小企业的招聘与培训人力资源外文文献及翻译大学论文

Recruitment and training in small firms

Abstract

The hospitality and tourism industries are two of the fastest growing and most dynamic sectors of the UK economy. Both industries are highly labour intensive and, because of this, the effective management of human resources is critical to their success. A defining characteristic of these industries is the high incidence of small firms. The issue of training in the small business sector in general has been neglected by academics and management specialists and this is also the case specifically in tourism and hospitality. This article goes some way to address this gap in knowledge and examines the recruitment and training practices of small tourism and hospitality firms. The issues examined include sources of recruitment, the extent to which small tourism and hospitality firms had training plans and training budgets, participation, and evaluation of training.

Keyword(s):

Recruitment; Training; Small firms; Hospitality; Tourism.

Background

Small firms and training

Although definitions of small firms have been extensively debated, there is no disagreement that the most commonly found tourism or hospitality enterprise is small (Thomas, 1998). To date, very little research has been conducted in these organisations. This is no surprise and as Matlay argues:

The issue of training in the small business sector of the British economy has largely been neglected by academic researchers and human resource planning, development and management specialists who, until recently, were content to suggest solutions which were more relevant to the businesses strategies of larger firms (Matlay, 1996, p. 648).

This is supported by Johnson and Gubbins (1992, pp. 28-9) who suggest that:relatively little is known about the extent, nature and determinants of training in small and medium-sized businesses, either on a national or on a local basis.

It is argued that with the growth of tourism and hospitality and the importance of human resources within them this neglect should not continue.

Research conducted in hospitality and tourism firms of all sizes has discovered that informality and a relatively unsophisticated management style characterise the approach taken towards recruitment and training (Goldsmith et al., 1997; Price, 1994; Lucas, 1995; Baum, 1995). Research on recruitment and training in small firms in general (Jameson, 1998) has also indicated that an informal approach towards the management of human resources is the norm in these firms. One of the major themes in small business literature has been the examination of the informality of relations between employers and employees. A correlation has been found to exist between the size of firm and level of formality in various sectors of the economy (see, for example, Scott et al. (1989); Curran et al. (1993)). Research conducted specifically in hospitality firms (Price, 1994, p. 49) found that:

one of the main findings from the survey was the importance of the relationship between establishment size and employment practices … there was a strong correlation between size and the extent to which establishments had introduced personnel policies, procedures or other arrangements which met the requirements of employment law.

The significance of this relationship cannot be underestimated and must be borne in mind when interpreting the results on recruitment and training in the small firms in the sample.

Any meaningful analysis of recruitment and training cannot be undertaken without some understanding of the labour market within which small tourism and hospitality firms operate. Much effort has been expended developing theoretical models of the labour market. As far as the tourism and hospitality industries are concerned one of the most useful theories is dual labour market theory. Goldsmith et al. (1997) summarize this succinctly. Dual labour market theory proposes that the total labour market can be segmented. One section is the primary labour market, where jobs tend to be supplied by large, highly profitable firms with a high capital to labour ratio and high productivity. Here, production is usually large scale with high investment in technology. Employment in these firms is normally stable with relatively high skill and wage levels. In this context, there are normally opportunities for training. The secondary labour market is normally characterised by small firms with low capital to labour ratio, low productivity and small scale production. In these firms, wage and skill levels tend to be low, employment is unstable and training opportunities are usually limited. Small tourism and hospitality firms normally tend to operate within the secondary labour market.

There are obvious relationships between recruitment and training. One relationship is where training can provide solutions to problems in the labour market. Campbell and Baldwin (1993) suggest that in many

industrialised countries there is a concern that skills shortages and mismatches are appearing in the labour market and that policy makers are aware that recruitment difficulties and skill shortages may reduce the competitiveness of small and large firms. Bradley and Taylor (1996) suggest that there is a growing awareness that education and training systems can influence the skill and occupational mix of a locality and local economic wellbeing. Another type of relationship is one where the level of recruitment affects the level of training. In tourism and hospitality, with their reliance on the secondary labour market and high rates of labour turnover, there is a strong tendency to have high levels of recruitment and low levels of training. The arguments being that either it is not worth investing in training or there simply is not time. Recruitment

Research on tourism and hospitality firms in general (i.e. not specifically small firms) refers to informal and unsystematic recruitment methods (Lucas and Boella, 1996). Others, who have carried out research into recruitment in small firms in general have found a reliance on informal methods (see, for example, Curran et al., 1993). Millward et al. (1992) found that, whereas larger enterprises relied greatly

on formal methods and bureaucratic procedures by specialist personnel departments, the small business owner/manager is likely to handle recruiting and personnel matters without delegating and is unlikely to have any relevant skills.

