towards the Paradigm Life-Cycle in the Hospitality Industry ... which the hospitality industry operates may change, die as an organization fails, or continue.
Exploring the Complex Dynamics of Organizational Change towards the Paradigm Life-Cycle in the Hospitality Industry ก!"#$!"%&'()*+,*-./0.1ก!"234()5/6341.178ก" ,'9:;/(%?@A/.B@#!Cก""D,"?ก!" Dr. Ousanee Sawagvudcharee*
,'7+I5J.
ก
ก
ก !" #ก $ ! $ $ % ! $ &# '
ก
" ("# ) #*$ +, ! -,
ก. &ก (ก # . ก"# " ก*"((
ก . &ก (ก ก #*$ % & .&
ก*/&#!" &) ก$ !"! . ก01% & ) ก$ & 2#! $ ก"# " . ' ก , "3 # /
ก(&ก"# " , #*$ก ( .
*"(( "# !" % - กก ( ก , . %&$ ก"# " ! ก4,ก0ก"# " *"((#.
ก -5$#.& ((-, ก ก , #*$.
ก %.
&ก (ก & , -5$#4,ก02#6$ 708)
%(((
2 * (Knowledge Cybernetics &) KC) #$ .5 "%ก (. ก4,ก0 ) ก/(2
(0 ( KKLM ก (
กก
#ก( 2#(0 + "+KN %ก"*" O&ก
(0 ก( !# ก
* A lecturer in Graduate School, Dusit Thani College
3 2 ก ก R 2552
Abstract The business environment in which an organization operates is highly competitive, unpredictable, and unstable. Many organizations constantly change in order to survive. This includes organizations in the hospitality industry. Moving towards a change, a paradigm in which the hospitality industry operates may change, die as an organization fails, or continue on as before. This significantly depends on how people understand a paradigm change and cope with it. Investigating the paradigm change can offer a useful way of looking at what is happening to most organizations in the hospitality industry. One way of doing this is through the meta-theory of Knowledge Cybernetics (KC). Examples of the issues involved are provided by the brief examinations of the organizational growth of Starbucks Coffee Company, the Texas Pacific takeover of Midwest Airlines, and Thai Airways Internationalis privatization.
Key Words Knowledge Cybernetics, Paradigm, Paradigm Change, Paradigm Life-Cycle, Social Viable Systems model, Hospitality Industry
Introduction Many organizations within the hospitality industry are frequently confronted with a variety of internal and external factors. These factors are financial turmoil, economic downturn, political turbulence, technological and individual differentiation, strategic phenomena, and natural disasters (Bowen, 1996; Watson & DiAnnunzio-Green, 1996; Olsen, West & Tse, 1998; Smith, 2009; Woodworth, 2009). These factors cause turbulence in the industry that affect and influence its capacity to maintain continuous development (Watson & DiAnnunzio-Green, 1996; Smith, 2009; Woodworth, 2009). Many organizations
74
3 2 ก ก R 2552
within the hospitality industry have to look for sustainability of knowledge and competitive advantage. This may result in takeovers, joint alliances, or business partnerships in order to continue their growth or survival in a turbulent business environment (Blum, 1996; Watson & DiAnnunzio-Green, 1996). In such situations, the hospitality organization goes through a transitional period that may be developmental or transformational and lead to dramatic change. If a paradigm changes, dies, or continues on as before, it will reflect organizations within the hospitality industry. On the other hand, if they cannot look for any choice of change to survive, the organizations will fail and close their businesses. This could have an effect on stakeholders, shareholders, and the business environment. Illustrations of the issues involved are provided by brief examinations of the organizational growth of Starbucks Coffee Company, the Texas Pacific takeover of Midwest Airlines, and Thai Airways Internationalis privatization. Examining a paradigm change can therefore offer a useful way of looking at what is happening to many organizations in the hospitality industry. One way of doing this is through the meta-theory of Knowledge Cybernetics (KC). KC is able to generate models that enable us to explore paradigm change through a life cycle. KC can also potentially be used to help substantial organizational learning and development as a means of survival.
