People Leadership in the Hospitality Industry: Where Operational Reality Meets Standards

“If the culture we communicate and the daily operational reality do not align perfectly, the standards remain empty words.”
- Dimitris P. -

Dimitris Pavlakis

Corporate Human Resources Manager · May 26, 2026 · 5 min read

In the hospitality industry, Human Resources management is not a theoretical exercise but the active management of a critical balance: on one hand, the strict Operating Standards (SOPs) that guarantee quality and consistency of the guest experience, and on the other, the deeply person-centered nature of the service. The central question - which lies at the heart of modern management - is what people leadership truly requires when culture, service standards, development, and operational reality must align strictly.
 
 
Attraction and Trust: The Strategy of the First ContactIn today’s highly competitive landscape, the battle to attract talent and build trust begins at the very first contact during the Job Interview. This is not merely a process for evaluating formal qualifications, but the moment when the foundations of the upcoming collaboration between employer and employee are laid. At this stage, the organization must communicate its Mission and Vision with absolute clarity. If the candidate does not perceive the "why" behind our operation, their commitment will remain superficial.Honesty regarding expectations and the presentation of a specific Career Path are integral parts of this process. If leadership fails to inspire the candidate and show them a path toward professional fulfillment, then we have lost them before they even sign a preliminary agreement or employment contract. Loyalty is not something to be demanded after the fact, it is earned through transparency and the promise of a mutually beneficial partnership.
 
 
Onboarding: The Moment of Truth for Employer Branding and TurnoverIf the interview is the promise, Onboarding is the tangible proof of our credibility and the moment of truth for Employer Branding. We can invest vast sums in promoting our corporate image, but if a new partner finds themselves in an environment without guidance or structure on day one, that image collapses instantly.Furthermore, structured onboarding is the most powerful tool for limiting turnover, a phenomenon particularly intense in our industry due to the seasonal nature of most businesses. In an environment where the duration of the collaboration is predefined,
fast and meaningful integration reduces the feeling of "transience". It is essential to explain to the employee not just the "what" of the SOPs, but primarily the "why" they are necessary. When an employee understands the philosophy behind the standard, they cease to view it as a restrictive rule and adopt it as a tool for excellence, which significantly strengthens staff retention throughout the period.
 
 
Holistic Health and SafeIn the current operational reality, leadership must recognize that Health and Safety at work has taken on holistic dimensions. It is no longer limited to compliance with protection rules in the physical work environment but extends to the psychological integrity of the staff.• Physical Safety: Strict adherence to safety protocols and the provision of an ergonomic environment are the minimum indicators of respect for the
individual.• Psychological Safety: Especially in hospitality, where the pace is grueling, psychological health is critical for reducing burnout. Leadership that prevents toxic stress, encourages open communication, and protects the mental balance of its partners succeeds in creating a team with high levels of resilience and dedication.
 
 
Economic Realism and RetentionWe cannot discuss HR while ignoring the current economic climate. Inflation is a serious parameter pressing the disposable income of our employees. A leader must be
a realist: competitive pay is now the necessary baseline, but it is not enough on its own for staff retention.The real difference is made by the "intangible" value offered by the organization: respect, the holistic safety mentioned above, and active support. In today’s job market, people are looking for an employer with empathy who recognizes daily
challenges. Staffing difficulties are not solved by numbers alone, but by creating a culture where the employee feels their contribution is valued and their effort is rewarded both ethically and materially.
 
 
The Generational AccordOne of the greatest challenges is the harmonious coexistence of the three different generations dominating the labor market. Gen X brings stability, Millennials bring strategic flexibility, and Gen Z brings digital speed.The key here is mentoring. However, for this to work, Gen X must first and foremost trust the younger generations and then pass on their experience. On the other hand, the younger generations must help modernize daily operations through technology and AI. AI in HR did not arrive to replace personal contact, but to automate part of the administrative burden, freeing up time for the employee to dedicate themselves to the emotional connection with the guest.
 
 
ConclusionIn conclusion, leadership in the hospitality industry requires realism and quick reflexes. Operating Standards are our roadmap, but people are the driving force. If the culture we communicate and the daily operational reality do not align perfectly - especially regarding safety and support - the standards remain empty words.Success comes when the employee evolves organically within the business, feeling safe both physically and mentally.Only then can objectives be met, no matter how demanding the market conditions may be.
 
 
Dimitrios Pavlakis for Top HR Voices of Greece
 
 
• • •

Taking Care of People: Charity or Strategy?