Training

Tourism and hospitality have one of the highest levels of skill shortages (HCTC, 1995; HEFCE, 1998). If, as Bradley and Taylor (1996) suggest, training can influence the skill of a locality, then it is interesting

to see how seriously small tourism and hospitality firms take training.

According to Curran et al. (1996) small businesses experience problems in providing training for both owner-managers and workers. It has also been discovered that the hospitality industry displays one of the lowest levels of training activity in the UK economy (HCTC, 1995). These points should be borne in mind when the results of this survey are interpreted.

Two of the indicators of a systematic approach to training are the existence of a training plan/policy and a specific budget for training.

According to the Hospitality Training Foundation (HtF, 1996) 63 per cent of employers in all industries had a training plan. In catering and hospitality 64 per cent had a training plan. The most recent research on training and small firms found that only 28 per cent of such firms had a training plan.

It is appropriate to discuss training budgets alongside training plans. It is also useful to compare the survey findings with all industries and with the hospitality industry (no figures are available for tourism). In all industries 55 per cent of employers had training budgets; in hospitality this figure was 43 per cent according to IFF research (HtF, 1996). However, research carried out by the HtF found that only 19 per cent of hospitality firms had a training budget.

In the UK, the provision of training to SMEs has become a central issue of economic policy (Miller and Davenport, 1987). Storey (1994) has described this as a major indirect small firms policy initiative. Over the last decade, the provision of training and support to SMEs has increased considerably involving national and local Government, the private sector, and further and higher education institutes (Westhead, 1996. In the survey on small tourism and hospitality firms, the issue of training provision was examined.

There is little point in investing in training without attempting to measure its effectiveness. Measuring the effectiveness of training is extremely difficult in any size of firm. The small firms literature suggests that owner-managers of small firms assess the value of workforce training in an informal way and tend to use various kinds of subjective assessments. The firms in the survey were questioned on if and how they measured the effectiveness of training.

Research method

Researchers at The Centre for the Study of Small Tourism and Hospitality Firms based at Leeds Metropolitan University, UK, were keen to examine business practices in small firms both by breadth and depth. As such, it was decided to administer a questionnaire to 4,331 small firms. In total, 1,103 were returned completed, giving a response rate of 26 percent. The project focused on four regions: Cumbria; Heart of England; West Country; and Yorkshire. Eight sectors were chosen to provide a broadly based cross-section of these industries. These sectors were public house/bar; travel agent; hotel; visitor attraction; B&B/guesthouse; fast food/takeaway; restaurant or café; self-catering. The vast majority of firms in the sample were independently-owned single outlet businesses (80 per cent). The definition of a small firm adopted for the survey is fewer than 50 employee s and is a conflation of the European Commission’s definition of very small (or micro) enterprises (fewer than ten employees) and small (between ten and 49 employees). The sample source was the Business Database (British Telecom) and a disproportionate stratified sample was specified within the four regions to provide a cross-section of experiences. This article presents some of the findings of the national survey of small tourism and hospitality firms. The survey is the most comprehensive of its kind ever to be undertaken in the UK and examined business

performance, the business environment, marketing and recruitment and training in small tourism and hospitality firms. The survey represents a barometer of the changing attitudes and behaviour of those operating small tourism and hospitality firms.

This article concentrates on the recruitment and training practices of the firms in the survey. The aim of the research was to discover the extent and nature of recruitment and training in small tourism and hospitality firms.

Results

Informality and a relatively unsophisticated management style characterise the approach taken towards recruitment and training in the small firms in the survey.

When respondents in the survey were questioned about their recruitment activity during the past year (see Table I), and more specifically were asked about the methods used to recruit staff, word of mouth was the most commonly used recruitment method, followed by local press and job centres.

These findings support the advice in the recruitment literature which normally suggests that small firms should recruit from the local labour market and should keep their recruitment spending within a very tight budget.