Modelling of the Hospitality Organization through Knowledge Cybernetics The hospitality industry is a composite of many different businesses (e.g. transportation, accommodation, travel, education, meetings, incentives, conventions, and etc) providing pleasure or kindness for strangers or guests in various ways. The natures of activities within the hospitality industry are largely services and intangible (OiConnor, 2005; Andrews, Roberts & Selwyn, 2007; OiGorman, 2007). It is sensitive, perishable, and involves ongoing activity, team working, and complexity (Brotherton, 1999; OiConnor, 2005; Andrews, Roberts & Selwyn, 2007; OiGorman, 2007). Each organization involves a variety of
75
3 2 ก ก R 2552
diversity such as culture, cognition, attitude, belief, heterogeneity, however, it is the inseparability, intangibility, and lack of ownership that define a certain level or style of hospitality (Brotherton, 1999; Ingram, 1999; OiConnor, 2005; OiGorman, 2007). Hence, an organization within the hospitality industry could be compared with a viable system in a complex organization. Yolles (2000, p. 1203) mentioned that A viable system is an active, purposeful, and adaptive organization that can operate in complex situations and survive.& Therefore, the viable hospitality organization can be seen in terms of three domains of being as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1: The hospitality organization as seen in terms of Knowledge Cybernetics (KC). Source: Adapted from Dynamic Model Illustrating the Hatch and Cunliffe (2006) Component Dimensions of Organization Theory Figure 1 provides the illustration of how the hospitality organization exists within the structure of reference provided by KC through the Social Viable Systems (SVS) model. It operates in three domains. The first is the existential domain which is based on culture as
76
3 2 ก ก R 2552
part of a cognitive base. This domain is about the local belief systems of people within organizations, as well as patterns of knowledge in worldviews. The second domain is the noumenal domain. The noumenal domain is about strategy as part of a figurative base. It includes ideology and ethics. The last domain is the phenomenal domain. The phenomenal domain is based on the hospitality organizational structure and multiple environments around the hospitality organization. These factors also interact with behavior, ethics, and morals, as well as the hospitality organizational performance. The three domains should be managed and operated effectively as their performance will significantly impact the ability to run the hospitality organization (Tepeci, 1999; Gray, Matear & Matheson, 2000; Andrews, Roberts & Selwyn, 2007). Uncertain situations can cause some organizations to repeatedly change their situation (Hing, 1997; Burnes, Cooper & West, 2003; Andrews, Roberts & Selwyn, 2007). These three domains can be considered as a worldview picture to help people to gather data from reality and to handle crisis situations in a dynamic environment. Furthermore, when the hospitality organization faces problems, either inside or outside the organization and becomes weak, pathology may occur. This can cause a break in a relationship, according to Figure 1. Consequently, that weakened domain will fail to operate and control, which will cause crisis in the organization, particularly when the hospitality organization is facing a changed situation. It is imperative to manage proper relationships between each domain interactively, as well as to have an in-depth understanding on how to analyze information leading to sustainable knowledge. This is because properly creating and analyzing knowledge with better understandable, in-depth analysis is one of the necessities for the survival of the hospitality organization today, because the organization can help people to enhance the capacity to develop the analytical exploration of factors (Olsen, West & Tse, 1998). Therefore, to be able to explore the details of the hospitality organization through the meta-theory of KC can help the organization to
77
3 2 ก ก R 2552
fill the gaps between knowledge and business strategy and fulfill the relationship between knowledge and sustainable competitive advantage.
The Hospitality Organizational Change towards the SVS Model An organization in the hospitality industry has a complex working environment system. It is frequently faced with confusion, instability, and frustration. These affect and influence its capacity to operate (Blum, 1996; Guerrier, 1999). The hospitality organization often requires effective team work, sustainable knowledge development, service mindedness, a unique or effective strategy, and open-minded thought to survive in today the turbulent business environment, rather than relying on technology to confront changed situations (Guerrier, 1999; Teare, 1995). Therefore, there are two models involved on how the hospitality organization operates in a change situation towards the use of the SVS model: (1) a model of corporate personality and (2) a model of a takeover or a joint alliance.
