Inter-brand career mobility: a study of general manager perceptions and implications for talent management

An organization’s sustained competitive advantage is inextricably linked to its capacity to strategically manage talent (Baum, 2019), particularly within an increasingly interconnected global landscape characterized by workforce fluidity and cross-border mobility (Hsu et al., 2017). The evolution of talent management over the past quarter-century has fundamentally transformed how organizations conceptualize and operationalize their approaches to managing people (Kravariti et al., 2022) and continues to evolve in the context of unprecedented career mobility and the need for greater strategic agility (Jooss et al., 2024). While talent management has been conceptualized as a systematic and integrated organizational approach to attracting, engaging and retaining valuable employees (Gallardo-Gallardo et al., 2020), we argue that this definition must now contend with increasingly fluid career patterns and shifting employee expectations around mobility (Ladkin et al., 2023).

The efficacy of talent management initiatives is intrinsically linked to their organizational context and supporting infrastructure, yet traditional frameworks may inadequately address contemporary career mobility patterns (Bagdadli and Gianecchini, 2019). Collings and Mellahi (2009) posit that talent management effectiveness is maximized through a differentiated architecture, and this perspective was further elaborated by King and Vaiman (2019), who emphasize the necessity of complementary systemic elements. While architectural similarities may exist across organizations, the underlying philosophical foundations and contextual assumptions exhibit significant organizational specificity (Vaiman et al., 2021), particularly in how they accommodate or restrict career mobility.

The talent management architecture – conceptualized as an integrated system of processes, practices and frameworks for talent optimization (Sparrow and Makram, 2015) – must now evolve beyond traditional approaches, which are premised on linear career progression within organizational hierarchies (Vinkenburg and Weber, 2012). This assumption is increasingly challenged by contemporary career patterns characterized by frequent transitions and non-linear progression paths (Sullivan and Al Ariss, 2021), including lateral moves, downward moves or evolving job responsibilities without title changes (Ladkin and Kichuk, 2017). In an industry where career mobility is highly valued by employees (Tolkach and Tung, 2019) and which is plagued by high turnover rates, more sustainable career pathways are required (Gebbels et al., 2020; Johnson et al., 2019; Jooss et al., 2023).

Careers can be defined as “an individual’s work-related and other relevant experiences, both inside and outside of organizations, that form a unique pattern over the individual’s life span” (Sullivan and Baruch, 2009, p. 1543), while career mobility refers to changing jobs, organizations and occupations, both nationally and internationally (Feldman and Ng, 2007). The two principal forms of career mobility encompass organizational and geographical mobility; while geographical mobility considers location changes (Choudhury, 2022), organizational mobility encompasses both intra-firm and inter-firm movement of individuals (Feldman and Ng, 2007). Such career transitions are part of one’s career path and overall career experience (Sullivan and Al Ariss, 2021). The careers literature has provided insights into attitudes toward mobility, perceptions of mobility opportunities, the value of mobility for careers and mobility frictions (Feldman and Ng, 2007; Ray, 2024).

Hospitality scholars have, for several decades, highlighted the importance of career mobility (Ladkin et al., 2023), often with a focus on the general manager (GM) role, which traditionally has been viewed as the “target job” of one’s career in the hospitality industry (Ladkin, 1999, p. 168). Advancing our understanding of careers of GMs, scholars have provided insights into, for example, their demographic profile (Okumus et al., 2016), educational background and experience (Kim et al., 2009), competencies (Bharwani and Talib, 2017) and individuals’ development strategies to reach the GM position (Akrivos et al., 2007). However, there remains limited insight into how career mobility impacts progression, turnover and talent management (Jooss et al., 2021).

Notably, the global hospitality industry has undergone a structural transformation through strategic consolidation, resulting in the emergence of dominant conglomerates such as Marriott International, Hilton and Accor (Zhang et al., 2020). These “megabrands” have pursued aggressive expansion strategies and achieved brand portfolio diversification, enabling these firms to optimize market coverage (Hultman et al., 2021). This consolidation has fundamentally reshaped career mobility dynamics, enabling expansive internal talent markets and idiosyncratic career progression (Keller and Dlugos, 2023). Employees increasingly pursue career movements across multiple brands within the same corporate ecosystem. This intra-organizational mobility has created complex talent management implications (Jooss et al., 2024) as firms balance standardization of talent practices across brands while maintaining distinct brand identities and service cultures. Considering these changes, and responding to Tolkach and Tung’s (2019) call for more research on career mobility to better understand these contemporary complexities, we ask: how does career mobility in the hotel industry shape individuals’ careers toward GM roles?

