Leadership in the Hotel Industry

Abstract

This research contributes to the application of transformational leadership in the hotel leadership. It aims at revealing the best applicable managerial strategies to boost the capabilities of employees and satisfy there working conditions. It evaluates literature to enlighten readers about the key aspect of L3L and proceeds to a primary research where data was collected from 107 employees and 4 managers using questionnaires and interviews respectively. The results were then presented and analysed using the SPSS software in order to find the correlation and regression of the TL against CC, NC and AC. From this analysis, it was deduced that TL is positively correlated to AC and NC, but not CC. The impacts of the two variables were positive and significant. This research recommended that further research be conducted to unveil the advantages of transformational leadership in the hotel industry.

We will write a custom Leadership in the Hotel Industry specifically for you
for only $14.00 $11,90/page
308 certified writers online
Learn More

Introduction

Transformational leadership is tactical tool in the improvement and development of the hotel industry. Researchers have not only approved the validity of this postulation, but also studied it in depth in order to establish the core attributes leading to this achievement tag (Al-Ababneh & Al-Hussein 2013). In the hospitality industry, transformational leadership has been applied to facilitate employee development, skills retention, knowledge improvement, and delivery of quality services among other. The practises that managers lay down in order to attain these aspects and facilitate mutual organizational growth must be practised in the industry (Denscombe, 2009).

This model of leadership can brand the hotel leadership in order to create and image for all hotels. It may determine how the services are being rendered to the client, their efficiency, and the overall customer satisfaction (Govers & Go, 2009). It implies that transformational leadership can allow people to identify hotels with various characters as set by the managements (Barrows & Powers, 2009). Such norms may make other hotels ignorant of practising L3L inferior and under the acceptable hotel standards. It is a case of survivor for the fittest where the most competitive hotel companies receive many customers. Furthermore, clients are attracted to quality services within the hospitality industry because they receive guarantee of quality food, drinks, shelter, and luxuries at affordable prices (Mariam & Taylor, 2011). The managers who regulate their prices and quality of services properly are likely to receive more profits than other companies managed through other forms of leadership. The L3L pays attention to the improvement of employee development on continuous, normative, and affective commitment.

How does the leadership ensure that these areas of employee development grow or improve? The study of these three variables can be performed in relation to the influence of transformational leadership on their state. For instance, how does the transformational leadership affect the continuous commitment of employees in the hotel industry? If there are significant relationship between the best practises and change of continuous commitment, then the validity between the two aspects becomes apparent. This research studies these aspects and their relationship to the employee development.

Purpose of the study

It is vital to understand that leadership is a key aspect in controlling procedures, income and development of organizations within the hotel industry (Ingold, 2006). In fact, the study of such leadership attributes boosts the knowledge available to the managers in order to facilitate reliable leading tactics. Therefore, this study does not only benefit the overall well-being and development of the hotel industry, but also arm the managers with concrete strategies to control their leadership towards the achievement of the goals. Furthermore, the study may discredit all the non-value activities with the hotel organization in order to ensure maximum profits and efficiency. For instance, if continuous commitment is not correlated to the application of various strategic practises, then the practises are invalid as compulsory procedures to attain employee retention. Probably, the research can recommend some other ways that are reliable in facilitating continuous commitment and stop the wastage of time on ineffective or unproductive styles. Finally, this research offers opportunities for further topic of study in the hotels industry by clarifying on the current gap in knowledge. It can pull other ideas and motivate researchers to pay attention to transformational leadership in the industry. In this progressive research, the industry remains updated on the most effective styles in leading hotel organizations.

Rationale

The study on the correlation and regression of the transformational leadership and the three variables (CC, NC, and AC) relays vital information to the L3Ls. The investigation may be conducted by assessing the affection and vigour to retain working position as employees of hotels. The information can be retrieved from the managers and/or the employees of hotel organization by use of interviews and questionnaire. The data must be collected in quantitative forms in order to enables correlation and regression which applies scale data. Essentially, studies have been conducted to test various aspects of transformational leadership in the hospitality industry (Bass & Riggio, 2006; Blayney & Blotnicky, 2010). However, none of these studies address CC, NC, and AC as variable of transformational leadership in unison. The current study performs in-depth analysis of the relationship bestowed between and among these 3 aspects and TL. The resulting analysis aims at filling a gap in knowledge on the best practises of transformation leadership facilitating affection, continuance and normality in work. The researcher revealed how the factors are related and recommended the best practises due for application.

Research Questions and Hypothesis

The focus of the research was laid on 4 questions as described in the following paragraphs.

Get your
100% original paper on any topic done
in as little as 3 hours
Learn More

Research question 1

What is level-3-leadership in the hotel industry?

This research question provides a concrete understanding of L3L in the hotel industry. It evaluates the needs and purpose of transformational leadership in hotels. This question has been addressed in the literature review by use of secondary information from peer-reviewed sources.

Research question 2

What are the best practises of L3L in the hotel industry?

This question addresses the overall practises of L3L in the hotel industry. It explains the current practises in the management of hotels as presented by literature. The information has been retrieved from empirical studies.

Research question 3

How are the best practises applied to motivate the normative, continuance, and affective improvement of the employees in the hotel industry?

The third question evaluates the development of employees as directed by transformational leadership. The question is answered by identifying the aspects that dissatisfy employees and determine the variability in development within the hotel or industry. This question has been researched through the prevailing literal works from empirical studies.

Research question 4

What are the best strategic practices applied by level 3 leaders on employee development in the prevailing hotel industry?

We will write a custom
Leadership in the Hotel Industry
specifically for you!
Get your first paper with 15% OFF
Learn More

The last question was investigated to evaluate the relationship between TL and the three variables of normality, continuance, and affection. A research was conducted by the primary collection of data and analysis in order to validate the hypotheses. The data was analysed by the use of regression and correlation.

These questions provide insight on the L3L to the readers before addressing the main aspect of the research. The reader gets to understand the concepts and relationships of L3L and hotel management. Furthermore, the information has been use to make the primary evaluation on the employee development as related to CC, NC, and AC. The questions facilitate the introductions necessary and proceed to define the variables and needs of employee development before making the primary study.

In this regard, the study has been subdivided into 2 sections. The first section involves the enlightenment of the readers about various aspects of L3L in the hotel industry through literature evaluation. The other part is addressed by the last question in which data is collected and analysed quantitatively.

Based on the literature investigation, the gap in knowledge surrounding the topic of transformational leadership was pointed out. It was about the relationships three aspects of employee development and practises applied in transformational leadership. The assessment was set to investigate 3 hypotheses.

H1: There are relationships between the best practises of transformational leadership and the continuous commitment of employees.

H2: There are relationships between the best practises of transformational leadership and the normative commitment of employees.

H3: There are relationships between the best practises of transformational leadership and the affective commitment of employees.

Not sure if you can write
Leadership in the Hotel Industry by yourself?
We can help you
for only $14.00 $11,90/page
Learn More

Dissertation Structure

This research comprised of five critical sections to relay information strategically. The introduction lays down the bases of the investigation indicating the styles and steps taken in making the research successful. The second part presents the literature review which identified the gap in knowledge. The gap from this review was taken for primary investigation. Primary investigation required that a methodology be created to answer the questions. The methodology section informed how the data is collected and analysed. It determines the validity of procedures taken during the research. This section is followed by the results where data is presented. The presented data was taken to the other section of analysis. The analysis section tests the quantified data in order to determine its significance in support of the 3 hypothesis. Descriptive statistics, regression and correlation are presented on this section. Finally, the conclusion section involves the selection of the positive outcomes and the approved ideas or hypothesis. It also contains the implication, recommendation and future suggestions.

Literature Review

Background

This chapter presents the literature review about the level three leaders (L3Ls) in the hotel industry. It has been delivered to avail such fundamental issues of leadership in hospitality as the scope of L3Ls scope of work, challenges and limitations, as well as synthesizing these literal works. The main attention is laid on the L3Ls innovations, empowerment, intellectual simulations, talent acquisition, employee retention, organizational commitment, teamwork, interpersonal relations, and customer satisfaction (Sigler & Pearson, 2000). This literature targets at revealing relevant information associated to the L3Ls in order identify and zip any gap apparent in the hotel industry. The information retrieved from the review lays down the baseline of the research investigation. The literature shows how the L3Ls is implemented in the hotel industry. It investigates about the successes and shortcomings of the model in leading the stakeholders of various organizations in the hospitality industry. The presentation has been projected to evaluate the L3Ls from its definition, significance and other attributes associated to it. The themes developed by this literature will address the best strategic practices for the level 3 leaders on various factors in the prevailing hotel industry.