78
3 2 ก ก R 2552
Corporate personality change situation towards the SVS model A model of how the hospitality organization operates in a changed situation is represented in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Corporate Personality in Focus of the Hospitality Organization When in a Changed Situation Through the Use of the SVS Model Source: Adapted from Fink and Mayrhofer, 2009 Figure 2 represents a model of a hospitality organization in a changed situation. It can be broken down into six processes as follows: 1. Guidance (self-generation): This is about how the culture (in terms of the systems of attitudes, beliefs, values, and knowledge) of an organization in the hospitality industry provides guidelines or overviews to cope with situations (problems or opportunities) and the identification or conversion of a corporate entity. This guidance provides an opportunity for people to clearly understand individual stakeholders in relation to groups of the hospitality organization.
79
3 2 ก ก R 2552
2. Externalization (self-production): This is how information within the hospitality organization can influence decision making processes to deal with situations, either for coping with problems or seeking opportunities of a corporate entity. It is important to have an enhanced analysis in order to understand information before using it to reduce risk and confusion. 3. Action: This is how action is taken, based on gathering patterns of behavior, the ethics and morals of the hospitality organization to develop outcomes that can handle situations, either for dealing with problems or seeking opportunities. 4. Performance: This is about the performance of the chosen actions in an effective and efficient manner in suitable circumstances. 5. Combination (self-productive learning): This is the process of how the hospitality organization combines practical experience from action through processes of learning to develop effective knowledge to be used for any purpose. 6. Internalization (self-creative learning): This is the process of combined experiences that are transformed into new knowledge. According to Figure 2, within six processes, four domains involve: 1. Attitudes, beliefs, values, and knowledge: This domain is about attitudes, beliefs, values, and knowledge formed by the cultural standards. This domain provides opportunities for people to understand detail of organizational culture. It helps people to see what is going in a viable system of an organization in the hospitality industry. This can be seen through cultural standards in order to leverage competitive advantage and suitable strategic implementation in a corporation. 2. Corporate personality is about the social personality of a corporation which tries to generate an individual personality whilst establishing its corporate identity.
80
3 2 ก ก R 2552
3. Patterns of behavior, ethics, and morals: This domain concerns the organizational behaviors, ethics, and morals of a corporate entity. This domain helps people to understand human behavior in a hospitality organization and what the ethical and moral issues are. This eventually leads to more effective operation both inside and outside the corporate entity. An in-depth understanding of individual learning can also lead people to develop the proper organizational learning within this domain. 4. Environment and outcomes: This domain is about the environment and the outcomes of organizational action. It indicates that people should be carefully aware of the environment that influences action taken both inside and outside a hospitality organization. This includes outcomes based on achievement which can be monitored and checked to provide feedback on performance. Corporate personality change situation towards the SVS model in a case of a takeover or a joint alliance situation A model of how an organization in the hospitality industry operates in a changed situation towards the use of the SVS model in a case of a takeover or a joint alliance situation can be represented as show in Figure 3.
81
3 2 ก ก R 2552
Figure 3: The Paradigm Cycle in a Case of a Takeover or a Joint Alliance Through the Use of the SVS Model Source: Adopted from Fink and Mayrhofer, 2009 Figure 3 represents the paradigm-cycle when an organization within the hospitality industry is changed by a takeover or a joint alliance. It is represented through the use of the SVS model that shows how to implement the migration of knowledge between the headquarters of the corporate entity and its subsidiary. Figure 3 shows the division of cultural values, corporate personality, and action into two parts: one is for the headquarters and another is for its subsidiary. Each part of the cultural values and corporate personality is connected separately between the headquarters and its subsidiary. However, when the headquarters and its subsidiary have to take action, they have to interact with each other by using proper communication via appropriate channels to share knowledge and develop new knowledge for suitable usage of its subsidiary. For these reasons, it needs socialization to
82
3 2 ก ก R 2552
manage knowledge, as well as two-way feedback and a knowledge cycle for future cooperation.
