (ACCSTP) project. Australia: AusAID. Retrieved February 15, 2008, from: http://www.uq.edu.au/cbamt/index.html Perdue, J., Ninemeier, J.D., & Woods, R.H. (2002). Comparison of present and future competencies required for club managers. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Managers, 14(3), 142-146. Phelan, K. V. & Mills, J. E. (2010). An exploratory study of knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) needed in undergraduate hospitality curriculums in the convention Industry. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, 10 (1), 96-116, DOI: 10.1080/15332845.2010.500244 Pine, B.J. II & Gilmore, J.H. (1998). Welcome to the Experience Economy. Harvard Business Review, 76(4), 97-105. 225

Pizam, A. (1995). Who is the customer in hospitality education? International Journal of Hospitality Management, 14(3/4), 215-216. Pizam, A., Okumus, F., & Hutchinson, J. (2013). Forming a long-term industry- university partnership: The case of Rosen College of Hospitality Management, Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes, 5(3), 244 – 254. doi: 10.1108/WHATT-02-2013-0003. Powers, T. F., & Riegel, C. D., (1993). A bright future for hospitality education: Providing value in the 21st century. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 17(1), 295-308. Print, M. (1993). Curriculum development and design (2nd ed.). NSW, Australia: Allen & Unwin. Pilling, S., & Slattery, J. (2004). Management competencies: intrinsic or acquired? What competencies are required to move into speech pathology management and beyond? Australian Health Revie, 27(1), 84-92. QAA (2008). The Subject Benchmark Statement for Hospitality, Leisure, Recreation, Sport, and Tourism. Gloucester: The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. Retrieved December 3, 2015 from http://www.qaa.ac.uk/en/Publications/Documents/Subject-benchmark- statement-Hospitality-leisure-sport-tourism-2008.pdf Rathna, K. G., & Vijaya, T. G. (2009). Competencies of entrepreneurs and intrapreneurs: A comparative study. South Asian Journal of Management, 16(2), 28-60. Rausch, E., Sherman, H., & Washbush, J.B. (2002) Defining and assessing competencies for competency-based, outcome-focused management development. Journal of Management Development, 21(3), 184-200. Ravichandran, S., & Arendt, S.W. (2008). How to increase response rates when surveying hospitality managers for curriculum-related research: Lessons from past studies and interviews with lodging professionals. Journal of Teaching in Travel and Tourism, 8(1), 47-71. Raybould, M., & Wilkins, H. (2005). Over qualified and under experienced- Turning graduates into hospitality managers. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 17(3), 203-216. 226

Raybould, M., & Wilkins, H. (2006). Generic skills for hospitality management: A comparative study of management expectations and student perceptions. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 13(2), 177-188. Reese, V.L., & Dunn, R. (2007). Learning-style preferences of a diverse freshmen population in a large, private, metropolitan university by gender and GPA. Journal College Student Retention, 9(1), 95-112. Reisinger, Y., & Turner, L. W. (1997). Tourist satisfaction with hosts: A cultural approach comparing Thai tourists and Australian Hosts. Pacific Tourism Review, 1 (2), 147-159. Reisinger, Y., & Turner, L. W. (2003). Cross Cultural Behaviour in Tourism: Concepts and analysis. Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann. Ricci, P. (2005). A comparative analysis of job competency expectations for new hires: The relative value of a hospitality management degree. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida. Ricci, P. (2010). Do lodging managers expect more from hospitality graduates? A comparison of job competency expectations. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, 9(2), 218-232. doi: 10.1080/15332840903455059 Richey, R. C., Fields, D. C., Foxon, M., Roberts, R. C., Spannaus, T., & Spector, J. M. (2001). Instructional design competencies: The standards (2nd ed.). New York: Eric Clearinghouse on Information & Technology, Syracuse University. Rieckmann, M. (2012). Future-oriented higher education: Which key competencies should be fostered through university teaching and learning? Futures, 44(2), 127- 135. doi: 10.1016/j.futures.2011.09.005 Rodríguez-Antón, J. M., Alonso-Almeida, M. M., Rubio-Andrada, L., & Celemín Pedroche, M. (2013). Are university tourism programmes preparing the professionals the tourist industry needs? A longitudinal study. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 12(1), 25-35. doi: 10.1016/j.jhlste.2012.10.002 Romanelli, F., Bird, E., & Ryan, M. (2009). Learning styles: A review of theory, application, and best practices. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 73(1), 1-5. Rong, R.S. (2009). Statistical products and services solution. (2nd ed.). Taipei: Wunon. 227

Rotter, J. B. (1996). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General & Applied, 80(1), 1-28. Rozman, G. (2002). Can Confucianism survive in an age of universalism and globalization? Pacific Affairs, 75(1), 11-37. Rudolph, R.D. (1999). Desirable competencies of hospitality graduates in year 2007. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cornell University. Ruetzler, T., Baker, W., Reynolds, D., Taylor, J., & Allen, B. (2014). Perceptions of technical skills required for successful management in the hospitality industry-An exploratory study using conjoint analysis. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 39, 157-164. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2014.02.012 Ruhanen, L., Robinson, R., & Breakey, L. (2013). A foreign assignment: Internships and international students. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 20, 1-4. doi: 10.1016/j.jhtm.2013.05.005. Sale, J.E.M., Lohfeld, L.H., & Brazil, K. (2002). Revisiting the quantitative-qualitative debate: Implications for mixed-methods research. Quality and Quantity, 36, 43- 53. Sandwith, P. (1993). A hierarchy of management training requirements: The competency domain model. Public Personnel Management, 22(1), 43-62. Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornholl, A. (2007). Research method for business students (4th ed.). Harlow, England; New York: Financial Times/Prentice Hall. Schiro, M. S. (2008). Curriculum theory: Conflicting versions and enduring concerns. London: Sage Publications. Self, J. T. (2005). 20-20 hindsight: A qualitative analysis of hospitality graduates. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Education, 17(1), 33-37. Seibert, S.E., & Kraimer, M.L. (2001). The five-factor model of personality and career success. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 1-21. Serpell, A., & Ferrada, X. (2007) A competency-based model for constructing supervisors in developing countries. Personal Review, 36(4), 585-602. Shi, T.H., & Fan, X. (2009). Comparing response rates in e-mail and paper surveys: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 4, 26-40.

228

Sisson, L. G., & Adams, A. R. (2013). Essential Hospitality Management Competencies: The Importance of soft skills. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education, 25(3), 131-145. doi: 10.1080/10963758.2013.826975 Siu, V. (1998). Managing by competencies- A study on the managerial competencies of hotel middle managers in Hong Kong. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 17, 253-273. Smith, G., & Cooper, C. (2000). Competitive approaches to tourism and hospitality curriculum design. Journal of Travel Research, 39, 90-95. Smith, P.B., Dugan, S., Peterson, M.F., & Leung, K. (1998). Individualism: Collectivism and the handling of disagreement. International Journal of Intercultural. Relations, 11(2), 351-367. Sophonsirib, S & O’Mahonya, G. B. (2012). Managing intercultural service encounters: Establish the need for intercultural training, In N. Delener (Ed.), Service science research, strategy and innovation: Dynamic knowledge management methods (pp. 125-140). Hershey: IGI Global. Spowart, J. (2011). Hospitality students' competencies: Are they work ready? Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, 10(2), 169-181. doi: 10.1080/15332845.2011.536940 Stanciulescu, G. C. J., & Bulin, D. (2012). Shaping Tourism Higher Education Curriculum-Strategy to Develop Skills for Tomorrow's Jobs. Procedia Economics and Finance, 3(0), 1202-1207. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S2212- 5671(12)00297-3 Stratman, E.J., Vogel, C.A., Reck, S.J., Mukesh, B.N. (2008). Analysis of dermatology resident self-reported successful learning styles and implications for core competency curriculum development. Medical Teacher, 30(4), 420–425. Su, A., Miller, J.L., & Shanklin, C. (1997). An evaluation of accreditation curriculum standards for four-year undergraduate hospitality programs. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Education, 9(3), 75-79. Su, A., Miller, J.L., & Shanklin, C. (1997/1998). Perceptions of industry professional and program administers about accreditation curriculum standards for hospitality programs. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Education, 9(4), 36-40.

229

Su, C.S. & Sun, L.H. (2007). Taiwan’s hotel rating system: A service quality perspective. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 48(4), 392-401. doi: 10.1177/0010880407305836 Suh, E., West, J. J., & Shin, J. (2012). Important competency requirements for managers in the hospitality industry. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 11(2), 101-112. doi: 10.1016/j.jhlste.2012.02.005 Sung, M.C. (2007). 重看Ralph Tyler的課程思想 [Ralph Tyler’s curriculum ideas revisited]. 教育研究與發展期刊 Journal of Educational Research and Development, 3(2), 83-112. Sulkowski, N.B. & Deakin, M.K. (2009). Does understanding culture help enhance students’ learning experience? International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 21(2), 154-166. Swanger, N., & Gursoy, D. (2007). An industry-driven model of hospitality curriculum for programs housed in accredited colleges of business: Program learning outcomes. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Education, 19(2), 14-22. Tas, R.F. (1988). Teaching future managers. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 29(2), 41-43. Tas, R.F., Labrecque, S.V., & Clayton, H.R. (1996). Property-management competencies for management trainees. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 37(4), 90-96. Tavitiyaman, P., Weerakit, N., & Ryan, B. (2014). Leadership competencies for hotel general managers: The differences in age, education, and hotel characteristics. International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration 15(2), 191-216. doi: 10.1080/15256480.2014.901069 Teng, C.C. (2013). Developing and evaluating a hospitality skill module for enhancing performance of undergraduate hospitality students. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 13, 78-86. doi: 10.1016/j.jhlste.2013.07.003 Teng, C.C., Horng, J.S., & Baum, T. (2013). Academic perceptions of quality and quality assurance in undergraduate hospitality, tourism and leisure programmes: A comparison of UK and Taiwanese programmes. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 13, 233-243. doi: 10.1016/j.jhlste.2012.06.002