In addition to questions on recruitment, respondents were asked a series of questions on training practices. When they were asked if they had a training plan for their business, the results were as indicated in Table II. Although only 11 per cent of small tourism and hospitality firms had a formal written plan, significantly more had some sort of training plan. Although this is lower than for other industries and the hospitality industry in general, it is higher than the figure for small firms, and does indicate some commitment to a systematic approach to training.

As far as training budgets were concerned, 12 per cent of firms in the sample had them (see Figure 1). This figure of 12 per cent is not discouraging, and in fact, is almost identical to the figure of 12.5 per cent for small firms in general (Curran et al., 1996). Although both the figures for training plans and budgets appear encouraging, more details are required on the exact nature of the training plans and the precise amount of money devoted to training in relation to turnover etc. However, results from the survey do seem to indicate that some small tourism and hospitality firms are taking training seriously.

Respondents were asked if they had provided training during the past 12 months (see Table III).

On-the-job training was the most common training method used by small tourism and hospitality firms. This was followed by external training courses and induction. These results are unsurprising as small firms in general tend to favour informal training methods and usually value training which is specific to the job in question. Although on the job training may be appropriate for many jobs in small tourism and hospitality firms, this reliance on informal, unsophisticated training methods is typical of weak internal labour markets which generally have low skill requirements and lack training and promotion opportunities. This can be interpreted as part of the whole package of the informal, unsophisticated approach to the management of human resources in small firms which is characterised by vague hiring standards and unsystematic

recruitment. It runs counter to the primary labour market which has a strong internal labour market with precise hiring standards, formalised recruitment, high skill requirements and opportunities for training and promotion.

Respondents in the survey were asked about training courses provided by external agencies and their replies produced the following response (see Table IV).

As far as the small tourism and hospitality firms in the sample were concerned the courses which they found to be “very helpful” were organised by private providers (42 per cent found them to be very helpful). The provider who ranked second in the “very helpful” category was trade associations with 40 per cent. Courses provided by the banks appeared to be the least helpful as they had the highest percentage of respondents in the “not very helpful”category. Banks continue to be in the limelight as far as services to small businesses are concerned. Obviously it depends on which bank and which courses small tourism and hospitality businesses have experienced. Much also depends on the expectations that the owner/managers have of such a service. When the positive responses were combined, i.e. “very helpful” and “helpful”, the providers who fared best were private providers (86 per cent), trade associations (83 per cent) and local authorities (83 per cent). The banks’ results were worst with only 40 per cent of owner-managers finding their courses helpful.

When respondents were questioned on active involvement in education or training initiatives, the results showed the following (see Table V). As far as Investors in People is concerned the 9 per cent of

small tourism and hospitality firms which were either committed to or recognised as Investors In People is still much higher than the industry average of 3 per cent. This contrasts with the HtF’s sug gestion that small firms are only as likely as large firms to engage in Investors in People activity.

Another finding which contradicts the HtF’s view is that NVQ/SVQs have not been implemented in smaller hospitality establishments. Again, 17 per cent of small tourism and hospitality firms in the survey were participating in NVQs and SVQs. Highest participation was work experience for school pupils and work experience for college students and both of these “initiatives” have traditionally been extensively utilised by tourism and hospitality firms of all sizes.

As mentioned above, it is pointless to invest in training unless some attempt is made to measure its effectiveness. In this survey of small tourism and hospitality firms one-third of respondents attempted to measure the effectiveness of training within their firm (see Figure 2). This again indicates that some small tourism and hospitality firms are taking training seriously.

In the survey a question on future training intentions was divided into three sections; those relating to owner-managers, managers, staff. The results are summarised in Table VI Not surprisingly, the most likely

recipients of training in these firms in the next 12 months will be staff. This may illustrate an intention to take training seriously but, of course, this intention needs to be reviewed in a year’s time. It is also necessary to evaluate the level, type, and quality of training being provided. Although there is an intention to train owner-managers in the next 12 months these are the people in small tourism and hospitality firms least likely to receive training in the next year. Given their importance as trainers, there is a case to be made that they should receive more support and training on how to train their workers more effectively. Authors such as Pittaway (1999) discovered that SME owners felt that their own skills impacted on the performance of the business and that they needed further training.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this research has been undertaken as a result of the gap in knowledge on training in small firms, and more specifically on training in small tourism and hospitality firms. It suggests that this gap should not be allowed to continue, due to the growth and increasing importance of the tourism and hospitality industries and the nature of human resources within them. The research operates from the premiss that small firms are not microcosms of large firms, and as such require separate treatment. It is therefore inappropriate and inadequate simply to utilise previous research which is based on the large firm sector.