“Longer working hours do not automatically lead to higher productivity. In fact, they may point to the opposite.”
- Vera B. -

Vera Baka

HR Officer | HR Operations | Recruitment | Psychologist · May 18, 2026 · 6 min read

It has been 8 years since Greece exited the bailout program, yet according to Eurostat data, it consistently ranks first among the 27 EU member states in the share of employed persons usually working 49 or more hours per week in their main job (1). At the same time, Greece has the second lowest labour productivity per hour worked (2). The European Commission’s report states that Greece is not achieving productivity convergence with the rest of the EU, while labour productivity per hour worked was the lowest in the EU in 2023 (3). In other words, the data suggest that longer working hours do not automatically lead to higher productivity. In fact, they may point to the opposite.But let us leave statistics aside for a moment. The other day, I was talking with a friend who has been working in the retail sector for years. “They’re squeezing us,” he told me. “Every day feels like torture: long hours, heavy workload. But when the foreign brand representatives visit, everything suddenly seems to change and the business starts operating properly.”Of course, it was not the first time I had heard of what I would call the “squeezing method,” the practice of pushing employees to their limits in the name of KPIs. I am not sure whether this is the rule or the exception, but it is certainly a topic that comes up often around the table among friends and colleagues.And the results? High turnover, burnout, psychological distress, musculoskeletal problems, heart disease, and strained family relationships (4), (5), (6), (7), (8). If we look at the consequences in a broader social context, the impact becomes even heavier: increased pressure on the healthcare system, wider social strain, family disruption, you name it.According to the WHO, poor working environments, including excessive workloads, intense work pace, understaffing, long, unsocial or inflexible hours, and conflicting work and family demands, pose serious risks to mental health (9).
Recent studies show that long working hours prevent workers from spending time with their families, increasing the risk of work family conflict (8). In addition, these studies suggest that overwork and poor working conditions are significantly associated with a higher risk of sleep disturbance and burnout, particularly disengagement and exhaustion (4), (5), (8), (10).Burnout, as introduced by Maslach and Jackson (1981), consists of three dimensions: emotional exhaustion, cynical and detached attitudes towards the people one interacts with at work, and negative self evaluation in relation to one’s work and sense of fulfilment (11).Other studies report a significant negative relationship between burnout and productivity, as reflected in absenteeism, absence from work, often due to ill health, presenteeism, being at work despite being unwell, intention to remain in the profession, intention to change jobs, work accidents, and work ability (8), (12), (13).And this brings us to HR and its role in such a context. Does it watch? Does it become part of the system? Does it tolerate, stay silent, perhaps even stay asleep? Or does it react, step in, influence, speak out, and wake things up?Of course, it may be afraid to challenge what is happening, to say the uncomfortable truth. After all, “I’m just an employee,” one might think, like anyone else. And it is only human to be afraid of opposing the person who pays you. It is perfectly understandable to fear losing a prestigious and well paid job, who would not? But is it acceptable to stand back and watch people collapse under physical and mental strain?Maybe the answer lies in the term manager itself. What is a manager’s mission? According to Mintzberg (1990), the manager is not a passive observer but a key figure in the unit’s decision making system (14). The manager is vested with formal authority, develops interpersonal relations, makes decisions and strategies, commits the unit to important new courses of action, and negotiates between costs, benefits, and feasibility (14). In other words, the role itself implies responsibility, judgement, and influence. This means that a manager is not simply there to observe reality, but to shape it. And if reality is harming people, then the manager is in a position to change it.And this is exactly the point at which the HR manager should turn to the boss and say: “Listen, boss, I need to tell you something. Heavy workload and long working hours are damaging employees’ physical and mental health.” And the boss may well reply: “Even if you are right, I do not really care. Business is business, and money is what matters.” But that is precisely where the manager should answer: “Money is exactly what I am talking about too.”According to recent studies, employee disengagement, overextension, ineffectiveness, and burnout cost employers heavily (15). Over the course of a single year, burnout costs an employer an average of $4,000 for a non managerial hourly employee and approximately $11,000 for a manager (15). In a U.S. company of just 100 employees, disengagement and burnout can amount to roughly $500,000 per year. In many cases, employers do not act unless they realise that a problem has a direct financial impact on the organization (15). Once burnout is seen not only as an employee wellbeing issue but also as a measurable economic burden, the willingness to intervene may become much stronger (15).In other words, boss, squeezing your employees is costing you far more money than you think. So what will you do: keep losing money, or finally understand that taking care of your people is not charity, but strategy?"
 
