英语论文网

e failures may be globally consistent, western based hotel companies would benefit from making adaptations to their training programs in China. This article will discuss the types of modifications which western hoteliers should consider and why.
Service failure recovery training
Service failures are defined as any service related mishaps or problems (real or perceived) that transpire during a customer's experience with a firm (Maxham, 2001). In this context, service recovery is the process by which a firm attempts to rectify a service delivery failure (Kelley and Davis, 1994). Service recovery training is crucial for hotel associates because it is impossible to eliminate all mistakes. The hospitality industry is unable to control all aspects of service delivery, and unlike the manufacturing industry where quality controls can allow for zero defects, hotels are dependent upon people to deal with people. The important strategic rule is that it is far less expensive to keep an existing customer than it is to bring in a new customer. Hotel management cannot afford to lose good customers who have the potential to become important marketers for the hotel via positive word-of-mouth referrals to friends and associates while also increasing their spending at hotel properties as they advance in their careers. As a result, hotel managers with Chinese properties should carefully consider their service recovery training programs to ensure that training is suitable for the Chinese situation. Adaptations are needed. First it is important to examine present types of recovery training programs.
Many hoteliers now utilize service recovery training programs (Brown, 2000). For example, Ritz-Carlton trains a core value set called “the gold standards”, which encompass the “20 basics” that serve as guideposts for employees' recovery actions (Brown, 2000). Also, numerous hotel companies train the LEARN process (listen; empathize; apologize; react; notify). One company stated that its objectives for training were to “encourage and enable trainees to provide ‘exceptional’ and ‘personalized’ service consistently and, even, ‘to leave here anxious for the next customer complaint’ (Sturdy, 2000, p. 1089)!” The concern here is to instill a mindset in the employees to seek continuous service delivery improvements.
Service recovery training programs require performance measurement against benchmark standards. Without effective measurement, there is no mechanism to assess actual performance. So, how can effectiveness of service recovery training programs be gauged? First, guest satisfaction survey results (particularly items addressing problem resolution) can serve as a barometer of training effectiveness. Correlating satisfaction scores with training initiatives over a period of time can serve as a relatively reliable means of measuring training effectiveness. Secondly, training effectiveness can also be assessed at the individual associate level. An interesting training perspective is suggested by Peccei and Rosenthal (2000) in their view of the possible outcomes of service training (see Figure 1). The vertical axis represents the attitudes of trainees and the horizontal axis reflects their actions. Those associates in the “committed” quadrant have internalized and exhibit the trained skills. Those in the “lip service” section claim high levels of support for service quality, but do little to

Figure 2Service skills pyramid
References

Alli本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。