The Hotel-Guest Dialectic
Albert BarraAugust 13, 2018 · 3 min read
I do not know whether you are familiar with dialectics. Its importance has been vital throughout the history of thought. From the Greek thinkers Plato and Aristotle to Marx and Hengels (do not be alarmed), via Kant and Hegel and right up to the present day, dialectics has represented a way of advancing thought.
Its strategy is very simple. We start with a theory or thesis that explains part of reality (social, economic, natural, historical...). While this thesis stands alone, there is no problem; however, another thinker may introduce an opposing theory, an antithesis, seeking to overturn the original thesis and explain the same reality through different assumptions and statements, yet with equally sound arguments. We have a problem: which one do we choose? Dialectics proposes that we choose neither, but instead confront the two—the thesis and antithesis—and produce a new theory as a result: the synthesis, a new explanation that takes the best from each.
Now let us imagine applying this to hotel-guest relations. What normally happens is that the hotel has a series of theories or theses (making a great deal of money with low costs may be the best summary), while the guest has an antithesis (enjoying everything while spending little or nothing). The usual outcome is a synthesis (I set reasonable prices and provide an appropriate service), in which both parties gain and compromise in equal measure.
The situation described is fairly simple and starts from premises we might call “perfect competition”, to borrow an economic term, in which both parties behave as expected. The problem is that this is not usually the case.
Curiously, when it comes to reducing costs, we tend to dig deeper into our theses instead of keeping in mind the synthesis that supposedly exists implicitly. Thus, the first cut is always made to service quality, to human resources. Thinking in a triangular way, as Charles Handy puts it, means being predisposed to do so. Acting in such a way that the third way—the way of consensus—is the right one implies that we are convinced that this is so.
Hotel-guest relations are, to use hyperbolic reasoning, power relations in which each party seeks to minimise losses and maximise gains. Only if we are able to understand that this is impossible can we build a win-win relationship in which both parties feel they have won. What is more, if one party has to give more than the other, it should be the hotel, since it must achieve an additional objective beyond the sale: loyalty. And this can only be achieved if the guest feels they have received value greater than what they have paid.
Let us remember that dialectical relationships are relationships which, when properly implemented and managed, seek and achieve progress and improvement, benefiting both parties. Consider whether your relationships are dialectical and whether your guests feel they gain more than they give. It is a good starting point for launching a winning strategy.
Now let us imagine applying this to hotel-guest relations. What normally happens is that the hotel has a series of theories or theses (making a great deal of money with low costs may be the best summary), while the guest has an antithesis (enjoying everything while spending little or nothing). The usual outcome is a synthesis (I set reasonable prices and provide an appropriate service), in which both parties gain and compromise in equal measure.
The situation described is fairly simple and starts from premises we might call “perfect competition”, to borrow an economic term, in which both parties behave as expected. The problem is that this is not usually the case.
Curiously, when it comes to reducing costs, we tend to dig deeper into our theses instead of keeping in mind the synthesis that supposedly exists implicitly. Thus, the first cut is always made to service quality, to human resources. Thinking in a triangular way, as Charles Handy puts it, means being predisposed to do so. Acting in such a way that the third way—the way of consensus—is the right one implies that we are convinced that this is so.
Hotel-guest relations are, to use hyperbolic reasoning, power relations in which each party seeks to minimise losses and maximise gains. Only if we are able to understand that this is impossible can we build a win-win relationship in which both parties feel they have won. What is more, if one party has to give more than the other, it should be the hotel, since it must achieve an additional objective beyond the sale: loyalty. And this can only be achieved if the guest feels they have received value greater than what they have paid.
Let us remember that dialectical relationships are relationships which, when properly implemented and managed, seek and achieve progress and improvement, benefiting both parties. Consider whether your relationships are dialectical and whether your guests feel they gain more than they give. It is a good starting point for launching a winning strategy.