turnover (Susskind et al. 2000a; Carbery et al. 2003), empowerment (Chiang and
Jang 2008) and leadership (Tutuncu and Kozak 2007).
No hospitality studies, however, have addressed what Landy (1985: 410) and
Weiss (2002: 184) have referred to as the ‘holy grail’ relationship of
organisational studies – the positive relationship between job satisfaction and job
performance.
Based on the findings from the review above, this research will measure (i) the
effect of motivational leadership on job satisfaction and job performance and (ii)
the effect of job satisfaction on job performance. Other relevant variables
highlighted from review of leadership in hospitality are organisational commitment
and empowerment (empowerment has already been noted as relevant in Section
2.3.3 above).
3.9 Leadership in hospitality: the state of the art
The research findings from the identified leadership-focused hospitality studies
cannot be aggregated in such a way that a coherent framework of
knowledge/understanding emerges.
There are several strands of research which build upon previous approaches and
findings: Borchgrevink and colleagues in the LMX area; Testa’s (2002 and 2004)
contingency studies; Tracey and Hinkin’s transformational leadership research;
and the work by Gill et. al. (2006; 2010) and Zopiatis and Constanti (2010)
examining stress/burnout and empowerment. However, these studies (excepting
Zopiatis and Constanti) build upon the findings and experience of each discrete
research team rather than drawing upon the wider hospitality-leadership literature
for research questions and research designs.
The remaining studies are largely disparate in their approaches, research designs
and research questions. In some cases studies have similar foci but, owing to the
different conceptual and analytical approaches, it is not straightforward to
compare the respective findings. An example of such incommensurability of
findings can be found in three studies which all examine leadership and
empowerment; Sparrowe (1994) using LMX theory, Chiang and Jang (2008) using
a behavioural approach (supportive leadership) and Gill et al. (2010) using
transformational leadership theory. Nevertheless, the findings of these studies do