In our exploratory qualitative research, we conducted 45 interviews with GMs working in three-, four- and five-star hotels located in 16 countries. We focused on GMs for several reasons. GMs hold the most senior role in a hotel property and thus are able to reflect on their own career path as well as the industry more broadly. They are recognized as having a critical role, overseeing service quality (Wu et al., 2021), shaping organizational culture and ensuring strategic alignment with owners and corporate leadership teams (Bharwani and Talib, 2017). As such, GMs can have a differential impact on organizational performance and be a principal reason for a hotel’s success or failure (Okumus et al., 2016). Using abductive reasoning and thematic analysis, we adopted a career mobility lens (Feldman and Ng, 2007). Rather than presenting broad findings on various forms of intra-firm, inter-firm and geographical mobility, we center our findings on the most salient and novel feature, unpacking constraints on and enablers of inter-brand mobility. We purposefully refer to “inter-brand” rather than “inter-organizational” mobility given the structural transformations in the industry (Hultman et al., 2021). We define inter-brand mobility as an individual’s movement between brands – which may be across organizations or within one larger umbrella organization.

We contribute to both the workforce and talent management literature (Kravariti et al., 2022; Ladkin et al., 2023) and the careers literature (Chudzikowski, 2012; Vinkenburg and Weber, 2012) by enriching our understanding of how career mobility in the hotel industry shapes individuals’ careers toward GM roles. We conceptualize inter-brand mobility as a distinct form of career mobility, which differs from traditional forms of mobility. Moreover, we add to the discourse around the boundaries of career mobility, presenting a set of constraints on and enablers of inter-brand mobility. While GMs referred to a general openness towards inter-brand mobility, supporting the boundaryless career movement, they also reflected on attitudinal forces within the industry and specific human and social capital requirements that limit moves between hotel categories. Specifically, our findings highlight low perceived permeability in upward mobility from four-star to five-star hotels. In doing so, our study provides more nuanced insights into career mobility, theorizing inter-brand complexities.

Career mobility has received increasing attention since the 1990s (Hirschi and Koen, 2021), with many organizations moving away from offering lifetime employment toward individual employability (Ray, 2024). Career mobility refers to changing jobs, organizations and occupations, both nationally and internationally (Feldman and Ng, 2007). First, job changes refer to significant changes in work responsibilities, hierarchy or title within an organization. This intra-firm mobility either relates to promotions (vertical mobility) or transfers (horizontal/lateral mobility) (Ray, 2024). Second, organizational mobility relates to changes in the employing company, thus representing a form of inter-firm mobility. This form of mobility may or may not involve a job change and may take place within the same or a different industry (Feldman and Ng, 2007). Third, occupational changes consider vocational redevelopment, requiring fundamentally new skillsets; for example, transitioning into new occupations created by digital technologies (Sullivan and Al Ariss, 2021).

While organizations continue to have core structures build around hierarchies, changes to jobs, organizations and occupations have become more common with the rise of the boundaryless careers movement (Vinkenburg and Weber, 2012). Boundaryless careers refer to the “sequences of job opportunities that go beyond the boundaries of single employment settings” (DeFillippi and Arthur, 1994, p. 307). Ultimately, the various transitions across boundaries imply high career mobility (Chudzikowski, 2012; De Vos et al., 2021). The extant literature has examined a range of factors that encourage employees’ career mobility within and beyond traditional boundaries, including structural and occupational labor market forces, organizational policies and procedures, work-group dynamics, personal life circumstances and personality differences (Ng et al., 2007). In this context, emphasis is often placed on employees’ flexibility while downplaying potential constraints due to structural or attitudinal forces (Inkson et al., 2012). Here, permeability, referring to the ease or difficulty of entering a new job, organization or occupation (Belous, 1990), plays a significant role when evaluating career mobility.