Defining L3Ls

In the hotel industry, leadership is perceived as a key strategic and performance driver in organizations (Hinkin, 2011). The level-three-leadership was introduced by Hinkin (2011) as a modernization of leading tactics. As such, L3Ls play a vital role in directing the success of any hotel organization. Despite their central role, L3Ls can be defined in different perspectives depending on various schools of thought. It is the system directing people to attain a goal willingly by creating competition and motivation in their working processes. L3Ls pays attention to the values, assumptions, beliefs and expectations of an organization’s system. It seeks to engage individuals by seeking freewill attentiveness in attaining success per employees. This leadership model does not only direct its styles by creating effective management system, but also forming ways to motivate the employees by other alternate rewards like promotions and gifts among other things. The outcomes of applying the L3Ls model may lead to positive outcomes measured as high profits, efficiency, and quality end-products or services.

However, L3Ls can also attract undesirable outcome when employees are subjected to burnouts and overworks among other consequences. According to the available literature, the leaders are not supposed to push their followers. On the contrary, leaders achieve their objective by applying this approach and rallying them towards one goal (Darbi, 2012). In the hotel industry, management focuses on creating the efficiency and control which are different from the focus adopted by leaders in their work. Hinkin (2011) argues that the leaders in the hotel industry focus on creating innovations to drive the industry forward, adapting organization to emerging trends while empowering and developing the employees. As such, L3Ls are accountable for the direction in which the entire organization takes as well as determining if the mission and objectives are achieved (Singh & Dewan, 2009). The L3Ls rely heavily on the departmental managers and other employees to achieve their objectives as well as organization’s performance in the hotel industry (Ispas & Tebeian, 2012).

The L3Ls are responsible for executing their mandates as leaders in the hotel industry. The approach of the L3Ls moves away from the traditional management approaches where the employees are restricted (Clawson, 2011, p. 6). The leadership style of L3Ls is far removed from the restriction of employee and adopts an approach that stimulates the employees and inspires (Blayney & Blotnicky, 2010). The L3Ls motivate employees to ensure that they work for the benefit of the organization in the hotel industry. The L3Ls are required to continually assess the management practices in the organizations so that they empower themselves by acquiring skills such as emotional intelligence (Tracey & Hinkin, 1994). The skills that the L3Ls acquire end up being translated into the factors that they use to motivate the employees as they carry out more comprehensive and up building performance reviews (Kingir & Mesci, 2010). The people nature of the hotel industry as well as the competitiveness and dynamism of the industry means that the role of L3Ls in driving growth cannot be overlooked (Enz, 2011).

Empirical Studies

There are various empirical studies conducted in the area of leadership within the hospitality industry. These research studies vary in the presentations and reliability of ideologies according to the availed information. Essentially, the information ranges from the levels of leadership, workers empowerment program, transformational leadership, employee motivations, the associated customer satisfaction and managerial efficiencies among other attributes in the industry (Robbins, Crino & Fredendall, 2002). In a bid to seek information from these confirmatory researches finding, this section reviews the literature associated to the level-three-leadership in the hotel sector.

A research performed by Al-Ababneh and Al-Hussein (2013) to investigate the effects of leadership styles on job satisfaction in five star hotels. The researchers sought to release questionnaires with 57 questions in order to collect the information required for analysis. They applied the random sampling tactics to identify the respondents of the 5-point Likert scale questions. the sample population targeted by the research was 350 where 220 people were able to respond to the questionnaires. The data was evaluated using the SPSS software packages to determine that there were two type of dominating leadership models within the five star hotels. These two strategic approaches of leadership were identified as democratic and laissez-faire. The two styles were effective in impacting the satisfaction of employee positively. However, the democratic tactic was found to relay the most significant approach in terms of ideologies and level of satisfaction to the employees. These researchers concluded that each approach of leadership have distinct effects to the attainment of job satisfaction in the hotels. These research findings, however, leaves a gap on the methods of leadership applied since only two styles were compared. Other methods of leadership especially in the level-three activities have not been addressed. Probably, further researches should be conducted to fill this gap in knowledge.

In perspective, leadership models contribute significantly to the outcomes and success of an organization. This factor implies that a hotel must hold reliable and updated leadership models depending on its terms of work. Elena (2012) was broader in her approach of investigating leadership within the hotels than Al-Ababneh and Al-Hussein (2013). Her comparative analysis placed two fundamental area of control known as servant, and transformational leaderships alongside each other (Hammer, 2012). They applied qualitative analysis approach to argue that transformational leadership is effective in enabling the success of an organization while the servant approach provides teamwork and competence among other advantages (Berg, 2009). The finding from these two researches a huge similarity in ideology where they suggest the efficacy of acting in accordance to the suggestion of the employees and assisting them in solving organizational problem.

Leadership is a paramount and unexceptional tool for an industry targeting to make profits successfully. Blayney and Blotnicky developed a study to investigate the variations of leader’s competencies in relation to various demographics factors. Furthermore, the researchers evaluated the performances of hotels in respect to these competencies in Canadian hotel leadership. The study collected data to index competencies when there were environmental challenges to affect the normal hotel progress. They conducted a regression analysis to determine the relationships of demographics and competencies as well as competencies alongside performance of the hotel organization. The most outstanding model was identified as the visionary and strategic approach of leadership that had positive outcomes. In this regard, the researchers concluded that transformational leadership was a critical approach in ensuring improvement of the hotel performance.

The L3Ls must pay very precise and strict attention to the demand and recommendation of the employees since they identify and report issues within the organization. Essentially, the faults and failures can be identified by checking and investigating each comment from the employees to prevent or reduce possible loses. The article written by Albattat & Som (2013) approaches the problems and failures associated to employee dissatisfaction within the hotel sector. These researchers review literature on the labour intensive employees on turnover crisis. Their attention was to avail various causes of dissatisfaction among employees and their preferences for other jobs. It assessed the issues of employee retention and theoretical evaluation of the Mobley model. In their analysis, they pointed out the dissatisfaction factors that lead to such turnover crisis. The main issues of dissatisfaction were triggered by poor working conditions. Therefore, the researchers concluded that Mobley model can be used by leaders to manage retention of experienced workforce in the hotel industry.

While addressing the risk of turnover crisis, Reza, Piran, Ahmadi, Mir, Hassan, and Ahmad presents a fundamental finding in fostering leadership to empower employee. The researchers argue that the increase of production and profit-making is unachievable without the human workforce. They developed a model to determine the factors that hinder the empowerment of employees via training encouragement and management tactics. Their findings dictated that leaders ought to manage the motivation, training and participation of employees in order to boost capabilities and overall organizational achievements.

Scope of Work for L3Ls

The L3Ls are the face of the organization in the hotel industry. They define the direction of the hotel and can be said to be the overall responsibility bearers of the operations that take place in the hotel industry. The L3Ls have a wide scope of responsibility which encompasses most of the aspects of the business. Given the L3Ls extended work scope it means that the level of responsibility of these leaders is also extended. The L3Ls are responsible to the share holders in the hotel industry as they are meant to ensure the business continues to grow in the face of the growing competition. The L3Ls are expected to inspire the organizations to ensure that the share holders in the hotel industry continue to reap from their investments. The L3Ls are also accountable to the other managers as they seek to ensure that they are empowered enough to continue managing the staff that work directly under their divisions or departments. The extent of the accountability for the L3Ls also extends to the employees in the hotel industry as it is their responsibility to ensure that the staffs continue to enjoy their work and remain inspired to deliver. It is the responsibility of the L3Ls to ensure that the customers of the organizations get the value for their money (Oki, 2014).

The L3Ls operate from a higher level of leadership and there is much more that is expected of these leaders. As such, they are responsible for providing leadership to the management team (Clawson, 2011). The management team that is directly answerable to the L3Ls includes the departmental managers as well as heads of different organizational divisions. The L3Ls are heavily reliant on these managers who in turn depend on frontline managers and supervisors to achieve the departmental and unit objectives. The L3Ls are also responsible for the coordination of the departmental work to ensure the organizational objectives are achieved. The coordination of departmental or division work is achieved by the level three managers driving the discussions that ensures the right objectives of are set in the different departments.

The higher position of these leaders puts them in a situation where they are held accountable by the owners of the business (Kasimu, Zaiton & Hassan, 2012). As such, the level three managers assume full responsibility for the performance of the organizations that they head. The failure of these organizations as well as growth of the organizations is attributed to their leadership. The managers are also expected to give direction in the defining the organization culture as well as the hotel policies and strategies (Wood, 2015). It also falls within the scope of the L3Ls to ensure that they offer leadership in other areas such as the financial performance and management. The L3Ls are also at the centre of guiding the interaction of the hotel industry and the community in which the hotels operate while at the same time overseeing the preservation of the environment (Bruns-Smith, Choy, Chong, & Vema, 2015).