This research has attempted partially to fill the gap in knowledge about the extent and nature of training in small tourism and hospitality firms.

As expected, recruitment and training in small hospitality firms are largely carried out on an informal basis. This is entirely appropriate for the sizes of firms in question and is consistent with research conducted in various industry sectors. Implications of informality, however, may include being in breach of current employment law and may also result in recruiting people who are inappropriate in the long run. Informal recruitment practices and inappropriate selection can lead to high labour turnover.

Compared with other industries, hospitality and tourism have higher than average skills shortages, labour turnover and hard to fill vacancies at every level (HEFCE, 1998). The scenario is one in which firms rely heavily on the secondary labour market and exhibit high levels of recruitment. It is argued that high levels of recruitment can affect the level of training in a firm. In fact, Hendry et al. (1991) found that in some cases, managers may prefer to recruit rather than train. Wynarczyck et al. (1993) discovered that the absence of an internal labour market in a small firm can impede the provision of formal training. Although this survey has not found a high level of formal training in small tourism and hospitality firms, it has discovered that in some firms, training is being taken seriously.

Although as mentioned above, small businesses experience problems in providing training and the hospitality industry has one of the lowest training levels in the UK, small firms in this sector actually had higher incidences of training plans than small firms in other sectors.

Informality is again present in relation to the types of training offered in the firms. As expected, on-job training predominates. Although it is essential to train people to do the job for which they have been appointed, this reliance on informal training can result in the exclusion of staff development in a more general sense and can reduce the likelihood of developing an internal labour market. Dependence on informal on-job training can increase the utilisation of the external labour market which enforces the vicious circle of high levels of recruitment and low levels of training.

Optimism regarding training in small tourism and hospitality firms can again be seen when examining results of relationships with Investors In People and NVQs. The results of this survey indicated that in both cases small firms had higher levels of commitment than the hospitality industry in general.

Overall this research has offered a snapshot of the nature and extent of recruitment and training in small tourism and hospitality firms.

It is suggested that more research needs to be conducted to establish if correlations exist between training activity and the type and size of small tourism and hospitality firm. It is also proposed that whether or not a firm is in a stage of growth can determine attitudes towards and participation in training. Future research should concentrate on depth rather than breadth and a more qualitative approach would be appropriate which determine the reasons why small firm owner-managers decide to train/or not, how they decide on the type of training and if the type of training is effective in the small firm context.

（原文引自：Stephanie Jameson．Recruitment and training in small firms [J]. Journal of European Industrial Training，2000,（1）：43-49.）

小企业的招聘与培训

摘要

酒店和旅游行业是对英国经济增长最快和最具活力的行业。这两个行业是高度劳动密集型的，因此，人力资源的有效管理是他们成功的关键。这些行业的一个决定性的特点是有大量的小企业。一般在小企业部门的培训问题受到了学者和管理专家被忽视，这也是特别是在旅游和酒店管理案例。本文在一定程度上解决这种差距在知识和研究小的旅游和酒店管理公司的招聘和培训的做法。审查的问题包括招聘来源，小的旅游和酒店管理公司有何种程度的培训计划和培训预算、参与、培训和评估。

关键词：招聘；培训；中小企业；酒店；旅游业。

背景

小公司和培训

虽然小企业的定义已经被广泛的讨论，这是没有异议的最常见的旅游或酒店都是小企业（托马斯，1998）。到目前为止，很少有在这些组织中进行的研究。这是不足为奇的，马特雷认为：英国经济在小企业的培训问题已经很大程度上被学术研究人员和人力资源规划、发展和管理专家忽视，直到最近，他们才根据规模较大的公司的企业策略提出一些解决方法（马特雷，1996，p. 648）。