 
Vera Baka for Top HR Voices of Greece
 
 
• • •
 
 
References_{(1) Eurostat. (2026). Long working hours in the main job by professional status
and occupation (lfsaqoe3a2) [Data set]. European Commission. Retrieved
April 18, 2026, from
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/lfsaqoe3a2/default/bar?lang
=en(2) Eurostat. (2026). Labour productivity per person employed and hour worked
as percentage of the EU average (TESEM160) [Data set]. European Commission.
Retrieved April 18, 2026, from
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/TESEM160/default/bar?lang=en(3) European Commission. (2024). Country report – Greece. Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs. https://economy-
finance.ec.europa.eu/economic-surveillance-eu-member-states/country-
pages/country-report-greece_en(4) Rotenstein, L. S., Brown, R., Sinsky, C., & Linzer, M. (2023). The Association of
Work Overload with Burnout and Intent to Leave the Job Across the Healthcare
Workforce During COVID-19. Journal of general internal medicine, 38(8), 1920–1927. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-023-08153-z(5) Cokki, C. (2021). Effect of work overload on job satisfaction through burnout. Jurnal Manajemen, 25(1), 56. https://doi.org/10.24912/jm.v25i1.703(6) Hu, B., Wu, Y., Pan, Y., Ding, X., Niu, D., Li, J., & Yan, T. (2024). Association of
long working hours and multi-site work-related musculoskeletal disorders
among transportation industry workers in Beijing, China. International archives
of occupational and environmental health, 97(10), 1063–1071.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-024-02110-x(7) World Health Organization. (2021, May 17). Long working hours increasing
deaths from heart disease and stroke: WHO, ILO.
https://www.who.int/news/item/17-05-2021-long-working-hours-increasing-
deaths-from-heart-disease-and-stroke-who-ilo(8) Baek, S. U., Won, J. U., & Yoon, J. H. (2023). The role of work-family conflict in
the association between long working hours and workers' sleep disturbance and
burnout: results from the sixth Korean Working Conditions Survey. BJPsych
open, 9(5), e165. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjo.2023.555(9) World Health Organization. (2024, September 2). Mental health at work.
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/mental-health-at-work(10) Conceoção, A., & Palma-Moreira, A. (2025). The Relationship Between
Occupational Stress, Burnout, and Perceived Performance: The Moderating Role
of Work Regime. Administrative Sciences, 15(10), 377.
https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci15100377(11) Maslach, C. and Jackson, S.E. (1981), The measurement of experienced
burnout. J. Organiz. Behav., 2: 99-113. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030020205(12) Dewa, C. S., Loong, D., Bonato, S., Thanh, N. X., & Jacobs, P. (2014). How
does burnout affect physician productivity? A systematic literature review. BMC
Health Services Research, 14, Article 325. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-
14-325(13) Aronsson, Gunnar & Gustafsson, Klas & Dallner, Margareta. (2000). Sick but
yet at work. An empirical study of sickness presenteeism. Journal of
epidemiology and community health. 54. 502-9. 10.1136/jech.54.7.502.(14) Mintzberg, H. (1990). The manager’s job: Folklore and fact. Harvard Business
Review, 68(2), 163–176.
https://gcc.glendale.edu/ppal/Busad%20101/mintzbergmar1990.pdf(15) Martinez, M. F., O'Shea, K. J., Kern, M. C., Chin, K. L., Dinh, J. V., Bartsch, S.
M., Weatherwax, C., Velmurugan, K., Heneghan, J. L., Moran, T. H., Scannell, S.
A., John, D. C., Shah, T. D., Petruccelli, S. A., White, C., Dibbs, A. M., & Lee, B. Y.
(2025). The health and economic burden of employee burnout to U.S. employers.
American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 68(4), 645–655.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2025.01.011}

When you feel lost, start with your “why”

“In times of uncertainty, people don’t need perfect answers. They need honesty. They need direction. They need to be reminded of their ‘why.’” - AnastasiaT. -

Anastasia Toulaki

Chief Administrative Officer & HR Manager · May 8, 2026 · 7 min read

It wasn’t an easy period.
 
Not in the way people casually describe difficulty, but in a way that sits quietly on your shoulders and follows you throughout the day.
 
The Board of Directors had recently been dissolved.
 
The company was at a pivotal growth point in the market, facing a transformation that required cohesion, structure, and organization, things we simply did not fully have yet.
 
At the same time, we were preparing for our relocation to a new operational base: the first private airport in the country. A milestone full of promise, but also one that demanded focus, alignment, enormous operational effort, and a fundamental shift in our operational practices, habits, and way of thinking.
 
And all of this after the Covid period.
 
After restrictions.
After exhaustion.
After losses.
 
With a team that was tired from limitations, uncertainty, and the emotional weight of everything we had collectively gone through.
 