Innovation

The hotel industry is growing all over the world and continues to contribute significantly to the economies of most countries (Sheela, 2002). The emergence of new products and new approaches are at the epicentre of the operations in the hotel industry. Most businesses acknowledge that the world today is a global village which is highly competitive (Tavitiyamana, Qu & Zhang, 2011). The statement is true in the hotel industry where the clients are driven towards different direction based on the preferences set by the new information and socialization. Political and economic realignments that are a common occurrence in the world lead to the increase of competition the players in the hotel industry (Mosedale, 2011). The upsurge of the internet and adoption of the e-commerce have contributed significantly in changing the mindset of consumers as well as their behaviour. The new generations of consumers in the hotel industry are more interested in taking short vacations and for a fair price while expecting to enjoy quality services (Borkar & Koranne, 2014). These new complexities in the hotel industry mean that the traditional ways in which the L3Ls relied on in the past to gain a competitive edge are no longer feasible.

The L3Ls heading the hotel organizations today are required to be more flexible and adaptable in order to ensure that their organizations remain afloat. They need to improve the efficiency of their organizations continually in terms of the daily routines, as well as the standards of services (Barrows & Powers, 2009). These leaders are expected to take charge in analyzing the routines of their organizations and anticipate the new changes that may occur in order to inspire their staff members to adapt to these changes. The adaption can be driven by the creation of new products and services or the enhancement of the existing processes to foster customer satisfaction (Dominici & Guzzo, 2010).

The L3Ls are responsible of the creation of appropriate organizational policies that lead to the hiring and training of talents in the organizations (Nzonzo & Chipfuva, 2013). The new talent and the new knowledge impact on them during the training sessions are critical in developing the new approaches to resolve the emerging issues and as such the organization becomes innovative (Pivcevic & Pranicevic, 2012). The L3Ls are also responsible for the creation of a human supportive environment which thrives on mutual trust between the leaders and the employees. The environment created is directly responsible for ensuring that the employees are creative and take the necessary risks while learning from failure. Chew, Cheng, and Petrovic-Lazarevic (2013) argue that the L3Ls emerge as the change agents that enable the organizations to adapt and remain competitive by empowering the employees to drive innovation.

The application of new leadership strategies allows the active participation and development of new ideologies that introduce fresh ideologies. The discovery and establishment of viable strategies within the hospitality industry can cater for customer needs. It may involve the development of consultation techniques and flow of information from the clients to the leadership system in order to setup consumer-based interests in the hotels (Pizam & Ellis, 1999). In a bid to ensure that such a systematic arrangement is viable in the business setup, each stakeholder must be motivated to relay quality services and provide satisfactory hospitality to the customers (Gustafsson, Johnson & Roos, 2006). Finally, researchers have approved that innovation is determined by the input of the stakeholders of an organization. This factor implies that motivation allows employees among other people to relay new and significant knowledge aimed to benefit a hotel (Bouncken & Pyo, 2002).

Empowerment

The hotel industry is among the most service-intensive industries. This outcome arises from the services provided by employees in ensuring customers satisfaction besides the physical and infrastructural aspects in place (Ayupp & Chung, 2010). Therefore, the ability of employees to offer quality services is critical in determining the success of a hotel organization, especially in presence of adverse competition (Uran, 2010). L3Ls are responsible for defining the quality standards that their hotels should be able to meet and pass the same information to the divisional and departmental heads working under them (Kara, 2012). However, it is nearly impossible for the L3Ls, departmental or divisional heads to dictate and control the delivery of services in a rigid manner. According to Ayupp and Chung (2010), rigidity is inhibited greatly as the staffs needs to retain adequate flexibility in order to meet the customers’ expectations adequately within their discretion. Therefore, there is a need to empower the employees in decision-making while moving away from the traditional role of managers where the L3Ls exercised severe control of the human resources (Nzonzo & Chipfuva, 2013).

To achieve the required level of employee empowerment, it takes the L3Ls to ensure that the employees are satisfied in their job as well as providing them with motivation (Cetin, 2013). The L3Ls are also required to adopt a unique leadership style which fosters the empowerment of the employees. The level three are required to adopt a participatory style of leadership which ensures that the employees are empowered and they contribute effectively towards the running the operations of the organization (Tsaur & Lin, 2004). The ability of the L3Ls to foster a participatory environment leads to the evolvement of a teamwork in the organization which in turn leads to more pronounced empowerment (Parker, Baltes, Young, Huff, Altmann, … & Roberts, 2003). The process of fostering participation among the s requires that the L3Ls create an atmosphere of mobility among their staff members (Mohanty & Mohanty, 2014). The L3Ls should create a policy where the front line managers are able to pay attention to the ability of the employees to resolve problems as they arise.

The L3Ls should also provide adequate learning and training opportunities for the employees so in order to impact the staff members with the requisite knowledge to enable them to make the decisions on their own (Siegall & Gardner, 2000). The L3Ls are required to set the organizational policies that determine when and how often the training sessions are provided. According to Alipour et al. (2013), the L3Ls should be in a position to set policies ensuing that employees are trained on new trends emerging in the hotel industry in order to remain competitive. The L3Ls have a responsibility to ensure that the training provided is adequate enough to ensure that the employees emerge as specialist in their different areas of work (Ayupp & Chung, 2010). These leaders should continually continue to adapt the empowerment processes that exist in their organizations so as to ensure that the organization continues to be more competitive (Alipour et al., 2013). It is also the responsibility of the L3Ls that the empowerment is embedded in the organizational culture (Ayupp & Chung, 2010). As such, the vision and mission of the organization should be aligned to ensure that it is well indicated that the employees are the key drivers of the organization.

The empowerment of the employees is a key determinant of the growth that occurs in the hotel industry. Most of the L3Ls have the intention of growing their organization to great heights which include penetrating the international markets (Kara, 2012). To achieve this success, L3Ls need to ensure that they have a group of empowered employees to ensure some of these challenges are resolved (Davidson, 2008). For employees to be in a position to lead teams in venturing the new markets, they need to be assured that the L3Ls heading the organizations they work for believe in their abilities (Kanuk, 2013). The L3Ls need to mentor the staff and instil the ability to view business objectives from the perspective of the organization to ensure that they are able to replicate the growth in different areas. The ability of L3Ls to establish teams that can develop other markets plays a critical role in the objective of ensuring continued growth in the hotel industry (Alhassan & Sakara, 2014).

Intellectual Stimulation

Knowledge sharing is a critical factor in ensuring that a hotel organization gains a competitive advantage over other players in the industry. The knowledge that the employees acquire is at the epicentre of their ability to be creative in resolving existing issues in the hotel industry (Baytok, Kurt & Zorlu, 2014). The existing literature indicates that there are different types of knowledge which are classified as task-specific, task-oriented, trans-active or guest-oriented knowledge. It is the role of L3Ls to ensure that their organizations are able to initiate a reliable knowledge management system that ensures that employees are stimulated to grow in their different spheres (Utami & Utami, 2013). The intellectual stimulation initiated by the L3Ls is critical in ensuring that the hotel organizations are transformed into knowledge-based organizations.

L3Ls are responsible for creating a culture where the employees are inspired to create transformative knowledge and share the information within the organizations. To ensure that the organization is stimulated to adopt knowledge as the key driver of strategy, the level three managers are obligated to ensure that they initiate processes that stimulate employee intellectual activity (Gustavo, 2013). The level three managers should ensure that there are sessions where their staffs are able to engage in sessions of incubation and thinking aloud. It is also important that the level three managers engage their relevant networks in the industry and be in a position to relay the trends obtained from these sessions to their staff in order to inspire and spur their creativity. The L3Ls can also set up policies that enable employees to be in a position to conduct research in their different areas of work from the most complicated tasks to the simplest of task in the organization (Trompenaars & Voerman, 2009). According to Baytok et al. (2014), the relevant knowledge that is raised in the different research areas should be shared with the rest of the teams to ensure that there is knowledge transfer. The resignation of key employee should be matched with a replacement strategy that ensures that the remaining employees are not de-motivated (Arokiasmy, 2013). To ensure that the knowledge gaps do not exist in their organizations, the L3Ls should ensure that strategic hiring is adopted.

The ability of L3Ls to stir intellectual stimulation can be another avenue to ensure that team work continues to thrive in the organization. When L3Ls ensure that employees understand that the ability of the organization to solve the challenges that they face is embedded in their team work, the employees begin to initiate their own collaboration (Nath, Vatsal & Vithalani, 2004). L3Ls should be in a position to ensure that they create an incubation hub where ideas from the different employees are taken up and evaluated by the staff themselves, constructively. As such, the innovation spirit is embedded in the organization and is seen as the driver of career growth which in turn ensures that the employees continue to innovate (Jong & Hartog, 2007). The L3Ls are also supposed to ensure that they vet different ideas and source sizeable amount of resources to fund the development of the ideas. When employees are motivated to drive the innovations in the hotel industry it provides the organization with an irreplaceable asset that can be used to ensure competitiveness in the hotel industry.