230

Tesone, D.V., & Ricci, P. (2006).Toward a definition of entry-level job competencies: Hospitality manager perspectives. International Journal of Hospitality and Tourism administration, 7(4), 65-80. Testa, M.R., & Sipe, L. (2012). Service-leadership competencies for hospitality and tourism management. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31(3), 648 – 658. Tews, M. J., Stafford, K., & Tracey, J. B. (2011). What matters most? The perceived importance of ability and personality for hiring decisions. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 52(2), 94–101. DOI: 10.1177/1938965510363377 Tourism Bureau of Taiwan. (2000, November). 二十一世紀台灣發展觀光新戰略 [Taiwan's Tourism Development Strategy for the 21st Century], Retrieved May 28, 2007, from http://admin.taiwan.net.tw/auser/b/stratagem/index.htm Tourism Bureau of Taiwan. (2008). Regulation for the Management of Tourist Hotel Enterprises, available from Tourism Bureau of Taiwan Web site, Retrieved February 27, 2014, from http://admin.taiwan.net.tw/law/law_d_en.aspx?no=9&d=109 Tourism Bureau of Taiwan. (2012a). Operating Directions for Hotel Star Rating, available from Tourism Bureau of Taiwan Web site, Retrieved February 27, 2014, from http://admin.taiwan.net.tw/law/law_d.aspx?no=130&d=507 Tourism Bureau of Taiwan. (2012b). January, 2012 Monthly Report on Hotel Operations in Taiwan, available from Tourism Bureau of Taiwan Web site, Retrieved February 27, 2014, from http://admin.taiwan.net.tw/statistics/month.aspx?no=135 Tourism Bureau of Taiwan. (2014). Accommodation, available from Tourism Bureau of Taiwan Web site, Retrieved February 27, 2014, from http://eng.taiwan.net.tw/m1.aspx?sNo=0000212&t=r Tourism Bureau of Taiwan. (2015). 2014 Visitor Arrivals by Residence, available from Tourism Bureau of Taiwan Web site, Retrieved April 5, 2015, from http://admin.taiwan.net.tw/upload/statistic/20150123/dea874c0-e15a-4b79- ab15-87877b5d143c.xls

231

Truong, T. H., & King, B. (2006). Comparing cross-cultural dimensions of the experience of international tourists in Vietnam. Journal of Business Systems, Governance, and Ethics, 1(1), 65–75. Tsai, F.C., Goh, B.K., Huffman, L., & Wu, C.K. (2006). Competency assessment for entry-level lodging management trainees in Taiwan. The Chinese Economy, 39(6), 49-69. Tsang, N. K. F. (2011). Dimensions of Chinese culture values in relation to service provision in hospitality and tourism industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30(3), 670-679. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2010.12.002 Tsou, H.F. (2005). An effective food and beverage management internship model in Taiwan. La Sierra University Triandis, H.C., & Gelfand, M.J. (1998). Converging measurement of horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(1), 118-128. Tsai, F.C., Goh, B.K., Huffman, L., & Wu, C.K. (2006). Competency assessment for entry-level lodging management trainees in Taiwan. The Chinese Economy, 39(6), 49-69. Tyler, R.W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. In D.J. Flinders & S.J. Thornton (Eds). (2004), The curriculum studies reader (2nd ed.) (pp.51-60). New York: RoutledgeFalmer. Van Auken, S., Wells, L.G., & Chrysler, E. (2005). The relative value of skills, knowledge, and teaching methods in explaining master of business administration (MBA) program return on investment. Journal of Education for Business, 81(1), 41-45. Varoglu, D. & Eser, E. (2006). How Service Employees Can Be Treated as Internal Customers in Hospitality Industry. The Business Review, 5(2), 30-35. Viitala, R. (2005). Perceived development needs of managers compared to an integrated management competency model. Journal of Workplace Learning, 17 (7), 436-450. Wadongo, B., Kambona, O., & Odhuno, E. (2011). Emerging critical generic managerial competencies: A challenge to hospitality educators in Kenya. African

232

Journal of Economic and Management Studies, 2(1), 56-71. doi: 10.1108/20400701111110777 Walo, M. (2001). Assessing the contribution of internship in developing Australian tourism and hospitality students’ management competencies. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 2(2), 12-28. Wang, Y.F. (2013). Constructing career competency model of hospitality industry employees for career success. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 25(7), 994-1016. doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-07-2012-0106 Wang, Y.F., Horng, J.S., Cheng, S.Y., & Killman, L. (2011). Factors influencing food and beverage employees’ career success: A contextual perspective. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30(4), 997-1007. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.03.005 Wang, S., & Tamis-Lemonda, C.S. (2003). Do child-rearing values in Taiwan and the United States reflect cultural values of collectivism and individualism? Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34(6), 629-642. Wang, Y.F., & Tsai, C.T. (2012). Analysis of career competency of food and beverage managers in international tourist hotels in Taiwan. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31(2), 612-616. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.10.013 Weber, M. R., Crawford, A., Lee, J., & Dennison, D. (2013). An Exploratory Analysis of Soft Skill Competencies Needed for the Hospitality Industry. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, 12(4), 313-332. doi: 10.1080/15332845.2013.790245 Whitelaw, P. A., Benckendorff, P., Gross, M. J., Mair, J., & Jose, P. (2015). Tourism, Hospitality & Events Learning and Teaching Academic Standards. Melbourne, Vic: Victoria University. Wiener, P.J. (2001). Perceptions of hospitality master’s degree program faculty of the unique value of the degree. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northern Arizona University. Wiles, J. (2005). Curriculum essentials: A resource for educators (2nd ed.). Boston: Pearson Education. Wiles, J., & Bondi, J. (2007). Curriculum development: A guide to practice (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J. : Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall. 233

Williams, D. A. (2003). The relationship of higher education curriculum design factors and success in a corporate hospitality setting. Doctoral dissertation. University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Wong, N. Y. (2004). The role of culture in the perception of service recovery. Journal of Business Research, 57, 957–963. doi:10.1016/S0148-2963(03)00002-X World Travel & Tourism Council. (November, 2013). Benchmarking travel & tourism global summary: How does travel & tourism compare to other sectors?, available from World Travel & Tourism Council Web site, Retrieved March 2, 2015, from http://www.wttc.org/- /media/files/reports/benchmark%20reports/regional%20results/2013%20global %20summary.pdf Wu, B. H. (2001). 餐旅連鎖業店經理專業能力分析之研究 [The competency analysis for managers of chain restaurant]. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan. Wu, S.W. (2005). 不同教育背景之餐飲外場領班工作表現差異之研究：以飯店主管的觀點討論之 [Research of work performance for the restaurant headwaiters with different education background- From the hotel managers’ perspective]. 旅遊管理研究, 5(1), 17-32. Wu, Y.M. (2010). Constructing the future schools’ idealized education development trend : A study of focus group interviews. Journal of National Taichung University: Education, 24(2), 1-21. Wu, W.C., & Chen, H.M. (2002). 產業界與教育界對於餐旅專業能力認知差異之研究 [A comparative research of the cognition of hospitality professional competency between industry and educational institutions]. In The Chinese Tourism Management Association & Tourism School, Ming Chung University (Eds.), 「再創觀光新巔峰」（觀光Double）學術研討會論文集 (pp.1-10), Taipei, Taiwan: The Chinese Tourism Management Association & Tourism School, Ming Chung University Press. Wu, J. G., & Lin, T. C. (2010). A theoretical reflection on the development of higher technological & vocational education in Taiwan [台灣高等技職教育發展的理論性反思]. 教育資料集刊, 47, 1–24.

234

Yang, F., & Lau, V. (2015). Does workplace guanxi matter to hotel career success? International Journal of Hospitality Management, 47, 43-53. doi 10.1016/j.ijhm.2015.03.004 Yu, F. (2008). Commentary on: The expatriate experience: Teaching nursing across Eastern and Western cultures. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 40(2), 184-186. Zhang, J. (2007). A cultural look at information and communication technologies in Eastern education. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 55(3), 301-314. Zopiatis, A., & Theocharous, A. L. (2013). Revisiting hospitality internship practices: A holistic investigation. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 13, 33-46. doi: 10.1016/j.jhlste.2013.04.002

235

Appendices

Appendix A. Empirical studies of hospitality Perception of one stakeholder Authors Research focus Perception Instrument Context Indentify the importance of 1. From the instrument Mariampolski competencies for beginning food- for administrative et al. (1980) service managers Managers dietitians USA ** 2. Expert review 3. Based on Katz’s model Indentify the importance of 1. From LR Tas (1988)* competencies for hotel general- Managers 2. 2 separate panel UAS manager trainees reviews Indentify the importance of Baum (1991)* competencies for hotel Managers Use Tas’s instrument UK management trainees To assess the quality (satisfaction) Getty et al. of hospitality graduates based on Managers Use Tas’s instrument USA (1991)* their performance of competencies in current positions Modify the scale of Breiter & Identify the importance of O’Halloran (1992) to Clements managerial skills for hotel and Managers USA assess skills needed by (1996) restaurant managers tourism managers 1. From LR Indentify the importance of 2. 2 separate panel Tas et al. property-management Managers reviews USA (1996) *** competencies for hotel 3. Based on Sandwith’s management trainees model Use 11 managerial Examine the importance and the competency clusters of possession of competencies by Siu (1998) Managers management HK hotel middle managers from the development Centre of perceptions of senior managers HK Indentify the importance of Christou & competencies for hotel Managers Use Tas’s instrument Greece Eaton (2000)* management trainees 1. From LR 2. Based on Sandwith’s Indentify the essential model Kay & management competencies for 3. Rate importance and Russette entry-level and middle-level Managers USA determine to what (2000) *** managers in F&B; Front Desk and extent those Sales functional areas competencies are being applied Based on the competency clusters used by the Irish Propose a hotel competency model Brophy & Public Service Centre for for middle-level managers in Managers Ireland Kiely (2002) Management and Ireland Organisational Development

