The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0959-6119.

htm

IJCHM 18,1

VIEWPOINT

78

The competency model of hospitality service: why it doesnt deliver

Judith Ann Chapman and Genevieve Lovell
University of Western Sydney, Sydney, Australia
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to advance discussion of the efcacy of the current Australian competency training framework for credentialing and preparing front-line employees for the hospitality and tourism industry. Design/methodology/approach Discussion focuses on the hospitality service encounter and the skills and competencies needed by front-line employees to satisfy customers. Attributes different meanings to the term skill and explains how skill is conceptualized within the Australian competency framework. Illustrates this with examples. Findings Argues that the competency framework largely excludes key skills and attitudinal factors needed for competent performance, while emphasizing limited procedural skills at minimal levels of performance. Suggests that, due to its complexity and high staff turnover, the industry needs a more robust approach to credentialing and training its workforce. Research limitations/implications Focus is on issues confronting the hospitality and tourism industry in Australia. May be useful for comparison purposes for those interested in training and service delivery systems. Implies that research is needed on the nexus between the service encounter and the competencies needed by employees. Practical implications Suggests approaches to developing industry and organizational capacity in three areas: analysis and review of skills; professional approach to job selection and placement; strategic approach to developing employees and supervisors in front-line positions. Originality/value Clearly identies shortcomings in the current framework. Links the service encounter with skills and competencies. Provides diagnostic questions for senior management to review their attitudes towards developing junior staff. Keywords Skills, Competences, Hospitality services, Service delivery, Australia Paper type Viewpoint

International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management Vol. 18 No. 1, 2006 pp. 78-88 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0959-6119 DOI 10.1108/09596110610642000

Introduction The hospitality and tourism industries are people focused, labour intensive service industries. The Tourism White Paper published by the Australian Government (2003) indicated that in 2001-2002 tourism and hospitality consumption accounted for $70.8 billion (Bureau of Tourism Research, 2003). Further, tourism and hospitality were directly responsible for the employment of 549,000 people in Australia (5.9 per cent of total employment), an increase of 7.3 per cent since 1997-1998. The Paper also predicted that as domestic and international visitors become more demanding of tourism and hospitality services, industry will require better strategies to meet visitor expectations by preparing an appropriately trained and educated workforce. Unfortunately, there are serious impediments to developing such strategies. One of these relates to the worsening national skills shortage in Australia, and the increasing

competition across industries for young, talented trainees. Another concerns serious shortcomings in the nation-wide competency framework for skilling front line employees. A core problem is that the notion of skill, upon which all government approved training programs are based, is notoriously difcult to dene and operationalise. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the national training system is widely regarded as confusing and inadequate. While vocational education and training are problematic in all industries, hospitality and tourism face particular challenges: the industry is complex with many different kinds of establishments catering to the needs of diverse customer groups; the front line employee plays a critical role in meeting customer expectations during the all-important service encounter; and the industry workforce is highly mobile. When these factors are considered in combination, the result is an industry facing unique difculties in credentialing its workforce. This focus of this paper is therefore employment skills and work preparation, but within the context of a particular industry. Its purpose is to explain some of the reasons why the current national training framework is falling short as a credentialing system and is thus causing dissatisfaction among employers. The discussion is formed around the nature of the service encounter and how current constructions of skill and competency in the national training framework do not describe or train for it adequately. The paper concludes with some suggestions as to how the industry might move forward in terms of its approach to the education, training and development of frontline staff and their supervisors. The front-line employee and the service encounter The service encounter goes to the heart of hospitality and tourism. The success of the service encounter depends on the extent to which customer needs are satised or exceeded and further, hospitality and tourism organisations depend on satised customers for their survival (Pizam and Ellis, 1999). Dened broadly, the service encounter is a period of time during which a customer directly interacts with a service (Shostack, 1985, p. 243). A key feature of many service encounters is that the production of the service and its consumption happen simultaneously: the waiter explains the wine list and presents the selected item, the receptionist books the room, the tour adviser describes the places to be visited and so on. It is very social in nature because the personal mode of delivery is intertwined with the provision of the tangible thing that initiated the encounter. It follows that the customers perception of service quality has at least two elements: satisfaction with what was provided and the way in which this was delivered by the front line employee (FLE). To be effective in the role, therefore, FLEs must know what to provide to the customer and also behave according to the script tting the nature of the establishment where they work. This is perhaps why Cook et al. (2002) emphasized the behavioural aspects of the service encounter, in particular the expression of attitude and demeanor of employees engaged in the process of service provision. The success of a service encounter depends, therefore, on the availability of aware, service oriented, competent employees who understand the context in which they work, and are well versed in the specic organisations strategic objectives and culture. This is not just about levels of prociency but also includes different types of skills that are appropriate for the particular customer segment and characteristics of the business establishment. A waitperson may carry plates with prociency, but still be

