Two principal behavioural measures of work motivation are employed. The first
(Job Performance) is a respondent self-assessment measure of extra effort drawn
from the transformational leadership literature (Avolio and Bass 2004; Bass and
Riggio 2006) and the second (Discretionary Service Behaviour) is a peer-
assessment of extra effort based on earlier work by Blancero and Johnson (1997,
2001) and by Simons and Roberson (2003). An exploratory third measure of job
performance (Service Quality) is included that utilises a scale (developed for this
research) that attempts to measure performance based on service quality.
In summary, the initial reviews of the literature informed the design of the
research wherein the contribution of motivational leadership to employee work
motivation is evaluated by:
(i) drawing upon a core aspect of transformational leadership theory (motivational
leader behaviour); to
(ii) addressing a significant knowledge gap in the hospitality leadership literature -
the link between leadership and job performance.
With regard to the goal of adopting more integrated research approaches that link
workplace phenomena, the literature review process also sought to identify non-
leadership variables that may contribute to service employees’ attitudes and
behaviours. Accordingly, employee work orientations (work values) and
employee perceptions of empowerment were both measured as predictors of
employee attitudes, and social support (peer support) was measured as a
predictor of job performance.
The review of the hospitality leadership research literature also identified Pittway
et al.’s 1998 review of leadership-related hospitality research. In common with
the current research, Pittaway et al. sought to identify how future research in the
field of hospitality leadership might usefully progress. It is argued in this research
(in Section 3.11.2 above), however, that because Pittaway et al.’s analytical
framework was based on ontological perspectives drawn from generic leadership
studies, their analysis does not adequately address the requirements for
progressing applied (hospitality) leadership research studies following the
iterative and deductive model of positivistic social science.
The current research takes a contrasting approach to that of Pittaway et al. by
basing its recommendations for future hospitality leadership research on a