Essay about Four Seasons Goes to Paris

Words: 3130
Pages: 13

Four Seasons Goes to Paris:
"53 Properties, 24 Countries, 1 Philosophy"


November 27, 2005

Four Seasons Hotel and Resorts (FSH) always prided itself on being the choice for a luxury hotel experience. Since its inception date in 1960, FSH expanded its renowned services to include the current number of 67 hotels in 30 different countries with continued expansion in progress. FSH attributed its success to its organizational culture, which did, and continues to embody, the dedication to great service and luxury hospitality. Part of this culture is to recognize that the employees are the key to success, and that in following the "Golden Rule", do unto others, as you would have them do unto you, an atmosphere of fairness,
…show more content…
Both French and North American culture have distinct characteristics that could cause conflict and stress in the employee-employer relationship considering the French national pride for their culture. In the case of the workers some of the major differences between both cultures that the firm needed to face were: (1) Not confrontational culture: French culture is not confrontational. Iit tends to be more nurturing-oriented and more concerned about keeping good relationships. French were said to be polychromic, valuing human relationships and interactions over arbitrary schedules and appointments. The French culture contrasted the North American monochromic culture, in part based on its philosophy around complying with the standards, obligations, appointments and a high level of service quality to produce a structured work environment that catered to the needs of the customer. Performance appraisals through constructive criticism delivered evaluation tools to the North American culture that the French culture was not accustomed to. This could lead to a motivational problem between the staff and management if not dealt properly. Performance recognition was not part of French employer normal behaviors and they were more commonly used to qualify personnel on a basis of favoritism rather than meritocracy. (2) Power distance: French