The competency model

79

IJCHM 18,1

80

unsuited for a ve star dining environment. Similarly, service staff in different kinds of establishments, such as B and Bs, backpackers accommodation and tourist hotels need skill mixes that are different yet again, because they are providing a qualitatively different kind of service. Given the criticality of the service encounter, it is paradoxical that FLEs are often poorly prepared for their roles in the foyers, service desks, restaurants and accommodation wings of thousands of establishments across the country. While there are a number of reasons for this, the focus in the next section will be on the national system of training and accreditation that is, unfortunately, a rather indifferent guide for the employer as to what potential employees can and cannot do in frontline situations. The Australian training framework A key plank in the current approach to vocational training and education in Australia is widely known as the competency model (Smith and Keating, 1997), introduced in the late 1980 s. In this model, skill acquisition is a major component of competency, and therefore readiness for employment. From 1996, the newly introduced National Training Framework was meant to give industry and business groups more inuence over the training process by ensuring that competence was assessed in terms of industry requirements. The competency model was a way of approaching (vocational) training that places primary emphasis on what a person can do as a result of training (the outcome) (Smith and Keating, 1997, p.101), while training is attainment and demonstration of skills to meet industry specied standards (VEETAC, 1992, pp. 5-8). Hospitality and Tourism is just one industry group covered by the competency framework. People seeking employment in frontline roles in hospitality and tourism can seek training and education from a range of institutions including TAFE colleges, universities and private providers. Each one of these has their own approach although operating broadly from within the Australian Quality Framework. This framework is meant to standardise qualications across Australia and to present graduates with certicates that open the door to employment. The framework is intended to be quite comprehensive in the way it identies the observable tasks associated with different jobs in the industry, and includes detailed sets of procedural steps for undertaking tasks in various functions, such as housekeeping and bar work. However, problems abound with the operation of this system and in the usefulness of the information that the various certicates convey to employers. These include an absence of distinctions among the levels of skill attained by the certicate holder, and little consideration of broader aspects such as attitude and other capacities that many believe should be part of a competency framework. Under the terms of the inuential Mayer Committee (1992, p. 9), key competencies can only include those things which can be developed by education and training, which do not require some innate predisposition or adherence to a particular set of values and which are amenable to credible assessment. The upshot of this is that training is very activity focused: only actions and sequences that are teachable and objectively assessable are included. There is scant regard for the context within which the activities are to be performed, nor is there any testing for prociency in performing well within a complete service encounter or responding creatively to customer expectations and requirements.