The Paradigm Life-Cycle Nowadays, factors impacting organizations within the hospitality industry are increasing, in speed, frequency, and intensity. Many organizations in the hospitality industry often seek new strategies to understand and handle change (Blum, 1996; Olsen, West & Tse, 1998). To move through a change, a paradigm which the hospitality organizations operate under may also change. Examining the paradigm change can provide a useful way of looking at what is happening to many organizations in the hospitality industry. Therefore, a cycle of paradigm change can be represented as Figure 4. 1. Entry
Mode 1 (Normal) 2. Paradigmatic drift
Mode 2 (Post-normal: drift to more uncertainty)
Mode 4 8.
(Transformational)
3. Tensions
Complexification 7.2 Type change: morphogenesis 4. Tension increase & structural criticality
Mode 3 (Crisis) 7.1 Type change: more of the same
5. Fluctuation 6. Bifurcations 7.0 Type change: paradigmatic death or disorganization
Figure 4: The Paradigm Life-Cycle. Source: Adopted from Schwarz, 1997
83
3 2 ก ก R 2552
Figure 4 shows the cycle of paradigmatic change, as well as the relationship between the four modes of science. According to Figure 4, when a change occurs in a hospitality organization, a paradigm of the organization operates in Mode 1 (normal). This is prior to the change situation, when the organization is in equilibrium, and everything is predictable. After that, the paradigm shifts into Mode 2 (post-normal). This occurs during or after a significant event like a takeover, a joint alliance, or an organizational growth by moving through 3 steps: (1) Paradigmatic drift, (2) Tension development, and (3) Tension increase and structural criticality. A post-normal mode represents a complex situation. Generally, when the paradigm operates in the post-normal mode, the organization is often try to maintain the balance of the organization because they are just at the beginning of implementing their change plan, change strategy, and change scenario. The organization may then move the paradigm to Mode 3 (crisis). When the paradigm operates in a crisis mode, if work is not undertaken properly (via a fluctuation step and a bifurcation step) to maintain the balance of the organization, the paradigm could fail and may move to a Type 7.0 change, which is a deathi option. The death option means the organization could either fail or it might lose its identity in some way. If the paradigm is not in the death option, it might move to a Type 7.1 change, which is a more of the samei option. This means the organization regains its balance and continues on as before. On the other hand, the paradigm may shift into a Type 7.2 change, which is a morphogenesisi option. This means that the hospitality organization is in the process of cultural change. In contrast, if the culture cannot adjust, a cultural lag will be created and can lead to the organization becoming unstable, cumbersome, and resistant to change. This often occurs when the comprehension of values fails and value inconsistency develops. The paradigm shifts into Mode 4 (transformation) and in the 8th step, which is complexification, where the organization is changed.
