In summary then, the first two shortcomings of Pittaway et al.’s taxonomy stem
from the difficulty in allocating hospitality leadership studies across the paradigms
and the third relates to the taxonomy’s lack of explanatory/analytical ability given
that the majority of (themselves diverse) studies are grouped together.
It is important to recognise that Pittaway et al.’s paradigmatic framework (i) was
not generated from hospitality leadership studies (rather it was generated from
generic leadership studies) and, significantly (ii) was intended to inform future
rather than describe previous hospitality leadership studies. Nevertheless, the
author here questions the efficacy of the paradigms for identifying ‘...how further
leadership research could benefit the hospitality industry’ (Pittaway et al. 1998:
408). The approach taken by Pittaway et al. is not being dismissed – it was a
valid approach and generated some useful insights regarding further research
themes and questions for hospitality leadership studies. However, the fact that
applied leadership studies cannot be usefully disaggregated using this framework
means that it is of limited efficacy for guiding hospitality leadership studies based
on previous applied studies in the field. That is, Pittaway et al.’s framework does
little to address the progressive, iterative and deductive development of the field.
The argument here is for a reconceptualisation of the paradigms in order that a
future research agenda for leadership in hospitality be based (i) to some extent
on the preceding tradition of research and (ii) in a way which addresses the
hospitality context, rather than being based on ontological considerations which
are more deeply rooted in the underpinning philosophy of science issues.
As this critical analysis has shown, by adopting an ontological orientation for the
construction of the paradigms, we arrive in a position where (a) a majority studies
lie in the same paradigm and (b) there are some significant difficulties in
allocating studies within the paradigmatic taxonomy. While Pittaway et al. have
utilised the ontological approach to demonstrate how hospitality leadership
studies might progress, their approach does not encompass the collective findings
and epistemological and methodological lessons which can be gleaned from the
tradition of applied hospitality leadership studies. Pittaway et al.’s approach,
therefore, neglects to account for previous applied hospitality studies. This is a
significant shortcoming because positivistic social science is based to a large
extent on the progressive, iterative and deductive development of knowledge.