In reality, doing the job as the employer expects requires far more than a mechanical display of the actions and procedures learned in TAFE or the hotel school: in many situations, the employee must also use judgment and discretion in a way that demonstrates sensitivity to the context within which they are working. The available evidence indicates a widening gap between what employers want and their assessment of the capabilities of the workers they actually hire. Indeed, a recent graduate destination survey indicated that some hospitality employers have a 90 per cent dissatisfaction rate with graduates presented to them (Hart, 2002, p. 2), and that much of this comes from a lack of condence in the competency framework itself. Freeland (2000) researched views on training and competence in the hospitality industry, concluding that industry stakeholders believe that there is a link between protability and training, while at the same time thinking that current skills levels in the industry were inadequate to ensure its continued success (p. 5). In other words, while employers thought that training was important, they did not value the formal training previously acquired by their employees because it did not have direct application to the operation of their particular enterprise. Instead, they preferred to employ on the basis of personal attributes such as exibility over rosters, people skills and a strong work ethic. Formal qualications were only pursued for certain positions such as chef where this was mandatory. Given the disenchantment with formal training, and as a way of ensuring that employees have the desired skills, a number of private and in-house training schemes with direct application to the operation of the enterprise (Freeland, 2000), have sprung up in recent years. Unfortunately, while this may be a solution for some enterprises, it does little to improve the situation for the industry overall. Worse, it is contributing to the fragmentation of training and education through the proliferation of different approaches and standards. We now turn to the debate on what constitutes skill and competency as a way of situating the approach embodied within the Australian competency framework within this broader discourse. Understanding skill and competency Wills (1995, p. i) observed that when discussing the meaning of skill, a Tower of Babel image emerges. From her analysis of documentation on vocational applications, ve distinct meanings of skill were evident. Denitions varied from broad to specic in that one referred to any human characteristic on which people may differ in the performance of work, while another included only competence to perform specic job-related tasks. Wills emphasised that denitions are important because they are used to determine the ways in which data on workers and job performance are collected, measured and used - for example, in comparing jobs, establishing occupational clusters, identifying transferable skills, and so on. Several dimensions along which understandings of skill vary are discussed below. Skill types Wills (1995) analysis uncovered many different approaches to describing skills. Most widely recognised is the distinction between cognitive and physical (or motor) skills. Cognitive skills include general intelligence while others represent specic capacity in verbal comprehension, numerical ability, memory, spatial ability and the like. Physical

The competency model

81

IJCHM 18,1

82

skills include strength, stamina, exibility and manual dexterity. From here, the debate on skill becomes very complex. For example, there is argument about which capacities should be included in the category cognitive skills (Johnson 1998, Barrows 1987, McPeck 1981). Should this category include only mental activities that are consciously controlled such as thinking skills (Bailon et al., 1999), but exclude comprehension and instinctive knowing, which are supposedly not (Smith, 2002)? And to what extent can skills be taught and learned: are skills capacities that the person has, or are they developed through training and education? And if the skills need to be developed, to what extent should they be linked in the curriculum as a sequenced set, or a coherent whole rather than as discrete actions and procedural steps to be learned (Norris and Ennis, 1989, p.421)? The waters are muddied further when distinguishing among key and core skills (Kearns, 2001), and beyond that to distinctions between generic and context-specic skills. Key skills are essential life and employment participation skills. They unlock the door (Borthwick, cited in Collins 1993, p. 26) and enable people to do something with their aptitudes and education they are not specic to work in particular occupations or industries, but are essential for effective participation in further education and in adult life more generally (Australian Education Council, 1992). Core skills are developed from the application of key skills. They are essential for effective participation in employment because they are job-related. There is often a ne line between key and core skills, and considerable difference of opinion over the extent to which vocational education should focus on the job-specic, rather than more general life skills. Generic skills can be exercised in a variety of contexts. Their most distinctive characteristic is their transferability to a new setting once they have already been learned or applied in another. Kearns (2001) believes that generic skills are the future of vocational training as generic skills are the foundation for the current trend of life long learning (Kearns, 2001, p. 3). Hinchliffe (2002) however, argues that skills cannot be transferred for the most part. His point is that it is not skills that are transferred, but the knowledge a person has and the ability to use that knowledge in a different context. This suggests that key skills underpin the capacity to apply learned skills in different settings. Skill complexity Grifth (1987) believes that skills can be graded in terms of their complexity and level of difculty. In making her point, Grifth uses the Ryle (1963) concept of knowledge how and argues a continuum exists for most skills, since degrees of distinction in skill level can be identied. At a basic level, skills may be narrow in range, but nonetheless, are the foundation and building blocks of a persons capacity to undertake job-related tasks (Hinchliffe 2002). In an example of cognitive skills, the job holder understands the fundamentals of counting the cash. At a level that is a little higher, the person can balance the days accounts against the days operational activities. At a higher level still, the person assesses the extent to which business operations are in line with longer range targets and strategic objectives, and can plan to correct discrepancies. At this more complex level of enactment, cognitive skills require procedural knowledge of how to perform certain tasks but with the additional application of judgment and discretion. Physical or motor skills can also be demonstrated at different levels of prociency. At