236

Authors Research focus Perception Instrument Context Identify management competency Agut et al. needs in the Spanish hospitality Managers 1. From LR Spain (2003) industry (present level and required level of competencies) Chung- Propose a competencies model for Herrera et al. Managers 1. From LR USA future hospitality leaders (2003) Identify the importance of skills for Kong & Baum 13 specific skills in front front office workers in Chinese Managers China (2006) office hotels 1. From LR Tesone & Indentify the importance of entry- 2. 2 Focus groups Managers USA Ricci (2006) level job competencies (managers) 3. Pilot study Identify practical competencies for 1. From LR Chen & Hsu hospitality management students Managers 2.interview with Taiwan (2007) (Importance and Frequency in job hospitality experts performance) Horng, Hsu, 1. From LR Identify Professional competency Liu, Lin, & Tsai Managers 2. Fuzzy Delphi + Analytic Taiwan of top managers (2011) Hierarchy Process 1. From LR Identify skills and competencies 2. 48 F&B management Fournier & Switzer- requirements for Food Service Managers trainee skills and Ineson (2010) land Internships competencies national standards 1. LR and job competency Comparison of job competency domains of KAA. Ricci (2010) Managers USA expectations 2. two focus groups 2. pilot study Wadongo, identify emerging critical generic Kambona & managerial competencies 24 items in Quinn et al. Managers Kenya Odhuno (1996) (2010) Testa & Sipe Identify service-leadership Managers In-depth Interview USA (2012) competencies Apply competency-based training Horng & Lin 1. From LR Taiwan framework and importance- Managers (2013) 2. Fuzzy Delphi performance analysis Tavitiyamana, Examine leadership competencies Use 8 domains of Chung- Weerakitb & necessary for general managers Managers Herrera, Enz, and Lankau Thailand Ryanc (2014) (2003) Identify the importance of subject areas and general Educators Su et al. 1. From LR knowledge/skills for hospitality (Administrat USA (1997) 2. pilot study (12 faculty) graduates entering the hospitality ors) industry Identify the importance and Knutson & Current preparedness for success in From LR USA Patton (1992) students hospitality careers Identify the importance and Burbidge Current Use Knutson & Patton’s preparedness for success in Europe (1994) students (1992) instrument hospitality careers Partlow & Identify the relevance of the Current Gregoire master’s degree in hospitality From LR USA students (1994) management Assess students’ perceptions of their level of management Use the Competing Current Walo (2001) competencies before and after the Values framework (Quinn AU students internship component of their et al., 1990) degree program 237

Authors Research focus Perception Instrument Context Assess students’ perceptions of Use the Competing Dimmock et management competencies in the Current Values framework (Quinn AU al. (2003) first year and in the third year of students et al., 1990) undergraduate study Spowart Examine contribution of work- Current South From LR (2011) integrated learning students Africa Examine the contribution of hotel 35 competency management courses to graduates’ statements (6 factor career development and success, Graduates dimensions) Chung (2000) Korea and the contribution of (graduates) 50 hotel management management competencies to courses (7 factor career success dimensions)

Perceptions of two stakeholders Authors Research focus Perceptions Instrument Context Classify competencies according to Partlow educational level and experience Managers; From LR USA (1990) required for competency Educators development 1. Identify critical competencies for Ashley et al. Managers; Separate bachelor-level employees USA (1995) Educators barnstorming sessions 2. Review curriculum Identify the importance of subject 1. From LR Su et al. areas and general knowledge/skills Managers; 2. pilot study (12 USA (1997/1998) for hospitality graduates entering the Educators faculty) hospitality industry Mayo & Identify the importance of 1. From LR Thomas- management competencies for Managers; 2. Pre-test by 15 USA Haysbert hospitality and tourism management Educators professors and (2005) graduates industry professionals Identify the importance of 1. From LR competencies for entry-level lodging 2. Pilot study: expert Tsai et al management trainees Managers; panel (25 managers, Taiwan (2006)*** Educators 25 educators) 3. Based on Sandwith’s model Huang & Lin Compare management Trainee Core Managers; From LR Taiwan (2010) Competencies Educators Examine the gap between the 1. Semi-structured competencies being taught in the interviews Millar, Mao & classroom for HTE students enrolled Managers; 2. personal USA Moreo (2010) in four-year university programs Educators in-depth versus what lodging and food and interviews beverage professionals Establish indicators of career 1. From LR Wang & Tsai Managers; competencies of basic and middle 2. Panel discussions Taiwan (2012) Educators level F&B managers 3. Delphi Identify the importance of Managers; Li & Kivela Modify Tas’s management competencies for Current HK (1998)* instrument beginning hospitality managers students Identify the importance of skills for 1. From LR hospitality graduates a new recruits 2. An expert panel Raybould & Managers; review Wilkins (2005, Current AU 3. pilot study 2006)**** students 4. Generic skill framework Identify the importance of Christou Managers; management competencies for Use Tas’s instrument Greece (2002)* Graduates hospitality management trainees

238

Authors Research focus Perception Instrument Context 1. From LR 2. 4 Domains: human resources Examine the effect of knowledge, Kay & management; skills and abilities on manager’s Managers; Moncarz information USA lodging success (important level and Graduates (2004) technology; financial self-appraisal of competency level) management; marketing 3. pilot test If the current provision for graduate Use 8 domains of Cheung, Law hotel management education can Managers; Hong Chung-Herrera, Enz, & He (2010) fulfil the essential managerial Graduates Kong and Lankau (2003) competency requirements Identify the importance of 1.From the instrument management competencies to Buergermeist- Educators; for administrative success in the industry and how USA er (1983) Graduates dietitians competent they felt hotel graduates 2. Expert review were in applying these skills

Perceptions of more than two stakeholders Authors Research focus Perceptions Instrument Context 1. Modify Tas’s instrument Identify the importance of Managers; 2. Teaching methods Okeiyi et al. management competencies for Educators; (managers and USA (1994)* entry-level managers of F&B Current educator sample) operations students for each competency 1. From LR Managers; Skill necessary for successful careers 2. Expert panel review Annaraud Educators; for American and Russian hospitality 3. Pilot study USA; RS (2006)** Current graduates 4. Based on Katz’s students model Use Boyatzis and Managers; Identify the importance of general Kolb’s (1995) Cho et al. Educators; management skills and curriculum instrument for USA (2006) Current for hospitality graduate education management graduate students program students 1. From LR 2 7 areas: computer, financial, Nelson & Identify required (importance) skills Managers; marketing, general Dopson and knowledge for hospitality Educators; USA management, (2001) graduates Graduates human resource, service, personal attributes Identify the importance of skills for 1. From the study of hospitality graduate-level education Richard et al. Managers; (1991) Enz et al. Educators; 2. Pretest (M.P.S. Current USA (1993) students) students; Graduates 3. Second pretest (students and faculty) * Tas (1988): a list of 36 competencies ** Katz’s approach (1955): conceptual, human, and technical domains *** Sandwith’s model (1993): conceptual/creative, leadership, interpersonal, administrative, and technical domains **** Raybould & Wilkins (2005, 2006): Generic skill framework

239

Appendix B. List of tourist hotels in Taiwan

Star Star No. Name of Hotel Region No. Name of Hotel Region Rating Rating 1 Chateau de Chine Hotel 4 North 43 The Ambassador Hotel 5 North 2 Four Points by Sheraton Chung Ho, 4 North 44 The Fullon Hotel Taipei 5 North Taipei 3 Holiday Inn East Taipei 4 North 45 The Grand Hotel 5 North 4 Capital Hotel 4 North 46 The Landis Taipei Hotel 5 North 5 Gala Hotel 4 North 47 The Westin Taipei 5 North 6 Gallery Hotel 4 North 48 The Okura Prestige Taipei 5 North 7 Chateau De Chine Tauyuan 4 North 49 The Regent Taipei 5 North 8 Chuto Plaza Hotel 4 North 50 W Taipei 5 North 9 Fullon Hotel Taoyuan 4 North 51 Hotel Kuva Chateau 5 North 10 Fullon Hotel Jhongli 4 North 52 Hotel Orchard Park 5 North 11 Fullon Hotel Linkou 4 North 53 Ｍonarch-Skyline Hotel 5 North 12 Hotel Les Champs 4 North 54 Novotel Taipei Taoyuan 5 North International Airport 13 Miaoli Maison De Chine 4 Center 55 Evergreen Resort Hotel(Jiaosi) 5 North 14 Taichung Chinatrust Hotel 4 Center 56 Hotel Royal Chiao-Hsi 5 North 15 China Trust Hotel 4 South 57 Silks Place Yilan 5 North 16 Fullon Hotel Kaohsiung 4 South 58 Evergreen Laurel Hotel (Taichung) 5 Center 17 Kindness Hotel 4 South 59 Freshfields Resort & Conference 5 Center 18 Spring Hill Hotel 4 South 60 Fullon Hotel Yamay 5 Center 19 Sun Moon Lake Hotel 4 Center 61 Hotel One 5 Center 20 Tai Yi Ecological Leisure Farm 4 Center 62 Tempus Hotel Taichung 5 Center 21 Fullon Resort Kending 4 South 63 The Splendor Hotel 5 Center 22 Hotel Tainan 4 South 64 Windsor Hotel 5 Center 23 Janfusun Prince Hotel 4 South 65 Nice Prince Hotel 5 South 24 Azure Hotel 4 East 66 Spring Hill Hotel 5 South 25 Pescadores Resort 4 Island 67 Grand Hi-Lai Hotel 5 South 26 YaLing Hotel 4 Island 68 The Ambassador Hotel Kaohsiung 5 South 27 The Ambassador Hotel Hsinchu 5 North 69 Fleur De Chine Hotel 5 Center 28 Sheraton Hsinchu Hotel 5 North 70 The Lalu Sun Moon Lake 5 Center 29 Fullon Hotel Shenkeng 5 North 71 Caesar Park Hotel Kenting 5 South 30 Evergreen Laurel Hotel (Taipei) 5 North 72 Chateau Beach Resort 5 South 31 Far Eastern Plaza Hotel (Taipei) 5 North 73 Howard Beach Resort Kenting 5 South 32 Grand Hyatt Taipei 5 North 74 Evergreen Plaza Hotel(Tainan) 5 South 33 Grand Victoria Hotel 5 North 75 Shangri-La's Far Eastern Plaza 5 South Hotel,Tainan 34 Grand View Resort 5 North 76 Tayih Landis Tainan 5 South 35 Hotel Royal Taipei 5 North 77 Farglory Hotel, Hualien 5 East 36 Howard Plaza Hotel 5 North 78 Parkview Hotel 5 East 37 Imperial Hotel Taipei 5 North 79 Promised Land Resort & Lagoon 5 East 38 Le Meridien Taipei Hotel 5 North 80 Silks Place Hotel, Taroko 5 East 39 Miramar Garden Taipei 5 North 81 Fullon Hotel Hualien 5 East 40 Palais De Chine Hotel Taipei 5 North 82 Formosan Naruwan Hotel Resort 5 East Taitung 41 Sheraton Taipei Hotel 5 North 83 Hotel Royal Chihpen Spa 5 East 42 The Sherwood Hotel Taipei 5 North 84 Papago International Resort 5 East Source: Tourism Bureau of Taiwan, 2012

