Seeking_Excellent_Recruits_for_Hotel_Management_Training__an_Intercultural_Comparative_Study

SEEKING EXCELLENT RECRUITS FOR HOTEL MANAGEMENT TRAINING: AN INTERCULTURAL COMPARATIVE STUDY ABSTRACT This comparative study determines the degree of commonality between key success criteria, hence the employability profiles, of hotel management graduate trainees in Bulgaria and Romania. The opinions of 146 Bulgarian and Romanian hotel managers were solicited; the rated attributes ranged across the following: education and ability; work experience; interpersonal skills and competencies; intrapersonal qualities; prerequisite qualifications; work experience; and reasons for choosing this job. Key recruitment criteria and ‘ideal’ candidate profiles for each country are identified. Passion for customer service and passion for work are amongst the key indicators of excellence. Although substantial commonality emerged, a number of statistically significant national differences are apparent. The implications for applicants, educators, recruiters and trainers are discussed. Key Words: Recruitment, Hotel management, Bulgaria, Romania, Employability; Training. INTRODUCTION It is well documented that, over the last two decades, former Communist Eastern European countries have had to make rapid changes from centralised “command” economies to “market” economies (Hoffenberg et al., 1994). In the hotel sector, such transitions have had both positive and negative impacts. The former are exemplified in a growth in visitor numbers, improved transport links, relaxed border access and extensive international investment in the accommodation sector whilst the latter include mergers, takeovers, closures and redundancies due to overstaffing, especially at operative level, and the import of expatriate labour at managerial level. The number of accommodation facilities, including hotels, doubled in Bulgaria between 2005 and 2007 (National Statistical Institute, 2007) to accommodate the anticipated influx of tourists and business visitors following European Union (EU) membership and current strategic plans in Romania promise to generate a rapid growth in hotel accommodation (Derenthal and Pop, 2008). Although many international companies that entered that market in the last 20 years began by franchising the hotels with expatriate managerial labour, locals are beginning to take over these roles. In small hotel businesses, nationals predominate currently in management positions in Bulgaria (Mintel, 2007) and |Romania (Baltescu, 2009). There is an evident need to focus strongly on the promotion of local labour to support their national economies in this time of economic crisis and also to reduce unemployment (Corodeanu et al., 2007). Therefore, in all senses, it is important that Bulgarian and Romanian hospitality managers have the competencies needed to succeed in an increasingly competitive and complex environment. Acquisition of a hospitality degree might be considered an indicator of knowledge, skills and attitudes that are appropriate for employment in the industry. However, it is well documented that the acquisition of a hospitality degree does not guarantee recruitment to a graduate position; neither does it automatically equate to a satisfactory level in terms of graduate employability (for example, Baum, 2002; Lam et al., 2001). However, Badulescu (2006) pointed out that unemployment in Romania was particularly high amongst young people and that, although graduating with a degree did not guarantee employment, it did increase employability opportunities. Furthermore, Jayawardena (2000) emphasises the advantage of gaining hotel management (HM) experience in his/her own country prior to holding similar positions in foreign countries. The recruitment of graduate trainees is an expensive process in terms of costs and time. Therefore, seeking excellent recruits ideally who match the profile of successful hotel managers, should be of paramount importance to recruiters. Since joining the EU, although Bulgaria and Romania have witnessed an increase in tourist arrivals they are losing potential trainee hotel managers to other EU countries. The onus is on educators to deliver courses that enable students to acquire and develop the necessary subject and technical knowledge, understanding, cognitive, intellectual, intrapersonal and interpersonal skills and competencies to meet the needs of their own country’s employers if they are to maximise their potential to retain their own graduates. This paper provides a comparative Eastern European employers’ perspective on the most desirable skills and competencies for graduate recruits seeking HM training. The study focuses on Bulgaria, where research on HM skills and competencies and hospitality degree courses are scarce (Alexieva et al. 2001; 2005), and Romania, where there are no opportunities currently to study for a hospitality degree in public or state universities but limited opportunities to study hospitality management and international culinary arts to Diploma level at private schools (for example, see www.ahahotelschools.com). BACKGROUND The characteristics of a successful hotel manager are extremely complex as is apparent in the comprehensive guidelines of the United Kingdom’s (UK) Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA, 2000). They developed a set of benchmark statements for an honours degree at Bachelor (undergraduate) level in hospitality, within the broader framework of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism, for the benefit of curriculum designers, deliverers and reviewers. The nature and characteristics of programmes and the general expectations regarding standards for the award are articulated alongside the attributes and capabilities that those possessing such qualifications should be able to demonstrate. The QAA point out that Hospitality programmes are characterised by a core which addresses the management of food, beverage and/or accommodation in a service context (HEFCE, 1998), and that there should be opportunities for learning through the integration of theory with practice including a study of the management and technical disciplines relevant to hospitality. It is expected that the learning and assessment experience of all students will be contextualised to the areas covered by this definition. They also note