Talent Acquisition

The strength of any organization in the hotel industry is heavily dependent on the persons who are recruited into the workforce of the organization. The L3Ls are critical in driving the process of acquiring talents in the hotel industry. Despite the L3Ls not participating directly in the recruitment process, it is their duty to set expectations in terms of culture, recruitment process and the talent (Gems, 2008). The L3Ls should inspire those working under them so as to ensure that the hiring process mirrors the required level of skills as well as other factors that define the organization (Givens, 2008). The culture revolving the acquisition of talents in the organization in the hotel industry is heavily dependent on the leadership provided by the L3Ls.

The recruitment of talented individuals in any sector of the economy requires a lot of patience and commitment on part of the recruiting department and their personnel. As such, the L3Ls are required to hold all recruiters accountable to adhere to the recruiting policies. The L3Ls have a responsibility of ensuring that they do not heavily criticize the recruiters but they should act in an inspiring manner (Bonn & Forbringer, 2014). L3Ls should be in a position to understand the challenges that the process of recruitment posses to the organizational achievement and be ready to make the necessary changes so as to ensure that the organization achieves its objectives. The L3Ls should be in a position to make changes that enable the employee recruitment process to easily adapt to the new avenues that emerge for the acquisition of talent (Huda, Haque, & Khan, 2014). The hotel industry is dynamic and as such the methods of acquiring talent that have been used to acquire talent previously, may not necessarily work in the present recruitment. It is also paramount that L3Ls define the different methods of talent acquisition that are to be used to fill different position and ensure that the recruiting department is empowered to adhere to these avenues.

Teamwork and Interpersonal Relations

Employee interaction in the hotel industry has a high percentage of occurrences given the need to cooperate in order to ensure that the customers are provided with a wholesome package. The interdepartmental collaboration also pushes the employees in the hotel industry to cooperate more in order to ensure that they are able to achieve most of the organizational goals (Zou, Zheng & Liu, 2015). The L3Ls are responsible for ensuring that the organizations they head adopt the spirit of collaboration and teamwork. The L3Ls instil confidence in their staff by being examples in the frontier of staff collaboration (Adullah et al. 2012). It is also the responsibility of L3Ls to ensure that they express the high expectations they have by offering constructive feedback to their employees in terms of the level of collaboration that the team needs to be able to demonstrate teamwork (Zou et al., 2015). The L3Ls should set the modalities that guide methods through which the staff members should be in a position to collaborate. The hotel organizations should also develop systems that reward staff who participate actively in the collaboration process (Tsaur & Lin, 2004).

Literature demonstrates that L3Ls set the identity of their staff as a team by ensuring that they are proud of team achievement. The expression of team achievements by the L3Ls inspires staff members to accept collective goals. As such, the organization’s vision of team-oriented approach allures the staff members to adhere in respect to its attractiveness. According to Zou et al. (2015), employees who are aligned to the teamwork approach end up developing a collective identity and as such are able to front the same level of concern to customer issues (Jin-zhao & Jing, 2009). The staff members are able to help their co-workers as leading to an environment that is riddled with trust and respect among the members of the entire organization. By encouraging the teamwork among the staff members, the L3Ls are able to raise the self-worth of their teams and hence they derive more satisfaction from their jobs (Zou et al., 2015). As a result, the organization realizes improved relationships between the management and the staff which in turn ensures that organizational issues are resolved with minimal delays (Lis, Glińska-Neweś & Kalińska, 2014).

Employee Retention and Organizational Commitment

The retention of employees in the hotel industry is directly correlated to their commitment to the organization’s mission and vision as well as its goals. According to Chiang and Wang (2012), the leadership as well as the trust bestowed by the organization’s leaders is central to the retention and commitment of the employees. The available literature indicates that the ability of the L3Ls to understand the needs of their employees is critical in ensuring that the employees reach their work objectives (Kamau & Waudo, 2012). The ability of the L3Ls to steer the employees in the organization to achieve better performances enhances the trust that they have in themselves (Ladkin, 1999).it implies that L3Ls are determine the level of trust that employees develop towards the organization.

L3Ls are able to inspire the employees to trust their immediate managers. This can be achieved by demonstrating that they too, have a lot of regard for the role that the departmental leaders or frontline supervisors play in the organization. Chiang and Wang (2012) argue that the trust that employees bestow on their leaders or immediate supervisors also extends to the entire organization. The employees demonstrate commitment to the organization based on the personal support that they derive from the entire organizations (Albattat & Som, 2013). As such, it is the responsibility of the L3Ls to establish support systems for their staff. The support systems could include things such as staff loans, insurance covers as well as an appropriate remuneration package (Watson, 2002). As such, it is necessary for the L3Ls establish an understanding of their employee’s needs in order to impact their commitment to the organization and positively affect their performance (Chiang & Wang, 2012).

Customer Satisfaction

The intense market competition that is a characteristic of the hotel industry renders most managers unable to accurately predict the market trends in the industry and as such end up making the wrong decisions (Jin-zhao & Jing, 2009). L3Ls are able to adopt different leadership styles which determine how they survive the competition that exists in the hotel industry. The ability of the L3Ls to inspire the vision of their employees by sharing and articulating their own vision is one of the ways that the organizations in the hotel industry are able to remain competitive (Darbi, 2012). Employees who share the same vision with their managers are able to accept delegated duties and execute them more effectively. As such, the L3Ls can rest assured that their employees, who are more close to the customers, are able to make the best decisions when it comes to ensuring customer satisfaction (Karunaratne, & Jayawardena, 2010,). The proficiency of L3Ls’ ability to ensure that their employees are satisfied with their jobs is critical to ensure the delivery of quality products as well as services (Shankar, Smith & Rangaswamy, 2002). The L3Ls also ensure that there is good interaction between the staff and the customers creating an enabling environment which ensures that the organization is able to deal with competition.

Most organizations in the hotel industry tend to rely on issuing discounts on their products as well as services. The downside to these discounts is the decrease in personalized services in order to cut down the expenditure (Ivanov & Zhechev, 2012). The long term effect of these measures is the decline in the quality of most of the services that are offered in the hotel. It is the responsibility of the L3Ls to ensure that whenever the discounts are offered in their organizations, the employees are made aware of the principles that inform these decisions. As such, the employees will be inspired to ensure that they do not lower the professionalism and other human resource aspects related with the provision of the discounted services (Kuria, Wanderi & Ondigi, 2012). The ability of L3Ls to inspire their employees to offer discounted services during hotel off peak periods will ensure that the staff members continue to provide quality services as they are required in peak periods (Borovskaya & Dedova, 2014).

Challenges and Limitations of Level three leadership

The existing literature has not been able to identify many limitations that face the styles adopted by the L3Ls. However, there is an emerging body of scholars who contend the level the leadership due to over emphasis on the increasing staff motivation and performance. The theory is viewed as to focus on some stakeholders in the hotel industry while leaving others out of the picture. For example in practice, L3Ls have focus on the top management, business owners and customers. The focus occurs at the expense of other employees such as the employees who are at the lower spectrum in the hotel industry such as cleaners and front desks personnel (Ishak, Abdullah & Ramli, 2011).

The L3Ls who emphasize on the motivation of their employees may end up causing burn outs among their employees (Cetin, 2013). Employees who are highly motivated can develop a high degree of emotional involvement towards their work which results in prolonged stress episodes. Uran (2010) argues that the emotional involvement can result in a situation where the L3Ls exploit their employees even without being aware that the exploitation is occurring. The downside of emotional burn out among the employees in the hotel industry is that the quality of services may decline. Being a human capital intense industry, there are serious consequences of having a pool of staff members who are not able to perform to their level best (Erkutlu, 2008).

The fact that L3L lead to inspiration and influence of the staff members towards achieving goals in the hotel industry could result to detrimental consequences. Most employees who are influenced by L3Ls who have competing visions may find themselves experiencing role conflict as well as some level of ambiguities in their work (Witzel, 2010). There could emerge excessive competition between the different departments and divisions in the organization which has an end result of killing creativity (Uran, 2010). According to managerial literature, there is need to have departmental cooperation in order to ensure that organizational effectiveness is maintained while at the same time not killing creativity (Al-Albabneh & Al-Hussein, 2013). As such, there is a need to understand more the possibility of L3Ls having a negative impact on the cohesiveness of the organization.

Synthesis of Literature

The available literature seems to agree that L3Ls are a brand of leaders who are accountable to several stakeholders in the hotel industry (Go & Govers, 2010). As compared to the traditional managers, the L3Ls depart from the ordinary leadership approaches which are restrictive. The L3Ls adopt an approach that stimulates the employees and inspire their employees to be creative while continuing to have commitment to the organizational goals (Kanten & Yaşlioglu, 2012). The style of leadership that is adopted by the L3Ls is evident in all the areas of their work.

The scope of work for L3Ls exemplifies that central role that these leaders play as well as their pivotal role in ensuring growth and organizational effectiveness in the hotel industry. Ensuring that there is adequate employee empowerment through the provision of adequate training opportunities is at the core of their approach (Menon, 2001). The purpose of employee empowerment feeds well into the other roles of L3Ls which is to ensure that there is adequate innovation in the organizations. The competitive nature of the hotel industry requires that the organizations need to keep innovating so that they can provide the required level of customer satisfaction (Ncube, Sibanda, Maunganidze, 2013). The provision of adequate training is also critical in ensuring that the employees are stimulated intellectually to ensure that there is continuity of innovation and growth.