In addition, research has analyzed the specific career patterns of managers, including the number, duration and sequence of jobs (Vinkenburg and Weber, 2012). This includes the objectively observed career paths of individuals’ movement over time as well as the underlying cognitive structures as individuals reflect on their career paths (Arnold and Cohen, 2008). Most studies on career paths center around two dimensions – time and direction. Time matters as career patterns are a sequence of experiences over the duration of one’s career. Similarly, direction matters, with traditional career progression being associated with upward promotions. This type of mobility is still the norm in most careers; however, downward and lateral movements have increasingly been recognized when considering direction as a dimension of career paths (Vinkenburg and Weber, 2012).

Early empirical research on career patterns focused on the stability and direction of career paths (e.g. Super, 1957). This was followed by studies centered on individuals’ intra-organizational mobility and upward movement (e.g. Forbes, 1987). These studies have also highlighted the importance of early career positions and success in determining career mobility over time (Sheridan et al., 1990). Recently, scholars have increasingly focused on the dynamics of inter-organizational mobility (Cappelli et al., 2014). For example, Bidwell and Briscoe (2010) propose that, at an early career stage, individuals are more likely to work for firms that provide training opportunities while subsequently moving to firms that seek their specific skill profile. Empirical evidence on the impact of inter-organizational mobility on careers is inconclusive, with mixed results across diverse contexts (Vinkenburg and Weber, 2012). To date, most studies have adopted an organizational lens, examining the implications of inter-organizational mobility on hiring, turnover, or performance (for a review, see Mawdsley and Somaya, 2016). In this context, Won and Bidwell (2023) refer to inter-organizational mobility as a double-edged sword in that employers may value diverse skill sets but may also be concerned about higher attrition risks and lack of organizational fit.

Career mobility in the hotel industry is characterized by a complex interplay of organizational structures, individual agency and industry-specific constraints that challenge traditional models of talent development and progression, and our understanding of career mobility (Johnson et al., 2019; Ladkin et al., 2023). While the sector offers numerous entry points and apparent opportunities for advancement, closer examination reveals systemic barriers and structural idiosyncrasies (Baum, 2019) that significantly impact patterns of mobility. The hotel industry also has a long-standing reputation for high labor turnover (Carbery et al., 2003; Gebbels et al., 2020; Park and Min, 2020), with individuals frequently changing jobs and organizations. This creates a paradoxical environment of frequent advancement opportunities amid institutional instability, leading to a form of mobility trap where rapid advancement occurs without corresponding skill development, often resulting in career plateaus at middle management levels (Yang et al., 2019).

Studies on career paths of GMs have highlighted both internal promotions over time and external hires but predominately focused on the time it takes to achieve the GM position, with results ranging from an average of 9–18 years (e.g. Kim et al., 2009). The most common pathways included a track record in the food and beverage and/or rooms division departments, with some individuals also having a background in sales (Kim et al., 2009). While much of the extant literature has only focused on when and how individuals obtain a GM role, it has not considered the impact of hotel classification and organizational context on subsequent career mobility. Given that many individuals acquire their first GM role in their 30s (Okumus et al., 2016), their early experiences in the industry have a profound formative effect on perceived and actual mobility. The number of hotels, types of positions within them and both internal and external labor markets may all influence how hotel managers move through their careers. Thus, research that incorporates patterns beyond time and direction (Vinkenburg and Weber, 2012) is required to better understand how mobility may impact individuals’ careers.

The globalization of hotel operations (Zhang et al., 2020) has introduced additional complexity to talent management and mobility patterns. Comparative analyses of career trajectories in international hotel chains reveal significant disparities in mobility opportunities between employees with global capabilities and those constrained by linguistic or educational barriers, indicating the emergence of distinct mobility classes within the industry (Smart et al., 2021). Further, gender and cultural dimensions have emerged as persistent themes in recent literature. There is evidence of continued gender-based mobility barriers (Mooney, 2020), particularly in luxury segments (Ryan and Mooney, 2020), identifying subtle institutional mechanisms that maintain a contemporary glass ceiling, despite some progress in overall gender representation (Campos-Soria et al., 2015).

