EVALUATION OF MANAGERS EMPLOYED IN THE TURKISH TOURISM SECTOR'S ACCOMMODATION ESTABLISHMENTS

Makale Künyesi: Kızıl, A., Güler, F., Ceylan, C., Kızıl, C., Keskin, A. İ., Buget, P. (2010). "Evaluation of Managers Employed in the Turkish Tourism Sector's Accommodation Estabishments", Akademik Bakış Uluslararası Hakemli Sosyal Bilimler E-Dergisi, Sayı:22, Ekim-Kasım-Aralık 2010, ISSN: 1694-528X, http://www.akademikbakis.org/eskisite/22/12.pdf (1 Ekim 2010).

Citation: Kızıl, A., Güler, F., Ceylan, C., Kızıl, C., Keskin, A. İ., Buget, P. (2010). "Evaluation of Managers Employed in the Turkish Tourism Sector's Accommodation Estabishments", Akademik Bakış International Refereed Social Sciences E-Journal,Number:22, October-November-December 2010, ISSN: 1694-528X, http://www.akademikbakis.org/eskisite/22/12.pdf (October 1, 2010).

Ahmet Kizil, Fazil Guler, Cengiz Ceylan, Cevdet Kizil, Irem Keskin, Puren Buget

Abstract

The primary objective of this paper is to determine whether the present managers of accommodation establishments perform their jobs in accordance with their qualifications. For this purpose, questionnaires are distributed to managers in accommodation firms and responses are evaluated. The secondary purpose of this study is to identify if employees in tourism industry has the required qualifications. Also, if the sector has low efficiency, reasons are investigated.

This study uses the survey method. Questionnaires are distributed to 222 managers of tourism sector, who are mainly working in Istanbul and Izmir. 183 managers in accommodation enterprises, 22 managers in travel firms and 17 managers in food and beverage companies are interviewed face-to-face and questionnaire forms are filled. The survey includes 52 questions that collect information about managers and their organization. Questionnaire also tests if the managers are in a fitting position and they use their authority properly.

Results of our research reflect some interesting findings. Managers of accommodation enterprises, who function as the main spine of tourism sector in Turkey, have sufficient qualifications regarding their positions. However, they are not efficient in using their authority. Then, specialization has not yet developed in the sector and employees working under a senior do not have qualifications necessitated by their jobs. A final result of our study indicates that, attempts to improve the qualification and efficiency of employees are not undertaken duly.

Keywords: Tourism, management, evaluation, accommodation establishments

 

I. Introduction

Tourism revenues are increasing every passing year in Turkey (TRT World, 2009). However, the percentage of tourism revenues in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is generally going down since 2002. The share of tourism revenues (receipts) in GDP had been 5.2% in 2002, 4.3% in 2003, 4.1% in 2004, 3.8% in 2005, 3.2% in 2006 and 2.8% in 2007 (Republic of Turkey Ministry of Culture and Tourism, 2007). There is only a positive improvement in 2008, since the share of tourism revenues in GDP increased to 2.9% from 2.8% (Turkish Tourism Investors Association, 2008).

The rate of tourism revenues (receipts) in the export earnings is also lowering (Akar and Karamanbüyük, 2006). The ratio was 33.9% in 2002, 28.2% in 2003, 25.1% in 2004, 24.7% in 2005, 19.7% in 2006, 17.2% in 2007 and 16.6% in 2008 (Republic of Turkey Ministry of Culture and Tourism, 2008).

Then, the benefit of foreign exchange revenues gained from international tourism is very important, especially for countries with a foreign trade deficit. The tourism sector attracts attention since the investments in this industry increase revenues seriously due to the multiplier effect. Employment opportunities provided by the tourism sector are also extensive, because it is a labor-intensive industry (Dwyer, Forsyth and Spurr, 2004).

Anatolia, surrounded by the seas in three directions, has a great tourism potential with its long coastal line and favorable climate conditions. This enables tourists to experience several seasons simultaneously. Additionally, the number and quality of the accommodation establishments in Turkey are improving continuously (Gürsoy and Ceylan, 2006). However, employees are generally not trained in relation with the sector. The same problem also applies for managers of the tourism industry. If personnel suitable for the business and fit for the job are selected, many potential problems of the future will be eliminated beforehand (Akoğlan, 1998). Unfortunately, usually the opposite situation is observed in Turkey. This results in quality and efficiency to remain below the expected levels. Especially for service quality, effective use of human resources is a must. Obviously, human resources are more important than infrastructure (Aşıkoğlu, 1997).

The right management of accommodation establishments as key units of the tourism sector always creates a more efficient industry. The establishment and marketing of accommodation establishments, foundation of food and beverage facilities, enhancing and improving the tourism supply, improving transportation, communication, health and security measures, good promotion of Turkey and finally increasing the number of tourists lead to the growth and development of tourism economy. Moreover, this also contributes to gains in foreign exchange as well as providing opportunities to enhance economic prosperity. For sure, balancing distribution of income is another advantage (Kar, Zorkirişçi and Yıldırım, 2004). The structure of tourism industry is complex and several components are integrated in the mentioned sector (Aktaş et al, 1999).

II. Average Spending of Tourists and Accommodation Periods, Locations and Figures in Turkey

One of the latest debates is about the effect of Turkish tourism industry’s competitiveness and foreign tourists’ low scale spending on the service quality (TurkEconomy, 2008). Especially, according to some authorities, tourists visiting Turkey are generally from lower groups of income and they do not spend much in the country (Culture and Tourism Magazine, 2010). As a result, this negatively affects the sector’s service quality. It is also said that visiting tourists to Turkey increase in numbers, but the country’s tourism revenues are still under desired levels (Wood, 2010).

Concerning the average spending of tourists in Turkey, amount was 697 United States Dollar (USD) in 2002, 706 USD in 2003 and 705 USD in 2004. Then, it was about 679 USD in 2005 (Republic of Turkey Ministry of Culture and Tourism General Directorate of Investment and Enterprises, 2005). So, the increasing trend of average tourist spending did end in 2004. In the following years, average sum was 651 USD in 2006, 608 USD in 2007 and 635 USD in 2008 (Republic of Turkey Ministry of Culture and Tourism, 2008). Although the amount continued to decrease in 2006 and 2007, the recent average of 635 USD in 2008 can be evaluated as promising for the future. However, as mentioned before, Turkey’s tourism revenues are still not satisfactory from the perspective of specific authorities (Güneş, 2009) (See Table 2.1, Appendix).