约翰逊和格宾斯支持（1992，pp. 28-9）认为：在任何一个国家和地区，中小企业都对培训的性质、决定因素、重要程度支持甚少。

毫无疑问,随着旅游业和酒店的发展,对人力资源的重要性的忽视不应该继续。

在各种规模的酒店和旅游公司的研究发现,不拘礼节、相对不成熟的管理风格正在左右着招聘和培训的方式方法(戈德史密斯,1997;普利斯,1994;卢卡斯,1995;鲍姆,1995)。对小公司招聘和培训研究(詹姆森,1998年)也表示,一种非正式的方法对人力资源的管理是这些公司的正常现象。小型商业文学的一个主题是用非正式的方法检查雇主和雇员之间的关系。它们之间的相关性被发现存在的公司规模和水平各经济部门的手续(见,例如,斯科特。(1989);Curran .(1993))。特别是在酒店公司的研究(价格,1994年,p.49)发现:

调查的主要发现之一是企业规模和招募方法之间存在重要的相关性…...企业的规模和它设置人事政策、程序或其他为了满足就业法的要求的安排等的方式存在着强有力的关系。

这种关系的重要性不可低估,在解释小公司的招聘和培训的研究结果时必须牢记。

任何关于招聘和培训有意义的分析,如果没有对劳动力市场的一些理解就不能开展小型旅游和

酒店公司运作。人们为了发展劳动力市场的理论模型已经做了很多投入。对旅游和酒店行业而言最有用的理论之一是双重劳动力市场理论。戈德史密斯(1997)的总结很简洁。二元劳动力市场理论提出,人们总可以分割劳动力市场。一个部分是主要的劳动力市场,提供的工作往往是大,高利润的公司资本劳动比率高,生产率高。在这里,生产通常是大型高技术投资。就业在这些公司通常是稳定的技能和较高的工资水平。在这种情况下,通常有培训的机会。二级劳动力市场的特征,通常是小公司资本劳动比率较低,低生产率和小规模生产。在这些公司中,工资和技能水平往往较低,就业不稳定和培训机会通常是有限的。小型旅游和酒店公司一般倾向于在二级劳动力市场运作。

招聘和培训之间有明显的关系。一个关系是培训可以提供解决劳动力市场问题的方法。坎贝尔和鲍德温(1993)表明,在许多工业化国家有一个担心,技能短缺和不匹配是出现在劳动力市场,政策制定者意识到招聘困难和技能短缺可能会减少小型和大型企业的竞争力。布拉德利和泰勒(1996)表明,越来越多的人意识到教育和培训系统可以影响一个地方的技能和职业的混合以及当地的经济。另一种类型的关系是招聘的程度会影响训练的水平。在旅游业和酒店,他们依赖二级劳动力市场和高水平的劳动周转率, 对高水平的招聘和低水平的培训有一种强烈的倾向。争论在与对培训的投资意义不大或是没有时间做培训。

招聘

研究旅游和酒店公司(即没有特别小公司)主要是指对非正式的和无组织的招聘方法的研究(卢卡斯和Boella,1996)。别人,在小公司进行招聘研究总体上发现了一个依赖非正式的方法(见,例如,Curran,1993)。Millward (1992)发现,而大企业极大地依赖正式的方法和由专业人事部门官僚程序,小企业主/经理可能处理招聘和人员问题没有授权并且不太可能有任何相关的技能。

培训

旅游和酒店有一种最高水平的技能短缺(HCTC,1995;HEFCE,1995)。如果像布拉德利和泰勒(1996)建议,培训可以影响一个地方的技能,那么有趣的是我们可以看到小型旅游和酒店公司多么不重视培训。

存在着两种指标的培训系统方法，即，培训计划/政策和具体的培训预算。

根据酒店培训基金会(公路信托基金,1996)63%的雇主在所有行业有培训计划。在餐饮和酒店64%的人有培训计划。最近的关于培训的研究显示，只有28%的小公司有培训计划。

这是恰到好处的关于培训计划和培训预算的讨论。对于比较所有行业和酒店行业(没有数据可供旅游) 的调查结果，它也是有用的。在所有行业，55%的雇主有培训预算;在酒店这个数字是43%（HtF，1996）。然而,其最近进行的研究发现,只有19%的酒店公司培训预算。

在英国,中小企业提供培训已经成为经济政策的一个核心问题(米勒和达文波特,1987)。Storey

(1994)描述了这是一个主要的间接的小企业政策倡议。在过去的十年里,提供培训和支持中小企业大大增加涉及到的国家和地方政府、私人部门,以及高等教育机构的数量(韦斯特黑德,1996)。在对小型旅游和酒店公司调查中,提供培训的问题得到了检查。

