Article Reinventing Sofitel By Lisa Murrell with Jean Marc Bailleux and Lisa Creech Printed from Lodging Magazine, April 1997

A Three-Year Reengineering Program Concludes With Eye -Opening Results

John Lehodey wasn't asking for much - just the fundamental reinvention of Sofitel North America's way of doing business. Lehodey, the company's chief executive officer, sought a way of doing business in an environment that would no longer be constant or predictable. He hired Transformation, a Paris-based consulting firm (known as MetaSystem), to create a program to do this.

Outcomes Results included: A significant increase in bottom-line profit (the highest in the chain). At the end of 1996, when the Booster program was completed, profitability for Sofitel North America was four times what it had been in 1993. System wide, the hotels exceeded budgeted GOP goals of 30 percent. An overall rise in customer satisfaction from 70 percent to 88 percent; Some hotels experienced increases of more then 90 percent. A drop in turnover, from 58 percent in 1993 to 39 percent in 1996. A 10 percent reduction in full-time staff - with equal or improved services. There is no one factor that made the "big different": It was a combination of tools, skills, participants, and the interaction that generated momentum, which in turn created results. Given the opportunity to trust, open up, and learn, most people rise up to the challenge. When a company provides that opportunity to it's workforce, it is investing heavily in its employees. People realize this and reciprocate. Feryal Abdulkader was a food and beverage manager when the program began. In January, she was promoted to general manager of one of the Miami properties. When asked if the program had value Abdulkader says, "There is some training you'll never be able to put a price on."

The process, involving all levels of employees and management, helped increase customer satisfaction by nearly 90 percent, reduce turnover by 30 percent and boost profitability by 400 percent.

Such results were due to people development. "More promotions took place during the program than in the last ten years," says Didier Houston. "The program and growth went hand in hand - that was the beauty of it," says Anna Grahn, director of reservations at the Redwood City, California property.

Sofitel, a subsidiary of the French conglomerate Accor, has 98 upscale properties worldwide, including seven in the United States. This case study highlights the goals, structure, methodology, and results of the company's reengineering.

Transformation/MetaSystem set out to create a three-year, multilevel program to upgrade the level of motivation, decision-making, and responsibility, from line staff to general managers. Transformations founder Alain Cardon has on maintained that most modern commerce continues to operate on a model created during the Industrial Age. He believes a business structured on rigid job titles no longer works in the Information Age; what is required are fluid job descriptions where communication and team work dominate.

The following initiatives were established: vertical, intrahotel groups from all hierarchical levels; corporate team development; property level executive development; combined executive and management team development at the property level; and a "training for trainer" module designed to make internal networkers and facilitators of employees to support and maintain changes incurred as a result of the program.

This study focuses on the intrahotel vertical groups and the accompanying training for trainers program. Because this program was created to accompany management and cultural changes linked to a reengineering and development process for the entire company, there were specific goals for employees, managers, and general managers.

Employee goals included building a strong concept of self worth ethical vision, and sense of purpose; developing and/or improving the ability to communicate and circulate basic information; delegating decision making down to the lowest level; and conditioning employees to view their jobs in terms of work process rather than a set of tasks, and to act with responsibility and accountability toward these processes.

For managers, the goals were to recognize and reconcile employee and company needs to further mutual growth; to manage as a part of a process team, rather than as a peer group or a hierarchy; and to provide guidance, coaching, training, standards, feedback, the opportunity to take risks, and the right to make mistakes.

General managers were encouraged to become overall network developers, leaders who truly delegate and expect employees to act responsibly and make good decisions

The program called for intrahotel vertical groups compromising all levels of employee and management. The Booster groups varied in size from 25 to 65 participants, with one to four trainers for each group. These sessions were two or three days long, conducted twice a year, and participation was completely voluntary. (Any hope of achieving the program's goals would have shrunk considerably by making attendance mandatory, which made this a formidable challenge early on.)

For the first two years, sessions were facilitated by Transformation/MetaSystem trainers. The last year, they were run by employee trainers that had taken training for trainer sessions.

The memos announcing the pilot sessions contained no concrete information: Management had to trust that enough people would show up, and employees had to trust that management did not have some painful experience planned for them. Thus the program began with 50 courageous people.

The Booster program was designed to create an environment of empowerment, one in which people could freely express themselves. The sessions were developed around individual accountability and responsibility for creating a high-quality experience for the customer. Sessions were aimed at increasing awareness of current situations, looking at what currently worked (and what didn't) within operations, as well as in communication with customers and employees. The sessions then incorporated problem solving and team dynamics to address these challenges.

We began by taking a look at the established systems of management and communication in all areas, and at all levels of organization. Booster sessions allowed them to create their own learning experiences where they could diagnose the current situation. Thus, participants were not told what was wrong and what they needed to do to correct the situation; they found this out for themselves. Initial resistance faded as the newly empowered participants learned to diagnose their own challenging situations.

"Creating an environment of empowerment and taking responsibility was closely aligned with satisfying the customer," says Kent Mitchell, general manager of the Sofitel Chicago and head of the company's customer satisfaction task force. Participants were able to practice and improve these skills between Booster sessions, and each subsequent session was an opportunity for employee/management relations; too often employees and managers did not speak directly with each other saying instead what they thought the other wanted to hear. It was powerful for participants to observe directly the negative effects of such nebulous communication and information flow.

Lehodey, Sofitel's CEO, took an active role, making himself available in the various hotels. There were consistent opportunities for employees to meet and build an open relationship with him. Booster participants had been exposed to the concept of expressing themselves freely to colleagues and management, and thus felt that they could speak to Lehodey about heir ideas. This was one of the most powerful aspects of the process.

