When responsibility without decision-making power becomes a burden

Photo by Luis Villasmil on Unsplash

Series: Recruitment, AI & HR in the hospitality industry · Post #22 of 90

#HospitalityRecruiting #HotelJobs #EmployerBranding # Recruiting #HospitalityIndustry #HR #TalentAcquisition #HospitalityLeadership #HospitalitySector #EmployeeSatisfaction #Leadership #HospitalityIndustry #SkillsShortage #HospitalityOutOfTheBox #HospitalityLife #SkillsShortage #TeamCulture #EmployeeExperience #ERecruiting #HRTrends #CandidateExperience #DataDrivenRecruiting #HRPerformanceMarketing # ArtificialIntelligence #SocialRecruiting #NewWork #TalentAcquisition #Career #LabourMarket #Jobs #EmployerBrand #HRTech #TalentAcquisition #CandidateJourney #Chatbots #NewWork #Dashboard #Retention #Staffing #FlexibleStaffing #FlexibleStaffingModels

When responsibility without decision-making power becomes a burden

"You are responsible."

Hardly any sentence initially sounds like more trust. And hardly any sentence can turn into its opposite so quickly in everyday working life.

Because responsibility alone is not a privilege. It only becomes an opportunity when it is combined with the necessary decision-making and organisational opportunities. This is precisely where an area of tension arises in many hotel businesses, one that is surprisingly rarely discussed openly: responsibility remains on site, but the decisions are made elsewhere.

The silent shift

Many general managers are very familiar with this situation. They are responsible for the guest experience, employee satisfaction and the financial results. When ratings drop, when employees quit, when the numbers aren't right, the business is called to account. Rightly so, because that's where the results become visible.

But who actually decides on the framework conditions? Who decides on personnel budgets, on systems and processes, on recruiting, on investments? The answer varies depending on the company structure, but the result is often the same: responsibility remains where the effects are immediately felt. The decisions are made where these effects are known, at best, from reports.

In the corporate group: when proximity to the guest is replaced by distance

In hotel groups and corporate structures, this area of tension often arises gradually and by no means with malicious intent. There are understandable reasons for centralisation. Standards create quality. Specialised departments create efficiency. Comparability enables control. That is correct, and it would be unwise to reject this logic across the board.

However, the operational reality is often different. Decisions are increasingly made where the daily reality of the hotel is only known through key figures, reports and presentations. The HR department defines requirements. Revenue management defines specifications. Controlling defines goals. The purchasing department defines standards. The general manager can then explain why implementation on the ground is difficult.

This is not the fault of the people involved. It is the almost inevitable result of a structure in which each function optimises its own perspective, while on site everything has to work simultaneously: the guest, the team, the turnover, the quality, the operation. The operational reality cannot be broken down into individual responsibilities. It is always a whole.

In the family business: when trust becomes a one-way street

Anyone who believes that this problem only exists in corporations is mistaken. The same dynamic can be seen in family-run businesses – often just in a different form.

There is no corporate headquarters, but there are owners who have borne responsibility for decades and are understandably closely connected to their company. The challenge arises when operational managers are supposed to take on responsibility, but key decisions continue to be made exclusively at the owner level. The hotel manager is supposed to lead – but not hire. They are supposed to achieve results – but not decide on necessary investments. They are supposed to develop employees – but not have a say in remuneration models.

The reason for this is rarely a lack of trust. Often, it is exactly the opposite: owners want to protect their company, avoid risks, and maintain control, all of which is understandable. It only becomes problematic when responsibility is delegated without simultaneously transferring the associated scope for action.

The real burden

People rarely fail because of responsibility. Most managers even consciously seek it out. What weighs on them is the discrepancy between responsibility and influence.

Anyone who is expected to deliver results every day without being able to move the decisive levers is permanently in a state of conflict: they feel responsible, they are held responsible – but they cannot shape things to the same extent. In the long run, this does not result in exhaustion from too much work. Something more subtle arises: the loss of one's own effectiveness. And that is a completely different kind of exhaustion.

When good people compensate for bad systems

Many hotels work surprisingly well today. The really interesting question is: why?

Are the processes really that efficient? Are the structures really that effective? Or do many businesses function primarily because committed managers compensate for system weaknesses on a daily basis, because they step in, mediate, improvise, resolve conflicts, and compensate for missing resources? What looks like stable performance in reports is in reality often additional personal effort. The problem with this is that people can balance systems for a while. But not indefinitely.

The most uncomfortable question

Perhaps we should ask ourselves less often whether our managers are capable enough and more often: Have we even given them the prerequisites to be successful?

Professional hospitality is not created by organisational charts. It arises where people can take on responsibility and, at the same time, have the opportunity to shape this responsibility effectively. Responsibility without decision-making power is not leadership. It is often just the elegant shifting of expectations.

The future of successful hotel organisations may therefore not lie in even more control, but in an honest assessment: Where is responsibility borne today? And where are the associated decisions actually made?