To sustain innovativeness and ensure that the organizational effectiveness is at a favourable level for the optimal function of the L3Ls, there is need to ensure that good systems for the acquisition of talent are in place (Mohammed & Rashid, 2012). The L3Ls are required to ensure that the persons working with them are well aware of the characteristic of persons who are a good fit for the organization. It is also the role of the L3Ls to ensure that the organization has adequate teamwork and interpersonal relations. With adequate collaboration the L3Ls are in a position to ensure that other attempts at inspiring their team in different fronts will be replicated by their staff (Vasquez, 2014). The teamwork and reduced restrictiveness does also contribute to an increase in employee retention and organizational commitment. Proper teamwork and collaborative coupled with innovations in the hotel industry are bound to ensure that there is increased customer satisfaction (Curtis, Upchurch & Severt, 2009). With most of the organizations in the hotel industry reducing prices to attract more customers, it is critical for the employees to continue providing quality services (Mattila & O’Neill, 2003). It is important to point out that the L3Ls also do have a couple of challenges which may result from their approach to leadership (Davidson, 2008).

Methodology

This chapter instigates the tactical methodologies applied in rendering this research to understand its credibility. It delivers the strategies applied in seeking data from the sample population (Jha, 2008). In this regard, the selection of the charges requested figure the factors fundamental in organizing the methods properly. The methodology delivers the direction followed in order to finalize the conclusions of these proceedings. In light of conducting this research study, there were various undertaking that were accomplished in relation to data collection, analysis, and assurance of the credibility. This chapter seeks to describe how each of these activities was conducted in order to obtain reliable results. Specifically, there will be a detailed description of the research philosophy adopted in the study, the strategy, approach, design, time frame, data collection, analysis, ethics, and validity among others.

Overview

While seeking to understand the best leadership strategies applied in directing the solvency of L3L in the hotel industries, it is important to create a layout for working or a framework for the overall proceeding. This research has 3 vital stages that can warrant successful results. First, there is a consent letter inquiring about the involvement of the target sample population to determine whether they can respond to the questionnaire. Secondly, the people approving their acceptance to the survey are given the assessment documents which are submitted after filling. Finally, the data filled in the questionnaires are assessed and evaluated in a strategic manner to facilitate a comprehensive analysis aimed to prove the research hypothesis or the meet the core goals of the investigation (Phadtare, 2011). In this case, the data was to identify the best leadership styles applied by leaders in controlling the business models of the companies in hotel industry (Flick, 2009). It had to be evaluated using the quantitative analysis in order to examine and approve the most applicable strategies of transformative leadership in such companies.

Marshall and Rossman (2011) suggested that a researcher must formulate a way of relating the knowledge in theoretical arena and the nature of the study that is being conducted. The research philosophy is used to create this critical relationship between these fundamental aspects of the research study. The research philosophy includes the values and conceptual ideologies that are used during the analysis and interpretation of the collected data. In essence, it is meant to use the values and perceptive to connect the underlying aim of the researcher and the research question. In accordance to the nature of the research study, it can include more than one research philosophy if its analytical demands require that provision (Emmett & Biddle, 2010). This research study will use two separate, but fundamental research philosophies in order to take care of its data analysis.

One of these research philosophies is known as positivism, and it is based on the ideology that credible knowledge can only be obtained and deduced through mathematical means. It implies that dependable results come from calculating certain quantitative variables that help to determine the extent to which they affect other parameters in the research (Fernandes & Karnik, 2010). Essentially, it disregards all other methods of obtaining information and making deductions in a study. As such, all other sources of information, according to the positivistic ideology, are invalid because it assumes that all the parameters are quantifiable. In addition to this, researchers suggested the positivism is not characteristic of introspective knowledge that is obtained by the mere observation of the environment or people’s behaviours. In addition, it renders the use of intuitive knowledge null and void and hence uses verifiable parameters of measurements rather than speculations.

In essence, it does not depend on those paradigms since they are considered as speculation rather than real representation of the included phenomena. Although this research philosophy invalidates these aspects of making deductions, it is inappropriate to resolutely disregard any other methods of deductions just because they are not mathematically and scientifically verifiable. In fact, when dealing with a research seeking to study the behaviour of people, it is important to understand that objects are completely different from human beings. As such, the people’s behaviour cannot be subjected to mere mathematical variable since there are other opinions regarding the improvement of tourism that cannot be quantified (Emmett & Biddle, 2010). It is cannot be disputed that a research study like this one, which seeks to study transformational leadership on a brand image and association, requires another paradigm allowing and accommodating the analysis of people qualitative opinions in order to become holistic (Marshall & Rossman, 2011).

The above sentiment citing the deficiency of positivism in light of conducting this research paves way for the inclusion of the second research philosophy known as intepretivism. Denscombe (2009) stated that interpretivism is a research philosophy that provides the allowance and framework of deducing qualitative implication in a research study. It implies that this research philosophy is critical to the analysis of all non-mathematical aspects of the study. As such, interpretivism can be viewed as being the exact opposite of positivistic approach to research. It is found on the idea that realistic approach of life is relative and subjective because it depends on people’s understanding. Since people have different bodies of knowledge, it happens that the reality is understood from multidimensional perspectives.

Researchers, therefore, argue that the multidimensionality of these understanding should be given consideration rather than concentrating on pure empirical approach during the analysis of issues. The profound considerations allow the inclusion of inherent understanding of social behaviours and people’s interactions. With this understanding in mind, Denscombe (2009) suggested that interpretivism allow the researcher to adopt a value-laden approach when analyzing research results in order to make conclusions. In this research, the respondents will be expected to explain why they prefer or disregard the hotel management. Understandably, these opinions are very critical to this research, but the positivistic approach does not give room to rely on value-laden information. As a result, interpretivism will be used in this case to include such aspects and deduce meaningful implications with respect to proven strategies of transformational leadership in the hotel industry (Elena, 2012).

Holistically, the study on best transformational leadership styles will be viewed from both the interpretive and positivistic perspectives. Essentially, this is necessitated by the fact that this research has used both the qualitative and quantitative research approaches which could otherwise be termed as mixed approach (Babu, 2013). Clearly, it is in order to state that since the research partially used quantitative methods, using positivism will be appropriate in light of justifying the use of mathematical computation to determine the extent to which leadership affect business models in hotels. This factor is supported mainly by the basic premises that reliable knowledge can be obtained from mathematical stipulations only. On the other hand, interpretivism will focus on the explanatory aspects venturing to answer the question that require deep and comprehensive descriptions (Flick, 2009).

Consent

It is vital to seek consent from the population sample in order to ensure that people can manage to send responses. The consent letter is a document submitted to the target population in order to understand that they are able and willing to provide survey responses. The individuals who manage to send positive replies can receive the questionnaires. The consent of people was attained by sending emails, text messages, calls, face-to-face requests, as well as social media. After the target population received random contact for consent inquiry, the responses were recommended and grouped into 2 groups. The first group contained all the people who agreed to respond to the survey while the second one contained the people who either failed to reply of refuted the activity. The refusals of consent were to be documented together with a list of statements explaining why they were not able to participate in the survey. The first group either received the hard copy questionnaire immediately after accepting to provide responses or a link to the survey monkey containing an online survey. It was also apparent that some people suggested their most convenient media to fill and submit the survey. In this respect, the consent provided the most basic information regarding the best tactics to conduct the research on time in appropriate order. It ensured that the researchers did not inconvenience the participants in any intentional way.

Data Collection

Essentially, the collecting of data is among the most critical parts of this analysis. The credibility of results and their generalization strictly relies on random data (McBurney & White, 2010). Randomization allows researchers to make the conclusions applicable to a larger group of people. The data must reduce the level of possible calculation errors by increasing the number of people delivering the opinion. This factor implies that the population sample should be as large as possible in order to get a reliable insight of the general population sampled. In this case, the research sought consent to 128 individuals on a hotel recognized nationally. From these potential respondents, 107 people managed to make responses through their most convenient media. The questionnaires were dispersed via the lime survey, survey monkey, emailed softcopies and hardcopies.

The population that was targeted in this research study was segmented in two parts, including the managers and the employees. However, the employees were the main part of the respondents since the issues such as needs of the hotel and vices that bedevil organization were very relevant to them. Berg (2009) suggested that the entire population cannot take part in a research study due to the fact that resources are limited. In respect to this understanding, the research study collected sample of 107 respondents within the hotel industry. In this case, random purposive sampling was applied. Collis and Hussey (2009) stated that random purposive sampling is, in fact, a combination of two different sampling methods. The first sampling method known as random sampling is based on the idea that the respondents are chosen in a manner that does not follow any predetermined criteria and arrangement. It allows the researcher to pick any respondent at will. Furthermore, it is aimed to ensure that the sample is not collected in a manner of obtaining certain known results favouring the opinions of the research.