People didn’t know what to expect. And that uncertainty wasn’t loud. It was subtle, persistent, present in every conversation and every silence.
 
There was uncertainty about leadership, about the future, about stability.
 
Questions without clear answers. Concerns without a timeline.
 
And me?
 
I was right in the middle of it.
 
Head of HR, but also a human being who felt tired, confused, and, at times, lost.
 
While I was seeing crisis, my CEO was seeing opportunity.
 
Both perspectives were real!
 
And somewhere between the two, I found myself conflicted, trying to reconcile what I felt with what I was expected to see.
 
I won’t pretend otherwise.
 
I allowed myself to feel it.
 
Up to a point.
 
Up to the point where I didn’t give up.
 
Almost unconsciously, something I had read years ago came back to me. Something that hadn’t meant much back then. Something that had felt distant, almost abstract.
 
“Start with WHY.”
 
And my “why” was my cause and belief in a company that, when I first joined, was small but carried a vision that truly inspired me.
 
A vision to build an innovative, reliable general aviation ecosystem, something that doesn’t currently exist in Europe, led by passion and integrity, not just ambition.
 
That’s where everything started.
 
Not with the “how.”
Not with the “what.”
But with the “why.”
 
I started working on the structure.
 
Not just a new org chart.
Not just lines and titles.
 
But a shared understanding of responsibility and accountability, something we didn’t truly have at the time.
 
Something that needed to be built, not imposed.
 
I explored different organizational models, not to copy what others were doing, but to find what genuinely fit who we were becoming, not who we had been.
 
The goal wasn’t complexity.
 
It was clarity.
 
The kind of clarity that removes friction and creates direction.
 
I opened my email.
Clicked “compose new message.”
Addressed it to the two CEOs.
 
From there, and through a lot of shared work, alignment, discussion, and interaction, the current leadership model was built:
 
• A C-Suite structure with four roles: CFO, COO, CCO, CAO
• Clear lines of accountability
• Consolidation of “orphan” functions, HR, IT, Legal, under the CAO
• Creation of Procurement and Corporate Governance functions
 
But structure alone is not enough.
 
It never is.
 
We realized something critical:
If you want to grow, it’s not enough to organize people.
 
You need to organize the business itself.
 
The way it operates.
The way it scales.
 
So, we made a decision that initially felt unnecessary, especially since our operational entities were already heavily compliant with European regulations and approved by the competent Civil Aviation Authorities.
 
We moved forward with ISO process standardization.
 
Not for the certification.
 
But to create consistency, clarity, and repeatability in the business.
 
To build a strong core that could support operations scaling almost aggressively, faster than informal structures could sustain.
 
We also did something that isn’t always obvious.
 
We invested in new people with fresh perspectives.
 
People not shaped by the old habits we were trying to leave behind.
 
People dedicated entirely to this effort and fully aligned with the direction we wanted to move towards.
 
And they did it exceptionally well.
 
At the same time, we introduced technology to support this transformation: ERP, HRMS, and a performance management system.
 
Not just to digitalize.
 
But to bring transparency, data-driven decision making, and alignment into the way we operate.
 
To make the invisible visible.
 
Because strong organizations are built by people, enabled by systems, technology, and automation.
 
Standardization is not a limitation.
 
It is what allows you to grow without falling apart, without losing control as complexity increases.
 
But the hardest part was something else.
 
We took responsibility for the fact that some people, although excellent professionals and high performers, had been promoted without being properly equipped to lead.
 
A reality that is more common than we admit.
 
And we chose not to lose them.
 
So, we invested in them, consciously and intentionally.
 
We designed a one-year leadership development program for 12 of our managers and key staff.
 
Not theoretical training.
 
Real work:
 
• blended learning experience
• simulations
• customized scenarios
• feedback
• conflict
• understanding each other’s roles
 
Somewhere along the way, something shifted.
 
Not because we “learned something new.”
 
But because we started to truly understand each other beyond roles and titles.
 
People stepped into each other’s shoes.
 
And collaboration changed.
 
Less ego.
More awareness.
More empathy.
More intention in how we worked together.
 
Two years later?
 
I won’t say “we made it.”I’ll say we are on the right runway.
 
• We have structure.
• We have a shared language.
• We make better decisions together.
• We have become a stronger, more aligned team.
 
And most importantly, we have resilience.
 
The kind that is built, not assumed.
 
If there’s one thing I take from this experience as an HR professional, it’s not the models.
 
It’s not the org charts.
 
It’s this:
 
In times of uncertainty, people don’t need perfect answers.
 