84
3 2 ก ก R 2552
Illustrations of the paradigm life-cycle towards the hospitality organizational change As previously mentioned, organizations are often in changed situations, both inside and outside themselves (Olsen, West & Ching-Yick Tse, 1998). This leads to a paradigm of organizations which might change because the paradigm interconnects a number of interlinked and interdependent subsystems of organizations, which may include organizations within the hospitality industry. Therefore, the organizational growth of Starbucks Coffee Company, the Texas Pacific takeover of Midwest Airlines, and Thai Airways Internationalis privatization could illustrate the paradigm of each organizationis change. The organizational growth of Starbucks Coffee Company Starbucks Coffee Company opened their first store in the US in 1971 in Seattleis historic Pike Place Market. The organization has been constantly developing its business and faced a variety of factors, such as financial turmoil, economic downturn, and political crisis, with the mission to inspire and nurture the human spiriti. Starbucks has now expanded into more than fifty countries with a total number of 16,706 stores worldwide (as of December 27, 2009). In 2008, the organization decided to implement an organizational structure change to comprehensively offer better services for their customers. This could be one of the key factors in ability the organization to thrive in an unstable. In terms of the growth of Starbucks Coffee Company, there could be another viewpoint to explain the paradigm lifecycle in organizational change by following Figure 4. Since Starbucks announced the implementation of organizational structural change in 2008, the paradigm of the organization operated in a normal mode, where the organization was stable and could predict outcomes. The change project plan of the organization was provided to picture the future (www.starbucks.com). The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) moved the paradigm of the organization to operate in a post-normal mode by introducing to the employees why change
85
3 2 ก ก R 2552
was needed and what was going to be changed in the organization. This helped the CEO to gather information on the culture systems of the employees towards attitudes, beliefs, values, and knowledge throughout the organization to create a framework of corporate personality in relation to Figure 1. From this, the organization was able to receive, gather, and observe a variety of attitudes, beliefs, and values along with developing knowledge to interpret their observations. This helped the organization to develop a better understanding of what was happening in the organization for a better understanding of developing the change plan, change strategy, or change scenario to suit the organization and increase the organizationis know-how. While the paradigm operated in the post-normal mode, three steps occurred, referring to Figure 4, (1) Paradigmatic drift, (2) Tension development, (3) Tension increase and structural criticality. After these three steps, the paradigm shifted into step 5 which is the fluctuation step, where it operated in between the post-normal mode and a crisis mode. While the paradigm operated in this step, there was a possibility of instability. After that the paradigm of the organization shifted into step 6 which is a bifurcation step while it was in the crisis mode. While the paradigm was in step 6, there were a variety of critical issues occurred to affect the organization. Starbucks Coffee Company dealt with critical issues which moved through the organization and moved the paradigm to a morphogenesis option which operated in a transformational mode, according to Figure 4. Therefore, the organization has changed organizational structure properly. The Texas Pacific Group Takeover of Midwest Airlines In 1948, Kimberly-Clark began to provide air transportation. In 1969, K-C Aviation was incorporated to perform maintenance for its aircrafts. When the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 was announced, Kimberly-Clark and K-C Aviation decided to form a general schedule to transport passengers as a commercial airline. The Midwest Express was established on June 11th, 1984 with eighty three employees and two DC-9 Airplanes. Later, in 2002,
86
3 2 ก ก R 2552
there was a major change with the name of the company from the Midwest Express to the Midwest. With this major change, Midwest Airlines also implemented a variety of changes, such as a buy-on-board meal service for their customers and also updated their fleet from DC-9is to the Boeing 737is and MD-80is. The continued development of Midwest Airlines helped the organization to become the prime operator at Mitchell Airport and enabled Midwest Airlines to transport passengers to twenty-one cities. While the organization kept growing, their regional partner, called Skyway Airlines, which operated under the name of the Midwest Connect, could serve passengers in almost 30 destinations nationwide. As a result of these improvements, Midwest Airlines was able to earn more awards from Condei Nast Traveler Magazine. In recent years, Midwest Airlines was in an unstable business environment as the target of an attempted acquisition from by Texas Pacific Group (TPG Capital). Until the news was announced on September 3rd, 2008 that TPG Capital raised $60 million to the outsourced regional airline replacement. On June 23rd, 2009, Midwest Airlines also stepped into another change situation of acquisition by Republic Airways Holdings for $31 million (www.midwestairline.com). On July 30th 2009, the deal closed and Midwest Airlines become totally an owned subsidiary of Republic Airways and will continue to operate under the same brand (About.Com, 2010). However, this was not the last change that Midwest Airlines had to deal with as it announced that they would outsource all flight operations to Republic Airways while Midwest Airlines would operate twenty-five of Boeing 737is under a lease renegotiation (About.Com, 2010). This change affected the organization, particularly the employees, with 1,850 employees being made redundant which lead to a lot of confusion and rumor. The merger of the Midwest Airlines by Texas Pacific Group (TPG Capital) could be otherwise illustrated to view the paradigm life-cycle in terms of organizational change. When the changes occurred with Midwest Airlines, the organization was in balance and everything was stable. At this point, everything was still