Accommodation figures and periods of the tourists also remain low in Turkey. For example, according to the data of 2007, total number of people accommodated in facilities with operational licenses was 26.8 million. 55.1% of this number corresponds to foreign tourists and 44.9% corresponds to Turkish citizens. Also, total number of nights spent was observed as 78.8 million and 71.8% of this figure was realized by foreign tourists, while 28.2% was realized by Turkish citizens. Additionally, average length of stay was 3.8 days for foreign tourists and 1.9 days for Turkish citizens. In general, it was 2.9 days. During the same year, 24.6 million tourists did stay in hotels. Among these, 13.1 million were foreign tourists and 11.5 million were Turkish citizens (Republic of Turkey Ministry of Culture and Tourism General Directorate of Investment and Enterprises, 2007).

Providing 2006 as an example, 23.5 million people did stay in facilities with operational licenses. 11.9 million of the mentioned individuals were foreign tourists and 11.6 million were from Turkey. Also, total numbers of nights spent was 68.1 million in 2006. 46.6 million of total nights spent did belong to foreign tourists and 21.5 did belong to Turkish citizens (Republic of Turkey Ministry of Culture and Tourism General Directorate of Investment and Enterprises, 2007). Then, average length of stay was 3.7 days for foreign tourists and 1.8 days for Turkish citizens. Thus, in general, average length of stay was 2.7 days. In 2006, 20.9 million did stay in hotels. 10.1 million were foreign tourists and 10.8 million were Turkish citizens (Turistik Otelciler, İşletmeciler ve Yatırımcılar Birliği, 2006).

Another example can be given by providing the data of 2005. That year, 90.4% of accommodation took place in hotels. This was followed by holiday villages with a rate of 8.0%. Also, total number of people accommodated in facilities with operational licenses was 23.4 million. 12.9 million of the mentioned individuals were foreign tourists and 10.5 million were Turkish citizens (Republic of Turkey Ministry of Culture and Tourism General Directorate of Investment and Enterprises, 2005). Then, total number of nights spent was observed as 74.9 million. 56.1 million of the mentioned individuals were foreign tourists and 18.8 million were Turkish citizens (Republic of Turkey Ministry of Culture and Tourism General Directorate of Investment and Enterprises, 2007). Additionally, average period of accommodation was 4.3 days for foreign tourists and 1.8 days for Turkish citizens. In line with this statistics, average period of accommodation was observed as 3.2 days in general. During the same period, 21.2 million individuals did stay in hotels. Among these persons, 11.3 million were foreign tourists and 9.9 million were Turkish citizens. Then, average period of accommodation in hotels was 4.1 days for foreign tourists and 1.7 days for Turkish citizens. So, average period of accommodation in hotels was realized as 3.0 days in general. Plus, the period of accommodation in Istanbul hotels was 2.2 days for foreign tourists and 1.6 days for Turkish citizens. Accordingly, average period of accommodation in Istanbul hotels was generally 2.0 days. On the other hand, performance of Izmir hotels was better. Average period of accommodation in Izmir hotels was 3.5 days for foreign tourists and 1.8 days for Turkish citizens. Thus, average period of accommodation in Izmir hotels for all tourists was 2.5 days in general (Republic of Turkey Ministry of Culture and Tourism General Directorate of Investment and Enterprises, 2005).

Analyzing the other years, we see that total number of people accommodated in facilities with operational licenses was 17.8 million in 2002 and 9.9 million here were foreign tourists and 7.9 million were Turkish citizens. In 2003, 17.4 million individuals did accommodate in facilities with operational licenses and 9.0 million here were foreign tourists and 8.4 million were Turkish citizens. In 2004, sum of individuals accommodating in facilities with operational licenses was observed as 20.7 million. That year, 11.0 million were foreign tourists and 9.7 million were Turkish citizens. Then, total number of nights spent was 58.5 million in 2002 and 43.3 million did belong to foreign tourists and 15.2 million did belong to Turkish citizens. In 2003, sum of nights spent was 57.1 million. 40.9 million did belong to foreigners and 16.2 million did belong to Turkish individuals. Next year in 2004, total number of nights spent was 68.1 million. 49.7 million did belong to foreign tourists and 18.4 million did belong to Turkish citizens. After that, average length of stay was 4.4 days for foreign tourists and 1.9 days for Turkish citizens in 2002. In general, it was 3.3 days. In 2003, average length of stay was 4.5 days for foreigners and 1.9 days for Turkish citizens. So, as a whole it was 3.3 days. The following year, average length of stay was again 4.5 days for foreign tourists and 1.9 days for Turkish citizens. Thus, final average of 2004 was 3.3 days too (Republic of Turkey Ministry of Culture and Tourism General Directorate of Investment and Enterprises, 2005). As easily recognized, the numbers and quantities have not been fluctuating much for Turkey in the recent years.

III. Hypotheses of the Study

Our study has four hypotheses, which is based on the argument that organizational structure in Turkey’s accommodation enterprises does not reflect division of labor and specialization:

Hypothesis 1:

H0 = Managers in Turkey’s accommodation enterprises, who function as the main spine of sector, do not have sufficient qualifications regarding their positions.

H1 = Managers in Turkey’s accommodation enterprises, who function as the main spine of sector, do have sufficient qualifications regarding their positions.

Hypothesis 2:

H0= Specialization has not developed in the sector.

H1= Specialization has developed in the sector.

Hypothesis 3:

H0 = Employees working under a senior do not have qualifications necessitated by their jobs.

H1 = Employees working under a senior do have qualifications necessitated by their jobs.

Hypothesis 4:

H0 = Attempts to improve the qualification and efficiency of employees are not undertaken duly.

H1 = Attempts to improve the qualification and efficiency of employees are undertaken duly.