Organizational responses to these mobility challenges reveal significant variation in effectiveness (Tolkach and Tung, 2019). Comparative analyses of talent development programs across major hotel chains identify systematic weaknesses in talent development approaches. Prevalent ad hoc promotion practices, prioritizing immediate operational needs over strategic development, potentially undermining long-term career development opportunities (Kichuk et al., 2019; Kravariti et al., 2022). These trends demonstrate the existence of a complex ecosystem of career mobility within the hotel industry. We argue that the limitations of traditional mobility models emphasize the need for a more nuanced understanding of mobility that can account for the multifaceted nature of contemporary hospitality careers while acknowledging the formative impact of early career experiences and organizational contexts.

Our qualitative research design allowed us to give voice to GMs, reflecting on their own career paths as well as their observations on careers in the hotel industry based on their professional experience. Given the exploratory nature of our research, we did not have a specific theoretical construct in mind a priori but engaged with literature on career paths more broadly. Our literature section was then refined a posteriori, integrating the boundaryless careers concept and the career mobility lens in particular.

We adopted a purposeful sampling approach that centers around information-rich cases from key informants (Patton, 2015). Specifically, we used a combination of two sampling procedures, a common strategy in organizational research (Aguinis et al., 2021). First, we followed criterion sampling, seeking individuals who occupied the GM position in a hotel. We deemed GMs as appropriate interviewees, given they have the most senior role in a hotel, having advanced their careers through various roles over time. We targeted individuals with at least ten years of professional experience in the hotel industry to ensure a seasoned profile with sufficient exposure to career dynamics. Second, we adopted stratified sampling (Patton, 2015) to ensure representation of gender, geographies and hotel categories (i.e. stars classification). We were particularly interested in four- and five-star hotels as we had anecdotal evidence of complex career mobility and associated challenges when moving between these hotel categories. The research design was approved by the university’s ethics review board, complying with ethical guidelines.

As all authors have prior experience in the hotel industry, GMs were contacted via their personal network, using email and LinkedIn during a 13-month period (May 2021 to June 2022). We continued data collection until theoretical saturation, and our final sample encompassed 45 GMs in three-star (n = 5), four-star (n = 13) and five-star (n = 27) hotels (see Table 1). This sample size also aligns with other qualitative studies published in leading management journals (Saunders and Townsend, 2016). Specifically, our sample included 11 female (25%) and 34 male (75%) GMs, reflective of the industry’s significant gender imbalance at the GM level (Russen et al., 2021). These individuals were located across 16 countries in Asia, Africa, Europe and the Americas. They were either employed by a hotel chain (n = 30) or managed a family owned, independent hotel (n = 15). We view our broad sample as a particular strength of our research given extant studies on GM careers have focused on a particular hotel category (e.g. Kim et al., 2009) or location (e.g. Cassel et al., 2018; Okumus et al., 2016).

Our research participants were very experienced in the hotel business; they held an average of 8.4 positions and had 25 years of work experience. They also held an average of 2.8 GM positions and had 13.4 years of experience as a GM. In terms of their career mobility, they changed positions every 4.1 years and worked for 4.2 hotel organizations (we classify multiple brand experiences relating to one umbrella chain as one organization). Our sample of GMs have also worked across 3.2 countries on average; however, this differed significantly among our sample with 25 GMs having had experience in one to two countries, while 20 managers had experience in a minimum of three countries, with some having worked in nine countries. While there were some upward and downward movements across hotel categories in our interviewees’ career paths, participants most frequently transitioned within the same hotel category when changing roles.

The semi-structured interviews focused on the career paths of GMs (supplementary Table 1). We asked the participants to reflect on their own careers and their views on careers in the industry more broadly. For example, we asked: How did your career path to that of GM unfold? To what extent have you planned your next positions, moves and path? What does career progression depend on and what are the barriers for career progression? How does work experience impact the career paths of GMs? To align the interviewing approach between the first and second author, the first interview was conducted jointly. The other interviews were completed on a one-to-one basis (n = 21 by the first author; n = 23 by the second author). The interviews were conducted between May 2021 and June 2022 via Microsoft Teams due to the international spread of interviewees and COVID-19 travel restrictions and lasted an average of 49 min. Consent was given after participants were informed about the purpose of the study, protection of anonymity and secure storing of data; we did not anticipate any major risks.