higher levels of capability, motor skills are used for the completion of a task with ease and precision . . . in which a predetermined objective is accomplished with maximum efciency and a minimum outlay of energy (Robb, 1985, p.39). Skilled acts may also be part of a sequence of activities. Fitts (1964) argues that what distinguishes a skilled act from an unskilled act is patterning, and that patterning is a hierarchical organisation of activities that is part of a plan. (Miller et al., 1960). The plan is the process of sequenced operations that are to be performed for the skilled act to be executed. Meta competencies (Bridges, 1993) consist of multiple skills at multiple levels of complexity being undertaken simultaneously. Bridges suggests that at this level of complexity, the enactment of the skill may more aptly be described as an art. Hinchliffe (2002) also uses this term when he refers to skill that is enacted at the highest level of skill mastery. Such skill involves a series of actions assisted by interpretative understanding - a performance, oriented toward producing a publicly dened outcome or process (p194). Interpretative understanding he suggests, requires the participant to engage in the skill process, interpreting the circumstances. Acquiring skills Barrows (1987) makes the point that skill can be acquired in a variety of different ways. Discrete skills, such as the clicking of the ngers are learned in a simple and straightforward way, while reading, for example, requires more complex learning processes. Some skills require formal instruction, while others might not. For example, learning to ride a bike can be undertaken in isolation and without instruction: one falls off, gets up again, balances, and then falls of again until balance has been mastered. Other skills, such as how to make a cappuccino could be learned by oneself, in isolation, or as an act of imitation through apprenticeship. Polanyi (1958) considered that all skilled acts requiring motor ability are difcult until the task is mastered while Hodgkin (1985) noted that skills that now seem easy and automatic (p. 9) started as an achievement that was difcult and required energy. Dewey (1916) argued that skill development could be assisted by emotional engagement with a task, using the example of a gardener to illustrate this, while Smith (2002), Robb (1985) and Polanyi (1958) argue that the reective process assists in a persons skill development. Skill in hospitality and tourism contexts How well does the current Australian competency framework reect different understandings of skill and how does it apply to common job-related activities? In relation to the rst question, it is difcult to escape the conclusion that skill is rather limited in its conceptualisation. Because of the emphasis on including only work-related skills that can be objectively observed and measured, a host of more complex cognitive, attitudinal and knowledge-based competencies are discounted. The emphasis is on skills at lower levels of prociency and the art of hospitality is beyond its scope. In fact, there is little emphasis on grading of skills from basic level of competence through higher levels of prociency and mastery: the person is either competent or not competent. Further, implicit in the competency training framework is the assumption that many of the core skills learned by trainees are generic skills and can therefore be applied equally effectively within the same job class in the industry, regardless of the nature of the establishment where the person is employed. However, the combined experience of employers and employees is indicating that this is simply