240

Appendix C List of four-year hospitality education programs

No. Institution Name Type 1 Ming Chuan University Hospitality Management General Restaurant, Hotel and Institutional 2 Fu Jen Catholic University General Management 3 Aletheia University Hotel and Restaurant Management General 4 Kainan University Tourism and Hospitality General 5 Hsuan Chuang University Hospitality Management General 6 Chung Hua University Hospitality Management General 7 Tunghai University Hospitality Management General 8 Dayeh University Hospitality Management General 9 Mingdao University Hospitality Management General 10 National Chi Nan University Hospitality Management General 11 Toko University Hospitality Management General 12 Taiwan Shoufu University Hotel Management General 13 Taiwan Shoufu University Hospitality Management General 14 I-Shou University Hospitality Management General 15 I-Shou University International Tourism and Hospitality General 16 China Institute of Technology Tourism and Hospitality Technical 17 Jinwen University of Science and Technology Hotel Management Technical 18 Tungnan University Hospitality Management Technical 19 Hsing Wu University Hospitality Management Technical 20 De Lin Institute of Technology Hospitality Management Technical Tourism and Hospitality 21 Lee-Ming Institute Technology Technical Management Ching Kuo Institute of Management and 22 Hospitality Management Technical Health 23 Vanung University Hotel Management Technical Chien Hsin University of Science and 24 Hospitality Management Technical Technology 25 Taoyuan Innovation Institute of Technology Hospitality Management Technical Minghsin University of Science and 26 Hotel Management Technical Techologu 27 Asia - Pacific Institute of Creativity Hospitality Marketing Management Technical 28 Yu Da University of Science and Technology Hospitality Management Technical 29 HungKuang University Hospitality Management Technical 30 Overseas Chinese University Hotel and M.I.C.E. Management Technical 31 TransWorld University Tourism and Hospitality Technical 32 Yatung Institute of Technology Hotel Management Technical Hospitality and Exhibition Marketing 33 Yatung Institute of Technology Technical Management 34 Wu Feng University Hospitality Management Technical Chung Hwa University of Medical 35 Hospitality Management Technical Technology Nan Jeon University of Science and 36 Hospitality Management Technical Technology 37 Tainan University of Technology Hotel Management Technical Southern Taiwan University of Science and 38 Hospitality Management Technical Technology 241

Chia Nan University of Pharmacy and 39 Hotel and Restaurant Management Technical Science National Kaohsiung University of Hospitality 40 Hotel Management Technical and Tourism National Kaohsiung University of Hospitality Hospitality and M.I.C.E. Marketing 41 Technical and Tourism Management National Pingtung University of Science and 42 Hotel and Restaurant Management Technical Technology 43 Tajen University Hospitality Management Technical 44 Meiho University Hospitality Management Technical 45 Kao Fong College of Digital Contents Hospitality Management Technical 46 Taiwan Hospitality and Tourism College Hospitality Management Technical National Penghu University of Science and 47 Hospitality Management Technical Technology Source: Ministry of Education, Taiwan, 2012

242

Appendix D Information for in-depth interviews Phase 1: Invitation and consent form of in-depth interviews Contact: I-Cheng Hsu (Eden) PhD Candidate Department of Marketing Gold Coast Campus O:+ 886 (0) 3 8653906#804 M:+886 (0)922490847 [email protected] An Examination of Management Competencies in Hospitality Higher Education: An Eastern Culture Context INFORMATION SHEET (In-depth Interviews) What is the research about? This is a PhD research project will be conducted through the Griffith Business School, Australia. This research aims to investigate the required management competencies for graduates of hospitality higher education in Taiwan. Specifically, it attempts to compare the perceptions of hospitality education stakeholders in terms of important competencies that the hospitality graduates need to be equipped with. On what basis you are selected? For the in-depth interview, senior hotel managers and directors of hospitality undergraduate programs in Taiwan are selected from a list available from the Tourism Bureau and the Ministry of Education Taiwan. Students and graduates are also selected from the list of schools. What you will be asked to do? In order to compile a list of the required competencies for hospitality graduates, senior hotel managers and educators are invited to participate in a telephone or face-to-face individual interview taking about 35~50 minutes. Stakeholders will be asked to discuss:  management competencies that are required for hospitality graduates  competencies domains and statements that are relevant in Taiwan  perceived value of hospitality higher education Who will benefit from the research? The research findings will contribute to the hospitality competency literature in Taiwan. Most importantly, it will help to align the Taiwanese hospitality curricula with the current and future industry needs. For hospitality educators, this research is expected to provide valuable information about curriculum development and revision. For hotel employers, the identified competencies can be used in recruitment, appraisals and training of employees. For hospitality students, it will improve them understanding of the minimum competency requirements of entry-level managerial positions. Feedback to you The find results of the research will be reported in an aggregate manner and communicated upon request. Voluntary Your participation is complete voluntary. You can withdraw from the interview at any time.

243

Privacy Statement The information collected from this research is confidential and will not be disclosed to third parties without your consent, except to meet government, legal or other regulatory authority requirements. All recordings and written comments will be destroyed after the contents have been transcribed and analysed. The access to the verbal transcription will be limited to the researcher only. A de-identified copy of this data may be used for other research purposes. However, your anonymity will at all times be safeguarded. For further information consult the University’s Privacy Plan at www.gu.edu.au/ua/aa/vc/pp What to do next? If you are willing to participate in this interview, please read the consent form in the attachment and fill-out the meeting arrangement sheet. On completion, please send all information back to the researcher (Mr I-Cheng Hsu). With five days, the researcher will contact you to confirm the meeting. You are reminded to retain the consent form for latter reference. Further information PhD Candidate (contactor) Mr I-Cheng Hsu (Eden) Contact address in Taiwan Department of Marketing Department of Travel Management Gold Coast campus, Griffith University Taiwan Hospitality and Tourism College Parklands Drive, Southport, QLD 4215, Australia No.268, Zhongxing St., Shoufeng Township, Tel +886 (0)3 8653906#804; +886 (0)922490847 Hualien County 974, Taiwan (R.O.C.) Fax +886 (0)3 8653910 [email protected] Principal Supervisor Associate Supervisor Professor Debra Grace Dr Mitchell Ross Department of Marketing Department of Marketing Gold Coast campus, Griffith University Gold Coast campus, Griffith University Parklands Drive, Southport, QLD 4215, Australia Parklands Drive, Southport, QLD 4215, Australia Tel + 61 (0)7 555 28027 Fax + 61 (0)7 555 28085 Tel + 61 (0)7 555 28269 Fax + 61 (0)7 555 28085 [email protected] [email protected] The ethical conduct of this research Griffith University conducts research in accordance with the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Research Involving Humans. If you have any concerns or complaints about the ethical conduct of this research, please contact the researcher in Taiwan on +886 (0)3 8653906#804, or the Manager, Research Ethics on +61 (0)7 3735 5585 or [email protected].

