Kennisbank

Stakeholders in hospitality: who feels your policy, who decides on it

A sector with two faces

Hospitality is one of the few sectors in which almost everyone has direct experience with the business itself. A guest, a neighbour of a terrace, a supplier who delivers early in the morning: they all have an image of the business built up from short, personal moments. That makes the sector vulnerable in a specific way. Where in other sectors the distance between management and the outside world is large, in hospitality that distance is small, but the power to change something often still lies with a small number of people: an owner, a chain head office, a landlord of the property. Most of the visible relationship runs through staff at the counter or at the table; most of the decisions do not.

That relationship, between who experiences the business and who decides about it, is precisely where tension arises. A guest who has a complaint about hygiene, noise or pricing policy rarely speaks with the person who set that policy. A local resident reporting a nuisance speaks with an employee who has no mandate to commit to anything. Anyone who fails to recognise that difference risks assuming internally that the relationship with the surroundings is good, while the people who matter have never spoken to the right person.

Who comes into view

In hospitality, several lines usually run alongside each other. Guests and regular customers form the most visible group, but their influence often works indirectly, through reviews, repeat visits or word of mouth. Local residents and the municipality form a second line, especially around permits, noise and opening hours; anyone who needs a structured view of what plays a role there will find starting points in what you want to know from local residents. Staff form a third line that is easily underestimated: in a sector with a lot of turnover and many young employees, knowledge of what guests actually say often sits on the floor, not in a report. Suppliers, franchisors and property owners form a fourth line that rarely sits at the table in conversations about reputation, but does help determine what a business can promise and deliver on.

The order in which these parties exert influence differs from one establishment to another and from chain to independent business. What is often the same: the party that shouts loudest is not automatically the party that weighs heaviest for the continuity of the business.

Why this differs from other sectors

In sectors with a technical or financial core, such as the ICT sector or financial services, the distance between management and the outside world is often greater, but there is more time and structure to bridge that distance. In hospitality, trust, or the loss of it, happens in the moment: at the bar, at the door, in a complaint that is not picked up. There is little room for a delayed response. That is a different rhythm than in capital-intensive sectors such as the energy sector or the real estate sector, where relationships with the surroundings build up over years around projects. Compared to the agricultural sector too, where the relationship with the surroundings often spans generations, hospitality is a sector of short cycles: a new owner, a different concept, a staff change, and the image among guests and neighbourhood shifts.

The image that comes in

The first question is not what guests or local residents actually think. We do not make that claim here: we do not measure what a stakeholder thinks, we measure what management believes is going on, against what is being said externally. In hospitality that difference is often large, because signals from guests and staff come up through informal channels, or do not come up at all. An owner who thinks the relationship with the neighbourhood is stable may be right. That owner may also be sailing on an image that is three years old and has never been adjusted.

That is also where the biggest risk to trust lies. A small commitment that is not honoured, such as an adjusted closing time after a complaint, or a promise about noise at a terrace, weighs more heavily in practice than the absence of a large investment. Guests and neighbours do not remember what did not happen on a large scale; they remember what was promised and not kept. That is the reason why following up on commitments and repeatedly gauging signals have more value than a single good conversation.

From who you talk to, to what that work costs

Once it is clear with whom a conversation should be held, about permits, about complaints, about the tone at the bar, a follow-up question naturally arises: who in the organisation does that work now, and how much time does it actually take. Keeping track of signals, checking in with staff, reporting back to local residents or the municipality, these are tasks that often no one has been fully assigned. The werkscan from FTE TO AI calculates per task which part of that work can be taken over by AI, making it clear where working hours are currently going and where room arises to deploy them on the conversation itself, instead of on its administration.