With the exception of the two theoretically-focused studies, Table 3 - 8 presents
the articles in chronological order. The review of rationales shows that
transformational leadership theory has been applied to address a range of
organisational issues including: change management; stress and burnout (in
leaders and followers); organisational and individuals’ performance; subordinate
empowerment; organisational commitment; and general management issues
encompassed within TL theory.
In summary, studies on hospitality leadership utilising transformational leadership
theory have addressed a broad range of leadership outcomes for a broad range of
reasons. In common with the wider field of hospitality leadership studies, there is
no unifying theme or set of research questions that have been addressed by
researchers who have adopted transformational leadership as their theoretical
focus. Researchers’ motivations for employing transformational leadership theory
appear to be diverse, as evidenced by the wide range of rationales for employing
this approach that are described. Such diversity of rationales further contributes
to the diversity of foci and findings in this sub-theme of hospitality leadership
research.
3.7 Miscellaneous studies
Three individual studies detailed in Table 3 - 2 are categorised separately: (i)
Erkutlu and Chafra (2006) which used power-influence leadership theory; (ii)
Brownell (2010) who examined servant leadership in the context of hospitality
and hospitality education; and (iii) Keegan’s (1983) discussion paper on the
societal context for hospitality-leadership.
Using French and Raven’s (1959) ‘social bases of power’ framework and Rahim’s
(1988) Leader Power Inventory, Erkutlu and Chafra (2006) sought to examine the
influence of leadership power bases on subordinates’ job stress in Turkish
boutique hotels. They found significant correlations between leader power bases
and subordinates’ job stress and recommended that organisations that aim to
proactively manage leadership-related issues should recognise the influence of
power bases. French and Raven’s power base framework was also utilised by
Borchgrevink and Boster (1997, see above) who found (i) leaders’ high use of
reward power and low use of coercive power as causal factors for high-quality
LMX relationships and (ii) leaders’ levels of referent power increasing as a