244

Contact: I-Cheng Hsu (Eden) PhD Candidate Department of Marketing Gold Coast Campus O:+ 886 (0) 3 8653906#804 M:+886 (0)922490847 [email protected] An Examination of Management Competencies in Hospitality Higher Education: An Eastern Culture Context CONSENT FORM (In-depth Interviews) Research Team PhD Candidate (contactor) Principal Supervisor Associate Supervisor Mr I-Cheng Hsu (Eden) Prof. Debra Grace Dr. Mitchell Ross Tel: +886 (0)3 8653906 #804 Tel: + 61 (0)7 555 28027 Tel: + 61 (0)7 555 28269 +886 (0)922490847 Fax: + 61 (0)7 555 28085 Fax: + 61 (0)7 555 28085 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] By returning this form with meeting arrangement sheet to the researcher, I confirm that I have read and understood the information package and in particular have noted that:  I understand that my involvement in this research will include identifying the required management competencies for hospitality graduates in Taiwan;  I have had questions answered to my satisfaction;  I understand the risks involved;  I understand that there will be no direct benefit to me from my participation in this research;  I understand that my participation in this research is voluntary;  I understand that if I have any additional questions I can contact the researcher;  I understand that I am free to withdraw at any time, without comment or penalty;  I understand that I can contact the researcher in Taiwan on +886 (0)3 8653906#804, or the Manager, Research Ethics, at Griffith University Human Research Ethics Committee on +61 (0)7 3735 5585 (or research- [email protected]) if I have any concerns about the ethical conduct of the project; and  I agree to participate in the project. Meeting Arrangement Sheet Name: Position and Organisation: ______/ ______/ 2 0 1 2 Preferred Date: d d m m y y Preferred Time:  ： ～ ：  (30~45 minutes) Preferred Location for a face- Provide address here: ______to-face meeting: ______   (city code) Telephone number :         (phone number) #        (extension)

245

第一階段：專家小組審查之書面通知書

聯絡人：徐宜成博士候選人行銷學系黃金海岸校區, 格里菲斯大學臺灣電話:+ 886 (0) 3 8653906#804 臺灣手機:+886

(0)922490847 [email protected] 檢視餐旅高等教育之管理能力: 東方文化之觀點書面通知書 (深度訪談) 研究背景？這是澳洲格里菲斯大學觀光休閒旅館運動管理學系的博士論文研究計畫。研究宗旨在瞭解、探討台灣餐旅高等教育畢業生所應具備之管理能力。並試圖比較業界經理、餐旅教師與學生對餐旅管理能力認知上的差異。挑選基礎？在深度訪談人選部分，以旅館高階經理與餐旅相關科系系主任、學生、畢業生為主要資訊來源，名單則依據台灣觀光局與教育部的公開資料。要求內容？為了編制餐旅畢業生應具備之管理能力，將邀請旅館高階經理與餐旅教師、學生、畢業接受電話或面對面個別訪談，時間約35～50分鐘。您將討論：  餐旅畢業生所應具備的管理能力  臺灣環境所適合的管理能力分類類別及敘述項目  臺灣餐旅高等教育真正的價值研究受益者？研究結果將將有助於使台灣餐旅課程迎合當前和未來的行業需求。對餐旅教育來說，這項研究將提供實質上的資訊以供餐旅課程的制定和修訂。餐旅業來說，所確定的管理能力可用於員工招聘，考核和培訓。對餐旅學生來說，可進一步瞭解初階管理職位所需之最低要求。反饋若您對此研究結果有興趣，煩請告知，研究者將把整合報告傳送給您。自願您的參與屬完全自願性質，應不認為被迫參與此研究。您可隨時放棄回答此訪談。隱私聲明此研究參與受機密保護，未經您同意，您的參與無法由第三者識別（為符合政府、法律或其他行政主管單位要求除外）。內容已經轉錄和分析後，所有的錄音和書面意見將會被刪除、摧毀。研究資料之取得權限僅限於研究團隊。您的匿名在任何狀況是受到保護的。欲瞭解更多格里菲斯大學之隱私聲明計畫請參考www.gu.edu.au/ua/aa/vc/pp。

246

下一步？有意願參與者，請詳讀同意書並填寫相關資料。填寫完畢後，請寄回所有資訊。研究者將於五天內與您聯絡並安排訪談時間。進一步資訊博士候選人（聯絡人）徐宜成臺灣聯絡地址行銷學系黃金海岸校區, 格里菲斯大學臺灣觀光學院 Parklands Drive, Southport, QLD 4215, Australia 旅遊管理學系電話：+886 (0)3 8653906#804; +886 (0)922490847 97448花蓮縣壽豐鄉豐山村中興街傳真：+886 (0)3 8653910 268號 [email protected] 指導教授副指導教授 Debra Grace 教授 Mitchell Ross 博士行銷學系行銷學系黃金海岸校區, 格里菲斯大學黃金海岸校區, 格里菲斯大學 Parklands Drive, Southport, QLD 4215, Australia Parklands Drive, Southport, QLD 4215, Australia 電話：+ 61 (0)7 555 28027 電話：+ 61 (0)7 555 280269 傳真： + 61 (0)7 555 28085 傳真： + 61 (0)7 555 28085 [email protected] [email protected] 學術研究倫理規範格里菲斯大學依從澳洲人類學術研究執行倫理之規定。若您對此研究有任何疑慮或抱怨，請與研究團隊或格里菲斯大學學術研究倫理單位聯絡。聯絡方式+886 (0)3 8653906#804 或+61 (0)7 3735 5585 或者 [email protected]。

247

第一階段：專家小組審查之同意書

聯絡人：徐宜成博士候選人行銷學系黃金海岸校區, 格里菲斯大學臺灣電話:+ 886 (0) 3 8653906#804 臺灣手機:+886 (0)922490847 [email protected] 檢視餐旅高等教育之管理能力: 東方文化之觀點同意書 (深度訪談) 研究小組博士候選人（聯絡人）指導教授副指導教授徐宜成 Debra Grace 教授 Mitchell Ross 博士電話：+886 (0)3 8653906#804 電話：+ 61 (0)7 555 28027 電話：+61 (0)7 555 28269 +886 (0)922490847 傳真：+ 61 (0)7 555 28085 傳真：+61 (0)7 555 28085 電郵：[email protected] 電郵：[email protected] 電郵：[email protected] 藉由這個表單的回覆，我可以確定我已經閱讀和理解相關書面資訊，特別是在：

 此研究中，主要是判斷台灣餐旅畢業生應具備的管理能力；  我對此研究的疑惑已獲得滿意的解答；  參與此研究無任何直接危險；  我不會因為參與此研究而接受直接利益；  此研究參與屬自願性質；  若我有任何問題可以聯絡研究人員；  我可以在任何時間，不需理由地，放棄回答；  若我有任何關於研究倫理的問題，我可以聯絡研究團隊 +886 (0)3 8653906#804或格里菲斯大學研究倫理單位經理 +61 (0)7 3735 5585 或 [email protected]；  我同意參與此研究計畫。訪談安排表

姓名單位組織名稱職稱預定日期中華民國年月日預定時間  ： ～ ：  （30~45 分鐘）

______預定地點 ______

聯絡電話   （區碼）        

248

Phase 1: Scripts and questions for in-depth interviews

Scripts and questions for In-depth Interview

Introduction Good morning / afternoon. My name is Hsu, I-Cheng, a PhD candidate of Griffith University in Australia. I am currently a lecturer in Taiwan Hospitality and Tourism College in Hualien. I’m calling/writing for inviting you to participate in our research into “An Examination of Management Competencies in Hospitality Higher Education: An Eastern Culture Context”.

In particular, we would like to ask you some questions about the essential competencies or skills college and university students need in the hospitality industry and their future career.

We have prepared three themes for telephone or face-to-face interview. It would take about 35 to 50 minutes to complete. We would very much appreciate it if you would have time to take part in this interview. Of course, your anonymity and confidentiality will at all times be protected. In order to show our appreciation, every participant will receive NTD200 gift coupons of 7-11 Convenience Store after completing the interview, by post or face-to-face.

There will be three themes to discuss during the interview; would you be willing to participate?  management competencies that are required for hospitality graduates In your opinion, what competencies are important for Taiwan college students to achieve career success in the hospitality industry?  Competencies domains and statements: In your opinion, what competent performance or behaviours that should be included in each domain as in the table?  Perceived value of hospitality higher education: In your opinion, is hospitality higher education valuable and irreplaceable comparing to other management related department in Taiwan higher education?

249

If NO – Thank you very much for your time. Have a nice day. Goodbye. If YES – Would you have time to participate now or schedule another time in August?

Informed Consent (If Now) Thank your very much. Before we can start, you may need to confirm that: 1. You understand what to do for participating in this research; 2. You have had any questions answered to your satisfaction; 3. You understand that if you have any additional questions you can contact the research team; 4. You understand that you are free to withdraw at any time, without comment or penalty; and 5. You understand that you can contact the Manager, Research Ethics, at Griffith University Human Research Ethics Committee on 3875 5585 (or [email protected]) if you have any concerns about the ethical conduct of the project.

Do you confirm your participation in this research? If NO – Thank you very much for your time. Have a nice day. Goodbye. If YES –Thank you. We’ll start right now. (If Schedule another time) Name of Interviewee: Company/institution: Position Preferred Date: ______(month) ______(Date)

Preferred Time: □□:□□~□□:□□ Your contact detail for □Telephone: +□□(country code) □□□(city code) (phone number) telephone interview: □□□□□□□□ □MSN account: □SKYPE account: Email:

250

Interview Questions Theme 1 Management competencies that are required for hospitality graduates In your opinion, what competencies are important for Taiwan college students to achieve career success in the hospitality industry? Theme 2 Competencies domains and statements: In your opinion, what competent performance or behaviours that should be included in each domain as in the table?

Generic Conceptual Specific Information management Leadership management management competencies Interpersonal competencies Marketing Adaptability and learning Accounting and finance Job performance efficacy Human and professional Self-management resources External and governmental Industry knowledge influences Food and beverage management Sports and recreation management Building and facilities maintenance

Finally, could you nominate 3 to 5 managers/educators/students/graduates in the field who may be willing to share their thoughts regarding hospitality competencies in Taiwan?

Ending 1. Thank you for your time. Would you like to receive the results of this research when it is completed? (Could you leave your preferred contact number or email address?) 2. Thank you again.

251

Appendix E. Information for surveys Phase 2: Questionnaire coversheet and consent form (Educator) An Examination of Management Competencies in Hospitality Higher Education: An Eastern Culture Context QUESTIONNAIRE COVERSHEET What is the research about? This is a PhD research project will be conducted through the Griffith Business School, Australia. This research aims to investigate the required management competencies for graduates of hospitality higher education in Taiwan. Specifically, it attempts to compare the perceptions of hospitality education stakeholders in terms of important competencies that the hospitality graduates need to be equipped with.

On what basis you are selected? For this mail survey, I need the inputs from educators of hospitality undergraduate programs in Taiwan. You are invited if your educational institution is listed in the Ministry of Education Taiwan.