87
3 2 ก ก R 2552
predictable. This can be described as the paradigms of both organizations operated in a normal mode. However, when Midwest Airlines was taken over by TPG Capital, the organization operated at the level of bounded instability. The paradigm shifted into a postnormal mode. The organization had tried to maintain the stability of the paradigm, for example the change agents responding to problematic situations as they occurred. This could bring the organization to go through influencing factor instability while the paradigm shifted from a post-normal mode into a crisis mode. The situation now of the organization can be compared with the crisis mode. The organization has tried to maintain stability as it has faced problems, such as economic turmoil, financial institution crisis, and organizationis cultural resistance (About.Com, 2010; www.midwestairline.com). Hence, if the organization quickly understands and solves problems, the paradigm may shift into a transformational mode either into a more of the same option or a morphogenesis option. It will be very interesting to see how successful the organization copes with crises caused by change and whether or not they will succeed or fail. Thai Airways International%s privatization According to the Thai Airways International Public Company Limited annual report (2009), Thai Airways International was originally a joint venture between Thailandis domestic carrier, the Thai Airways Company (TAC), and the Scandinavian Airlines Systems (SAS) in the 1960s. On April 1, 1977, the Thai government purchased the joint venture to become totally Thai owned. Thai Airways International was greatly expanded by the merger agreement with the Thai Airways Company (TAC), which was only the domestic airline at that time. After the continued improvement of Thai Airways International, the Thai government, under Prime Minister General Prem Tinsulanonda, decided to let the organization be a commercial aviation transporter in both the international and domestic markets. Thai Airways International was a State-Owned Enterprise. In the 1990s, according to Privatisation
88
3 2 ก ก R 2552
International (1998), the organization decided to implement the privatization process in terms of corporate privatization to meet the Thai governmentis demand to improve the SOEs. The organization entered into the situation of organizational change and the paradigm of the organization began to change. To start viewing the paradigm life-cycle of Thai Airways Internationalis privatization, it could be seen that the paradigm operated in a normal mode before the privatization process was announced. At that time, the change agents of Thai Airways Internationalis privatization planned and predicted to keep everything as stable as they could. When the Thai government decided to implement the privatization process, the organization moved towards instability. The paradigm shifted into a post-normal mode. The paradigm holders had to maintain the stable nature of the paradigm and to respond to problematic situations that had occurred around them, in particular with resistance and conflict from the internal and external participants of the organization. The name Thai Airways International was changed to become the Thai Airways International Public Company Limited. Although the privatization process was completed, the Thai Airways International Public Company Limited is still in flux, a complex situation involving a crisis, resulting in developmental regression and an organizational dysfunction. These challenges shifted the paradigm into a crisis mode. The organization still has tried to maintain its performance to avoid failure and can become a successful, transformed and changed organization in terms of a totally new commercial airline with better profits. This can be demonstrated by the paradigm of the organization still operates in a crisis mode. Some major problems that the organization has to confront are attitude, culture, organizational structure reform, and political and power influences as the organization was governed by the Thai government and ran as a SOE with a bureaucratic structure with many levels of authority in the organizational hierarchy. In addition, the organization also has confronted difficulties in coping with
89
3 2 ก ก R 2552
understanding its internal and external environment. Hence, it could be seen that the paradigm has shifted into a death option after the privatization process. It has remained in this phase for a while. Recently, the organization has tried to improve itself to be either a more of the same option or a metamorphosis option, if the change agents of the organization could understand what went wrong and could try to solve several problems with a better understanding. This could be an interesting hospitality organizational change case study in terms of managing airline change.