that programmes in hospitality have evolved significantly from their initial highly vocational focus to combine technical, management and scientific disciplines as a coherent whole. Hospitality degree programmes typically, involve F&B and accommodation, management, the general management disciplines in a hospitality context, the hospitality industry and its global environment, the hospitality consumer and the service encounter and a period of industrial placement (QAA, 2000). The general knowledge and skills expected to be developed in their graduates include: key skills (communication and presentation skills; numeracy; computing and information technology (ICT) skills; interactive and group skills; problem solving skills; ability to self-appraise and reflect on practice; ability to plan and manage learning), management skills and competences and subject specific guidelines are given. Also included are performance indicators to enable course developers to map progress onto the benchmark statements to inform in the preparation of learning outcomes. The generic learning outcomes for a typical hospitality graduate embrace: the use technical and interpersonal skills and knowledge to propose and evaluate practical and theoretical solutions to complex problems in the core areas of hospitality; recognise and value the centrality of the hospitality consumer and meet and respond to their needs; identify and respond appropriately to the diversity that prevails within the hospitality industry in relation to stakeholders such as: and analyses, evaluate and apply within the hospitality context, appropriate theories and concepts from the generic management areas of the defining characteristics of hospitality as a phenomenon and the business environment and its impact on the hospitality industry, alongside underpinning knowledge and practical experiences (QAA, 2000). Harper et al. (2005:31) determined that formal qualifications “facilitated career moves between companies and allowed prospective managers to “fast-track” to [Scottish hotel] general management status”, and were “particularly beneficial in developing those functional managerial skills required to succeed”. However, the extent to which these competences for success are applicable to hospitality management success Bulgaria and Romania is unclear. The Council of Ministers (2002; 2003) in Bulgaria decreed that employees in star rated hotels required at least a Bachelor’s degree in the field of Tourism and the ability to speak two international languages for employment in four or five star hotels; vocational school graduation with the ability to speak one international language was required by two or three star hotels. In the latter instance, state educational requirements for the professions in the Bulgarian hospitality industry have been developed by teams of hospitality educators and hotel managers (Ministry of Education and Science, 2004). Basic competencies, knowledge and skills for the future hotel managers are outlined, as well as the learning outcomes that are used in the development of the training programmes and curricula. Requisite professional and personal characteristics are listed as: responsibility, communication, mobility, effectiveness, positive attitude towards the environment, teamwork, discretion; and loyalty. However, regarding Bachelor’s degrees, the responsibility for developing the competencies and skill requirements of graduates and benchmarking them against the performance of hospitality managers is left to the individual higher educational establishments. In Romania, given the lack of hospitality degree courses nationally, a typical HM trainee is likely to have either studied Business Management (BM) with Tourism (compulsory pathway) or, after graduating with Bachelor studies in a subject other than tourism, obtained a Diploma from one of the few nationally/internationally operated private schools approved by Ministry of Tourism for specialist management training. Although cognitive ability tests are good predictors of overall job performance and training success (Schmidt and Hunter, 2004; Bertua et al., 2005; Salgado et al., 2003) and Ones et al., (2006) claim both occupational group and cross-cultural generalisability in this context, the focus of success in HM has never been linked predominantly to cognitive ability. Furthermore, although academic qualifications are given some credence by graduate management trainee selectors, interpersonal, skills and personal qualities have always been the crux of the successful management profile from which they develop their recruitment criteria. In 1991, Barrick and Mount then Judge et al. (1997) linked conscientiousness to work success and extroversion to managerial job success whilst Verbeke (1994) found that personality traits such as locus of control, self-monitoring, and self-esteem are strongly correlated with career success and Ryckman (1997) cited personal initiative and efforts as determinants of performance. Ineson et al. (2009) argued that to succeed in the service sector, the typical employee requires well-developed personal and interpersonal skills and that high cognitive ability levels might be desirable only in key planners and decision makers. An employability profile based on the QAA (2000) benchmark indicators for hospitality management graduates comprises cognitive skills but also generic competencies, personal capabilities, technical ability, business and/or organisation awareness, and practical and professional elements. Goleman (1996), assessing the contributory factors to managerial success, found emotional intelligence (EI) to be twice as important as cognitive or technical skills for job performance and Caruso and Wolfe (2001), Carmeli (2003), and Langhorn (2004) have found EI to be a common determinant of business success, leadership (Weiand, 2002; Langhorn, 2004; George, 2006; Kerr et al. 2006), employee satisfaction (Lewis 2000) and competitive advantage (Weiand, 2002). In the service sector, customer satisfaction has been linked positively to service providers’ EI levels (Langhorn 2004; Varca 2004; Kernbach and Schutte 2005). Increasingly, researchers are linking elements of Emotional Intelligence (EI) with successful HM (for example, Ineson, 1993; Wilson, 1998; Ineson et al., 2009). Interestingly, Goleman (1998) identified