leadership and motivation in hospitality

(Nandana) #1

leadership scholars to use in building a stronger tradition of theoretical and
applied research. Specifically, this is because (following the evolutionary of
concepts process) a robust applied body of studies must (in addition to drawing
knowledge from overarching and more general theories and findings) draw upon a
critical augmentation of applied theory and findings and continual re-evaluation of
concepts from that field.


So where does all this leave hospitality leadership research and how does it help
inform the rationale for and design of the current research? The conclusions
reached here are that transformational leadership should be employed as a
theoretical orientation, both by hospitality leadership scholars in general and for
this particular study (albeit in a limited way, by drawing upon its Inspirational
Motivational (IM) and Extra Effort (EE) components). The arguments and related
questions that frame these conclusions are summarised below, following which
the choice of transformational leadership is elaborated in greater detail.


The arguments and questions generated from the review are as follows:



  1. Following Reichers and Schneider's (1990) evolution of concepts framework,
    to develop into a robust field of research with a holistic (or at least, inter-
    linked) theoretical framework, a deductive-led process of augmentation of
    theory and findings and re-evaluation of concepts should occur.

  2. With the exception of a small number of specific areas of study
    (transformational leadership by Hinkin and Tracey and LMX by Borchgrevink
    and colleagues and by Testa) hospitality leadership studies do not currently
    provide the critical mass of knowledge for such a progressive, augmentative
    process to occur (i.e. as yet there is little evidence of a holistic or inter-linked
    theoretical framework).

  3. Pittaway et al.’s attempt to provide a research agenda for the field does not
    provide an agenda based on such an augmentative approach because of the
    ontological, rather than applied (or theoretical), basis of their taxonomy.

  4. In the absence of a holistic or inter-linked theoretical framework, how should
    hospitality leadership studies progress as a field of applied research?

  5. How can the findings of this review inform the selection of the theoretical
    approach for this current work?


Points (questions) 4 and 5 above articulate the two main strands to emerge from
the review of hospitality leadership studies. The first strand (#4) relates to the

Free download pdf