What you will be asked to do? In this self-administered mail survey, you will be asked to:  Rate the importance of each competency statement that hospitality graduates should possess.  Provide your demographic information. It should take about 15~25 minutes to complete.

Who will benefit from the research? The research findings will contribute to the hospitality competency literature in Taiwan. Most importantly, it will help to align the Taiwanese hospitality curricula with the current and future industry needs. For hospitality educators, this research is expected to provide valuable information about curriculum development and revision. For hotel employers, the identified competencies can be used in recruitment, appraisals and training of employees. For hospitality students, it will improve them understanding of the minimum competency requirements of entry- level managerial positions.

Feedback to you The find results of the research will be reported in an aggregate manner and communicated upon request.

Voluntary Your participation is complete voluntary. You can withdraw from the survey at any time.

252

Privacy Statement The information collected from this research is confidential and will not be disclosed to third parties without your consent, except to meet government, legal or other regulatory authority requirements. The access to the original data will be limited to the researcher only. A de-identified copy of this data may be used for other research purposes. However, your anonymity will at all times be safeguarded. For further information consult the University’s Privacy Plan at www.gu.edu.au/ua/aa/vc/pp

What to do next? If you are willing to participate, please answer ALL questions and send it back with the pre-paid envelop provided. Your return will be assumed as your consent to participation in this research. You are suggested to retain this consent sheet for latter reference.

Further information PhD Candidate (contactor) Mr I-Cheng Hsu (Eden) Contact address in Taiwan Department of Marketing Department of Travel Management Gold Coast campus, Griffith University Taiwan Hospitality and Tourism College Parklands Drive, Southport, QLD 4215, Australia No.268, Zhongxing St., Shoufeng Township, Tel +886 (0)3 8653906#803; +886 (0)922490847 Hualien County 974, Taiwan (R.O.C.) Fax +886 (0)3 8653910 [email protected]

Principal Supervisor Associate Supervisor Professor Debra Grace Dr Mitchell Ross Department of Marketing Department of Marketing Gold Coast campus, Griffith University Gold Coast campus, Griffith University Parklands Drive, Southport, QLD 4215, Australia Parklands Drive, Southport, QLD 4215, Australia Tel + 61 (0)7 555 28027 Fax + 61 (0)7 555 28085 Tel + 61 (0)7 555 28269 Fax + 61 (0)7 555 [email protected] 28085 [email protected]

The ethical conduct of this research Griffith University conducts research in accordance with the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Research Involving Humans. If you have any concerns or complaints about the ethical conduct of this research, please contact the researcher in Taiwan on +886 (0)3 8653096#803, or the Manager, Research Ethics on +61 (0)7 3735 5585 or [email protected].

253

An Examination of Management Competencies in Hospitality Higher Education: An Eastern Culture Context QUESTIONNAIRE Section 1: Management competency statements In this section, you will reveal your opinion about the importance of the generic and specific competencies which are important for hospitality students in Taiwan to possess for success. Please circle the point (like 4 ) on the scale from 1 to 5 that best describes your opinion. 1= extremely unimportant; 2= unimportant; 3= a little unimportant 4= in between; 5= a little important 6= important; 7= extremely important Please answer all 72 statements. Hospitality management competencies Importance 1. Have strong interest in the hospitality industry 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. Have confidence 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. Be diligent and enjoy hard working 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. Enjoy interacting with others 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. Be active and positive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. Be familiar with the current trend of society 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7. Analyse the present industrial condition 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. Analyse the future market trend 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9. Make the best decision among options 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10. Understand the target market 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 11. Realize the visions and missions of the organization 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12. Build brand image 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13. Conduct business negotiation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 14. Plan marketing strategies and projects 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 15. Conduct events and activities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 16. Use computer for document processing 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 17. Know how to collect information 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 18. Accomplish task in time 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 19. Accomplish task within budget 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 20. Produce the desired result 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 21. Identify and analyse problems 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 22. Identify and implement solutions to the problem 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 23. Evaluate the effect of the solution 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 24. Know and prevent possible crisis 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 25. Deal with crisis effectively 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 26. Have international viewpoint 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 27. Integrate with the local culture 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 28. Respect different cultures 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 29. Be persuasive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 30. Lead by personal example 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 31. Be trust-worthy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 32. Be able to work in a team 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 33. Empower employees to make decisions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 34. Manage stress and emotion 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 35. Be willing to learn 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 36. Control time effectively 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 37. Exhibit appropriate work ethics 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 38. Maintain health 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

254

Hospitality management competencies Importance 39. Facilitate creative development of the organisation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 40. Plan innovative products and service 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 41. Have English communicative ability 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 42. Have English reading ability 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 43. Have English writing ability 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 44. Have Japanese communicative ability 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 45. Have Japanese reading ability 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 46. Have Japanese writing ability 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 47. Having public relationship skills 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 48. Deal with customer complaints 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 49. Understand the customers’ needs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 50. Establish and maintain positive customer relationships 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 51. Follow hospitality related laws and regulations 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 52. Establish quality management standards 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 53. Control the quality of products and services 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 54. Plan manpower allocation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 55. Know the training needs of employees 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 56. Facilitate promotion and career development of employees 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 57. Evaluate performance and productivity of employees 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 58. Evaluate job satisfaction of employees 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 59. Establish and maintain positive employee relationships. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 60. Select and employ proper employees 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 61. Analyse cost-benefit 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 62. Plan operative goals 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 63. Analyse financial statement 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 64. Plan and control budget 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 65. Predict and lower investment risk 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 66. Be familiar with hospitality information system 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 67. Be competent in Chinese cuisine cookery skills 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 68. Be competent in Western cuisine cookery skills 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 69. Be competent in hotel and restaurant service skills 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 70. Be competent in cocktails making skills 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 71. Be competent in food baking skills 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 72. Be competent in beverages preparation skills 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

You have completed all questions. Thanks for your precious time!

255

檢視餐旅高等教育之管理能力: 東方文化之觀點問卷封面研究背景？這是澳洲格里菲斯大學觀光休閒旅館運動管理學系的博士論文研究計畫。研究宗旨在瞭解、探討台灣餐旅高等教育畢業生所應具備之管理能力。並試圖比較業界經理、於業界服務之餐旅畢業生、餐旅教師與學生對餐旅管理能力認知上的差異。挑選基礎？對於此問卷調查，需要台灣的餐旅相關科系教師的投入。您受邀請的基礎，主要是根據台灣教育部的資料。要求內容？在這份自我管理的郵寄問卷中，您將  評量各項管理能力對餐旅畢業生的重要性.  提供個人資料填寫過程大約15～25分鐘研究受益者？研究結果將有助於使台灣餐旅課程迎合當前和未來的行業需求。對餐旅教育來說，這項研究將提供實質上的資訊以供餐旅課程的制定和修訂。餐旅業來說，所確定的管理能力可用於員工招聘，考核和培訓。對餐旅學生來說，可進一步瞭解初階管理職位所需之最低要求。反饋若您對此研究結果有興趣，煩請告知，研究者將把整合報告傳送給您。自願您的參與屬完全自願性質，應不認為被迫參與此研究。您可隨時放棄回答此問卷。隱私聲明此研究參與受機密保護，未經您同意，您的參與無法由第三者識別（為符合政府、法律或其他行政主管單位要求除外）。研究資料之取得權限僅限於研究團隊。您的匿名在任何狀況是受到保護的。欲瞭解更多格里菲斯大學之隱私聲明計畫請參考www.gu.edu.au/ua/aa/vc/pp。下一步？如果您願意參加，請回答所有問題。填寫後，放入預付回郵信封，密封投寄。您的回覆，將視您已同意參與這項研究。建議您保留封面資料以供日後者參考。

256

進一步資訊

博士候選人（聯絡人）臺灣聯絡地址徐宜成行銷學系黃金海岸校區, 格里菲斯大學臺灣觀光學院 Parklands Drive, Southport, QLD 4215, Australia 旅遊管理學系電話：+886 (0)3 8653906#803; +886 (0)922490847 傳真：+886 (0)3 8653910 97448花蓮縣壽豐鄉豐山村中興街 [email protected] 268號

指導教授副指導教授 Debra Grace 教授 Mitchell Ross 博士行銷學系行銷學系黃金海岸校區, 格里菲斯大學黃金海岸校區, 格里菲斯大學 Parklands Drive, Southport, QLD 4215, Australia Parklands Drive, Southport, QLD 4215, Australia 電話：+ 61 (0)7 555 28027 電話：+ 61 (0)7 555 280269 傳真： + 61 (0)7 555 28085 傳真： + 61 (0)7 555 28085 [email protected] [email protected]

學術研究倫理規範格里菲斯大學依從澳洲人類學術研究執行倫理之規定。若您對此研究有任何疑慮或抱怨，請與研究團隊或格里菲斯大學學術研究倫理單位聯絡。聯絡方式 +886 (0)3 8653906#803 或+61 (0)7 3735 5585 或者 [email protected]。

257

檢視餐旅高等教育之管理能力: 東方文化之觀點問卷第 1部分: 管理能力此部分要詢問您，若臺灣餐旅科系學生要能在未來發展有所成就，所應具備之核心及專業能力的重要性。請依各題項的重要性，自1到5的量表中圈選最適合的答案（如 4 ）。 1= 非常不重要; 2= 不重要; 3= 有點不重要; 4= 普通; 5= 有點不重要; 6= 重要/滿意; 7= 非常重要請回答所有72個題項。餐旅管理能力重要性 1. 對餐旅產業有濃厚興趣 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. 有自信 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. 刻苦耐勞 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. 樂於與人接觸 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. 積極樂觀 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. 了解當前社會發展狀況 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7. 了解產業發展現況 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. 分析未來市場趨勢 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9. 能做最好的決定 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10. 瞭解目標市場 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 11. 實現企業願景及目標 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12. 建立企業形象 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13. 能進行企業協商 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 14. 規劃行銷策略 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 15. 具執行活動能力 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 16. 具電腦文書處理能力 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 17. 具資訊收集能力 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 18. 能按時間規定完成任務 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 19. 能在預算範圍內完成任務 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 20. 能達到所期待的成果 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 21. 找到並分析問題 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 22. 找到並執行解決問題的方法 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 23. 評估解決方法的效益 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 24. 知悉並預防可能的危機 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 25. 有效地處理危機 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 26. 具國際觀 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 27. 與地方文化特色結合 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 28. 尊重不同文化 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 29. 具說服力 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 30. 能以身做則 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 31. 可讓人信任的 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 258