We followed abductive reasoning (Grodal et al., 2021) and thematic analysis (Braun et al., 2019) to build insights (Figure 1). First, we familiarized ourselves with the interview data, reading the transcripts and listening back to the audio recordings. As part of this stage, we noted initial themes, including career planning, critical career moments, career progression and career priorities. Second, we decided to center our analysis on what we deemed to be a particularly prominent theme within the interviewees’ discourse, namely, individuals’ career mobility towards GM roles, which is reflected in our research question. Third, aligned with our abductive reasoning, we iterated back and forth between our data and existing theoretical concepts (Grodal et al., 2021). Specifically, when consulting the literature on career mobility (Feldman and Ng, 2007), we noted organizational and geographical mobility patterns within the discourse. These were also prominent in our interviews. For example, interviewees had highlighted the value of intra-firm rotations between jobs, inter-firm exposure to gain broader experiences and geographical mobility to explore cultures and advance careers.

Fourth, enriching existing literature, we identified inter-brand mobility as the most salient and novel concept in our data, and we engaged in open coding to unpack it further. Fifth, we combined and organized related first-order codes into broader second-order categories (Table 2). For example, multiple codes that referred to organizational culture were combined to a category, labeled “uncertainty around cultural fit.” Similarly, multiple codes that referred to individuals’ knowledge, skills and abilities were combined to a category labeled “human and social capital requirements.” Finally, we reviewed these categories to identify broader themes aligned with our central concept of inter-brand mobility. Here, we noted that multiple categories represented constraints on and enablers of inter-brand mobility, and we went again back to the literature, engaging with the notion of boundaryless careers. Coding was led by the first author but discussed with the second author during regular meetings for validation.

Our findings are centered around the constraints on and enablers of inter-brand mobility. We define inter-brand mobility as an individual’s movement between brands – which may be across organizations or within one larger umbrella organization. In the first scenario, individuals move between brands across organizations, for example, from Fairmont to Four Seasons, or from Shangri-la to Mandarin Oriental. In the second scenario, individuals move between brands within one larger conglomerate, for example, within Marriott, one might move from Autograph to St Regis to Renaissance, or within Hilton, one could move from Hampton to Conrad to Waldorf Astoria.

Constraints on inter-brand mobility included:

• industry perceptions;

• uncertainty around cultural fit;

• owners’ expectations; and

• human and social capital requirements (see Table 3).

The constraints raised were primarily related to career moves from four-star to five-star hotels. First, industry perceptions were viewed as a significant constraint on inter-brand mobility. Many GMs in our sample were concerned about some of the underlying perceptions within the five-star sector. GM 30 noted that “guys who are in the luxury arena can sometimes be snobbish about colleagues who work in the four-star business.” This was confirmed by GM 06 who highlighted that “people at the five-star level might be guilty of saying, ‘we are really special, and we are the only ones with these skills and these skills are not available at a four- or three-star level.’” Other GMs have referred to an ego and a “stigma around the five-star level of service” (GM 18). The following two quotes echo these concerns:

Various GMs noted that these perceptions have led to individuals, organizations and recruiters adopting a similar mindset. For example, recruiters look for someone with a particular background; “if you have not had any five-star experience early on in your CV, it is very difficult without taking a step back in your career to get into a five-star” (GM 06). Similarly, GM 13 referred to organizations “who will say, ‘we are hiring nobody except somebody from the five-star properties’, and I think that is a mistake.”

Second, uncertainty around cultural fit was another constraint on inter-brand mobility. This was particularly relevant when moving into a management role within organizations. GM 30 tried to explain the difference between four- and five-star, referring to a “different culture,” comparing hospitality to the retail industry; “H&M is different from Burberry or from other luxury brands, right? We are doing things a bit differently.” A couple of GMs referred to a very exclusive approach, referring to trophy hotels and differentiating even within the five-star hotel category when hiring:

Several GMs noted that a transition into the luxury hotel segment, especially at a management level, would require a downward move for individuals to ensure that they understand the culture, minimizing the risk for the organization (GMs 10 and 40). GM 22 explained that a downward move is required in this situation to instill the culture, which is crucial when leading other people; “Particularly in a management role, you need to be carrying that culture and you need to be that culture, so it is hard to make that transition.” A similar perspective was also shared by other GMs as illustrated in the following two quotes:

