The re-specification of the original three employee attitude constructs into one
means that hypotheses 3 (ML→ME), 5 (ML→JS) and 7 (ML→AOC) are replaced by
a new hypothesis, H 21 (ML→EPA). Similarly, hypotheses H 4 (ME→JP), H 6 (JS→JP)
and H 8 (AOC→JP) are replaced by H 22 (EPA→JP).
The important finding from Model 3b is to confirm that motivational leadership
positively influences both employee attitudes and job performance and that
employee attitudes partially mediates the effect of motivational leadership on job
performance.
At this stage in the model development process, the research aim to
explore and evaluate the contribution of motivational leadership to employee work
motivation in hospitality services has been achieved. Motivational leadership is
found to exert a positive influence:
on self-rated job performance ( = 0.415);
on peer-rated job performance ( = 0.400); and
on employees’ work meaning ( = 0.558).
Job performance is also influenced by:
employees’ work meaning ( = 0.258).
Building upon these findings, the analysis moved on to satisfy the research aim to
explore and evaluate the contribution of relevant non-leadership variables (Work
Values, Employee Empowerment and Social Support) to employee work
motivation in hospitality services.
Model 4 introduced the Work Values (WV) construct to the model and found that
WV exerted a medium-sized effect ( = 0.334) on Employee Positive Attitudes.
This magnitude of this effect, however, was reduced to a non-statistically
significant level ( = 0.094; p = 0.255) following the subsequent introduction of
the Employee Empowerment construct in Model 5 (see Section 7.8).
Examining the model for the cause of this large change in the WV→EPA parameter
estimate between Models 4 and 5 identified collinearity between the Employee
Empowerment and Work Values exogenous (independent) variables as the likely
culprit. Following the guidelines in Cohen et al. (2003: 425-430) and Kline
(2005: 57) the Work Values construct was removed from the analysis. As