The competency model

83

IJCHM 18,1

not the case. The industry is complex with many niche market segments, for which trainees are not well prepared. The shortcomings in the current system can be illustrated with examples of common job-related activities. Cutting an onion This is an activity requiring basic motor skills executed as a learned set of steps. It is a core skill for a kitchen worker, and is specic to the job. There is little need for the job holder to develop mastery beyond learning the simple steps involved and completing the task efciently. The person is either do the task or they cannot. The competency framework is effective here. Folding a napkin Within the competency framework the physical action of folding a napkin ts well with the denition of a skill. However, no other aspect of this task would be treated as such. Certainly, folding a napkin is a learned motor skill, repetitive, and context (hospitality) specic. It requires no outside input beyond the initial learned instruction. But if we see the napkin as a decorative table artifact, napkin folding as a skill takes on greater signicance. As an art, the practitioner may engage personally and emotionally in executing perfection in the design, become highly skilled in this, be recognised for his or her creativity, have a large repertoire of original and copied designs, and be very time efcient in executing the task. Conceptually, napkin folding is essentially a motor skill, but when the execution of the task is indicative of higher levels of skill, it also draws on the job holders creativity. At increasing levels of mastery acquired through training and practice, it could be described as an art. It is not a generic skill because it is not readily transferable to other occupations, and it represents a core skill for the hospitality worker. The competency framework deals with the basic sequence constituting napkin folding, but not the art. Mixing cocktails In training, a bar person learning to mix cocktails is required to perform activities related to handling the glass, knowing the correct way to pour a drink, knowing the ingredients, and nally placing the drink on the counter. If a trainee completes the physical activity in line with the standard procedure specied by the competency model, the person is deemed competent (conversely, if they fail to complete the sequence, they are deemed not competent). But in reality, the person certied as competent may be unable to carry out the duty to the expectations of a particular employer. This is because the person may lack additional attributes including drink knowledge, speed, personality, style, innovation, air and energy. In fact, these additional attributes may be just as important to the ambience and reputation of the particular facility where the task is carried out, and to justify the expense and mythology of the place. It is apparent that the competency framework falls far short in terms of credentialing a person for employment in many establishments. Conclusions Employers need a national system of accreditation that is a sound guide to the capabilities of potential employees in their eld of work. And because the industry is

84

complex, employers require information about the different competencies, skill mixes and levels of mastery that are relevant to their various business establishments. The present training framework is falling short in both respects. Instead, applicants present certicates that do little more than indicate a passing knowledge of hospitality operations and the activities and procedures that they can undertake at a basic level of prociency. The high level of mobility of the hospitality and tourism workforce (Freeland 2000) only adds to the problem. Turnover of staff in the hospitality industry is currently hovering around a staggering 23 per cent per annum, the highest for any industry in Australia (ANTA, 2004). Some mobility is inevitable but it does mean that people bring different skills and experiences to their new employer, who is faced with the challenge of determining the capabilities of the person in terms of the protocols that apply in his or her establishment. The choice is then between the expense and inconvenience of close supervision, and the risk of inadequate standards and unhappy customers without it. Given the uncertainty, it is hardly surprising that staff recruitment in the smaller establishments is frequently based on personality and grooming, rather than merit. But this simply increases the incidence of inappropriate appointments resulting in lack of job satisfaction, poor job performance and inevitably more staff turnover. The larger chains prefer to hire staff trained in their own schools because they lack condence in the larger public training institutions such as the universities and TAFE. However, a proliferation of niche training schools does nothing to encourage joint planning among the main stakeholders and is therefore not helping to resolve the overall problems facing the industry. This complex situation requires multifaceted solutions. We suggest that these be investigated and implemented across three broad domains: (1) industry analysis and review of skills, knowledge and competencies; (2) professionalisation of staff selection and placement procedures; and (3) a strategic approach to the supervision of FLEs and the development of rst line management capability. Skills and competencies have already been discussed at length. As we have shown, the current framework focuses on skills that are measurable, while excluding a host of attitudinal and other competencies that are relevant to the contexts where service encounters take place. Implicit in this is the dubious assumption that many core skills are transferable. As a result, the current framework downplays key skills as the vehicle for enhancing the understanding, social awareness and exibility of trainees in preparing for careers in this complex industry. Yet key skills have been used successfully in training and education frameworks in schools and other vocational training settings. In short, key skills and other less observable but important attributes need to be given more prominence in a revised training framework, along with the recognition of different levels of mastery that reect the art as well as the science of hospitality. A review of key and core skills needs to occur as part of a comprehensive proling of the industry and the different kinds of hospitality and tourism establishments that belong to it. This would include an audit of jobs and job classes, and an appreciation of how the performance of similar jobs may need to vary across different market niches. This needs to be supported with research that analyses the links between competent