IV. Scope, Limitations and Methodology of the Study

In Turkey, it is a known fact that 79% of tourism products are related to hotel-management on the coastline and 21% are related to city hotels in central parts (Republic of Turkey Ministry of Culture and Tourism General Directorate of Investment and Enterprises, 2005). Within this framework, sample plan (selection) is applied to reflect the mentioned structure.

The cost of sampling is also high, as it is thought that face-to-face interviews yield more dependable data collection rather than applying the questionnaires through mail or e-mails. High cost of sampling makes it impossible for the study to cover whole Turkey. This is why the sample generally represents Istanbul and Izmir. In other words, study concentrates mostly on the managers of 4 and 5 star hotels, accommodation establishments and travel enterprises generally located in Istanbul and Izmir. Several managers in hotels, accommodation establishments and travel enterprises are analyzed to test the organizational structures.

According to the statistics of 2005, total number of accommodation establishments in Turkey which are investment and tourism licensed is 3451. There are a total of 394 accommodation establishments in Istanbul, which are classified as both qualified and unqualified. Among them, 339 are hotels. On the other hand, Izmir has a total of 180 accommodation establishments, which are classified as both qualified and unqualified. Among them, 139 are hotels (Republic of Turkey Ministry of Culture and Tourism General Directorate of Investment and Enterprises, 2005).

Then, the data of 2006 indicate that, there are 3344 investment and tourism licensed accommodation establishments in Turkey (Republic of Turkey Ministry of Culture and Tourism Directorate of Strategy Development Department, 2006). Also, total number of accommodation establishments in Istanbul for 2006 is 407. 268 of these are hotels. Concerning Izmir, the total quantity of accommodation establishments is 174 (Turistik Otelciler, İşletmeciler ve Yatırımcılar Birliği, 2006). The number of hotels in Izmir for 2006 is 168 (Yanardağ and Yanardağ, 2009).

Plus, in line with the statistics of 2007, total number of accommodation establishments which are investment and tourism licensed is 3290. Generally, 414 accommodation establishments exist in Istanbul, which are classified as both qualified and unqualified. 348 of the mentioned accommodation establishments located in Istanbul are hotels. Concerning Izmir, 181 accommodation establishments exist, which are classified as both qualified and unqualified (Republic of Turkey Ministry of Culture and Tourism General Directorate of Investment and Enterprises, 2007). Number of hotels in Izmir for 2007 is 126 (Çetik, 2007).

Concerning the statistics of 2008, total number of accommodation establishments which are investment and tourism licensed is 3338 (Turkish Tourism Investors Association, 2008). Also, total number of accommodation establishments in Istanbul is 341 (Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality, 2008). Among them, 284 are hotels (Turistik Otelciler, İşletmeciler ve Yatırımcılar Birliği, 2008). Also, the number of accommodation establishments in Izmir for 2008 is 180 (Turizm Gazetesi, 2008).

After that, parallel to the data of 2005, total number of travel agencies in Turkey is 4493 (TURSAB, 2006) and the total number of licensed food and beverage enterprises is 1044 (Republic of Turkey Ministry of Culture and Tourism General Directorate of Investment and Enterprises, 2005). In regards to 2006, travel agencies all around Turkey are approximately 4500 (Kozak, 2007). Plus, total number of licensed food and beverage enterprises is 1030 (Republic of Turkey Ministry of Culture and Tourism, 2006). Concerning 2007, the total number of travel agencies in Turkey is 5184 (TURSAB, 2007). Also, the sum of all licensed food and beverage companies in the country is 937 (Republic of Turkey Ministry of Culture and Tourism, 2007). Then, travel agencies all around Turkey for 2008 is 5672 (TURSAB, 2008). In addition, total number of licensed food and beverage enterprises for 2008 is 926. (Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı, 2008). These figures represent the universal set of our research, which was initiated in 2008.

Questionnaires used for this study are distributed to 222 managers of the tourism sector. 183 managers in accommodation enterprises, 22 managers in travel firms and 17 managers in food and beverage companies are interviewed face-to-face and questionnaire forms are filled. 149 of accommodation, food and beverage facilities are located in Istanbul, 45 in Izmir and 6 in other cities of Turkey. Additionally, a total of 22 travel agency managers did take the questionnaires. 20 of them do work for a travel agency located in Istanbul, 1 in Izmir and 1 in Antalya. Our study is restricted with the mentioned establishments (See Figure 4.1, Appendix).

Following that, questionnaire used by the study is distributed to 5.2% of hotels in Turkey. This is a limiting factor for the study’s representation. However, transfer of labor (employee turnover) is high in the tourism sector (Selvi and Demir, 2007), coastline hotel business is seasonal (Paşamehmetoğlu, 2005) and study generally concentrates on big cities such as Istanbul and Izmir. These are advantageous factors although the study’s representation is restricted.

The questionnaire includes a total of 52 questions. The first 8 questions require information about the managers and the following 8 questions require information about their organization. The remaining 36 questions test if the managers are in a fitting position and if they use the authority duly. 12 of the mentioned questions are about organizational structure, 15 are related to the general efficiency of managers and 9 measure the efficiency of managers (See Figure 4.2, Appendix).

Finally, study uses the SPSS 11.5 pack software for the analysis of questionnaire responses. Results are originally obtained as frequency tables and cross-tables.

V. Study Results

The results of study are evaluated under two categories. The first category is results about enterprises and the second category is results about managers.

Results about Enterprises

First of all, questionnaires are applied to 183 accommodation enterprises, 22 travel agencies and 17 food and beverage firms, which are generally located in Istanbul and Izmir. 20 of the travel agencies have class A operational licenses. 16 of the food and beverage firms are first-class and 1 is exclusive (luxury). 28 of the accommodation enterprises have 5 stars, 77 have 4 stars, 43 have 3 stars, 17 have 2 stars and 9 are holiday villages.

Then, most of the enterprises are specialized. 74% have more than 5 departments. Those with less than 3 departments only account for 9% of the total sample.

Next, 34% of the enterprises are active for 11-15 years. This group is followed by the enterprises which are active for 1-5 years with a rate of 17%. Also, enterprises which are active for 6-10 years account for 15%. Concerning the enterprises which are active more than 20 years, they account for 14% of the total sample. One enterprise did not provide information about the number of years it is operating (See Table 5.1, Appendix).