It encourages the impartiality of the research when collecting the sample. Purposive sampling is concerned with the fact that the researcher must collect the sample in a manner that includes respondents who are familiar with the subject (Zhang & Ma, 2009). For this reason, the respondents included the stakeholders of hotel companies. This aspect ensured that the respondents had interests and substantial knowledge on the aspects of hotel industry. In addition, the research incorporated local hotels since it had been noted that previous research studies had disregarded them. By including the local hotels, there was an opportunity to identify ways in which the authorities could tap its own citizens and use them to popularize the culture of the country in the tourism sector (Fernandes & Karnik, 2010). As such, the two sampling methods form a blend that increases the reliability of the research study (Creswell, 2009). During data collection, the respondents included in the sample population were served with online questionnaires so as to fill them in and send back to the researcher. In this regard, the quantitative questions were measured under a scale of strength while others were valued individually.

Research Timeframe

In respect to the research timeframe, Yin (2009) suggested that a research study can either follow a cross-sectional or longitudinal time frame. This research study adopted a cross-sectional timeframe based on its various feature. First, it was observational in nature since the respondents’ environment and freedom of expression was not changed. It means that the environment was not manipulated in any way to obtain any useful results in favour of the researcher’s view (Go & Govers, 2010). Additionally, various variables of the research study were studied at the same point of time rather than a prolonged period. Some of these variables include the management style, its strengths, and the progress of employee satisfaction in the hotel among others (Ghuman & Aswathappa, 2010). It is an assurance that the adopted timeframe was cross-sectional in nature. The whole research way scheduled for 2 months in which a plan was made, data collected, and analysed to make conclusions.

Research Tactics

In respect to the strategy used in this research, the study was essentially a survey in which respondents had been selected from the relevant population to participate in provision of the information required. These respondents gave their opinions regarding their opinions on the hotel management and satisfaction among others. In order to save on time and the resources available for the research, online survey containing seventeen questions were sent to or posted for the respondents (Goodburn, Norman, Elders, & Popescu, 2012). They were either expected to fill in the surveys and email the copy back or submit a filled survey using the lime survey or survey monkey. The online surveys were critical when it came to efficiency since they allowed the research to take place for short period of time without compromising the quality of the study (Panacek, 2008). This factor is also underpinned by the Perry (2009) who suggested that the communication allowed by online surveys is enough for obtaining the information sought.

However, Sachdeva (2009) discovered that although the research question has many benefits to such a study, they were vulnerable to fundamental disadvantages which could also affect the credibility of the investigation significantly. Essentially, it does not provide the opportunity for the researcher and respondent to interact physically and allow the research to perceive some of the responses identified visually. In addition, the respondent does not have the platform to ask for further clarification in case he does not get the first question clearly. Equally, it is not the best strategy to use especially when the researcher needs to ask follow-up questions. Therefore, it implies that the researcher has to work with what has been provided even if the respondent has not answered the question with clarity (Yin, 2009).

Data Analysis

Since the research study followed a mixed methodology, this factor had to be reflected in all its levels. Accordingly, the analysis of data was both quantitative and qualitative in nature. The quantitative analysis was applied to the question demanding the value of numbers in making analysis. The Likert scale was used in such a manner that the mean score could be obtained to provide the city which was more popular and suitable than other from the customers’ perspectives (Marshall & Rossman, 2011). For the qualitative analysis, this was used to find out the value-laden information concerning some of the strategies that the leaders opt to improve the industry. The descriptive analysis allowed the study to formulate overview through identifying the value of the point laid by the respondents. A regression analysis was conducted on the tabulated data using regression analysis to determine the credibility of each question as well as the final research remarks (Creswell, (2009).

The correlation analysis focuses on the Pearson correlation which gives a correlation coefficient (r) which is used to identify the level of association (Collis & Hussey, 2009). If the correlation coefficient is positive and greater than 0.5, there is a high positive association. If the correlation is less that -0.5, there is a strong negative correlation between the variables (McBurney & White, 2010). In case the coefficient is positive and less the 0.5, there is a weak positive correlation. Similarly, if the coefficient is greater than -0.5 and negative, there is a weak reverse association as shown in this table.

Pearson Coefficient (r) Level of Association
r> (+)0.5 Strong positive association
r< (+)0.5 Weak positive association
0.5 Average level of association
r>(-)0.5 Strong negative association
r<(-)0.5 Weak negative association

In light of conducting this research, there was a time schedule which was followed to the letter to ensure that there was effective use of time availed for the purpose of completion.

Milestone Description Date
Stage 1 Identifying the area of study and selection of topic 19/09/2015
Stage 2 Documentation and submission of proposal 22/09/2015
Stage 3 Re-justification of Literature Review, Research Aims and Research Questions 23/09/2015
Stage 4 Research Design 24/09/2015
Stage 5 Data collection 31/09/2015
Stage 6 Analyzing and interpreting data collected 07/10/2015
Stage 7 Commencing documentation of research 17/10/2015
Stage 8 Submission of final draft 21/10/2015
Stage 9 Submission of final copy 27/10/2015

Ethics

Babu (2013) suggested the consideration of ethics is an important undertaking when it comes to a research study since all the activities involve interaction with people. This aspect of research affects the extent to which the entire research is credible and reliable. In specific prospect, Babu (2013) stated that a research study is ethical if it ensures confidentiality of information, anonymity of the people involved in answering the questions, and the professionalism envisaged during the research. In order to fulfil these ethical mandates, the researcher went for the official consent to sermon the personnel working for the hotels in the hospitality industry. This attribute ensured that the heights of professionalism were maintained. In addition, all the respondents were not required to give their personal details in order to ensure that all the information given could not be traced back to them showing the courage to give data without any fear of administrational penalties after the study. In fact, the findings and results of the raw questionnaires were not disclosed to anyone.

Limitations

In respect to the limitations experienced during the research study, the accessibility of the respondents and their willingness to reply to the survey was a great challenge. In order to get the contacts, the respective organizations had to confirm with their employees making the process of data collection tedious and very difficult (Witzel, 2010). In fact, there were about 128 surveys that had been sent in order to obtain the 50 replies. This was an indication that the collection of data was essentially difficult.

Reliability and Validity

There are various ways in which reliability and the validity of the research was ensured. In this case, sampling was done randomly to prevent biasness and purposively to ensure objectivity. Additionally, the research used a quantitative approach which is more valid than the qualitative methods (Flick, 2009). As such, the reliability and validity of the research was substantially ensured.

Results

This chapter covers the findings collected from the respondents by making sense of the quantitative findings deduced from the research. The information was used to decide the best leadership tactics being applied by transformational leaders to meet their roles. In this respect, the perspectives of the respondents will be criticized and evaluated relative to the leadership outcome expected. The postulations and findings made by Zou, Zheng, and Liu (2015) about the impacts of transformational leadership were assessed under new set ups. It, therefore, collects all the fundamental characteristics of good managerial strategies from the stakeholders and quantifies these ideologies for better assessment (Goodburn, Norman, Elders, & Popescu, 2012).

After distributing consent forms to the target respondents on the November 20, 2015, 128 individuals accepted to carry the survey which was completed on November 5, 2015. The returning questionnaires were then assessed for validity in order to confirm that 107 of them were ready for analysis. In this regard, the population sample was noted as 107 people comprising of 46% females and 54% males. The data retrieved from this population is presented in the following tables in order to depict the nature of responses provided. The analysis will be conducted by using the information in this section. The data has been categorized into five section of data collection namely employee information (EI), transformational leadership (TL), continuance commitment (CC), normative commitment (NC) and affective commitment (AC).