Factoring for Diversity Diversity was one of the most prevalent Challenges faced throughout this reengineering program. Accor is an international company that brings people together from around the world, creating issues of diversity similar to those faced by the U.S hotel industry. Given the structure of these Booster Sessions, language and cultural differences were continuously present. During the pilot session in 1993, there were at least three languages and cultures present - English, French, and Spanish. The rule was that each person had the opportunity to participate in his or her own native language, but the majority of activities were carried out in English. Throughout the first day, we repeatedly asked, in both English and Spanish, if everyone understood. At the end of the day, however, we discovered that the majority of Hispanics in the session had comprehended little of the day's activities. Throughout the session, we observed -and battled- two sets of dynamics. The Hispanics told us, "We don't understand, so how can we participate?" This, despite bilingual resources available to them upon request. Those who spoke English as their primary language said Hispanics "don't participate, so we have no choice but to take all the initiative and take over to advance." They hadn't noticed the occasions when Hispanics had tried to participate but were ignored. Both were groups conveniently avoiding responsibility for the situation. The Hispanics positioned themselves as victims of English -speaking "persecutors,"which absolved them of all responsibility for solving the problem- and virtually eliminated any possibility of genuine collaboration. Those who spoke English, meanwhile, retained the hegemony and power to which they were accustomed by taking all the initiative and responsibility. But they, too, had taken the easy way out, avoiding the difficulties inherent in searching for satisfactory compromises. The Hispanics felt unempowered and disrespected; those who spoke English felt frustrated and overworked. It was up to both groups to step beyond their collective passivity and take responsibility for finding solutions to their linguistic problems. Ownership of the problem began when we began conducting the sessions in French- a language as alien to English speakers as it was to those who spoke Spanish. For many English speakers, the experience of being unable to understand- and, therefore, unable to participate-became clear for the first time. Slowly but surely, both groups began to develop systems for efficient communication. This facilitated the Development of new work processes, which ultimately enabled people from different cultures to work toward a common goal.

Anna Grahn was an executive housekeeper when Sofitel decided to change turndown service by substituting a bottle of Evian water in a bucket of ice for chocolates. Shortly thereafter, transporting dripping bottles of ice buckets (Sofitel room attendants make up rooms using small baskets rather than carts) and tying off bags of ice became housekeepers' primary focus. Grahn approached Lehodey and suggested they dispense with the cumbersome ice and buckets and simply put the bottle on the dresser. His reply was to put them on the nightstand instead. The hotel set the standard for what is now common practice at all Sofitel hotels. Grahn, who was a concierge when the Booster sessions began, is now director of reservations at one of the chain's largest properties.

Executive involvement not only supported the changes taking place during the course of the Booster sessions, it helped ensure them. "When a dishwasher feels comfortable enough in the hotel to approach the manager or general manager and ask a question or give suggestions, that's a lot of power," says Ron Trytek, director of sales at the Los Angeles property. " Real empowerment breaks barriers and frees people to share ideas and solve problems. It's better for the company, customers and employees."

While the CEO provided strong and visible support, resistance by some general managers was often one of the main obstacles. General managers who supported the program from the beginning created an atmosphere of trust, providing the motivation necessary to keep the program alive between sessions. Participants in hotels where the general manager was not visibly supportive or actively involved found it difficult to keep motivated and integrate new skills and concepts between sessions.

"Success of the booster sessions, in retrospect, starts with the GM's," Obeuf says. Those who didn't buy in to the entire program found it difficult. "Some were shocked and left the company," Midway through the program, a GM was appointed liaison between MetaSystem/Transformation and program participants. It was a crucial point of change: Executive involvement began on a large scale, and the results were significant throughout all the properties.

Obeuf credits the Booster program with helping his property become the chain's Hotel of the Year after languishing near the bottom for years. "Empowerment made the difference in all areas, customer and employment satisfaction and profit," he says.

Process, not Content

While at a property during the booster sessions, I asked for granola and yogurt for breakfast. The server told me they were out of yogurt. When I expressed my disappointment, she apologized and said she was not responsible for placing orders; it was the fault of someone in the kitchen.

The severs last customer had also asked for yogurt, became angry when she learned that there was none left, and did not leave a tip. The server wondered how a customer could be so insensitive about a situation that was not her fault.

This is a classic scenario in a typical, compartmentalized hotel structure: false barriers and a lack of accountability and solidarity among territories with distinct responsibilities. These semiautonomous departments and territories take care of customers for large portions of their stay, and situations like this demonstrate that many of the problems customers face are the direct result of poor interfaces within the hotel. Can any hotel afford to repeat this scenario, or any of its variations, on a regular basis?

MetaSystem defines reengineering as radically redesigning the existing processes and structures within the existing processes and structures within the organization to optimize services to clients. This implies nothing less than reversing the classic way of looking at hotel management, processes and structures.

Even though it is not her responsibility, the server has a certain stake in assuring that the yogurt is ordered. She is also the person closest to the customers and therefore is in a good position to know how much yogurt is consumed during an average breakfast. Yet, it would be impractical for her to be responsible for serving customers and ordering food.

The alternative to traditional compartmentalization or task/content-oriented management is to focus on management of the process. In this example, servers, cooks, and those charged with ordering food are part of a "breakfast team" responsible, from the start of the process to the finish, for satisfying the customer. Members of this team share responsibility for all aspects of customer service, as well as in the rewards for providing that service. That means artificial barriers such as different pay systems should be reevaluated and modified.

In this case, the breakfast team decided each member would be paid by a combination of fixed rate salary and sharing in the gratuities, rather than leaving one person completely exposed to unjust pay due to problems beyond his or her capacity to solve.