After that, in 72% of enterprises, managers of a specific department do also hold the responsibility of other departments simultaneously. When managers are asked if they hold the responsibility of other departments, 159 say yes. However, 62 managers say no and state they are only responsible of their own departments. One manager did not provide feedback about the mentioned question (See Table 5.2, Appendix).

Besides, 4% of the enterprises do not have a general director. Enterprises which do not have an assistant general director account for 50%. Also, enterprises with two or more assistant general directors account for 11%.

Plus, 65% of employees work under one senior officer and 35% are responsible to multiple senior officers. The rate of employees who have a specific area of responsibility, but are responsible to another senior officer is 49% (See Figure 5.1, Appendix).

Managers who work in a department related to their specialty are less satisfied with the efficiency of employees, compared to managers who work in a department not related to their specialty. Following that, 70% of managers are satisfied with the efficiency of employees who are working under their responsibility. This corresponds to 155 managers taking our questionnaire. On the other hand 20% of managers are very satisfied with the efficiency of employees who are working under their responsibility. The number of managers who answered so is 44. Then, 13 managers are less satisfied with the efficiency of personnel under them and their valid percent is 6. Concerning managers who are extremely satisfied with the personnel employed under them, their frequency is 10 and valid percent is 4 (See Table 5.3, Appendix).

Managers also associate the low efficiency of employees to specific factors. The mentioned factors are listed below in order:

a. Low education

b. Low salary level

c. Lack of motivation

d. Problems in speaking foreign languages

e. Inadequate job qualification

f. Poor social benefits

g. Unfavorable job atmosphere

 

Managers and their firms carry out a series of activities to increase the efficiency of employees. The mentioned activities are listed below in order of priority:

a. Increasing motivation

b. Improving the job atmosphere

c. On-the-job training

d. Training within the enterprise

e. Satisfactory increase in salary

f. Improvement of social benefits

g. Short-term external training

h. Short-term training programs abroad

i. Long-term domestic training programs

j. Long-term training programs abroad


Activities such as salary increase and the improvement of social benefits are usually provided by enterprises which are active for 1-5 years. Results of our study show that, as the age of firms goes higher, the percentage of implemented training programs goes lower.

The most reported customer complaints about employees to managers were also examined. Below, most reported complaints of customers are listed in order:

a. Service delay

b. Lack of necessary attention

c. Problems in speaking foreign languages

d. Lack of genial treatment

e. Inexperience

f. Lack of positive attitude in human relations

g. Aggressiveness


Our study also shows that, complaints related to the inexperience of employees are frequently observed in two types of enterprises. These are enterprises which are active less than a year and enterprises that are active more than 25 years.

Also, we find that the problem concerning genial treatment becomes more frequent as enterprise gets older. Plus, 67% of enterprises evaluate their staff every year.

Furthermore, according to our study, staff evaluations run by the enterprises are used for promoting employees to higher positions and determining their wages. 60% of enterprises use staff evaluations for the mentioned purposes.

Additionally, our study points out that 54% of enterprises carry out manager evaluations. In other words, more than half of the firms do measure the performance of their managers. Some specific factors are considered as evaluation criteria to measure the performance and success of managers. The mentioned factors are listed below in order:

a. Number of customers 14.1%

b. Cost savings 14.0%

c. Attitude towards task and responsibilities 13.1%

d. Profitability 13.1%

e. Realization of budget estimates 11.8%

f. Personal traits 10.2%

g. Revenues 10.1%

h. Close relationship with senior management 7.5%

i. Following the policies set by senior management 6.1%

(See Figure 5.2, Appendix).

In regards to low-scale enterprises, criteria for evaluating the managers should be listed in the following order: Cost savings, number of customers and following the policies set by senior management. On the other hand, number of customers and cost savings take precedence in order for specialized enterprises.

Another eye-catching result of our study says that 60% of managers are affected by the evaluations. Also, 36% of managers are evaluated as very successful by their employees. However, managers who are evaluated as successful are represented with 62%. Moreover, according to the employees, most successful managers are 31-42 years old. Younger and older managers are considered to be less successful (See Figure 5.3, Appendix).

Results about Managers

One of the most important results about managers is that, most of them do belong to the 22-25 age group. The mentioned group approximately accounts for 60% of all managers. Managers belonging to higher age groups account for a lower percentage.

Also, 67% of managers are university graduates and 27% of them have high school degrees. The remaining 6% have an education level lower than high school degree. If we should express the education level of managers with numbers, 149 of them are university graduates, 59 have high school degrees and 14 do not have a high school diploma (See Table 5.4, Appendix).

Besides, 60% of the managers had training related to their specialty. The percentage of managers who had a minimum of 2 years training abroad related to their specialty is 7%.

In addition, the number of years managers worked in their specialty is listed below:

a. 0-5 years 18%

b. 6-10 years 22%

c. 11-15 years 27%

d. 16-20 years 21%

e. 21 years and more 12%

(See Figure 5.4, Appendix).

As easily observed, most of the managers worked in their specialty for 11-15 years. This group is followed by those who worked in their specialty for 6-10 years. Also, our study states that 95% of the managers speak a foreign language.

Then, 98% of the managers who have education in their specialty are working in a fitting position. Most of the managers are working for their recent business for 1-5 years. The mentioned managers account for 36%. Those who are working for their recent business for 6-10 years account for 26%. As the number of years managers work for their business go higher, their percentage in total sample goes lower.

Our study also indicates that, 95% of the managers work in a position and department fitting their specialty. 68% of managers undertake tasks and responsibilities that are not parallel to their specialty. Moreover, 62% of managers who have training in their specialty undertake tasks and responsibilities that are not relevant to their specialty. On the other hand, 76% of managers who have training in fields excluding their specialty undertake tasks and responsibilities that are not linked to their specialty.

We then find that, 70% of managers who are working in their specialty up to 15 years are university graduates. But, managers holding an undergraduate diploma and working in their specialty up to 16 years and more are 50%. Next, managers working up to 20 years in a specialty relevant to their training account for 71%. However, managers working up to 20 years in a specialty not relevant to their training account for 61.5%. The rates decrease as much as 40%, as working period for managers exceeds 20 years.

Plus, as the number of years managers work in their specialty increase, they make decisions more independently. 51% of managers who took our questionnaire said that, they make decisions more independently as their experience in a specialty go up.

After that, our study finds 58% of managers are charged with the responsibility of more than one department. 72% of enterprises charge a single manager for the responsibility of multiple departments. Also, as mentioned, more than half of the managers are charged with multiple departments. This suggests that there is not a full specialization in the sector and enterprises run their activities with insufficient numbers of managers.

Next, managers working in their specialty up to 20 years and holding the responsibility of other departments are represented with a rate of 60%. This rate becomes 50% for managers working more than 20 years. The mentioned rates show that, at least half of sector’s managers hold the responsibility of different departments.

Besides, our study underlines the fact that 72% of managers give their decisions parallel to the decisions of their seniors and the board of directors. Also, 51% of managers state that approval of their seniors is required for their decisions to be put in practice (See Figure 5.5, Appendix).

However, 78% of managers say they usually make independent decisions within their responsibility area. The rate of managers who sometimes make independent decisions within their responsibility area is 15%. Also, the ratio of managers who rarely make independent decisions within their responsibility area is 7%. If we should mention the numbers in addition to percentages, 173 managers usually make independent decisions within their responsibility area. In regards to managers who sometimes make independent decisions within their responsibility area, they are 33 in number. Then, 15 managers rarely make independent decisions within their responsibility area (See Table 5.5, Appendix).

According to our study, managers’ independent decision making rate in their responsibility area also increases parallel to their experience.

Following that, 85% of managers are independently authorized for the recruitment of new employees under them. This rate increases for managers who have higher experience in their specialty. For example, 63% of young managers are influential in recruitment of new employees under them. But this rate is 100% for old managers.

Also, 56% of managers think the number of employees working within their responsibility is sufficient. This percentage corresponds to 125 managers who took our questionnaire. On the other hand, according to 25% of the managers, employees working within their responsibility are partly sufficient in number. Expressing differently, 55 managers say employees working under them are only partly sufficient. But, 19% of managers believe that quantity of personnel working under their responsibility is insufficient. The mentioned managers are 42 in number (See Table 5.6, Appendix).

After that, 72% of young managers believe the number of employees working within their responsibility is sufficient. On the other hand, only 50% of old managers believe the number of employees working within their responsibility is sufficient. Generally speaking, almost half of all managers do not consider the number of their employees to be sufficient. Our study also finds that, managers and related authority are not completely independent in recruiting sufficient number of employees. In other words, sector is not operating with enough personnel.

Managers consider specific measures to increase the efficiency of employees working under their responsibility. The mentioned measures are listed below in order:

a. Recruiting employees suitable for the task

b. Increasing employee motivation

c. Improving the job atmosphere

d. Ensuring peace in the business

e. Educating employees via training programs that satisfy their needs

f. Making sure employees receive salaries fit for their jobs and positions

g. Improvement of social benefits

Another result of our study emphasizes that, the rate of managers working in a department related to their specialty and educating their employees via training programs is 19%. This percentage corresponds to 43 managers who took our questionnaire. On the opposite side, managers working in a department related to their specialty but not educating their employees via training programs is 81%. The mentioned percentage represents 179 managers who took part in our study (See Table 5.7, Appendix).

Next, the rate of managers not working in a department related to their specialty but educating their employees via training programs is only 10%. Then, we find that the rate of managers working in a department related to their specialty and improving the job atmosphere is 58%. On the other hand, the rate of managers working in a department not related to their specialty but improving the job atmosphere is only 36%. Additionally, according to our research, the rate of managers working in a department related to their specialty and ensuring peace in the business is 45%. But, the rate of managers working in a department not related to their specialty but still ensuring peace in the business is only 18%.

Plus, this paper finds that managers who work in a department related to their specialty consider specific factors to be the reason of employees’ lack of efficiency. The mentioned factors are in order low level of education (36.5%), insufficient salaries (28.7%) and lack of motivation (18%). On the opposite side, managers who do not work in a department related to their specialty do associate employees’ lack of efficiency generally with low levels of education (63.6%).

Moreover, managers who work in a department related to their specialty but not think that number of employees working under them is sufficient do associate employees’ lack of efficiency with insufficient salaries (42.5%), low level of education (35%) and lack of motivation (10%). On the other hand, managers who work in a department related to their specialty but think that number of employees working under them is sufficient do associate employees’ lack of efficiency with low level of education (41.4%), lack of motivation (20.2%) and insufficient salaries (19.2%).

Furthermore, customer complaints about employees are taken into consideration by 96% of the managers. Employees who are subject of the complaints are sacked in most circumstances.

Also, our research shows that 53% of managers inform and warn their employees about the complaints. In relation with this issue, 71% of managers do take necessary measures to solve the problems and correct the complained matters (See Figure 5.6, Appendix).

After that, 75% of managers measure and evaluate the performance of employees working under them. In other words, 75% of managers do assess the performance of their personnel who are under their responsibility and nobody else interferes in this process. Employee performance measurement and evaluation by managers is used for promotion and salary setting purposes with a rate of 64%.

We also asked managers to evaluate their performance through our study. 28% of managers consider themselves to be very successful. On the other hand, 69% of managers think they are slightly successful. Additionally, managers belonging to the age group of 31-42 consider themselves to be more successful compared to managers belonging to the age group of 22-30.

When employees measure and evaluate the performance of their managers who work in their specialty, we see that 62% of employees think their managers are generally successful. However, 36% of personnel believe their managers are very successful and 2% of employees feel their managers are unsuccessful. Besides, managers who are considered most successful are working for 11-15 years or 16-20 years. In relation with this, only 57% of managers who are working for 21 years and more are considered successful (See Figure 5.7, Appendix).

Then, when managers who work in their specialty are asked to measure and evaluate their performance, we see that managers employed for 16-20 years are recognized as the most successful group. 66% of managers belonging to this category think they are successful and 34% believe they are very successful.

However, managers who work in their specialty for 21 years and more do not have a very bright self evaluation. 69% of managers belonging to this age group think they are successful, while 28% consider they are very successful and 3% feel they are unsuccessful (See Figure 5.8, Appendix).

Generally, 98% of managers who work in departments fit for their specialty consider themselves to be successful. But for managers who do not work in departments fit for their specialty, the rate is 91%.

Following that, 39% of managers who have training abroad related to their specialty consider themselves as successful. However, among managers who do not have international training related to their specialty, the rate is 27%. In other words, only 27% of these managers think they are successful. Looking to the issue from the perspective of employees, performance of managers who have international training is almost equal to the performance of managers who lack any training abroad. This means, according to the employees, performance of these two different groups are nearly identical. Our study shows, in the eye of employees, managers not trained abroad surpass managers with international training by only 2% in performance.

Next, we find that managers with much employees working under them consider their performance to be higher. For example, our study indicates 67% of managers with large number of employees think they are successful. However, only 22% of managers with less volume of employees believe they are victorious. In other words, as the number of employees working under a manager goes up, rate of managers who consider that they are very successful also goes up accordingly.

Then, we find that there are some specific criteria and priorities for evaluating the performance of managers, who hold the responsibility of multiple departments. The mentioned criteria are number of customers (20.7%), cost savings (19.6%) and attitude towards task and responsibilities (14.1%). On the other hand, for managers not holding the responsibility of multiple departments, the criteria and priorities are number of customers (26.3%), attitude towards task and responsibilities (18.4%) and cost savings (15.8%).

VI. Conclusion

Most of the enterprises subject to this study are active for 11-15 years. But, a great majority of managers are working in their companies for 1-5 years. Thus, this paper defends that managers of the tourism sector do not work in the same enterprise for a long period.

Also, managers undertake tasks and responsibilities of different departments not relevant to their specialty. This is an important sign that companies of the tourism sector are tend to carry out more tasks with less managers.

Similarly, in 72% of enterprises, a single manager is charged with the responsibility of multiple departments. At this point we conclude that, the tourism sector lacks full specialization and companies are running their activities with insufficient number of managers.

Then, 72% of managers make their decision parallel to the wish of seniors and board of directors, and 51% of managers need the approval of a senior for the implementation of their decision. So, we reach to a general conclusion that, managers of the tourism sector are not able to make their decision independently.

After that, customer complaints about employees are generally focused on service delay, lack of necessary attention and problems in speaking foreign languages. The mentioned complaints confirm that employees of tourism sector do not have the required qualifications.

Definitely, conclusions regarding the hypothesis of our study are also very important. For instance, in regards to hypothesis 1 of this paper, H0 is rejected and H1 is accepted. This means, managers in Turkey’s accommodation enterprises, who function as the main spine of sector, do have sufficient qualifications regarding their positions. However, they are not efficient in using their authority.

In contrast to hypothesis 1, H0 is accepted and H1 is rejected for hypothesis 2. This means, specialization has not developed in the sector. Managers are charged with tasks and responsibilities not relevant to their specialty, and employees are responsible to multiple senior officers. All these underline the fact that specialization has not developed in the tourism industry.

Hypothesis 3 reflects an identical result, since H0 is accepted and H1 is rejected. In other words, employees working under a senior do not have qualifications necessitated by their jobs. Related with this, managers associate the low efficiency of employees to specific factors. The leading factor here is low education. Also, for increasing the efficiency of employees, managers do first consider recruiting employees suitable for the task. These support our argument, which emphasizes that personnel working under a senior do lack qualifications required by their job. Currently, the number of universities and institutions is increasing in Turkey (NetHaber, 2009). Thus, the presence of employees who lack qualifications signals some important issues. Companies are making incorrect employee selections, hiring inappropriate personnel and they do prefer cheap labor.

Finally, for hypothesis 4, H0 is accepted and H1 is rejected. This means, attempts to improve the qualification and efficiency of employees are not undertaken duly. Both the enterprises and managers take measures such as improving the job atmosphere, ensuring peace in the business, providing on-the-job training and increasing motivation of the employees. However, implementations such as enabling employees to take advantage of training programs, increasing personnel salaries and improving the social benefits are less frequent.

 

APPENDIX


Table 2.1

Average Spending of Tourists in Turkey (2002-2008)

Source: Table generated by authors using data from the Republic of Turkey Ministry of Culture and Tourism Website (2008) and Republic of Turkey Ministry of Culture and Tourism General Directorate of Investment and Enterprises (2005).
 

 

Figure 4.1.: Distribution of Managers Taking the Questionnaire

 

Figure 4.2.: Structure of the Questionnaire

 

Table 5.1

Frequency and Valid Percent of Years the Enterprises are Operating

 

Table 5.2

Frequency and Valid Percent of Managers who Hold the Responsibility of Other Departments

Figure 5.1.: Responsibility Structure of the Employees

 

Table 5.3

Frequency and Valid Percent of Managers’ Satisfaction Level about the Efficiency of Employees Working Under Their Responsibility


 

Figure 5.2.: Factors Considered to Measure the Performance and Success of Managers

 

Figure 5.3.: Influence Rate of Evaluations on the Managers

 

Table 5.4

Frequency and Valid Percent of Managers’ Education Level

 

Figure 5.4.: Percentage of Number of Years Managers Worked in Their Specialty

 

Figure 5.5.: Parallelism of Manager Decisions to the Decisions of Seniors and Board of Directors

 

Table 5.5

Frequency and Valid Percent of Managers’ Independent Decision Making within Their Responsibility Area

 

Table 5.6

Frequency and Valid Percent of Managers’ Viewpoint about the Number of Employees within Their Responsibility

 

Table 5.7

Frequency and Valid Percent of Managers’ Training Program Implementations who Work in a Department Related to Their Specialty

 

Figure 5.6.: Percentage of Managers Informing and Warning Their Employees about the Complaints

 

Figure 5.7.: Employees’ Evaluation about the Performance of Managers who Work in their Specialty
 

 

Figure 5.8.: Self Evaluation of Managers who Work in their Specialty for 20 years and more

 


REFERENCES (BIBLIOGRAPHY)

    1-Akar, H. and Karamanbüyük, E. (2006). “Turizm Sektörü”, Gazi Üniversitesi Websitesi, Retrieved June 2, 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://websitem.gazi.edu.tr/tayfun/DosyaIndir?DosyaNo=211c305be51e62aa20d7011b3bd2ca61.

    2-Akoğlan, M. (1998). “Turizm Sektöründe İnsan Kaynakları Seçim Yöntemleri”, Anatolia Turizm Araştırmaları Dergisi, 9 (1-2), p. 29.

    3-Aktaş, A, Aksu, A. A, Cengiz, A. and Ehtiyar, R. (1999). “Konaklama Sektöründe İnsan Gücü Araştırması ve Antalya Örneği”, Kültür Turizmi Semineri, Zonguldak Üniversitesi Safranbolu Meslek Yüksekokulu, Safranbolu, p. 124.

    4-Aşıkoğlu, Ş. (1997). “Konaklama Sektöründeki Personelin İş Tatmini Analizi (Magosa Bölgesi Örneği)”, Anatolia Turizm Araştırmaları Dergisi, Yıl: 8, p. 38.

    5-Culture and Tourism Magazine. (2010). “Izmir is the Land of Lovely People ”, Culture and Tourism Magazine, Year: 1, Edition: 3, p. 33.

    6-Çetik, A. (2007). “İzmir’de 1 Ayda 5 Otel Açıldı.” Milliyet Gazetesi Websitesi, Retrieved July 22, 2009 from the World Wide Web:
    http://www.milliyet.com.tr/2007/04/03/son/sonyas10.asp.

    7-Dwyer, L. M., Forsyth P. and Spurr, R. (2004). “Evaluating Tourism’s Economic Effects: New and Old Approaches”, Tourism Management, Number: 25, p.310.

    8-Güneş, H. (2009). “Turizm Gelirleri Yüzde 5 Azaldı, Giderleri Yüzde 38 Arttı!”, Milliyet Gazetesi, Retrieved November 13, 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://www.milliyet.com.tr/Yazar.aspx?aType=YazarDetay&ArticleID=1156064&AuthorID=56&Date=30.10.2009.

    9-Gürsoy, B. and Ceylan, C. (2006). “Dış Ticaret Açıklarını Kapatmada Turizm Gelirleri ve Turizm Sektörü Açısından Analizi”, III. Lisansüstü Turizm Öğrencileri Kongresi Bildiri Kitabı, Çanakkale-Türkiye, p.506.

    10-Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality. (2008). “Exploring the City - Istanbul in Numbers”. Website of İstanbul Metropolitan Munipality, Retrieved August 16, 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://www.ibb.gov.tr/sites/ks/en-US/0-Exploring-The-City/Location/Pages/IstanbulinNumbers.aspx.

    11-Kar, M., Zorkirişçi, E. and Yıldırım, M. (2004). “Turizmin Ekonomiye Katkısı Üzerine Ampirik Bir Değerlendirme”, Akdeniz İ.İ.B.F. Dergisi, Number: 8, p.1.

    12-Kozak, N. (2007). “Transformation of Tourism Distribution Channels: Implications of e-Commerce for Turkish Travel Agencies”, Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, Volume: 15, Issue: 2, p.95.

    13-NetHaber. (2009). “Türkiye’deki Üniversite Sayısı 139’a Çıktı”, NetHaber Websitesi, Retrieved January 8, 2010 from the World Wide Web: http://www.nethaber.com/Ekonomi/107968/Turkiyedeki-universite-sayisi-139a-cikti.

    14-Paşamehmetoğlu, A. (2005). “Total Quality Management in Hospitality Sector”, Bilkent University Website, Retrieved December 19, 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://www.satm.bilkent.edu.tr/~aysin/TQM%20DERS%208.ppt.

    15-Republic of Turkey Ministry of Culture and Tourism. (2007). “Tourism Receipts & Expenditures, GNI & GDP, Exports & Imports, Average Spending 2007”, Republic of Turkey Ministry of Culture and Tourism Website, Retrieved June 1, 2009 from the World Wide Web:
    http://www.kultur.gov.tr/EN/Genel/dg.ashx?DIL=2&BELGEANAH=83987&DOSYAISIM=gelirgider.rar.

    16-Republic of Turkey Ministry of Culture and Tourism. (2008). “Tourism Receipts & Expenditures, GNI & GDP, Exports & Imports, Average Spending 2008”, Republic of Turkey Ministry of Culture and Tourism Website, Retrieved June 2, 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://www.kultur.gov.tr/EN/Genel/dg.ashx?DIL=2&BELGEANAH=83987&DOSYAISIM=gelirgider2008.rar.

    17-Republic of Turkey Ministry of Culture and Tourism. (2006). “Tourism Statistics, Ministry Licensed Establishments”, Republic of Turkey Ministry of Culture and Tourism Website, Retrieved October 10, 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://www.kultur.gov.tr/EN/Genel/dg.ashx?DIL=2&BELGEANAH=83798&DOSYAISIM=belgelitesisist2006.rar.

    18-Republic of Turkey Ministry of Culture and Tourism. (2007). “Tourism Statistics, Ministry Licensed Establishments”, Republic of Turkey Ministry of Culture and Tourism Website, Retrieved December 11, 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://www.kultur.gov.tr/EN/Genel/dg.ashx?DIL=2&BELGEANAH=83798&DOSYAISIM=tibtesis2007.rar.

    19-Repuclic of Turkey Ministry of Culture and Tourism Directorate of Strategy Development Department. (2006). “Number of Tourism Licensed Accommodation Establishments by Types and Classes”, Republic of Turkey Ministry of Culture and Tourism Directorate of Strategy Development Department Website, Retrieved July 3, 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://sgb.kulturturizm.gov.tr/Genel/DosyaGoster.aspx?BELGEANAH=213516&DIL=1&DOSYAISIM=15.xls.

    20-Republic of Turkey Ministry of Culture and Tourism General Directorate of Investment and Enterprises. (2005). “Accommodation Statistics”, p.19, 21, 23, 24, 45.