The competency model

85

IJCHM 18,1

86

performance during critical service encounters and the skills and competencies facilitating this. With this information available, training and education providers could then make more relevant and effective contributions to the industry by preparing employees for specic job classes and hospitality establishments. For example, schools might focus on pre-apprenticeship training and entry level jobs, while universities should consider preparing undergraduate students for junior management positions only. This would benet the industry, because as we will argue later, management structures at lower levels are poorly delineated and staffed in many contemporary establishments. Our second point concerns staff selection and placement. At present this is largely a hit or miss affair. Employers have a limited degree of condence in the training certicates furnished by applicants and often fall back on supercial impressions and reports of previous work experience if they are available. The larger chains tend to hire from within, since they are more certain that the applicant understands the work culture and is schooled in the appropriate work ethic, attitudes and demeanour required. However, because of the high level of turnover and the difculties many employees experience with shift work, a large number of casual employees are used across the industry. Many of these casuals are provided by employment agencies, but the methods of assessing capability are usually very rudimentary the person successfully holds the tray aloft while walking across the room, or pours the tea without spilling it on the customer, for example. Clearly, selection and placement agencies need professionally developed screening techniques that could include carefully designed ability tests, work-sample tests, personality inventories, group interviews and the like. Such services are needed for many work roles, both permanent and casual. In fact, the potential for professional placement agencies to emerge as an important human resource management support for the industry could be considerable. Of course, professional screening of applicants would need to be based on sound job analysis, as discussed above. Our last point concerns taking a more strategic approach to FLE supervision and the development of rst line managers. This suggests taking a planned approach to developing capacity at lower levels to enable the organisation to achieve its goals of meeting or exceeding customer expectations. While investment in staff development at this level obviously varies from organisation to organisation, use of a few diagnostic questions can quickly yield approximations of its adequacy in any particular situation: The service encounter Do FLEs really understand their roles and how well do they deliver the services for which they are responsible? Is service delivery consistent or are there noticeable variations in quality? Are resources used appropriately or is there wastage and loss as a result of trying to accommodate customer demands or complaints? First-line supervisors How are supervisors selected are they typically chosen on the basis of seniority, time with the organisation or availability, or is it on the basis or their demonstrated supervisory skills or formal qualications? How adequately do role statements reect their real responsibilities and accountabilities? Are they respected for their knowledge and expertise by the staff they supervise? Is the level of turnover of rst line