persuasiveness, which is an intrinsic dimension of many successful personal contacts in the service sector, as the single most important managerial success criterion. Table 1 Comparative cultural dimensions of Bulgaria and Romania Country Power Distance Individuality Masculinity Uncertainly Avoidance Bulgaria 70 30 40 85 Romania 90 30 42 90 A further dimension that could affect the profile of managerial success is national culture. Kolman et al. (2003) found marked cultural differences between proximal Central European countries and warned against treating such countries as a homogeneous group from a managerial perspective. However, according to Hofstede (2001), the national cultural profiles of the adjacent Eastern European countries of Bulgaria and Romania are very similar with the exception of power distance (PD), the extent to which society and its members tolerate unequal distribution of power, as shown in Table 1. A higher PD score is associated with a feeling of distance and separation between superior and subordinate society members; superiors display and exercise status and power; subordinates, who may be afraid to express disagreement with their managers, wait for things to happen. The relatively lower Bulgarian PD score is associated with greater equality and closeness in working relationships (cf. Hofstede, 2001). Based on their national cultural profiles, one might expect the key success criteria, hence the employability profiles of Bulgarian and Romanian HM graduate trainees, to be fairly similar. This comparative study examines the extent to which this assumption is true. METHODOLOGY A self-administered questionnaire was designed to collect predominantly quantitative data from a broad sample of independent and group hotel general managers, representing national and international companies in various locations throughout Bulgaria (n=73) and Romania (n=73). General managers were chosen because they have responsibility for any action the company undertakes, hold the highest position in the unit, influence all the unit employees and form the organisational culture (Hambric et al., 1998). They were informed in writing that researchers sponsored by the UK University and FH were conducting a project in Eastern Europe, the stated purpose of which was to enable the identification of the key contributors to success in HM, that the information provided by them would be treated in the strictest confidence, it would not be used in any other manner but for research purposes and that the findings would not be attributed to any individual, group of individuals, unit or company. The research instrument comprised a list of 150 potential contributors to HM success, developed from QAA (2000) and Ineson et al. (2009) that focused on education and ability; work experience prior to recruitment; potential for success based on profile at interview/on recruitment, including hard and soft biodata, general business, hotel business and company knowledge and reasons for choosing the hotel industry, self-presentation and personal and interpersonal skills and competences. Using a five-point nominal scale, and their knowledge and experience of the job, respondents were asked to rate each of these items in terms of their relative importance to the success of a general managers’ role. In an attempt to reach consistency in terms of interpretation, each point on the sale was labelled as follows: 1 = not important, 2 = of some importance, 3 = desirable, 4= extremely desirable, 5 = essential. Further details were collected in qualitative format to expand on a few of the responses. For example, clarification was sought on the desirable minimum length of prior work experience for graduate managers and reasons considered to be important for choosing a career in HM. Demographic data were not collected because the interest here is not in examining variability and contrasts according to personal characteristics but in trying to reach some ethical consensus, i.e. assuming that in managerial recruitment and in attributing success characteristics there should be no gender or age bias. Respondents were requested to return the questionnaire in the envelope provided. Omissions were allowed. In order to promote honest replying, it was noted that the envelopes would be opened by the independent research team. The present paper discusses the findings from one of a planned series of studies across C&E Europe, using an identical research instrument that was developed in the UK. Therefore an initial pilot test was conducted in the UK to promote reliability. The Romanian data (Ro) were collected without any apparent problems using the English version of the questionnaire. However, due to the fact that the Bulgarian general managers were not fluent in reading and understanding English, a translation of the instrument was made available. To improve the reliability of the Bulgarian (Bg) version, a limited number of cultural and linguistic differences were resolved through a process of translation and backtranslation. The primary data were processed using SPSS; frequencies and descriptive statistics were employed, then t-tests to determine statistically significant differences so that the Romanian and Bulgarian ‘ideal’ candidate profiles might be established. RESULTS Initially the 150 scaled variables were assessed for reliability using Cronbach’s alpha and the resultant co-efficient (0. 