Third, owners’ expectations were also referred to as a common constraint on inter-brand mobility. This was particularly relevant when moving from a hotel manager to a GM role and related to both moves from family-owned hotels to corporate hotels as well as from four-star to five-star properties (GMs 21, 40 and 43). GM 29 noted that “people build their careers in certain segments,” and while moves can still happen, they are more likely to be constrained due to the trajectory and a lack of trust from owners if certain experience was missing in one’s career. The following two quotes illustrate these mobility constraints:

Fourth, human and social capital requirements were highlighted by GMs in our sample as a constraint on inter-brand mobility, particularly when trying to move into the luxury segment. For example, knowledge and skills about high-end service experiences, the luxury travel market and vision, and sales processes as well as networks and relationships (GMs 01, 35 and 39). Others recognized the need to understand quality delivery, highlighting the clientele in certain organizations (GM 08, GM 29, GM 42, GM 43). “They have a very specific type of guest, and you may not have the skillset, or you may not understand them if you have taken a gap out of the luxury sector for an extended period” (GM 23).

Enablers of inter-brand mobility included:

• the multi-brand system;

• early career exposure; and

• changing industry dynamics (see Table 4).

First, the multi-brand system of large employers was perceived as enabling inter-brand mobility – with some limitations (GMs 10 and 29). Several GMs recognized the value of gaining experience across brands; “multi-brand experience is critical. It is good to cross brands a little bit because you value them differently” (GM 26). Various GMs noted that being an employee within a large firm with multiple brands allowed for easier inter-brand mobility as “there is respect for having worked in that system” (GM 05). This inter-brand mobility included moves between hotel categories, with some organizations actively encouraging such multi-brand experience.

However, GMs also reflected on the vastly different business models, for example, between select-service and full-service hotels, and the difference between, for example, three-star and five-star properties within the multi-brand system. The following two quotes illustrate this:

Second, early career exposure was viewed as another way to enhance inter-brand mobility. GMs noted that during the first few years of the career, individuals can gain diverse experiences while at the same time highlighting that a move to luxury environment becomes more difficult with time and that it is easy “to get stuck, being pigeonholed” (GM 01); “if you want to move into five-star, I think three years is the maximum, you need to break out of that and either go into four-star or five-star” (GM 12).

GM 38 also highlighted the value of early positions in potentially shaping or accelerating one’s career; “if the firm thinks you are good, they might give you an opportunity that someone else who does not know you might not be willing to risk” (GM 38). GMs also reflected on the advantages of starting careers in a four-star versus a five-star property, with reasons for both presented in the following two quotes:

Third, changing industry dynamics were mentioned by several GMs, enabling inter-brand mobility. Among several GMs, a greater focus on hiring for personality, interests, and values rather than an experience-based record of accomplishment in a particular hotel category. For example, GM 13 reflected on the GMs in Ireland, stating that “they have generally dipped in and out of four- and five-stars for various reasons.” Alongside this, investing in the learning and development of employees to enhance their skills was viewed as an increasingly adopted approach to attract, develop and retain individuals in the industry. GM 06 reflected on “hotels – the good ones – in the last five or six years, they hire for positive personality traits, and they say, ‘we will train the skills at an operational or supervisory level’” (GM 06). Two GMs explained why the focus on personality and learning was needed in the industry:

The purpose of this paper was to examine how career mobility in the hotel industry shapes individuals’ careers towards GM roles. Figure 2 presents a summary framework, visualizing the most salient and novel theme of inter-brand mobility and its key catalysts, constraints, enablers and implications. An evolving openness toward career mobility and boundaryless careers as well as the consolidation-driven structural transformation of the industry were identified as catalysts for increased attention toward inter-brand mobility. This has produced a paradoxical dynamic: on the one hand, it offers unprecedented opportunities for internal mobility and development within corporate portfolios through powerful internal talent markets (Keller and Dlugos, 2023). On the other hand, it disrupts traditional skillsets and career paths in the industry, previously characterized by stability and clear career ladders (Ladkin and Kichuk, 2017).

Our study diverges from the extant literature in two significant ways. First, scholars have generally focused on the demographic profile, competencies and development strategies toward GM roles in the hotel industry (cf. Akrivos et al., 2007; Kim et al., 2009; Okumus et al., 2016). By contrast, our study provides more nuanced insights into career mobility, theorizing the inter-brand complexities in the hospitality context. We unpack the dynamics that potentially constrain moves and, in doing so, unconsciously influence career paths. Second, the limited studies on career mobility in the hospitality industry have often focused on functional areas within a hotel (e.g. food and beverage, rooms division and sales pathways), or examined a particular organization, hotel category or location, commonly adopting quantitative methods (Tolkach and Tung, 2019). Thus, through our qualitative research design, we provide rich insights into GMs’ reflections on inter-brand mobility and talent management in the hotel industry. This approach allowed us to bring their voice to the forefront, raising critique about common industry perspectives around inter-brand mobility.

