Host Population
Tour Operators
Public Sector and Government Tourism Enterprises
and SMTEs
Tourists
Interests&
Benefits
Responsibilities
Source: Buhalis (2000)
Leisen and Sautter (1999) argue that a clear distinction should be made between a stakeholder’s role and a group. Any entity or person classified as a member of a particular group often shares other perspectives or serves multiple roles within the larger macro environment. Therefore, it is important for tourism organizations to consider the stakes or perspectives of different stakeholder groups as defined by the roles they serve with regard to the particular tourism destination. For example, a local councilor should represent her / his community interests in tourism development.
2- The Influence of Stakeholder Relationships and Values on the Strategic Direction of the Destination
According to Row et al (1994), destination managers must analyse the primary relationships between the stakeholders in the system when a list of stakeholders has been generated.
Gronroos (1995a) states that relationship type approaches to services marketing must manage the interactive aspects of the delivery process. He developed the matrix that is
based upon a relationship/transaction policy continuum where a transaction approach takes a more short-term orientation towards the service offerings. Gronroos emphasizes getting customers “whereas the goal of relationship marketing is to get and keep customers” (p.254). Leisen and Sautter (1999) analyse stakeholder relationships and influences by means of a stakeholder orientation matrix.
Figure 4.9 Destination Stakeholder Map in National Tourism
Government : National, Provincial, Regional and Local
Visitors Tourism Suppliers
Source: Row et al (1994)
It is important to realize that neither the relationship nor the transaction approach is promoted as the ideal basis for strategic development. On the contrary, when understanding the suggestions of the policy continuum and related process results literature, Gronroos (1995a) notes that the appropriate orientation is ultimately reliant on the selected mission of the service organization.
Leisen and Sautter (1999) argue that before proceeding with strategic decision-making, destination management should proactively consider the strategic orientations of all stakeholder groups. As fitting across stakeholder orientation increases, so does the likehood of collaboration and cooperation.
International Domestic
Destination
1.Tour operators 1.Tourism Facilities
2. Tourism Attractions 3. Tourism Enterprises
2.Transportation 3.Accommodation 4.Financial
services
5.Construction
Communities : Residents, Environmentalists, Union
Infrastructure: Roads, Telecommunications, Police, Universities
Figure 4.10 shows that a stakeholder orientation matrix can be used as a guide to analyse stakeholder reliance upon the tourism policy initiatives; various stakeholder changes must be examined for fitting. These might include the resident change, the tourist-business change, the business-resident change, the government-business change and the government-resident permutation (Leisen and Sautter, 1999).
Destination management should strive to encourage congruency of strategic orientation across all permutations.
Therefore, by using figure 4.10 as a guide, planners should seek to maximize the number of stakeholder interactions that fall either in quadrant I or III. The unlike orientations of quadrant II or IV represent the most difficult scenarios in trying to promote co-operative planning initiatives. Thus, in these situations, the perspectives of the stakeholders are dramatically opposed and reduce the probability of successful cooperation or teamwork. A government can support a transaction-based development which is based upon financial revenues and jobs, while the residents might prefer a more relation approach to development and may take offence at the government’s policies.
Figure 4.10 Stakeholder Orientation Matrixes (Stakeholder 1) Relationship Orientation
I II
(Stakeholder 2)
Relationship Orientation Transaction
Orientation
IV III
Transaction Orientation Source: Leisen and Sautter (1999)
There seems to be general agreement that the vision of strategic direction of the tourism destination should reflect the values of those stakeholders for whom it is developed. The value systems brought to the process can be greatly different, because of the number and diversity of the stakeholders involving in crafting a destination vision for tourism, even to the point of being dramatically opposed. Therefore, the task of reaching agreement and obtaining support of the destination vision is a challenging one (Ritchie, 1999).
4.4.2 The Formulation of a Shared Destination Vision
“A vision without action is merely a dream. Action without vision just passes the time.
Vision with action can change the world”. (Joel Baker)
Ritchie (1999) argues that the most significant step in the process of strategic planning as it relates to tourism development is the formulation and acceptance of a shared idealized vision. The concept of visioning is not a new one where the importance and use of visioning has been reported by some authors (Baker, 1992;
Collins and Porras, 1994; Amellio and Sinn, 1996; Lear, 1997; Ritchie, 1999) who view a vision statement as a short statement of organization goal and do not distinguish between vision and mission. However, others imagine a vision as a very detailed statement or integrated statements, which attempt to portray or describe the destination in question at some point in the future, whilst there may be a difference of views as to the precise definition of an organization vision.
In extending the concept of visioning from organizations to tourism destinations three features need to be considered (Ritchie, 1999).
A- The vision of tourism destination must bring together the views of many organizations and individuals in the industry and the community. This process is much more complex than that carried out within a single organization.
B- Because of the number of range of the stakeholders involved in crafting a vision of tourism destination, the value systems brought to the process can be greatly different.
C- The vision developed for a destination tends to define the nature of long-term major development by comparing with an organization, many of which are relatively permanent.