Employee Information

Sample(N=107) Percentage (%)
Gender:
Male 58 54.21%
Female 49 45.79%
Age:
20 years and below 36 33.64%
21-30 years old 71 66.36%
31-40 years old 0 0.00%
41-50 years old 0 0.00%
51-60 years old 0 0.00%
61 years old and above 0 0.00%
Marital Status:
Unmarried 101 94.39%
Married 0 0.00%
Other 6 5.61%
Education:
Secondary education but no degree 6 5.61%
High School degree 47 43.93%
College degree 23 21.50%
University degree 29 27.10%
Graduate degree 2 1.87%
Working years ( in current hotel):
0.5 years and below 24 22.43%
0.5 – 1 years 73 68.22%
1 – 3 years 10 9.35%
3 – 5 years 0 0.00%
5 – 7 years 0 0.00%
7 – 9 years 0 0.00%
9 years and above 0 0.00%
Work status:
Full time 84 78.50%
Part time 23 21.50%
Department:
Front office 40 37.38%
Housekeeping 4 3.74%
Food and Beverage 39 36.45%
Administration 5 4.67%
Human resources 3 2.80%
Marketing 10 9.35%
Procurement 0 0.00%
Engineering 0 0.00%
Other 6 5.61%
Working years in the Hotel Industry:
0.5 years and below 12 11.21%
0.5 – 1 years 57 53.27%
1 – 3 years 34 31.78%
3 – 5 years 3 2.80%
5 – 7 years 1 0.93%
7 – 9 years 0 0.00%
9 years and above 0 0.00%
Direct Supervisor:
Entry level management 33 30.84%
( Deputy ) manager or above 66 61.68%
Other 8 7.48%
Number of years working with direct supervisor:
0.5 years and below 33 30.84%
0.5 – 1 years 67 62.62%
1 – 3 years 7 6.54%
3 – 5 years 0 0.00%
5 – 7 years 0 0.00%
7 – 9 years 0 0.00%
9 years and above 0 0.00%
Does the manager have a background ( education ) in the Hospitality Industry:
Yes 78 72.90%
No 29 27.10%

From the following tables section, the data was subjected to Likert scale analysis on various perspectives of the respondents. The information applied in deducing this section has been placed on the following table. These results comprise of the percentage respondents subscribing to the ideas posted.

Transformational Leadership

N Mean Std. Deviation
My manager: Valid
Has a clear understanding of where we are going. 107 6.02 .901
Paints an interesting picture of the future for our group. 107 5.71 1.037
Is always seeking new opportunities for the organisation. 107 5.63 1.225
Inspires others with his/her plans for the future. 107 5.57 1.260
Is able to get others committed to his/her dream 107 5.49 1.277
Leads by “doing”, rather than simply by “telling”. 107 5.59 1.447
Provides a good model for me to follow 107 5.64 1.327
Leads by example. 105 5.69 1.281
Fosters collaboration among work groups 106 5.71 1.163
Encourages employees to be “team player”. 107 5.91 1.202
Gets the group to work together for the same goal. 106 5.93 1.106
Develops a team attitude and spirit among employees. 107 5.85 1.242
Shows us that he/she expects a lot from us. 107 6.13 .962
Insists on only the best performance. 107 6.12 1.034
Will not settle for second best 106 5.76 1.192
Shows respect for my personal feelings 107 5.53 1.443
Behaves in a manner thoughtful of my personal needs 107 5.60 1.491
Challenges me to think about old problems in new ways 107 5.57 1.311
Ask questions that prompt me to think 107 5.72 1.219
Has stimulated me to rethink the way I do things. 107 5.84 1.092
Has ideas that have challenged me to re-examine some of basic assumptions about my work. 107 5.90 1.081

Continuance Commitment

N Mean St. Deviation
Do you agree with these statements:
It would be very hard for me to leave my hotel right now, even if I wanted to. 107 4.50 1.662
Too much in my life would be disrupted if I decided I wanted to leave my hotel now. 107 3.69 1.656
It would be too costly for me to leave my hotel now. 107 3.56 1.666
Right now, staying with my hotel is a matter of necessity as much as desire. 107 3.45 1.739
I feel that I have too few options to consider leaving this hotel 107 3.33 1.681
One of the few serious consequences of leaving this hotel would be the scarcity of available alternatives. 107 3.21 1.805
One of the major reasons I continue to work for this hotel is that leaving would require considerable personal sacrifice – another hotel may not match the overall benefits I have here. 107 3.35 1.879

Normative Commitment

N Mean St. Deviation
Do you agree with the following statements:
I believe that a person must always be loyal to his or her hotel. 107 5.61 1.257
Jumping from hotel to hotel seems unethical to me. 107 4.44 1.792
One of the major reasons I continue to work for this hotel is that I believe that loyalty is important and therefore feel a sense of moral obligation to remain. 107 5.02 1.572
If I got another offer for a better job elsewhere I would not feel it was right to leave my hotel. 107 4.27 1.921
I was taught to believe in the value of remaining loyal to one organisation. 107 5.11 1.627
Things were better in the days when people stayed with one organization for most of their careers. 107 4.68 1.629
I think that wanting to be a “company man” or “company woman” is sensible. 107 4.96 1.460

Affective Commitment

N Mean St. Deviation
Do you agree with the following statements?
I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with this hotel. 107 4.68 1.856
I enjoy discussing my hotel with people outside it. 106 5.21 1.385
I really feel as if this hotel´s problem is my own. 107 4.73 1.713
I think that I couldn´t easily become as attached to another hotel as I am to this one. 107 4.57 1.666
I feel like “part of the family” at my hotel 106 4.79 1.625
I feel “emotionally attached” to this hotel. 106 4.80 1.612
This hotel has a great deal of personal meaning for me. 107 4.81 1.614
I feel a strong sense of belonging to my hotel. 107 4.93 1.594

Among this population, it was noticed that 34% were at the age of 20 or below whereas the remaining 66% comprised of people from age 21 to 30. This factor implies that the respondents were young at their most proactive life period. Almost the entire populations of the respondents (94.39) were not married and the others were marked their responses as others on the 3 choice question. However, none labelled their marital status as married.

On another issue, the respondents were poorly distributed on the issue of the prevailing level of education as seen from the following SPSS outputs below. The level of confidence is way below 95%.

One-Sample Statistics
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Level 5 3.0000 1.58114 .70711
number of respondents 5 21.4000 18.22910 8.15230
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 0
T Df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
Lower Upper
Level 4.243 4 .013 3.00000 1.0368 4.9632
number of respondents 2.625 4 .058 21.40000 -1.2344 44.0344

Among the most vital aspects of working in any company, reliable managers ensure that they retain their experienced workforce to run the operations efficiently (DuBrin, 2004; Storey, 2001). In this respect, the questionnaire had a question to inquire about the retention of employees in the company. In addressing the issue, the researchers paid a particular attention to the period in which employees had worked in the company. The data indicated that most respondents had a term of between 0.5-1 years. This implies that the workers are sacked, removed from employment, or contracted for a period. In this respect, none of the respondents had worker in the company for more than 3 years. This data relays a critical position on the ignorance of employee retention in order to retain experiences and skills as well as prevent loss of important company secrets.

One-Sample Statistics
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Years of work in the hotel 7 4.0000 2.16025 .81650
Number of respondents 7 15.2857 26.98589 10.19971
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 0
T df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
Lower Upper
Years of work in the hotel 4.899 6 .003 4.00000 2.0021 5.9979
Number of respondents 1.499 6 .185 15.28571 -9.6721 40.2435

These periods of working falling under three periods can be presented on a pie chart to show the actual work retention exercised by the hotel. For new companies, such an arrangement may be acceptable if it is deemed to retain the start-up employees. However, if the company has been in business for a long period, the current work retention is poor which implies that the leadership is not paying attention to this issue. Transformation leadership must pay a particulate attention to the stakeholders since they determine the wellbeing of the company.

In facts, the issue of employee retention is availed further by the employment of part-time workers. Twenty-two percent of the respondent approved that they were contracted of temporary part-time basis. This aspect can boost the instability of the company and put it in jeopardy with its competitors. However, the remaining individuals were working on the full-time basis.

One-Sample Statistics
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Work status 2 1.5000 .70711 .50000
Number of respondents 2 53.5000 43.13351 30.50000
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 0
T df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
Lower Upper
Work status 3.000 1 .205 1.50000 -4.8531 7.8531
Number of respondents 1.754 1 .330 53.50000 -334.0392 441.0392

An assessment to check how the workers being interviewed were distributed across the hotel was performed. This assessment informed that most of the employees were either in the front office or the food and beverage departments at 37.38% and 36.45% respectively. Furthermore, it is apparent that some of the departments did not have any employees to provide immediate assistance of engineering and procurements. Such management may be subject to operational failures in cases of mechanical and electrical issues since they have to contract specialists who can assist in resolving the problems (Eunson, 2007). Researchers argue that the front office of a hotel is the most sensitive part of hospitality since it determines the satisfaction of new customers after entering the hotel premises (Andrews, 2008; Gray & Liguori, 2003). In this respect, it is essential to allocate sufficient employees to receive the clients in order to provide reliable reception (Hailey, 1965). It has also been indicated that customer returns are attributed to how they are receive in a hotel (Gustafsson, Johnson & Roos, 2006). On the other hand, the catering department must have sufficient people to handle the requirements of the clients without delays. In most cases, local customers and tourists visit hotels to eat and drink implying that the area demands many people.

One-Sample Statistics
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Number of respondents 9 11.8889 15.94870 5.31623
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 0
T Df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
Lower Upper
Number of respondents 2.236 8 .056 11.88889 -.3704 24.1481

In a bid to conduct an in-depth analysis of the retention and rotation of employees within the hotel industry, a questioning inquiry about the period of time the respondents had worked in it was posed. Initially, it was indicated that the hotel being studied had not managed to offer stable workers retention procedures. The prevailing question, therefore, examined the same respondents on working elsewhere in the hotel industry. The outcomes indicated that the respondents were mostly new to the hotel industry. There were only 4 respondents who indicated that they had worked in the industry for more than 3 years. A population of 53.27% was the highest number of respondents retaining work for 0.5 to 1 year.