Conclusion Today, people live in a rapidly changing world, and to have a better understanding of the in-depth analysis of information and converting to knowledge, it is essential for people to deal with change and to ensure that their business survives in chaotic situations (Olsen, West & Tse, 1998; Zopiatis, 2007). Understanding in-depth information and converting it to knowledge is a useful way of looking at what is happening around the hospitality industry environment, particularly when the hospitality organization is in a transformational situation where attitudes, beliefs, and cultural values are in a state of flux. The organizations may either change or die. To be able to investigate paradigm change, it can provide another opportunity for prediction by looking at types of change in which the hospitality organization has to deal with. Hence, this can be viewed through the meta-theory of KC. To see the hospitality organization through KC, it can help people to understand what they should be aware of and recognize in terms of managing proper organizations, such as the three domains (the existential, noumenal, and phenomenal) and significant parts of the hospitality industry (culture, strategy, structure, and environment), according to Figure 1. To start getting into the bottom line in those three domains, this can help people to carefully gather data, convert it to information, and transform that into knowledge for appropriate use. These activities can also help the organization to develop the knowledge cycle to remain with the organizations without
90
3 2 ก ก R 2552
the prospect of forcing employees into retirement. Many organizations within the hospitality industry are easily faced with change because they are soft, sensitive, complex, and fragile (Olsen, West & Tse, 1998; Andrews, Roberts & Selwyn, 2007). These particular characteristics can bring collapse, suffering, and failure to the hospitality organization which confronts with change. The use of SVS model can inform people (in particular change agents) about what to look for when dealing with change, according to Figure 2 and 3. This can allow change agents to identify the bottom line. This can also let change agents learn and understand the what, when, where, why, and how to have a better understanding of preparing a proper change plan, change strategy, and change scenario. The paradigm life-cycle in organizational change represents the connection between each of the four modes of science and how change agents can initiate change in their organization. Each mode represents what paradigm holders must do to ensure that the paradigm works and can be accepted. When the paradigm starts, organizations are entered in a normal mode where the paradigm holders see as simplei in the sense that this can be represented as a stable equilibrium system. Then, the paradigm shifts into a post-normal mode, which paradigm holders see as complexi. In the post-normal mode, organizations operate at the level of bounded instability so that they have to work to maintain the stable nature of the paradigm, such as having the capacity to respond to problems and situations that challenge the paradigm and endanger its survival. Then, the paradigm shifts into a crisis mode. During the third mode, if change agents can keep the balance of their organizations, the paradigm might be able to shift into a transformational mode either in a more of the same option or a morphogenesis option and organizations are changed. The examples of the paradigm life-cycle can provide a variety of viewpoints towards some organizations within the hospitality industry. Overall these examples moved through 3 modes of the paradigm life-cycle while they were in the change situations:
91
3 2 ก ก R 2552
(1) normal, (2) post-normal, and (3) crisis. Of the 3 examples illustrated, Starbucks Coffee Company was the only one that moved the paradigm into a transformational mode. On the other hand, the merger of the Texas Pacific-Midwest Airlines and Thai Airways Internationalis privatization could not move the paradigms into a crisis mode properly as the change agents could not handle attitudes, beliefs, cultural values, and knowledge of the employees. This caused a lack of clarity, a lack of appropriate changes in organizational structure, and the employee resistance. These factors led to a regression of organizational development and had an effect on stakeholders and shareholders. This led the organization remaining in a crisis situation where there were in a fluctuation step and a bifurcation step. However, when managing change, there is no single correct choice. The prime issue that change agents should concentrate on is the three domains (the existential, noumenal, and phenomenal), which can be seen in terms of KC. Therefore, the idea of KC can be a part of a significant strategy that helps many organizations within the hospitality industry uses their in-depth information with enhanced understanding as an essential weapon. It also helps people to generate substance knowledge to become knowledge creation/recognition to relate to comprehensive perfect learning. Significantly, the proper creating and analyzing of knowledge with better in-depth understanding is essential to the hospitality organizations.
