importance of the effect sizes observed in this research, the primary recourse is
to compare the effect sizes with those previously reported in the literature.
Regarding the strength of association between motivational leadership and work
meaning, as noted above, no empirical precedents have been identified with
which to compare the current finding. While there may be some unidentified non-
hospitality leadership studies that have measured this relationship, the
comprehensive review of published hospitality leadership studies undertaken for
this research has conclusively found that this relationship has not previously been
measured.
Hypotheses 21, 22 and 24 all relate to the new construct, Employee Positive
Attitudes (EPA). Because EPA represents a new conceptualisation, it follows that
there are no empirical findings to compare the current effect sizes with. The most
relevant findings are those of Erkutlu (2008) who found in his survey of
hospitality employees in Turkish hotels that Inspirational Motivation had a positive
effect on job satisfaction ( = 0.02) and on organisational commitment ( =
0.25).
Regarding the influence of motivational leadership on job performance. Once
more, because this is the first study to evaluate this relationship in a hospitality
context, there are no prior empirical (hospitality) findings with which to compare
the current results. One useful comparison for the effect of motivational
leadership on job performance (albeit not in a hospitality context) comes from
Avolio and Bass (2004a, 2004b) who report correlation matrices based on their
meta-analyses of the Multi-Factor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) for assessing
their Full-Range Leadership Model (FRLM).
Based on their analysis of 1,143 European self-rater respondents (all economic
sectors), Avolio and Bass (2004b) report an inter-factor correlation of 0.550
between the Inspirational Motivation (IM) and Extra Effort (EE) constructs of the
MLQ (Multi-Factor Leadership Questionnaire). This correlation estimate is 0.560
for the corresponding US sample with n = 3,755 also from all economic sectors
(Avolio and Bass 2004a: 71).
This inter-factor correlation is, of course, based on the factor covariances found in
a CFA (confirmatory factor analysis) model rather than the path coefficients in a
structural model. The CFA model for Model 5b finds a correlation estimate of