We echo the concerns raised by our sample GMs, noting that in the light of ongoing talent shortages in the hotel industry, more innovative and inclusive career paths must be embraced. Our findings showed an effort by some individuals and their organizations to focus on talent management, including development, upskilling and reskilling, particularly within the multi-brand system of an organization. For an industry that encompasses a large number of young and inexperienced workers (Golubovskaya et al., 2019), such a development-focused mindset seems critical. In addition, rather than pigeonholing individuals early on into a particular segment due to a narrow view of track records and particular career patterns, participants acknowledged the value of a more diverse view on talents, recognizing transferable skills and offering opportunities for exposure. Beyond inter-brand mobility, this may also include non-traditional paths within the hotel industry (e.g. via revenue, HR or sales and marketing), and openness toward career transitions from other industries (Chudzikowski, 2012) that share a similar focus on service design and delivery. We contend that this ultimately enhances talent attraction and retention in the hotel industry. In the following, we discuss our theoretical contributions, practical implications and limitations and future research suggestions.

Our core theoretical contribution stems from conceptualizing inter-brand mobility as a novel form of career mobility, which differs from the traditional forms of organizational and geographical mobility (Feldman and Ng, 2007). Having defined inter-brand mobility as movement between brands that may be across organizations or within one larger umbrella organization, we provide a more nuanced view of career mobility. Moreover, we contribute to the boundaryless career notion (Vinkenburg and Weber, 2012), by depicting important boundary conditions, a valuable contribution underpinning the contextually bounded nature of theorizing. The constraining role of boundaries acknowledges that boundaries define limits or resistances (Dahrendorf, 1980), which is highly relevant in the context of individuals’ careers. We assert that recognizing the constraints on inter-brand career mobility is important as emphasis within the boundaryless career narrative is often placed on employees’ flexibility, downplaying its contextually relevant boundaries (Inkson et al., 2012).

Specifically, we theorize low perceived permeability (Belous, 1990) in upward mobility from four-star to five-star hotels due to attitudinal forces among various stakeholders as well as human and social capital requirements. We explain that a common underlying reason was the perception of varying operating standards and guest expectations between hotel categories. While previous research has focused on understanding the consumer experience in luxury hotels (Walls et al., 2011), we find that these perceptions are also deeply engrained within the hiring decision-makers (i.e. managers, recruiters, owners). Building on studies that have recognized the influential role of hotel owners (see, e.g. Hodari et al., 2018), we highlight their strong impact on hiring decisions, particularly at a GM level. Owners usually are risk averse and trust in established track records within a particular segment of the hotel industry. This is underpinned by a wider discussion of cultural fit, which emerged from our findings and confirms previous studies in the luxury hotel contexts (e.g. Marinakou and Giousmpasoglou, 2019). In addition, and contrary to previous research on social capital and performance (Huang et al., 2021), we found that social capital – built within a particular segment of the industry – plays an influential role in hiring decisions at managerial levels. We assert that this relates to a broad set of employee, industry and customer networks established over one’s career. Theoretically, these underlying reasons imply boundaries to the boundaryless career concept, highlighting how career mobility shapes career paths.

Our study offers several practical implications. First, for individuals, our findings allow for reflection on mobility patterns and may aid in career planning. For example, by being conscious of constraints on inter-brand mobility, individuals can strategically plan their career moves and gain diverse and transferable skills. Individuals can proactively seek ways to develop their human and social capital to reduce the perceived gap by hiring decision-makers. For example, individuals can enhance their human capital by focusing on their professional development. This could include obtaining industry credentials, completing training courses, seeking cross-brand experience or shadowing leaders in other hotel segments. Individuals can enhance their social capital by building professional networks, seeking industry mentors and collaborating on cross-brand strategic priorities for the organization or industry.

