statistically significant predictor of service standards with a path coefficient of
0.43 (p=<0.001).
Another empirical hospitality study (not one related to leadership) measured the
influence of Social Support on Taiwanese hospitality students during their industry
internship experiences. Fei-Chuan et al. (2009) reported their findings that Social
Support moderated the effect of Emotional Display Rules on Job Satisfaction –
although their SEM model did not demonstrate good model fit on two key
measures (Chi Square and the Comparative Fit Index[CFI]).
In the context of hospitality motivation research, Lee-Ross (1995, 1998a,
1998b) and Lundberg (2009) have measured beneficial effects of positive social
envronments. Finally, although focusing on workers’ experiences rather than
organisational outcomes, recent work by Janta and Ladkin (2009) Janta (2011)
and Janta et al. (in press) focusing on migrant Polish workers in the UK hospitality
industry has also reported the beneficial role of positive social environments.
Simons (2003: 348) also relates broader notions of positive social contexts to
positive organisational outcomes in his review of hospitality motivation studies.
Regarding methods of measuring the social support construct in the hospitality
literature:
Ross and Boles (1994) used a scale from Moos (1981) but did not report
details of all of the statements used to evaluate the indicator variables. It is
likely that, in common with many psychometric scales for use in organisational
studies (e.g. the Multi-Factor Leadership Questionnaire (Avolio and Bass
2004a) for measuring the Full-Range Leadership Model (FRLM) of
transformational leadership) the scale is a proprietary one and restrictions are
in place regarding the publication of the entire set of item statements for any
particular scale;
Borchgrevink and Boster (1994) used a four-item scale from Miller et al.
(1990); and
Susskind et al. (2000a) used a six-item scale developed from previous work by
Litwin and Stringer (1968) and Eisenberger et al. (1986).
The source of Fei-Chuan et al.’s (2009) four-item scale is not clear owing to
erroneous referencing in that article.