leadership and motivation in hospitality

The discord between Pittaway et al.’s paradigms and the tradition of applied
hospitality leadership research can be illustrated by examining how the hospitality
leadership studies identified in this current research are located within the
taxonomy.

Existential Headship Strategic Headship

• Executive level; proactive


• Leaders are self-determining
  agents/drivers of change


• Seeks the ‘best’ leaders:
   personality factors;
   cognitive factors;
   educational factors; and
   social factors.


• In hospitality, which leadership
  outcomes should we use to measure
  ‘best’?


• Strong emphasis on how leaders
  imagine/visualise goals
  
  
  • Executive level; reactive
  
  
  • Leaders have limited influence on
    events: reactors to change
  
  
  • Seeks to examine issues of strategic
    choice
  
  
  • Linking research on strategic planning
    with research on decision-making
  
  
  • Notes that action (EH) and reaction
    (SH) often are compound phenomena
  
  
  
  

Influential Leadership Situational Leadership

• How influence occurs: formal and
  informal


• In and of organisations


• Leaders effect change based on their
  level of formal and informal power


• Seeks to explain how:
   individuals gain power
   power is used for influence
   organisations might positively
  direct that influence
   informal leadership affects
  hospitality businesses
  
  
  • Typified by research seeking to
    establish specific causal
    relationships between situations and
    leadership
  
  
  • Most dominant in leadership research
  
  
  • Functionalist and focussed on leadership
    in organisations
  
  
  • Seeks to examine causality between
    leadership and:
     organisational characteristics
     decision-making
     hospitality industry sectors
    Source: author (after Pittaway et al. 1998)
  
  
  
  

Figure 3-2 Summary of Pittaway et al.’s paradigms

3.11.1 Pittaway et al.’s paradigms: a critique

The percentage figures given below have been calculated with reference to a total
of 44 papers – that is, Keegan (1983) does not fit within any of the paradigms
owing to its status as a discussion paper while Pittaway et al., as the original
source of the organisational framework, does not feature as a datum itself.