evolution of concepts framework that describes three stages for outlining
predictable ‘evolutionary’ paths with regard to the development of scientific
constructs. The stages are:
(1) concept introduction/elaboration;
(2) concept evaluation/augmentation; and
(3) concept consolidation/accommodation.
Reichers and Schneider’s first stage, concept introduction / elaboration, is
characterised by the introduction and legitimisation of a new or borrowed concept.
Stage 2, the concept evaluation / augmentation stage is characterised by (a)
critical evaluations of the concepts, supporting literature and empirical
approaches, (b) work attempting to address these criticisms and (c) subsequent
reconceptualisations. During the concept consolidation/accommodation (Stage
3), the debates and controversy in Stage 2 tend to give way to more descriptive
literature reviews, definitions are consolidated and the concept begins to be
utilised as a moderator or mediator in wider research studies (Hunt 1999: 131-
132).
Leadership research in hospitality demonstrates characteristics associated with
Stage 1 but also some of those associated with Stage 2. With regard to Stage 2
characteristics, there have been reviews of the field containing elements of critical
evaluation (e.g. Keegan 1983, Mullins 1994, Wood 1994, Pittaway et al. 1998 and
Gillet and Morda 2004) and, additionally, Tracey and Hinkin (1998) and Hinkin
and Schriesheim (2008) have used hospitality samples to conduct their enquiries
into the theoretical and empirical properties of transformational leadership.
However, thus far, there has been no empirical work containing a significant
critical dimension. For example, there is typically no critical discussion of why one
particular leadership theory has been selected over alternative theories – this
suggests that researchers have tended to draw upon generic leadership theories
which suit their particular research topic or research questions.
It appears that, with a small number of exceptions, research in this field has been
undertaken on an ad hoc basis. This situation is not, however, surprising: on the
one hand, only a small number of hospitality-leadership studies (utilising core
leadership theory) have been undertaken (only 46 identified for this review since
1973) while, on the other hand, there is a wide diversity of hospitality contexts
and large volume of relevant research topics. Put another way, without a
hospitality-based precedent in a given researcher’s leadership-related study area,