餐旅管理能力重要性 32. 具團隊合作能力 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 33. 授權給員工做決策 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 34. 管理壓力及情緒 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 35. 願意學習 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 36. 做有效時間管理 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 37. 展現適當的職場倫理 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 38. 維持健康 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 39. 促進企業的創新發展 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 40. 設計創新產品及服務 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 41. 能用英語進行的口語溝通 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 42. 具英語閱讀能力 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 43. 具英語寫作能力 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 44. 能用日語進行的口語溝通 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 45. 具日語閱讀能力 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 46. 具日語寫作能力 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 47. 具公關溝通技巧 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 48. 處理顧客抱怨 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 49. 能分析顧客需求 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 50. 建立並維持良好顧客關係 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 51. 遵循餐旅業相關法規 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 52. 建立品質管理標準 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 53. 控制產品及服務品質 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 54. 規劃人力配置 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 55. 瞭解員工的訓練需求 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 56. 協助員工升遷及職涯發展 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 57. 考核員工表現及績效 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 58. 評量員工的工作滿意度 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 59. 建立及維持良好主雇關係 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 60. 挑選並聘用適當員工 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 61. 分析成本與收入 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 62. 規劃營運收入目標 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 63. 分析財務報表 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 64. 規劃及控制預算 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 65. 預測及降低投資風險 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 66. 熟悉餐旅資訊系統 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 67. 具中廚烹調證照 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 68. 具西廚烹調證照 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 69. 具餐服服務檢定證照 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 70. 具調酒證照 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 71. 具烘焙檢定證照 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 72. 具飲料調製檢定證照 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

259

第 2部分: 個人背景資料此部分要詢問您個人及您所就讀學校或任職的公司/組織基本資料。請回答所有6項問題。

1. 您的性別?  男性  女性 2. 您的年紀? ______歲 3. 您的最高學歷？  高中職  專科職業學校（五專、二專）  科技大學及技術學院（含二技、四技）  一般高等教育大學  碩士  博士  其他(請詳述)： ______4. 您就所服務的大專院校屬於哪一類? 科技大學及技術學院（含二技、四技） 一般高等教育大學 其他(請詳述)：______5. 您就所服務的科系屬於哪一類（請擇一）?  餐旅管理(含旅館、餐飲或廚藝管理)  非餐旅之觀光休閒相關管理 (如旅遊、觀光、休閒管理) 其他(請詳述)： ______6. 您在餐旅高等教育已服務多久？______年您已完成所有問題，感謝您撥冗參與!

260

Phase 2: Questionnaire coversheet and consent form (graduates and managers) An Examination of Management Competencies in Hospitality Higher Education: An Eastern Culture Context QUESTIONNAIRE COVERSHEET What is the research about? This is a PhD research project will be conducted through the Griffith Business School, Australia. This research aims to investigate the required management competencies for graduates of hospitality higher education in Taiwan. Specifically, it attempts to compare the perceptions of hospitality education stakeholders in terms of important competencies that the hospitality graduates need to be equipped with.

On what basis you are selected? For this mail survey, I need the inputs from hotel managers and graduates of hospitality undergraduate programs in Taiwan. You are invited if your hotel or educational institution is listed in the Tourism Bureau or the Ministry of Education Taiwan.

Feedback to you The find results of the research will be reported in an aggregate manner and communicated upon request.

Voluntary Your participation is complete voluntary. You can withdraw from the survey at any time.

261

Privacy Statement The information collected from this research is confidential and will not be disclosed to third parties without your consent, except to meet government, legal or other regulatory authority requirements. The access to the original data will be limited to the researcher only. A de-identified copy of this data may be used for other research purposes. However, your anonymity will at all times be safeguarded. For further information consult the University’s Privacy Plan at www.gu.edu.au/ua/aa/vc/pp

262

An Examination of Management Competencies in Hospitality Higher Education: An Eastern Culture Context QUESTIONNAIRE Section 1: Management competency statements In this section, you will reveal your opinion about the importance of the generic and specific competencies which are important for hospitality students in Taiwan to possess for success. Please circle the point (like 4 ) on the scale from 1 to 7 that best describes your opinion. 1= extremely unimportant/dissatisfied; 2= unimportant/dissatisfied; 3= a little unimportant/dissatisfied; 4= in between; 5= a little important/satisfied; 6= important/satisfied; 7= extremely important/satisfied D=don’t know Please answer all 72 statements. Hospitality management competencies Importance 1. Have strong interest in the hospitality industry 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. Have confidence 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. Be diligent and enjoy hard working 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. Enjoy interacting with others 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. Be active and positive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. Be familiar with the current trend of society 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7. Analyse the present industrial condition 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. Analyse the future market trend 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9. Make the best decision among options 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10. Understand the target market 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 11. Realize the visions and missions of the organization 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12. Build brand image 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13. Conduct business negotiation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 14. Plan marketing strategies and projects 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 15. Conduct events and activities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 16. Use computer for document processing 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 17. Know how to collect information 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 18. Accomplish task in time 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 19. Accomplish task within budget 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 20. Produce the desired result 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 21. Identify and analyse problems 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 22. Identify and implement solutions to the problem 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 23. Evaluate the effect of the solution 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 24. Know and prevent possible crisis 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 25. Deal with crisis effectively 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 26. Have international viewpoint 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 27. Integrate with the local culture 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 28. Respect different cultures 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 29. Be persuasive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 30. Lead by personal example 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 31. Be trust-worthy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 32. Be able to work in a team 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 33. Empower employees to make decisions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 34. Manage stress and emotion 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 35. Be willing to learn 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

263

Hospitality management competencies Importance 36. Control time effectively 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 37. Exhibit appropriate work ethics 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 38. Maintain health 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 39. Facilitate creative development of the organisation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 40. Plan innovative products and service 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 41. Have English communicative ability 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 42. Have English reading ability 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 43. Have English writing ability 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 44. Have Japanese communicative ability 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 45. Have Japanese reading ability 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 46. Have Japanese writing ability 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 47. Having public relationship skills 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 48. Deal with customer complaints 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 49. Understand the customers’ needs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 50. Establish and maintain positive customer relationships 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 51. Follow hospitality related laws and regulations 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 52. Establish quality management standards 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 53. Control the quality of products and services 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 54. Plan manpower allocation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 55. Know the training needs of employees 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 56. Facilitate promotion and career development of employees 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 57. Evaluate performance and productivity of employees 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 58. Evaluate job satisfaction of employees 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 59. Establish and maintain positive employee relationships. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 60. Select and employ proper employees 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 61. Analyse cost-benefit 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 62. Plan operative goals 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 63. Analyse financial statement 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 64. Plan and control budget 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 65. Predict and lower investment risk 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 66. Be familiar with hospitality information system 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 67. Be competent in Chinese cuisine cookery skills 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 68. Be competent in Western cuisine cookery skills 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 69. Be competent in hotel and restaurant service skills 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 70. Be competent in cocktails making skills 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 71. Be competent in food baking skills 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 72. Be competent in beverages preparation skills 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

264

Section 2: Background information In this section, you will be asked questions about yourself and your school. Please answer all 6 questions.

1. Your gender?  male  female 2. You age? ______years old. 3. Your highest educational level?  Senior high school and vocational high school  Junior college (2-year or 5-year programs)  Technical college/university (2-year or 4-year programs)  Higher education college/university  Master  PhD  Other (please specify): ______4. How many years have you worked in the hospitality industry? ______years. 5. Which type does the organisation you are working belong to?  Hotel  Restaurant  Food and beverage stores  Other sector (non-hospitality) relating to the tourism and leisure industry (such as travel agencies, theme parks and leisure or recreation sector)  Other (please specify): ______6. Your position level?  General staff  Entry-level manager  Senior manager  Top manager  Other (please specify): ______7. The element/department you are working?  Front-desk/reception  Kitchen  Dining and catering  Room service  Human resource  Marketing and programming  Business operation  Accounting  Other (please specify): ______You have completed all questions. Thanks for your precious time!