有很多投资培训没有试图衡量其有效性。在任何规模的公司测量培训的有效性都是非常困难的。小企业的文献表明，小公司的经理老板以非正式方式评估员工培训的价值，并且倾向于使用各种主观评估。在调查这些公司被询问是否以及如何衡量培训的有效性。

研究方法

研究中心的研究人员在英国的利兹城市大学基于小型旅游和酒店公司,热衷于研究小型公司商业实践的广度和深度。因此,研究决定问卷调查4331家小型企业。最终,1103家完成，回应率为26%。项目集中在四个区域:坎布里亚郡,英格兰的核心;西方国家,约克郡。选择八个行业提供一个基于广泛的横截面。这些部门是酒店/酒吧;旅行社;酒店;游客吸引力;B&B /宾馆;快餐/外卖;餐厅或咖啡馆,自助。绝大多数的公司样本的自主独立单一出口企业(80%)。调查对小公司的定义是少于50名员工,将欧盟委员会的定义非常小(微)企业(少于10名员工)和小(10至49之间的员工书)二者相结合。样例源是业务数据库(英国电信公司)和一个不成比例的分层抽样是指定四个区域提供一个横截面内的经验。本文的研究结果提出了一些小型旅游和酒店公司的全国性调查。调查是有史以来最全面的在英国和业务性能、商业环境、市场和小型旅游和酒店公司的招聘和培训进行的研究。调查代表的晴雨表的改变态度和小型旅游和酒店企业的运作方式。

本文集中于关于公司的招聘和培训实践调查。这项研究的目的是发现小旅游企业和酒店公司的招聘和培训的程度和性质。

结果分析

调查表明，不拘礼节和相对不成熟的管理风格直接影响着小公司的招聘和培训。

当参与调查的受访者被问及他们在过去的一年的招聘活动(见表1),更具体地说被问及招募员工的方法,口碑是最常用的招聘方法,其次是当地媒体和工作中心。

这些发现所支持的招聘的建议是,小企业应该充分利用当地劳动力市场,并应该保持他们的招聘支出在一个非常紧张的预算。

除了招聘的问题,受访者还被问道一系列培训实践方面的问题。当他们被问到他们的业务是否有培训计划时,结果显示在表2。尽管只有11%的小型旅游和酒店公司有正式的书面计划,更多的是有一些培训计划。虽然这是低于其他行业，而一般来说酒店行业,比小公司的数据要高一些，但这也表明了一些提供系统的方法训练承诺。

至于培训预算而言,12%的公司有预算(请参见图1)。这个数字为12%不是沮丧,事实上, 一般小

公司是几乎相同的图，比例为12.5% (Curran ,1996)。虽然培训计划和预算的数据出现令人鼓舞的, 但仍需要更多的细节上的培训计划，并设法让培训中投入的资金得到回报。然而,从调查结果中似乎表明,一些小型旅游和酒店公司认真对待培训。

受访者被问及他们在过去的12个月的培训（见表三）。在职培训是由小的旅游和酒店管理公司最常用的训练方法。其次是外部培训课程和感应。这些结果是不足为奇的，因为一般的小公司倾向于非正式的培训方法和在一个具体的工作中培训业务。尽管在职培训可以适应小的旅游和酒店管理公司的许多工作这种依赖非正式、不成熟的训练方法是典型的内部劳动力市场疲软通常技能要求较低,缺乏培训和提升的机会。这可以解释为非正式的整体方案的一部分，小企业的特点是模糊的招聘标准和杂乱无章的招聘。它违背了主要劳动力市场具有很强的内部劳动力市场，它应该有精确的招聘标准、正式的招聘、培训与晋升高技能的需求和机遇。

在调查中，受访者被问及培训课程时，他们的回答提供产生如下反馈（见表4）。

在对小企业关于培训课程的调查中，他们认为是“很有帮助的”是由私人提供者组织的（42%发现他们很有帮助）。受访者选择“非常有用”排名第二的类别，是40%的贸易协会。由银行提供的课程似乎在“帮助不大”类别的受访者中比例最高。银行继续受人瞩目，至于服务业的小企业则令人担心。当积极响应相结合,即“非常有用的”和“有用”,表现最好的提供者是私人提供者(86%)、行业协会(83%)和当地政府(83%)。银行的结果最差只有40%的业主经理认为他们的课程有帮助。