supervisors too high, and if so, what is the organization doing to address it? What level of organisational resourcing is directed towards developing their management skills? Are they viewed by more senior managers essentially as low level workers, or as junior managers with career development aspirations and potential in the organisation? Quality of supervision How well do rst line supervisors carry out their roles? Do they understand the principles of staff supervision and are they competent in coaching and on-the-job training? What level of support do they receive from managers at higher levels? While some managers might be pleased with their answers to the above questions, others may be surprised to nd that certain systemic weaknesses indicate that their approach to rst-line management is piecemeal rather than strategic. We return to a paradox mentioned earlier in this paper that despite the criticality of the service encounter for organisational success, it is frequently in the hands of poorly trained or inadequately supported FLEs and their inexperienced supervisors. The solutions we suggest a review of the competency framework and approaches to training, better staff selection and placement, and investing in people in front line positions could be developed separately, but would be far more effective if undertaken as part of a comprehensive overview of the industry as a whole.
References Australian Education Council (1992), Putting General Education to Work: The Key Competencies Report (The Mayer Report), Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra. Australian Government (2003), The Tourism White Paper: A Medium to Long Term Strategy for Tourism, AGPS, Canberra, 20 November. Australian National Training Authority (2004), Training packages: successes, issues and challenges in implementation, Part 3, Section 1, Brisbane, pp. 1-25. Bailon, S., Case, R., Coombes, J.R. and Daniels, L.B. (1999), Common misconceptions of critical thinking, Journal of Curriculum Studies, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 269-83. Barrows, R. (1987), Skill talk, Journal of Philosophy of Education, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 187-95. Bridges, D. (1993), Transferable skills: a philosophical perspective, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 43-51. Bureau of Tourism Research (2003), Tourism prole 2003, available at: www.btr.gov.au (accessed 5 June 2003). Collins, C. (Ed.) (1993), Competencies: The Competencies Debate in Australian Education and Training, Australian College of Education, Canberra. Cook, L.S., Bowen, D.E., Chase, R.B., Dasu, S., Stewart, D.M. and Tansik, D.A. (2002), Human issues in service design, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 159-74. Dewey, J. (1916), Democracy and Education: An introduction to the Philosophy of Education, Macmillan, New York, NY. Fitts, P.M. (1964), Perceptual-motor learning, in Melton, A.W. (Ed.), Categories of Human Learning, Academic Press, New York, NY. Freeland, B. (2000), Demands of Training: Australian Tourism and Hospitality, TD/TNC 62.04, NCVER, Adelaide. Grifth, M. (1987), The teaching of skills and the skills of teaching: a reply to Robin Barrow, Journal of Philosophy of Education, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 203-14.

The competency model

87

IJCHM 18,1

88

Hart, J. (2002), Barriers to entry in the hospitality industry, policy document, Restaurant & Catering Association, Artarmon. Hinchliffe, G. (2002), Situating skills, Journal of Philosophy of Education, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 187-205. Hodgkin, R. (1985), Playing and Exploring: Education through the Discovery of Order, Methuen, London. Johnson, S. (1998), Skills, Socrates and the Sophists: learning from history, Journal of Educational Studies, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 201-13. Kearns, P. (2001), Review of the Research: Generic Skills for the New Economy, NCVER, Adelaide. McPeck, J.E. (1981), Critical Thinking and Education, St Martins Press, New York, NY. Miller, G., Galanter, E. and Pribram, K. (1960), Plans and the Structure of Behavior, Henry Holt & Co., New York, NY. Norris, S.P. and Ennis, R.H. (1989), Evaluating Critical Thinking, Midwest Publications Critical Thinking Press, Pacic Grove, CA. Pizam, A. and Ellis, T. (1999), Customer satisfaction and its measurement in hospitality enterprises, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 11 No. 7, pp. 326-39. Polanyi, M. (1958), Personal Knowledge; Towards a Post Critical Philosophy, United Press, Chicago, IL. Robb, M. (1985), The Dynamics of Motor Skill Acquisition, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Ryle, G. (1963), The Concept of the Mind, Penguin, London. Shostack, G. (1985), Planning the service encounter, in Czepiel, A., Solomon, A.R. and Surprenant, F. (Eds), The Service Encounter, Lexington Books, New York, NY, pp. 243-54. Smith, E. and Keating, J. (1997), Making Sense of Training Reform and Competency Based Training, Social Science Press, Sydney. Smith, G. (2002), Thinking skills: the question of generality, Journal of Curriculum Studies, Vol. 34 No. 6, pp. 659-78. VEETAC (1992), Users guide to course design for competency based curriculum, Australia Committee on Training Curriculum (ACTRAC), Canberra, pp. 5-8. Wills, J. (1995), Developing a Common Nomenclature for the National Voluntary Skill Standards System: A Beginning Glossary , Institute for Educational Leadership and DynCorpMeridian, Washington, DC. Further reading Zeithaml, V. and Bitner, M. (1996), Services Marketing, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints