After receiving feedback for the problem, I have decided to use the concepts behind the Thomas-Kilmann conflict model to resolve this issue.
Firstly, the “accommodating” mode should be adopted to restore the relationship between the guest and the hotel. The hotel should be more understanding as the guest may be looking forward to dining in the restaurant after being told that breakfast was included. Therefore, when being denied of access, it is inevitable that he will be frustrated. As a method to apologise, the guest should be compensated with free breakfast at the restaurant.
While the Guest Service Officer (GSO) should adhere to the standard operating procedures of changing the code accordingly, I feel that I should also be more meticulous while performing my task. Instead of only paying attention to the code number, I should also venture into the notes or traces section to make sure no important information was being missed out. Additionally, when a disparity was spotted between the standardised code and notes, I should have called the GSO for verification. These extra precautions will allow me to ensure that I am providing the correct information to guests, preventing similar problem from happening again.
(197 words)
Hi Jia Yun
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting that you have found a solution to tackle the miscommunication issue with both the guest and GSO. I wonder how effective TKI would be in resolving that free breakfast and how "collaborating" fits into this scenario? Keep in mind others may have been affected as well and setting the precedence of FREE breakfast for all may not be the hotel's SOP in the event of such an error?
The actual source of the miscommunication is a breakdown in the channel used (useful to check out the transactional model). A check may have been necessary (or required) to ascertain the actual breakfast status. Your peers have pointed this out and you have acknowledged it.
Good job, overall!