当受访者被问到积极参与教育或培训的情况时,结果显示如下(见表五)。小型旅游和酒店公司9%的人员参与度或许可以得到认可认可,因参与度仍远高于行业平均水平的3%。这与公路信托基金的建议,小公司只有像大公司从事投资者的活动刚好相反。

另一个发现这违背了HtF的观点是，NVQs / SVQs尚未在小酒店建立实施。再次，调查中17%的中小型的旅游和酒店管理公司将参与NVQs和SVQs 354。参与度最高的是学校的学生和有一定工作经验的大学生，这些“举措”在传统意义上被各种规模的旅游和酒店管理公司广泛使用。

正如上面提到的,它是毫无意义的投资培训,除非一些尝试衡量其有效性。在这些小型旅游公司和酒店公司三分之一的受访者调查试图衡量他们的公司内部培训的有效性(参见图2)。这再次表明,一些小型旅游和酒店公司是认真对待培训。

在调查一个关于未来培训意图的问题被分为三个部分,那些相关的负责人,经理,员工。结果总结在表六，毫无疑问, 在接下来的12个月里，这些公司的培训最有可能的对象将是员工。这可能说明这是一个打算认真对待训练的公司,但当然,这意味着需要一年的时间。也是必要的评估水平、类型和培训质量。虽然有一个打算在未来12个月内所有者或管理者都会接受培训，但这些小的旅游和酒店公司员工在下一年接受培训的可能性仍然很低。作为培训师，鉴于其重要性,他们应该得到更多的

支持，并且培训如何更有效地培训他们的员工。中小企业业主觉得自己的技能影响影响业务的成败,他们需要进一步的培训。

结论

总之,本研究结果表明，小企业尤其是小型旅游企业，在培训的知识上存在较大的差距。它表明由于日益增长的旅游和酒店行业的重要性和人力资源的性质，这种差距不应该被允许继续下去。研究表明小公司不是微小的大公司,因此需要单独治疗。因此仅仅利用前人基于大型公司的部门的研究远远不够的。

本研究尝试部分填补小旅游公司和酒店管理公司在培训知识的程度和性质上的差距。

正如预期的那样，在小酒店公司的招聘和培训主要是基于非正式的基础上。这是完全适合的企业规模的大小的，并且与各行业进行的研究相一致。然而，非正式的影响可能包括违反现行的就业法律,也可能导致长期招募不到恰当的人。非正式的招聘实践和不恰当的选择可能导致劳动力流动率高。

与其他行业相比，酒店和旅游在每一级都有高于平均水平的技能短缺、劳动力流动和难以填补的空缺，（HEFCE，1998）。该方案在很大程度上是一个企业依赖于二级劳动力市场，表现出来的高水平的人才招聘。有人认为，高层次的招聘会影响一个公司的培训水平。事实上，亨得利等人（1991）发现，在某些情况下，管理人员可能更倾向于招募而不是培训。Wynarczyck等人（1993）发现，在一个小公司内部劳动力市场缺乏能阻碍正规的培训。虽然这项调查没有发现小的旅游和酒店管理公司具有正规的高水平的培训，但却发现在一些公司，培训正在被重新认真考虑。

虽然如上所述，小企业在提供培训上存在经验问题，酒店业的培训水平在英国最低，在本行业的小企业却比其他行业的小公司更乐于制定培训计划。

非正式与公司提供培训的方式是直接相关的。正如预期的那样，以在职培训为主。虽然这是训练员工学习他们所负责的工作要点，但结果不仅排斥员工发展,还会减少内部劳动力市场发展的可能性。在职培训对非正式的依赖可以增加对外部劳动力市场的滥用，致使恶性循环的高水平招聘和低水平的培训。

我们在当检查结果人和NVQs与投资者的关系时又可以看到关于小型旅游公司和酒店公司培训的乐观。这项调查的结果表明,在两种情况下小公司的承诺水平高于一般酒店行业。

总体而言，本研究提供了关于小的旅游公司和酒店管理公司招募和培训的全面的性质和程度的快照。

这表明，需要进行更多的研究来确定在小的旅游和酒店管理公司的规模与培训活动的类型之间是否存在相关性。研究还指出，一个公司是否处在一个成长阶段将会决定培训的态度和参与情况。