92
3 2 ก ก R 2552
Bibliographies About.com. Merger Rumors d Is a Merger between Midwest Airlines and Air Tran Possible?f http://airtravel.about.com/accessed:March 26th 2010. Andrews, H., Roberts, L. and Selwyn. Hospitality and eroticism. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research. 1, 3 (2007): 247-262. Blum, C. S. Organizational trend analysis of the hospitality industry: preparing for change. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management. 8, 7 (1996): 20-32. Bowen, T. J. Managing environmental change: insights from researchers and practitioners. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management. 8, 7 (1996): 75-90. Brotherton, B. Towards a definitive view of the nature of hospitality and hospitality management. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management. 11, 4 (1999): 165-173. Burnes, B., Cooper, C., and West. Organisational learning: the new management paradigm? Management Decision. 45, 5 (2003): 452-464. Fink, G. Mayrhofer, W. Cross-cultural competence and management-setting the stage.i European Journal Cross-Cultural Competence and management, 1, 1 (2009): 42-65. Gray, J. B., Matear, M. S., and Matheson, K. P. Improving the performance of hospitality firms. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management. 12,3 (2000): 149-155. Guerrier, Y. Organizational Behavior in Hotels and Restaurants: An International Perspective. England: John John Wiley & Sons, 1999.
93
3 2 ก ก R 2552
Hatch, M. J., and Cunliffe, A.L. Organizational Theory. Oxford University Press.2006. Hing, N. A review of hospitality research in the asia pacific region 1989-1996: a thematic perspective. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management. 9, 7 (1997): 241-253. Ingram, H. Hospitality: a framework for a millennial review. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management. 11, 4 (1999): 149-147. Jolliffe, L. Tea and hospitality: more than a cuppa. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management. 18, 2 (2006): 164-168. Kimberly-Clark. (online) available:http://www.midwestairlines.com/accessed: February1,2010. OiConner, D. Towards a new interpretation of hospitality. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management. 17, 3 (2005): 267-271. OiGoman, D., K. The hospitality phenomenon: philosophical enlightenment? International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research. 1, 3 (2007): 189-202. Olsen, M., West, J. and Tse, C, E. Strategic Management in the Hospitality Industry. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1998. Privatisation International. Thailand to raise US$13 bn through privatization. 1998. Schwarz, E. Summary of the main feature of a holistic metamodel to interpret the emergence, The evolution and the functioning of viable self-organizing systems. (online) available:http://www.autogenesis.ch/Res1997.html/accessed: January 2009. Smith, A. R. The Winds of Change Have Reached Gale Force. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly. 50, 2 (May 2009): 147-150. Starbucks Coffee Company. (online) available:http://www.starbucks.com/accesed: March 1,2010.
94
3 2 ก ก R 2552
Teare, R. The international hospitality business: a thematic perspective. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management. 7, 7 (1995): 55-73. Tepeci, M. Increasing brand loyalty in the hospitality industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management. 11, 5 (1999): 223-229. Thai Airways International Public Company Limited annual report (2009). Watson, S. and DiAnnunzio-Green, N. Implementing cultural change through human resources: the elusive organization alchemy? International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management. 8, 2 (1996): 25-30. Woodworth, M. R. Falling Profits- Rising Cap Rates Cornell Hospitality Quarterly. 50, 2 (May 2009): 151-154. Yolles, M. Organisations, complexity, and viable knowledge management. Kybernetics. 29, 9/10 (2000): 1202-1222. Zopiatis, A. Hospitality internships in Cyprus a genuine academic experience or a continuing frustration? International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management. 19, 1 (2007): 65-77. http://www.airtran.com/midwest (online) accessed:March 26th 2010. http://www.earthtimes.org (online) accessed:March 26th 2010. http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-18235172.html (online) accessed:March 26th 2010. http://www.sec.or.th/infocenter/en/pub/other/wireless_road_en_4_01.pdf (online) accessed: March 19th 2010. http://www.thaiairways.com/ (online) accessed:March 1st 2010.
95
3 2 ก ก R 2552
Dr.Ousanee Sawagvudcharee graduated from Ramkhamhaeng University, Institute of International Studies with a Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) degree in Business Administration (English Language Program). She is a lecturer in Graduate School, Dusit Thani College. She is working on contributing a paper with Professor Dr. Maurice Yolles and Professor Dr. Gerhard Fink, as well as a paper with Dr. Judith Young
96