265

檢視餐旅高等教育之管理能力: 東方文化之觀點問卷封面研究背景？這是澳洲格里菲斯大學觀光休閒旅館運動管理學系的博士論文研究計畫。研究宗旨在瞭解、探討台灣餐旅高等教育畢業生所應具備之管理能力。並試圖比較業界經理、於業界服務之餐旅畢業生、餐旅教師與學生對餐旅管理能力認知上的差異。

挑選基礎？對於此問卷調查，需要台灣的旅館業經理、於旅館業服務之餐旅相關科系畢業生的投入。您受邀請的基礎，主要是根據台灣觀光局與教育部的資料。

要求內容？在這份自我管理的郵寄問卷中，您將  評量各項管理能力對餐旅畢業生的重要性  提供個人資料填寫過程大約15～25分鐘

研究受益者？研究結果將有助於使台灣餐旅課程迎合當前和未來的行業需求。對餐旅教育來說，這項研究將提供實質上的資訊以供餐旅課程的制定和修訂。餐旅業來說，所確定的管理能力可用於員工招聘，考核和培訓。對餐旅學生來說，可進一步瞭解初階管理職位所需之最低要求。

反饋若您對此研究結果有興趣，煩請告知，研究者將把整合報告傳送給您。

自願您的參與屬完全自願性質，應不認為被迫參與此研究。您可隨時放棄回答此問卷。

隱私聲明此研究參與受機密保護，未經您同意，您的參與無法由第三者識別（為符合政府、法律或其他行政主管單位要求除外）。研究資料之取得權限僅限於研究團隊。您的匿名在任何狀況是受到保護的。欲瞭解更多格里菲斯大學之隱私聲明計畫請參考www.gu.edu.au/ua/aa/vc/pp。

下一步？如果您願意參加，請回答所有問題。填寫後，放入預付回郵信封，密封投寄。您的回覆，將視您已同意參與這項研究。建議您保留封面資料以供日後者參考。

266

進一步資訊

267

檢視餐旅高等教育之管理能力: 東方文化之觀點問卷第 1部分: 管理能力此部分要詢問您，若臺灣餐旅科系學生要能在未來發展有所成就，所應具備之核心及專業能力的重要性。請依各題項的重要性，自1到7的量表中圈選最適合的答案（如 4 ）。 1= 非常不重要/非常不滿意; 2= 不重要/不滿意; 3=有點不重要/有點不滿意; 4= 普通; 5=有點不重要/有點不滿意; 6= 重要/滿意; 7= 非常重要/非常滿意請回答所有72個題項。餐旅管理能力重要性 1. 對餐旅產業有濃厚興趣 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. 有自信 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. 刻苦耐勞 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. 樂於與人接觸 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. 積極樂觀 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. 了解當前社會發展狀況 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7. 了解產業發展現況 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. 分析未來市場趨勢 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9. 能做最好的決定 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10. 瞭解目標市場 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 11. 實現企業願景及目標 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12. 建立企業形象 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13. 能進行企業協商 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 14. 規劃行銷策略 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 15. 具執行活動能力 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 16. 具電腦文書處理能力 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 17. 具資訊收集能力 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 18. 能按時間規定完成任務 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 19. 能在預算範圍內完成任務 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 20. 能達到所期待的成果 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 21. 找到並分析問題 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 22. 找到並執行解決問題的方法 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 23. 評估解決方法的效益 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 24. 知悉並預防可能的危機 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 25. 有效地處理危機 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 26. 具國際觀 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 27. 與地方文化特色結合 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 28. 尊重不同文化 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 29. 具說服力 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 30. 能以身做則 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 31. 可讓人信任的 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 268

269

第 2部分: 個人背景資料此部分要詢問您個人及您所就讀學校或任職的公司/組織基本資料。請回答所有7項問題。

1. 您的性別？  男性  女性 2. 您的年紀？ ______歲 3. 您的最高學歷？  高中職  專科職業學校（五專、二專）  科技大學及技術學院（含二技、四技）  一般高等教育大學  碩士  博士  其他(請詳述)： ______4. 您在餐旅業服務幾年？ ______年. 5. 您所服務的組織是屬下列哪一類？  旅館  餐廳  飲料店  非餐旅之觀光休閒相關產業（如旅行社、主題樂園、休閒遊憩產業）  其他(請詳述)： ______6. 您的級職？  基層人員  低階主管  中階主管  高階主管  其他(請詳述)： ______7. 您所服務的部門或單位？  櫃檯接待  廚房  餐飲  房務  人力資源  行銷企劃  營運  財務  其他(請詳述)： ______您已完成所有問題，感謝您撥冗參與!

270

Phase 2: Questionnaire coversheet and consent form (students) An Examination of Management Competencies in Hospitality Higher Education: An Eastern Culture Context QUESTIONNAIRE COVERSHEET What is the research about? This is a PhD research project will be conducted through the Griffith Business School, Australia. This research aims to investigate the required management competencies for graduates of hospitality higher education in Taiwan. Specifically, it attempts to compare the perceptions of hospitality education stakeholders in terms of important competencies that the hospitality graduates need to be equipped with.

On what basis you are selected? For this mail survey, I need the inputs from students of hospitality undergraduate programs in Taiwan. You are invited if your educational institution is listed in the Ministry of Education Taiwan.

It should take about 15~25 minutes to complete.

Feedback to you The find results of the research will be reported in an aggregate manner and communicated upon request.

Voluntary Your participation is complete voluntary. You can withdraw from the survey at any time.

271

Privacy Statement The information collected from this research is confidential and will not be disclosed to third parties without your consent, except to meet government, legal or other regulatory authority requirements. The access to the original data will be limited to the researcher only. A de-identified copy of this data may be used for other research purposes. However, your anonymity will at all times be safeguarded. For further information consult the University’s Privacy Plan at www.gu.edu.au/ua/aa/vc/pp

What to do next? If you are willing to participate, please answer ALL questions and send it back with the pre- paid envelop provided. Your return will be assumed as your consent to participation in this research. You are suggested to retain this consent sheet for latter reference.

272

An Examination of Management Competencies in Hospitality Higher Education: An Eastern Culture Context QUESTIONNAIRE Section 1: Management competency statements In this section, you will reveal your opinion about the importance of the generic and specific competencies which are important for hospitality students in Taiwan to possess for success. Please circle the point (like 4 ) on the scale from 1 to 7 that best describes your opinion. 1= extremely unimportant/dissatisfied; 2= unimportant/dissatisfied; 3= a little unimportant/dissatisfied; 4= in between; 5= a little important/satisfied; 6= important/satisfied; 7= extremely important/satisfied D=don’t know Please answer all 72 statements. Hospitality management competencies Importance 1. Have strong interest in the hospitality industry 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. Have confidence 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. Be diligent and enjoy hard working 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. Enjoy interacting with others 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. Be active and positive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. Be familiar with the current trend of society 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7. Analyse the present industrial condition 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. Analyse the future market trend 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9. Make the best decision among options 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10. Understand the target market 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 11. Realize the visions and missions of the organization 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12. Build brand image 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13. Conduct business negotiation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 14. Plan marketing strategies and projects 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 15. Conduct events and activities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 16. Use computer for document processing 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 17. Know how to collect information 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 18. Accomplish task in time 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 19. Accomplish task within budget 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 20. Produce the desired result 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 21. Identify and analyse problems 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 22. Identify and implement solutions to the problem 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 23. Evaluate the effect of the solution 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 24. Know and prevent possible crisis 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 25. Deal with crisis effectively 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 26. Have international viewpoint 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 27. Integrate with the local culture 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 28. Respect different cultures 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 29. Be persuasive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 30. Lead by personal example 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 31. Be trust-worthy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 32. Be able to work in a team 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 33. Empower employees to make decisions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 34. Manage stress and emotion 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 35. Be willing to learn 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

273

274

Section 2: Background information In this section, you will be asked questions about yourself and your school. Please answer all 6 questions.

1. Your gender?  male  female 2. You age? ______years old. 3. Your highest educational level?  Senior high school and vocational high school  Junior college (2-year or 5-year programs)  Technical college/university (2-year or 4-year programs)  Higher education college/university  Master  PhD  Other (please specify): ______4. Which type does the college or university you are studying belong to?  Technical college/university (2-year or 4-year programs)  Higher education college/university  Other (please specify): ______5. Which type does the department you are studying belong to?  Hospitality management (including hotel, restaurant, food and beverage, or culinary management)  Other elements (non-hospitality) relating to tourism and leisure management (such as travel, tourism, leisure and recreation management)  Other (please specify): ______6. Which year are you studying now?  1st year  2nd year  3rd year  4th year  Other (please specify): ______You have completed all questions. Thanks for your precious time!

275

挑選基礎？對於此問卷調查，需要台灣的餐旅相關科系學生的投入。您受邀請的基礎，主要是根據台灣教育部的資料。

要求內容？在這份自我管理的郵寄問卷中，您將  評量各項管理能力對餐旅畢業生的重要性  提供個人資料填寫過程大約15～25分鐘

反饋若您對此研究結果有興趣，煩請告知，研究者將把整合報告傳送給您。

自願您的參與屬完全自願性質，應不認為被迫參與此研究。您可隨時放棄回答此問卷。

276

進一步資訊

277

279

第 2部分: 個人背景資料此部分要詢問您個人及您所就讀學校或任職的公司/組織基本資料。請回答所有6項問題。

1. 您的性別?  男性  女性 2. 您的年紀? ______歲 3. 您的最高學歷？  高中職  專科職業學校（五專、二專）  科技大學及技術學院（含二技、四技）  一般高等教育大學  碩士  博士  其他(請詳述)： ______4. 您就讀的大專院校屬於哪一類? 科技大學及技術學院（含二技、四技） 一般高等教育大學 其他(請詳述)：______5. 您就讀的科系屬於哪一類（請擇一）?  餐旅管理(含旅館、餐飲或廚藝管理)  非餐旅之觀光休閒相關管理 (如旅遊、觀光、休閒管理) 其他(請詳述)：______6. 現在是您修業的第幾年？  一  二  三  四  其他(請詳述)：______您已完成所有問題，感謝您撥冗參與!

280

Appendix F. Certificate of ethic clearance HUMAN RESEARCH ETHICS COMMITTEE SUBMISSION CERTIFICATE

This certificate generated on 08-06-2015.

This certificate confirms that an application for 'An Analysis of Management Competencies for Hospitality Higher Education in Taiwan' (GU Protocol Number HSL/21/08/HREC) . This application will shortly be considered by the Griffith University Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC).

The applicant will be advised of the outcome of this consideration in due course.

This correspondence will list the standard conditions of ethical clearance that apply to Griffith University protocols.

The HREC is established in accordance with the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Research Involving Humans. The operation of this Committee is outlined in the HREC standard Operating Procedure, which is available from www.gu.edu.au/or/ethics.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further queries about this matter.

Rick Williams Manager, Research Ethics Office for Research Bray Centre, N54 Room 0.15 Nathan Campus Griffith University Phone: 07 3735 4375 Facsimile: 07 373 57994 Email: [email protected]

281