977) was indicative extremely high internal consistency in terms of the instrument's reliability (cf. Nunnally, 1978). Summary statistics were calculated then the items were categorised into nine subgroups according to their nature and informed by the reviewed literature. Ranked highest was interpersonal skills (IS; mean=4.19; items=21) followed by cognitive (COG; mean=4.18; items 21) and communication (COMM; mean=4.18; items=13). Ranked fourth was intrapersonal qualities (IPQ; mean=4.16; items=48) then business/company knowledge and experience (BCKE; mean=4.01; items=17), prior work experience (WEXP; mean=3.80; items=7), presentation skills, including self-presentation, (PRES; mean=3.78, items=4), success potential as could be assessed from the graduate application form (POT; mean=3.69; items=14) and, finally, educational qualifications (EDUC; mean=3.61; items=5). In contrast with previous findings, which identified intrapersonal and interpersonal skills and competences were considered to be the best predictors of HM success (cf. Ineson, 1993; Wilson, 1998), cognitive and communication skills were ranked higher than intrapersonal skills and competences. The overall mean item ratings ranged from 4.85 to 2.83, with 65% of the means being >4 (extremely desirable). In Table 2, items with overall means rounding to > 4.5 (n=14), i.e. deemed to be ‘essential’, are listed. The top four ranked items are all elements of EI: passion for customer satisfaction; ability to deal with complaints/problems; effective management of working relationships; and passion for work. As might be expected based on previous international research, almost two-thirds of the top 14 ranked items are in the IS and IPQ domain. However, interestingly but notably partially in line with the Bulgarian Ministry of Education and Science’s requirements (2004), cognitive and communication abilities, namely, mental alertness, the ability to listen/take in information, to apply theory in practice and to provide clear verbal instructions plus mental alertness, quick understanding of situations and keeping people informed are highlighted as ‘essential’ prerequisites to HM success in Bulgaria and Romania. Passion for customer service and passion for work are amongst the key indicators of excellence. Although there are some commonalities, a number of statistically significant national differences are apparent. Both sets of respondents agreed that an undergraduate degree in hotel or hospitality management was both more desirable and preferable (Bg mean 4.22, s.d. 0.85: Ro mean 3.61, s.d.1.1) to a business management degree (Bg mean 3.44, s.d. 0.99: Ro mean 3.5, s.d. 1.22) for managerial success. Interestingly, the Bulgarian managers were significantly (t= 2.46; p=0.05) in favour of a postgraduate degree in hotel or hospitality management (Bg mean 4.33, s.d. 0.82: Ro mean 3.95, s.d.1.1) whilst the Romanians had a very highly statistically significant preference (t= 6.20; p=0.001) for a BM postgraduate degree (Bg mean 2.68, s.d. 1.22: Ro mean 3.85, s.d.1.04). Table 2 Summary statistics for the ‘Essential’ recruitment criteria Rank Criteria Domain N Min. Max. Mean 1 Passion for customer satisfaction IS 140 2 5 4.55 2- Ability to deal with complaints/problems IS 145 2 5 4.54 2- Effective management of working relationships IS 123 1 5 4.54 4 Passion for work IPQ 122 3 5 4.53 5 Ability to listen/take in information COMM 146 2 5 4.51 6 Mental alertness/quick understanding of situations COG 146 2 5 4.50 7 Keeping people informed COMM 123 2 5 4.49 8 Ability to apply theory in practice COG 145 1 5 4.48 9- Diplomacy IPQ 138 2 5 4.46 9- Rule-consciousness/honesty/trustworthiness IPQ 143 2 5 4.46 9- Good observational skills/vigilance IPQ 139 2 5 4.46 9- Ability to make decisions/decisive IPQ 146 1 5 4.46 13 Ability to provide clear verbal instructions COMM 146 2 5 4.45 14 Optimistic outlook, even when difficulties arise IPQ 123 2 5 4.45 With respect the successful candidate profiles on recruitment, good references were deemed to be desirable in both countries but not essential. Significant differences were apparent with respect to willingness to work flexible (t=3.40; p=0.001) and long hours (t=3.03; p=0.05) both of which were extremely desirable in Bulgarian recruits but less so in Romania. In contrast, Romanian recruiters would appear to seek evidence of strong motivation to join the company (t=3.81; p=0.001) and to work in this particular job (t=3.87; p=0.001). Prior business knowledge (substantial knowledge of business operations (t=3.86; p=0.001); prior knowledge of the hospitality industry (t=2.25; p=0.05); and critical awareness of current issues in business and management (t=3.28;p=0.001)) and experience (confidence in doing the job (t=2.54; p=0.05); ability to turn hand to anything/all rounder (t=6.40; p=0.001); ability to train staff (t=5.52; p=0.001); and ability to take an overview of the unit/operations (t=5.42; p=0.001)) were all marked as at least extremely desirable (means >4.19) by the Bulgarian respondents and rated significantly higher than their Romanian counterparts whose focus was significantly higher on the desirability of competitor awareness (mean=3.88; s.d.=1.13)(t=2.18; p=0.05) and prior knowledge of the company to which the application was being made (mean=3.69; s.d.=1.02)(t=6.64; p=0.001). The average prerequisite hotel work experience is at least 6.5 months in Romania and 9.5 months in Bulgaria whose managers attach significantly higher importance to such experience (t=2.83; p=0.001), in particular, to practical food and beverage and housekeeping/accommodation operational skills. A significantly higher focus in Romania is evident in ‘extremely desirable’ professional, self-presentation and high personal standards (t=2.24; p=0.005) and an attractive physical appearance (t=2.89; p=0.01) whilst in Bulgaria taking pride in oneself and one’s work is a significantly desirable trait (t=4.84; p=0.001). In terms of business communication, the Romanians recorded significantly greater preferences for correct spelling and grammar (t=3.88; p=0.001) and good communication skills in report writing (t=4.48; p=0.001), the ability to understand written instructions (t=3.19;p=0.01) and to use a calculator (t=6.23; p=0.001), and ICT competence (t=4.02; p=0.0001), all rated ‘extremely desirable’ (means > 4.25). The Bulgarian managers’ only significantly higher score this context related to keeping people informed (mean=4.74; s,d,-0.44)(t=4.86; p=0.001). However, the Bulgarian managers focused significantly more strongly than the Romanians on certain cognitive abilities that they claimed were extremely desirable for management success (all means > 4.34). They include and the ability to respond to criticism (t=5.79; p=0.001), an insightful reflective approach in handling problem situations (t=4.54; p=0.001), the ability to evaluate statements in terms of evidence (t=4.54; p=0.001), a creative/flexible thinking style (t=3.55; p=0.001), good reasoning ability (t=3.53; p=0.01), logical thought processes in writing (t=3.45; p=0.001), the ability to make constructive critical judgements (t=3.29; p=0.001) and a good memory (t=3.14; p=0.01). The comparative picture with regard to personal qualities and interpersonal skills is more complex in that most of those listed