They need honesty.
They need direction.
They need to be reminded of their “why.”
 
This was not the first wave of uncertainty we had to navigate.
 
And it probably will not be the last.
 
But I realized that uncertainty does not only challenge us.
 
It can also bring us closer to our purpose.
 
And as long as my “why” stays alive, I know I will always find a way forward.
 
 
Anastasia Toulaki for Top HR Voices of Greece
 
 
• • •

When You Stand Between Two Sides: Leadership in Negotiation Is Not About Winning — It Is About Ensuring No One Loses

“You do not negotiate to win. You negotiate to create an outcome that lasts.” -GerasimosC.-

Gerasimos Chatziemmanouil

Chief Human Resources Officer (CHRO) · April 17, 2026 · 4 min read

When I took on the role of HR Director in the company, I immediately found myself at the center of an intense conflict. On one side, management. On the other, the employees’ union. In the middle, an arbitration decision that—if fully implemented—could derail payroll costs and effectively blow up the company’s budget.In real terms, we were discussing a financial burden that could increase monthly payroll to levels that were not sustainable for the company’s operation. And I, new to the organization, found myself needing to deliver a solution as fast as possible. But, not to a theoretical disagreement, but to a real conflict with immediate financial, operational, and human impact. These are the moments where HR is not simply called to “manage” a situation, but to truly stand at its center and influence its outcome.The reality was clearly confrontational. The union demanded full implementation of the decision. Management refused, relying on a legal “loophole.” Trust between the two sides was low. And the most dangerous element was that neither side was truly listening. Each side came to the table not to understand, but to defend its position. And that is usually the point where a negotiation stops being a process of resolution and becomes a mechanism of escalation.My approach was clear from the beginning. I did not enter the negotiation to impose. I entered to understand. I started with something simple but rare: I described the conflict objectively, without taking a position. Then I asked in depth, listened without interruption, and confirmed that I had understood correctly. This step is often underestimated, but it is critical. Because there is a truth that is frequently overlooked: most conflicts do not start from disagreement. They start from misinterpretation. From incorrect reading of intentions. From lack of trust. From the certainty that “the other side” is not acting in good faith.From the very first moment, my stance was clear. I was not interested in being liked. I was interested in being credible. And most importantly, in contributing to a solution that could endure over time. Because you do not negotiate to win. You negotiate to create an outcome that lasts. That was the real objective for me. Not a temporary “closure” of tension, but an agreement that would not generate the next crisis from the first day of its implementation.When I returned to management, I did not simply transfer the problem. I proposed alternatives. Because every serious negotiation follows one rule: if you do not have options, you do not have negotiation. You have a dead end. And the difficult balance was exactly there. The proposal was clear: not to fully implement the arbitration decision, but to provide targeted elements, such as allowances, in order to create balance. In simple terms, the company should not lose. But the people should not lose either.When I returned to the union, I maintained a clear line. Honesty. Clear positioning. No ambiguity. I communicated directly that some things could not change, but some things would move forward. And this clarity mattered. Because in such moments, even when you are not telling everyone what they want to hear, you can keep the dialogue alive if you speak with clarity and without games.The harsh reality of negotiation is that there is not always room for comfort. There was tension. There was conflict. And there was a moment where, if the negotiation had collapsed, the company would have faced a financial burden significant enough to directly affect its viability and operational stability. This is where your role is defined. Not when everything goes well. But when you know that a wrong move carries real consequences. When you must keep the process balanced while both sides test its limits.Ultimately, the agreement was reached. And the outcome was meaningful. The company avoided a significant and disproportionate financial burden. The employees received tangible benefits. Tension de-escalated. Trust began to build. And most importantly, we moved from conflict to cooperation. Not perfectly, not automatically, but substantially.The real impact does not lie only in the outcome of the agreement. It lies in what followed. The union began to trust the process. Communication became more direct and honest. The relationship remained positive even after my departure. From being perceived as the “black sheep,” I became a point of reference of trust. And this is often the most silent, yet most substantial proof that the approach worked.The essence of leadership in negotiation is simple. Negotiation is not a battle. It is a responsibility. It is not about pushing, imposing, or winning. It is about understanding, balancing, and creating a solution that lasts. A solution that does not humiliate one side so that the other can feel it has won. A solution that allows the organization to continue operating and people to continue trusting that there is space for serious dialogue.In HR, especially in such moments, you are not an “intermediary.” You are a catalyst. And true leadership is demonstrated when you deliver results without destroying the relationships that create them.
 
 
Gerasimos Chatziemmanouil for Top HR Voices of Greece
 
 
• • •

Partnerships
2027 Edition