found transformational leadership predicting mission clarity ( = 0.370) and
Tracey and Hinkin ( 1996 ) estimating the same relationship at = 0.310.
Although mission clarity is not measured as a specific leadership outcome in the
Full-Range Leadership Model (FRLM) of transformational leadership, the notion
that transformational leaders can enhance employees’ understanding of
organisational goals is discussed within the transformational leadership theory
literature, in particular, in the context of the Inspirational Motivational (IM)
dimension (e.g. Hinkin and Tracey 1994: 51). In this current research, the
Motivational Leadership (ML) construct is based on the IM dimension of
transformational leadership, the positive ML→MC link therefore provides an
indication of the face validity of the ML construct, i.e. that the construct does
indeed measure leaders’ motivational / inspirational behaviour.
In their discussion of transformational leadership’s contribution to mission clarity,
Tracey and Hinkin (1996: 167-168) describe how transformational leaders ensure
that employees understand their work objectives. This approach is contrasted
with that of more transactional leaders who tend to clarify objectives and work
responsibilities for employees’ by focusing on how employees should meet role
requirements in exchange for rewards (the work→pay transaction). For
hospitality organisations, one benefit that may arise from the transformational
approach of ensuring that employees understand, rather than simply accept, their
goals is that for low-paid (perhaps also part-time) service staff, the transactional
emphasis on reward may be less effective than for higher-paid staff elsewhere in
the organisation. Put another way, low-pay may not offer the kind of positive
reward that successful transactional leadership approaches depend on.
In one respect, it is perhaps not surprising that this study confirms the
motivational leadership → mission clarity (ML→MC) link. Specifically, this is
because motivational leadership has been measured (based on the Inspirational
Motivational (IM) dimension of transformational leadership theory) as the degree
to which leaders articulate organisational/departmental/team vision and goals and
encourage employees towards achieving these goals. This observation serves as
a reminder that the IM dimension of transformational leadership theory draws
heavily on House’s (1971) Path-Goal leadership theory that focused on how
leaders could enhance organisational effectiveness by clarifying the paths that
would lead to followers successfully achieving work goals. Future hospitality
leadership researchers may wish to examine ways in which the path-goal model -
and the expectancy theories of motivation that path-goal theory drew upon – can