When a hotel group CEO leaves a hotel company, the tendency nowadays is to measure a CEO’s legacy essentially by how much bigger he made the company in size, and by how much the share value rose. Should we not also be judging the CEO’s legacy by asking how much the CEO made the company serve mankind more; and how much he revolutionised the hospitality experience in a way that has changed people’s lives? I don’t think that simply making the share value rise by (5)% and increasing the hotel group’s size by (8)% is enough to talk meaningfully about the CEO’s legacy.
When judging the CEO’s legacy, should we not also ask, if the hotel group, as a result of his tenure, transformed the hospitality experienced by the guests? By this I am referring to the emotional and energetic aspect of the guest experience, and not to whether he implemented greater use of technology.
Did he upgrade the worldview of the hotel group to the Quantum worldview so that hospitality could rise to levels far above what is considered possible with the current, obsolete Newtonian worldview? By this I mean, did he leave the hotel group rooted in the mechanical, emotionless SOP-Customer Satisfaction guest experience concept or did he realise that this concept has had its day and so he changed it?
Did he use scientific discoveries and ancient knowledge to revolutionise hospitality in his hotel group or did he merely follow the crowd and copy what every other hotel group is doing?
If the CEO did none of these, is his legacy one to be proud of?