    21-Republic of Turkey Ministry of Culture and Tourism General Directorate of Investment and Enterprises. (2007). “Accommodation Statistics”, p.21, 26.

    22-Republic of Turkey Ministry of Culture and Tourism General Directorate of Investment and Enterprises. (2005). “Tourism Statistics”, p.132.

    23-Republic of Turkey Ministry of Culture and Tourism General Directorate of Investment and Enterprises. (2005). “Tourism Statistics, Licenced Facilities”, p.11, 16, 24, 35, 69.

    24-Republic of Turkey Ministry of Culture and Tourism General Directorate of Investment and Enterprises. (2007). “Tourism Statistics, Licenced Facilities”, p.11, 25, 26, 38.

    25-Selvi, M. S. and Demir, C. (2007). “Relationship Among Branding, Career Development and Tourism Education: An Implication from Turkey”, Ege Academic Review, Volume: 7, Issue: 2, p. 394.

    26-TRT World. (2009). “Turkey’s Tourism Revenues on Rise”, Turkish Radio - Television Corporation Official Website, Retrieved June 1, 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://www.trt-world.com/trtinternational/en/newsDetail.aspx?HaberKodu=945daed4-e9e2-409f-98b7-19209342e687.

    27-Turistik Otelciler, İşletmeciler ve Yatırımcılar Birliği. (2006). “İstanbul’daki Konaklama Tesisleri (2006/08)”, Turistik Otelciler, İşletmeciler ve Yatırımcılar Birliği Websitesi, Retrieved July 3, 2009 from the World Wide Web:
    http://www.turob.com/images/Hotels/2006861312192006-8%20KONAKLAMA%20TESİSLERİ.htm.

    28-Turistik Otelciler, İşletmeciler ve Yatırımcılar Birliği. (2008). “İstanbul Konaklama Tesis Kapasitesi - 2008”, “Turistik Otelciler, İşletmeciler ve Yatırımcılar Birliği Websitesi”, Retrieved August 16, 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://www.turob.com/images/Hotels/200869175126istanbul-yatak%20kapasitesi%2001.06.2008.pdf.

    29-Turistik Otelciler, İşletmeciler ve Yatırımcılar Birliği. (2006). “Otellere Geliş Sayısı, Geceleme, Ortalama Kalış Süresi ve Doluluk Oranlarının Aylara Göre Dağılımı (2003-4-5-6) TÜRKİYE”, Turistik Otelciler, İşletmeciler ve Yatırımcılar Birliği Websitesi, Retrieved June 16, 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://www.turob.com/images/Hotels/200797181632003-4-5-6%20Doluluk%20Oranları%20-%20TÜRKİYE.xls.


    30-Turistik Otelciler, İşletmeciler ve Yatırımcılar Birliği. (2006). “Türkiye Geneli Konaklama Tesisleri - 31.12.2006 Tarihi İtibariyle”, Turistik Otelciler, İşletmeciler ve Yatırımcılar Birliği Websitesi, Retrieved July 3, 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://www.turob.com/images/Hotels/2007817122538Tesis%20(Tür-Sınıf)(İller)(2006).xls.

    31-Turizm Gazetesi. (2008). “İzmir’de Tesis Sayısı Azalırken Yatak Sayısı Arttı”, Turizm Gazetesi Websitesi, Retrieved August 15, 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://www.turizmgazetesi.com/news/news.aspx?id=52194.

    32-TurkEconomy. (2008). “Cheap Hotels in Turkey - Turkey is Becoming a Destination for Low-Class Tourists”, TurkEconomy Website, Retrieved June 6, 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://turkeconomy.blogspot.com/2008/08/cheap-hotels-in-turkey.html.

    33-Turkish Tourism Investors Association. (2008). “Accomodation Establishments Licensed by the Tourism Ministry”, Website of Turkish Tourism Investors Association, Retrieved August 14, 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://www.ttyd.org.tr/en/page.aspx?id=157.

    34-Turkish Tourism Investors Association. (2008). “Share of Tourism Receipts in GDP and Export Revenues”, Turkish Tourism Investors Association Website, Retrieved June 2, 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://www.ttyd.org.tr/en/page.aspx?id=154.

    35-TURSAB (Türkiye Seyahat Acentaları Birliği). (2008). “Göstergeler - Seyahat Acentaları Sayısı”, TURSAB (Türkiye Seyahat Acentaları Birliği) Websitesi, Retrieved December 11, 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://www.tursab.org.tr/content/turkish/istatistikler/gostergeler/ACENTASAYI.asp.

    36-TURSAB (Türkiye Seyahat Acentaları Birliği). (2006). “Seyahat Acentalarına İlişin Sayısal Veriler”, TURSAB (Türkiye Seyahat Acentaları Birliği) Websitesi, Retrieved September 12, 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://www.tursab.org.tr/content/turkish/istatistikler/gostergeler/ACENTASAYI.asp.

    37-TURSAB (Türkiye Seyahat Acentaları Birliği). (2007). “TURSAB”, TURSAB (Türkiye Seyahat Acentaları Birliği) Websitesi, Retrieved November 2, 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://www.tursab.org.tr/content/english/home/.

    38-Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı. (2008). “Turizm Belgeli Tesisler - İşletme ve Yatırım Belgeli Tesis İstatistikleri 2008”, Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı Websitesi, Retrieved December 11, 2009 from the World Wide Wed: http://www.kultur.gov.tr/TR/Genel/BelgeGoster.aspx?F6E10F8892433CFF2B81939FD5B60AFAA85B8E20CBC69487.

    39-Wood, L. (2010). “Research and Markets: International Tourists’ Arrivals in Turkey has Increased by 2.7% in 2009 Over 2008 as Compare to Negative Growth Faced by World Tourism Industry Says New Report”, BusinessWire News, 2010, Retrieved January 30, 2010 from the World Wide Web, http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/dallasnews/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20100125006512&newsLang=en.

    40-Yanardağ, A. A. and Yanardağ, M. Ö. (2009). “İzmir’de Turizm Çeşitleri ve Turizm Yatırımları İhtiyaç Analizi”, İzmir Kalkınma Ajansı Yayınları (Publications of Izmir Development Agency), p. 42.