were deemed to be essential. Therefore, the top ranked attributes in each of these domains are compiled in Table 3, which portrays the ‘ideal’ candidate profiles for each country based on the primary data analysis. Extremely desirable personal qualities common to both countries are: passion for work; rule-consciousness/honesty/trustworthiness; optimistic outlook; diplomacy; good observational skills/vigilance; ability to make decisions/decisive; self-discipline/self-control; and confidence and ability to deal with emergencies. The Bulgarian focus was also on passion for cleanliness, maintenance of work standards/compliance, creation of an environment of trust and fairness and knowing how to push for better performance, whilst the Romanian respondents favoured ability to use initiative, manage time well and prioritise work, to motive others to work well, punctuality and leadership ability. There was greater agreement regarding the key interpersonal skills that were associated with HM success, namely: passion for customer satisfaction; ability to deal with complaints/problems; effective management of working relationships; persuasiveness/selling ability; service to clients and customers; good negotiating skills; discretion; networking skills; and interest in developing other people to maximise their potential. Bulgarians also included awareness of own strengths and weaknesses whilst Romanians ranked ability to interact with others, openness, confidence and ability to command attention from groups and individuals, team organisational skills and expertise in leading and building teams relatively higher. Table 3 Comparative ‘ideal’ candidate hotel management recruitment profiles for Bulgarian and Romanian Attributes Bulgaria Romania Academic qualifications Undergraduate degree in hotel or hospitality management(HM) Postgraduate degree in hotel or HM Postgraduate degree in BM Good references Desirable but not essential Evidence of commitment (at interview) Willingness to work for long and flexible hours Strong motivation to join the company and to work in this particular job Business and industry knowledge Prior knowledge of the hospitality industry; Substantial knowledge of business operations; Critical awareness of current issues in B&M Prior knowledge of the company to which the application is being made; Competitor awareness Work experience: level Confidence in doing the job; Ability to turn hand to anything/all rounder Ability to train staff; ability to take overview of unit/operations Work experience; length and nature Prerequisite > 6.5 months including Practical food and beverage, housekeeping and accommodation operational skills Prerequisite > 9.5 months Presentation Takes pride in work and self Professional self-presentation; High personal standards; Attractive physical appearance Business communication Ability to listen/take in information; Keeping people informed; Ability to provide clear verbal instructions Correct spelling, grammar; Good communication skills in report writing; Able to understand written instructions Able to use calculator; ICT competence Cognitive abilities Mental alertness/quick understanding of situation; Ability to apply theory in practice Responsive to criticism; Insightful, reflective approach to problem solving; Ability to evaluate statements in terms of evidence; Creative /flexible thinking style; Good reasoning ability; Logical thought processes in writing; Able to make constructive critical judgements; Good memory Personal qualities Passion for work (EI);Diplomacy; Rule-consciousness/honesty/trustworthiness (EI);Good observational skills/vigilance; Ability to make decisions/decisive (EI); Optimistic outlook (EI); Self-discipline/self-control(EI); Confidence and ability to deal with emergencies Passion for cleanliness; Maintenance of work standards/compliance; Creation of an environment of trust and fairness(EI); Knowing how to push for better performance (EI) Ability to use initiative; Ability to manage time well and prioritise work (EI); punctual; Ability to motive others to work well (EI); leadership ability Interpersonal skills Passion for customer satisfaction (EI); Ability to deal with complaints/problems (EI); Effective management of working relationships (EI);Persuasiveness/selling ability (EI);Service to clients and customers; Good negotiating skills; discretion; Networking skills; Interest in developing other people to maximise their potential Awareness of own strengths and weaknesses Ability to interact with others; openness; Confidence and ability to command attention from groups and individuals; Team organisational skills; expertise in leading and building teams Key: Common elements are in italics DISCUSSION The implications of the detail in Tables 2 and 3 for curriculum developers, prospective HM trainee recruits, recruiters and trainers are considerable with respect to advising on current Eastern European practices and informing such personnel on the employability of the graduates. From a general perspective, educators and trainers are advised to consider embracing key criteria in course learning outcomes and, most importantly, ensure that they offer students and trainees ample opportunities in the educational institutions and in their places of work to learn how to achieve these outcomes in practice, setting by example when appropriate. Furthermore, recruiters are advised to employ relevant keywords when advertising for graduate management trainees and should devise ways of assessing such cognitive and communication skills and competences at their assessment centres. In terms of setting communication standards, educators and employers are in control. From the outset, their channels and methods of communication should be open, clear and timely, both amongst themselves and to and from their students and employees. Furthermore, it is incumbent on all parties to listen, take in instructions, and consider the opinions of their colleagues and fellow students if the graduates’ management potential is to be realised. Oral exercises and in-class or in-house practical tests on listening, following instructions and evaluating spoken evidence may be used in educating and training to assess communication abilities. Mental alertness can be developed and assessed by setting time restricted tasks, observational skills through practical