Second, organizations should actively work toward reducing the constraints on inter-brand mobility, particularly in relation to long-held, archaic industry perceptions and employees’ human and social capital. Our findings highlight the intricate relationship between industry consolidation, strategic brand management and evolving career mobility patterns in hotels. The implications for talent management strategies within these complex organizational ecosystems warrant further consideration, particularly regarding the optimization of internal talent markets and the development of multi-brand leadership competencies for GMs. Organizations should develop a culture of talent management that encourages the exploration of diverse career opportunities and discourages narrow views on talent and pigeonholing of employees. Providing transparency around the requirements to transition between hotel segments and outlining support mechanisms if one wishes to move brands is critical. This should include clear criteria for moves to another hotel category, for example, from a four-star to a five-star hotel. Support can be offered via targeted development opportunities for upskilling and reskilling, enhancing human and social capital. This encompasses offering diverse experiences alongside upward position-focused mobility, for example, lateral assignments and rotations for exposure across brands and hotel categories within conglomerates. More broadly, organizations should analyze the availability of relevant transferable skills and innovative ways to deploy individuals with those skills in an agile manner, for example, through providing cross-departmental and cross-brand collaboration opportunities.

Third, the hotel industry should consider the reflections shared by the GMs in our study. While some GMs have shared reasons for the constraints on inter-brand mobility within the industry, it is also clear that multiple GMs were quite critical about this approach. Facilitating career mobility provides economic benefits by reducing turnover, enhancing talent retention, deploying talent within the industry and creating a more agile workforce. Reducing constraints on career mobility also offers social benefits, ultimately making careers in the hospitality industry more sustainable, equitable and fulfilling, and contributing to the stability of the industry. We conclude that how the hotel industry portrays itself to (potential) employees is a key consideration when aiming to tackle the ongoing talent shortages. At a minimum, this requires critical reflection on current approaches to career mobility and managing talent.

Our research has some limitations. First, we did not seek generalizability through our qualitative study. We recognize that, despite having a diverse sample of GMs from 16 countries, we cannot fully capture the global variance, which may exist when considering career mobility. Expanding the sample and including other stakeholders such as employees, line and middle managers and HR leaders in future research would therefore be beneficial. In addition, we call for future research to complement our narrative-focused approach with quantitative methods, tracking individuals’ career moves over time. At the same time, we view in-depth case study research as a useful method to unearth how hotel organizations manage the career mobility of employees. For example, research could explore to what extent inter-brand mobility occurs and whether it is hindered or supported by organizational policies and procedures. For example, organizations might have talent management policies or mobility programs that actively encourage career mobility.

Second, future research should aim to further understand the constraints on inter-brand mobility in the hotel industry and explore innovative approaches to address these constraints in practice. For example, our research has identified human and social capital requirements as constraints on inter-brand career mobility. Yet, to date, we know little about how the number, duration and sequence of jobs impact the specific human and social capital of individuals. Future research should therefore explore how distinct career patterns facilitate the development of individuals’ human and social capital as well as organizational approaches to support employees in their human and social capital development for career mobility. In a similar vein, research that connects talent management and career mobility would be valuable to better understand the role of career mobility in attracting, developing, retaining and deploying talent. The tension between organizational investment in talent and increasing career mobility raises fundamental questions about the future of talent management. How can organizations develop talent management architectures that simultaneously serve organizational needs while accommodating career preferences of GMs? The role of inter-brand mobility in talent management strategies needs to be explicit so that organizations can balance the benefits of talent development against the risks of external mobility.

Third, given our focus on inter-brand mobility, we did not present findings on other forms of mobility. Future research could expand on other forms of career mobility and also illuminate transitions from/to other industries. Better understanding these career patterns will particularly help in understanding transferable skills across industries and sectors. Finally, future research could critically examine how the various forms of career mobility evolve in the context of changing workforce and macro trends. For example, research might explore whether geographical mobility is being looked at differently following the COVID-19 pandemic and given broader sustainability concerns. Similarly, research might consider whether remote work trends shape career mobility in the hotel industry. While the vast majority of hospitality roles require physical presence, there exists a small subset of hospitality workers (e.g. those in office roles such as finance, marketing, HR), who could potentially work remotely, but we know little on the extent to which this is offered in hotel organizations and how this may impact individuals’ careers in the long term.

The supplementary material for this article can be found online.