assignments and decision-making developed and assessed using case studies and critical incidents for education with training being based on real scenarios. The strong focus in Romania is on correct spelling, grammar, good communication skills in report writing, the ability to understand written instructions and use a calculator, and ICT competence. In contrast, the Bulgarians preferences centred predominantly on higher level cognitive skills and competencies including an ability to respond to criticism, an insightful, reflective approach to problem solving, the ability to evaluate statements in terms of evidence, a creative/flexible thinking style, good reasoning ability, logical thought processes in writing, the ability to make constructive critical judgements and a good memory. Such differential features need to be borne in mind by student applicants, educators and recruiters in their respective preparation and assessments as should ways of developing and measuring the application of theories in practice, ideally through work-based projects. Interestingly, an undergraduate degree in hotel or hospitality management would be the preferred prerequisite academic qualification yet there are very few such courses in either country, hence the Bulgarian Ministry of Education and Science’s decree (2004) that a Tourism degree would suffice in their employability specification. In terms of postgraduate study, Bulgarians also would like to see a focus on hotel or hospitality management whilst Romanians favoured business management. Both Bulgarian and Romanian applicants for graduate trainee positions will be interested to note that although good references are desirable in both countries, they are not considered essential. In fact, research has demonstrated that 25% of employers may not check references and verifiable biodata, in spite of the fact that up to one in four job applicants lie in their CVs (Geoghegan, 2005; CIPD, 2010). Bulgarian potential trainees may be looked on favourably if they indicate a willingness to work flexible and long hours whilst Romanians need to demonstrate their strong motivation to join the company and to work specifically in hotel management. Prior business knowledge and knowledge of the hospitality industry, including critical awareness of current issues in business and management, confidence in working in all aspects of the job of a management trainee, the ability to train staff and to take an overview of the unit/operations are all ‘extremely desirable’ in Bulgaria – a very tall order in terms of prior experience even for postgraduate recruits. Nevertheless any development and/or experience in these fields must be advantageous and should be a priority for educators and potential applicants. In contrast, the Romanians’ interest was in competitor awareness and prior knowledge of the company to which the application was being made, each of which can be acquired by desk research, possibly as an educational assignment. Although the average prerequisite hotel working experience was less in Romania (> 6.5 months) than Bulgaria (> 9.5 months) in Bulgaria, the need for the development of hotel/hospitality management undergraduate courses that incorporate a ‘substantial’ work placement is confirmed. The Bulgarians stressed the need for taking pride in oneself and one’s work and for experience in practical food and beverage and /accommodation operations whilst professional, self-presentation, high personal standards and an attractive physical appearance were ‘extremely desirable’ in Romania. Without doubt, a high score EI is extremely desirable with the following key interpersonal skills and competencies and personal qualities being rated most highly in the context of hotel managerial success: passion for work, customer service and satisfaction; rule-consciousness/honesty/trustworthiness; the ability to network, negotiate, persuade (cf. Goleman, 1998), sell and make decisions; an optimistic outlook; self-discipline/self-control; confidence and the ability to deal with emergencies, problems and complaints; diplomacy and discretion; good observational skills/vigilance; effective management of working relationships and an interest in developing other people to maximise their potential. Country specific preferences of Bulgarians were a passion for cleanliness, maintenance of work standards/compliance, creation of an environment of trust and fairness and knowing how to push for better performance; Romanians highlighted awareness of own strengths and weaknesses, ability to use initiative, prioritise work, manage time well (cf. Ryckman, 1997) and to interact with others, confidence and the ability to command their attention and motivate them to work well, expertise in building, organising and leading teams, openness, punctuality and leadership ability. An ‘objective’ snapshot of an applicant’s interpersonal skills and personal qualities can be obtained using of reliable and valid EI or personality assessments, for example, Bar-on EQi, Business Personality Indicator (BPI) or the Graduate and Managerial Assessment (GMA). However, the value of such information is dependent on the degree of honesty with which the applicant completes the assessment; alternative less costly options include the use of verifiable biodata or structured interviews, supplemented by the critical incident technique (Flanagan, 1954), It advisable for individual companies to explore the potential of such assessments by conducting pilot studies, including job profiling, then tracking the job performance and careers of the successful candidates so that the relative predictive values of the recruitment criteria can be compared. In this way, a standardised set of criteria for evaluating managerial success may be established and a system to analyse and evaluate the information can be developed so that potentially successful HM graduate trainees can be identified quickly and reliably. Although Goleman (1996) points out that emotionally intelligent recruits need to learn the emotional competences required to succeed in their role in the workplace, they have excellent potential for learning them as EI is trainable. Therefore, on-course learning opportunities and on-the-job training are valuable in this context. An optimistic outlook and the ability to deal with complaints and work-related problems may be developed and/or assessed through case studies and work experience including student training restaurants, as can the management of interpersonal relationships and diplomacy, incorporating not only individual work but also group and team exercises, projects and assignments. Honesty and trust are very difficult to ascertain as it has been admitted that the information provided by graduates on their application form and their references may not be truthful (Chynoweth, 2009) so perhaps only time will reveal such characteristics. Hence, there may be some value in offering a temporary contract initially. Teachers, employers and trainers need to set an example to their students and employees by making sensible rules, setting realistic deadlines and, most importantly, adhering to all of them. CONCLUSION The key criteria associated with success in HM, hence the employability profiles of Bulgarian and Romanian HM graduate trainees, seem to have a substantial common core, part of which maps onto the QAA (2000) benchmark statements. Although Kolman et al. (2003) warned against treating proximate C&E countries as a homogeneous group from a managerial perspective, this result is not too surprising based on their relatively closely matched cultural profiles (cf. Hofstede, 2001). However, the degree of commonality with the UK QAA benchmarks might also suggest that certain hospitality management success criteria are more widely applicable. In the light of the apparent cross-cultural similarities of certain key criteria, the importance for Bulgarian and Romanian undergraduate hospitality programme designers to consider these criteria to best ensure the employability of their graduates is stressed. This conclusion would appear to be particularly pertinent since the entry to the European Union of Bulgaria and Romania as their graduates might now compete more often against candidates from neighbouring countries for management positions, as well as those educated internationally from further afield. The predominance of interpersonal skills and personal qualities, with a strong focus on EI, as ‘essential’ success criteria is in line with previous research (cf. Ineson, 1993; Goleman, 1996; Wilson, 1998; Caruso and Wolfe, 2001; Carmeli, 2003; Langhorn, 2004; Ineson et al., 2009). Other ‘essential’ indicators of HM success in Bulgaria and Romania span various cognitive and communication abilities, namely, mental alertness, the application of theory in practice (cf. QAA, 2000), and the abilities to listen, attain a quick understanding of situations, provide clear verbal instructions and keep people informed are paramount (cf. Brownell, 2003; Yang, 2009; Johnson, 2009). Lack of management /employee communication has long been associated with poor service quality (Zeithaml et al, 1988) so it is refreshing and pertinent to see the strong focus on such necessary abilities. Regarding limitations of the research, it is acknowledged that although the samples they may be representative of national hotel general managers whose units are geographically and demographically diverse, the sub-sample by sizes are relatively small. Together with the linguistic and cultural issues associated with the translation of the instrument and the data collection processes, it is possible that there were a few misunderstandings that might have impinged on the responses. Nevertheless, there is consensus on most of the top rated items in each domain. It is apparent that the Eastern European employers’ perspective on the most desirable skills and competencies for graduate recruits seeking HM training is not very far removed from that of their Western European counterparts. It would be of interest to extend this research to other C&E European countries with less similar national cultural profiles to determine further the extent to which these general and specific findings are linked to national cultural profiles and which success criteria have international credence so that more potentially excellent recruits might be selected. In this sense, future research might also consider comparing the findings of the present research together with the aforementioned analysis of HM success criteria in C&E Europe generally with opinions of managers from Western and Northern European countries. A student-centred perspective might also be useful. Bearing in mind that Bulgaria and Romania lack nationally determined benchmark statements to inform hospitality management degree programme design, an examination of the extent to which their prospective HM graduate trainees felt that their courses of study had equipped them with the competences identified here, by experienced and knowledgeable serving hotel managers as being critical to management success, would seem pertinent and timely. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to thank La fondation pour la formation hôtelière and MMU for their sponsorship, Mrs Crisp for her assistance with data entry and the survey respondents in Bulgaria and Romania. REFERENCES Alexieva, I. et al. (2001; 2005). Hotel and Restaurant Management (a manual how to succeed in hospitality business). Vol. 1 and 2, Sofia: Raabe. Badulescu, A. (2006). Unemployment in Romania: A retrospective analysis (1991-2005). Economie teoreticã ºi aplicatã, 2: 71-76. Băltescu, C. A., (2009). The influence in Romanian hospitality industry of small medium-sized firms and their specific means to improve performance. Annals of Faculty of Economics Oradea, 18(4): 576-580 Barrick, M.R. & Mount, M.K. (1991), The big five personality dimensions and job performance: a meta- analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76: 1-26. Baum, T. (2002). Skills and training for the hospitality sector: a review of issues. Vocational Education and Training, 54(3): 343-364. Bertua, C., Anderson, N. & Salgado, J. (2005). The predictive validity of cognitive ability tests. Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, 78(3): 387-405. Brownell, J. (2003). Applied research in managerial communication: The critical link between knowledge and practice. Cornell Hotel & Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 44(2): 39. Carmeli, A. (2003). The relationship between emotional intelligence and work, attitudes, behavior and outcomes. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18(8):788-813. Caruso, D.R. and Wolfe, C.J. (2001). Emotional intelligence in the workplace. In J. Ciarrochi, J. Forgas and J. D. Mayer (Eds.) Emotional Intelligence in Everyday Life,(pp.150-68) Philadelphia: Psychology Press. Chynoweth, G. (2009) Hard job to spot recruits’ fake CVs. The Sunday Times, January 18, 2009 CIPD (2010). References. http://www.cipd.co.uk/subjects/recruitmen/selectn/references.htm [Accessed the 4th of June 2010, 09.12] Corodeanu Agheorghiesei, D. T., and Bedrule-Grigoruta, M. V. (2007) Sustainable Tourism in Romania: Tendencies, Opportunities and Threats. Tourism in the New Millenium. http://ssrn.com/abstract=982329 [[Accessed the 8th of June 2010, 15.32] Council of Ministers (2002; 2003). Ordinance for Categorization of Tourist Sites, Decree Nr. 222, and updates in Decree Nr. 126, 27 June, 2003. State Gazette (95): 8 October 2002 and (58): 27 June 2003. Derenthal, E., & Pop, B. (2008). Romanian Hotel Industry - Latest Developments. Romanian Business Digest, http://rbd.doingbusiness.ro/en/overview-of-economic-sectors/3/87-romanian-hotel-industry-latest-developments.html [Accessed the 4th of May 2009, 14.05]. Flanagan. J.C. (1954).The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51(4): 327 358. Geoghegan, T. (2005). The CV detectives. BBC News Magazine http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4167204.stm [Accessed the 4th of June 2010, 09.03] George, M. (2006). How intelligent are you ... really' From IQ to EQ to SQ, with a little intuition along the way. Training and Management Development Methods, 20(4): 425-36. Goleman, D. (1996). Emotional intelligence: why it can matter more than IQ. London: Bloomsbury. Goleman, D. (1998). Success secret: a high emotional IQ, Fortune, Oct 26: 293. Hambric, C.D., Nadler, D. and Tushman, M. (1998). Navigating Change: How CEOs, Top Teams and Boards Steer Transformation. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Harper, S., Brown, C. & Irvine, W. (2-005). Qualifications: a fast-track to hotel general manager' International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, (1): 51 – 64. HEFCE (1998) Review of Hospitality Management. Bristol: HEFCE. Hoffenberg (Amsden), A. H, , Kochanowicz J. & Taylor L. (1994). The market meets its match: restructuring the economies of Eastern Europe. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's Consequences, Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage Publications. Ineson, E.M. (1993). The predictive validity of criteria used in the selection of students for undergraduate courses and graduate training in hotel and catering management. London: The British Library. Ineson, E.M., Rhoden, S. & Alexieva, I. (2009). The Bulgarian experience: key contributors to success in hotel management. Paper presented at EuroCHRIE conference, Helsinki, November. Jayawardena, C. (2000). International hotel manager. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 12(1): 67-70. Johnson, J. in Viewpoint (2009). Praise benefits the bottom line, Caterer & Hotelkeeper, 199: 15 Kernbach, S. & Schutte, N.S. (2005). The impact of service provider emotional intelligence on customer satisfaction. Journal of Services Marketing, 19(7): 438-44. Kerr, R., Garvin, J., Heaton, N. & Boyle, E. (2006). Emotional intelligence and leadership effectiveness. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 27(4): 265-79. Kolman, L., Noorderhaven, N.G., Hofstede, G. and Dienes, E. (2003). Cross-cultural differences in Central Europe. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18(1): 76-88. Kuncel, N., Hezlett, S. & Ones, D. (2004). Academic performance, career potential, creativity and job performance: can one construct predict them all' Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(1): 148-61. Lam, T., Zhang, H. & Baum. T. (2001) An investigation of employees' job satisfaction: the case of hotels in Hong Kong. Tourism Management, 22: 157-165. Langhorn, S. (2004). How emotional intelligence can improve management performance. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,16(4): 220-30. Lewis, K. M. (2000). When leaders display emotion: How followers respond to negative emotional expression of male and female leaders. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21: 221-234. Ministry of Education and Science, (2004). Professional Qualifications of "Hotel Manager" Ordinance № 17, 6 November 2003, State Gazette (6): 23 January. Mintel (2007). Travel and Tourism – Bulgaria and Romania. http://academic.mintel.com/ sinatra/oxygen _academic/ search_ results/show&/display/id=237157 [Accessed the 19th of August 2009, 13.40] National Statistical Institute (2007). http://www.nsi.bg/Index_e.htm [Accessed the 2nd of May 2009, 23.10] Ones, D., Viswesvaran, C. and Dilchert, A. (2006). Cognitive ability and selection decisions. In D. Wilhaml and R. Engler (Eds), Understanding and Measuring Intelligence, London: Sage. QAA (2000). Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism. http://www.qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure/ benchmark/ honours/hospitality.asp#1 [Accessed the 2nd of June 2010, 14.12]. Ryckman, R.M. (1997). Theories of Personality. London: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company. Salgado, J., Anderson, N., Moscoso, S., Bertua, C. & de Fruyt, F. (2003). International validity generalization of GMA and cognitive abilities. Personnel Psychology, 56: 573-605. Schmidt, F. & Hunter, J. (2004). General mental ability in the world of work. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86: 163-73. Vacra, P.E. (2004). Service skills for service workers: emotional intelligence and beyond. Managing Service Quality,14(6): 457-67. Verbeke, W. (1994). Personality characteristics that predict effective performance of salespeople, Scandinavian Journal of Management, 10: 49-57. Weiand, P. (2002). Drucker's challenge: Communication and the emotional glass ceiling. Ivey Business Journal. 66(5): 37. Wilson, M.E. (1998). Gendered career paths. Personnel Review, 27(5): 396-411. Yang, J (2009). Individual attitudes to learning and sharing individual and organisational knowledge in the hospitality industry. Service Industries Journal, 29(12): 1723-1743 Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L. & Parasuraman, A. (1988). Communication and Control Processes in the Delivery of Service. The Journal of Marketing, 52(2): 35-48