Paired Samples Statistics
Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Pair 1 Year of work in the hotel industry 4.0000 7 2.16025 .81650
Number of respondents 15.2857 7 22.07347 8.34299
Paired Samples Correlations
N Correlation Sig.
Pair 1 Year of work in the hotel industry & number of respondents 7 -.640 .122
Paired Samples Test
Paired Differences t df Sig. (2-tailed)
Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
Lower Upper
Pair 1 Year of work in the hotel industry – number of respondents -1.12857E1 23.51393 8.88743 -33.03247 10.46104 -1.270 6 .251

From this section of result analyzing the characteristics of the population sample, the subsequent evaluation assessed the characteristics of the managers leading the hotels. The study of the managers allows the researcher to identify the leadership strategies as associated to the distinct characteristics of the managers. The data about the managers were retrieved from the respondents showing that the information was subject to a second party. Sixty-six percent of the respondents had male managers whereas the remaining 34% were led by a female (N=107).

Organizational leaders should be experienced to manage and organize a hotel in order to guarantee expansion. Most managers lead hotels after being selected for various promotions since they joined an organization (Rudani, 2013). In a bid to approve this postulation, the research study shows that all the managers of hotel organizations under study have worked within the organization for more than 9 years. The data regarding the inquiry on how long the managers had worked in the hotel industry depicts a mean of 9.69 years with a standard deviation of 6.75. This informs that there were only several managers who had not worker for more than 2 years. The following table shows the analysis of this outcome. The quartiles were identified using the minitab method.

Field summary for EI 3
How many years has your manager been working in the Hotel Industry?
Calculation Result
Count 107
Sum 1037.0000000000
Standard deviation 6.75
Average 9.69
Minimum 1.0000000000
1st quartile (Q1) 5
2nd quartile (Median) 8
3rd quartile (Q3) 15
Maximum 40.0000000000
Null values are ignored in calculations
Q1 and Q3 calculated using minitab method

However, 63% of the respondents had worked for their managers for duration of 0.5 to 1 year. There were only 7 respondents who had worked for their managers in a duration exceeding 1 year.

Paired Samples Statistics
Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Pair 1 Year of work for the manager 4.0000 7 2.16025 .81650
Number of respondents 15.2857 7 25.79221 9.74854
Paired Samples Correlations
N Correlation Sig.
Pair 1 Year of work for the manager & number of respondents 7 -.718 .069
Paired Samples Test
Paired Differences t df Sig. (2-tailed)
Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
Lower Upper
Pair 1 Year of work for the manager – number of respondents -1.12857E1 27.38439 10.35033 -36.61205 14.04062 -1.090 6 .317

Most of these mangers leading the respondents have undergone studies related to hospitality. It was recorded that 73% of the respondents had managers with academic qualifications in hospitality. Only 27% of the cited mangers did not have any educational background in hospitality. This aspect dictated that education is a fundamental aspect in nurturing leaders in the hotel industry (Rutherford & Fallon, 2009; Rutherford, 2002). A research found that education was the main base of leadership integration and the abilities to control and direct workers accordingly (Bush, 2003). These managers were noted to be in two main categories of working integration. They were either in the entry level of leadership or working as deputies, managers and above. The class including the deputies and other manager above this category represented 62% of the respondents.

One-Sample Statistics
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Number of respondents 3 35.6667 29.09181 16.79616
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 0
T df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
Lower Upper
Number of respondents 2.124 2 .168 35.66667 -36.6014 107.9347

From the interviews conducted to the managers, the following information was retrieved.

Manager 1 Manager 2 Manager 3 Manager 4
Name Mrs. A. Molenaar Mr. M. de Vries Mrs. G. van Dijk Mr. A. Penners
Gender Female Male Female Male
Age 46 years 31 years 54 years 57 years
Marital Status Single Single Married Married
Education level Hotel Management School University level University level
Nationality Dutch Dutch Dutch Dutch
Location of the hotel (Country) Holland Holland Holland Holland
Work status Full time Full time Full time Full time
Years in the Hospitality Industry At least 1 year 13 years 23 years 21 years
Years as a General Manager At least 1 year 6 years 23 years 12 years

Netherlands

Analysis

Transformational leadership is fundamental approach in hotel management. The implementation of the ideologies and tactics applied in the methodology has introduced separate findings about transformation leadership in hotels (Kainthola, 2009). This research found the hotels are subject to adverse managerial changes while creating a lean management system to facilitate the control of employees and boost their satisfaction. The stakeholders have dictated that their managers are motivated to improve the prevailing business models and initiate better services to the clients. The best practices examined showed that managers are committed to implement tactical approaches aimed at boosting the organization.

N Mean Median Std. Deviation
Valid Missing
TL [TL1] 107 0 6.02 6.00 .901
TL [TL2] 107 0 5.71 6.00 1.037
TL [TL3] 107 0 5.63 6.00 1.225
TL [TL4] 107 0 5.57 6.00 1.260
TL [TL5] 107 0 5.49 6.00 1.277
TL [TL6] 107 0 5.59 6.00 1.447
TL [TL7] 107 0 5.64 6.00 1.327
TL [TL8] 105 2 5.69 6.00 1.281
TL [TL9] 106 1 5.71 6.00 1.163
TL [T10] 107 0 5.91 6.00 1.202
TL [T11] 106 1 5.93 6.00 1.106
TL [T12] 107 0 5.85 6.00 1.242
TL [T13] 107 0 6.13 6.00 .962
TL [T14] 107 0 6.12 6.00 1.034
TL [T15] 106 1 5.76 6.00 1.192
TL [T16] 107 0 5.53 6.00 1.443
TL [T17] 107 0 5.60 6.00 1.491
TL [T18] 107 0 5.57 6.00 1.311
TL [T19] 107 0 5.72 6.00 1.219
TL [T20] 107 0 5.84 6.00 1.092
TL [T21] 107 0 5.90 6.00 1.081
CC [SQ001] 107 0 4.50 5.00 1.662
CC [SQ002] 107 0 3.69 4.00 1.656
CC [SQ003] 107 0 3.56 4.00 1.666
CC [SQ004] 107 0 3.45 4.00 1.739
CC [SQ005] 107 0 3.33 3.00 1.681
CC [SQ006] 107 0 3.21 3.00 1.805
CC [SQ007] 107 0 3.35 4.00 1.879
NC [NC1] 107 0 5.61 6.00 1.257
NC [NC2] 107 0 4.44 5.00 1.792
NC [NC3] 107 0 5.02 5.00 1.572
NC [NC4] 107 0 4.27 5.00 1.921
NC [NC5] 107 0 5.11 6.00 1.627
NC [NC6] 107 0 4.68 5.00 1.629
NC [NC7] 107 0 4.96 5.00 1.460
AC [AC1] 107 0 4.68 5.00 1.856
AC [AC2] 106 1 5.21 5.00 1.385
AC [AC3] 107 0 4.73 5.00 1.713
AC [AC4] 107 0 4.57 5.00 1.666
AC [AC5] 106 1 4.79 5.00 1.625
AC [AC6] 106 1 4.80 5.00 1.612
AC [AC7] 107 0 4.81 5.00 1.614
AC [AC8] 107 0 4.93 5.00 1.594

The results of transformative leadership show that the respondents subscribed to ideas above the “somewhat agree” option with a means above 5.49 and the highest standard deviation of 1.491 for all best practices assessed. This aspect implies that only a few cases were recorded below the option mention above. Each manager paid some particulate attention to the implementation of tactical administration procedures aimed at transforming the overall image of the hotels. The results show that there are four classes of options that boosted the cumulative frequencies boldly. These options were the option 4, 5, 6, and 7. However, all the medians for the best practices were at the level six on the integration of best strategies into management practices. In a bid to exemplify this argument, the following tables will show the observation made in relation to the tallies above the values of each option.

TL [TL7]
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1 1 .9 .9 .9
2 4 3.7 3.7 4.7
3 3 2.8 2.8 7.5
4 7 6.5 6.5 14.0
5 26 24.3 24.3 38.3
6 35 32.7 32.7 71.0
7 31 29.0 29.0 100.0
Total 107 100.0 100.0
TL [T11]
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1 1 .9 .9 .9
3 2 1.9 1.9 2.8
4 6 5.6 5.7 8.5
5 23 21.5 21.7 30.2
6 35 32.7 33.0 63.2
7 39 36.4 36.8 100.0
Total 106 99.1 100.0
Missing System 1 .9
Total 107 100.0
TL [T17]
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1 3 2.8 2.8 2.8
2 1 .9 .9 3.7
3 7 6.5 6.5 10.3
4 9 8.4 8.4 18.7
5 24 22.4 22.4 41.1
6 24 22.4 22.4 63.6
7 39 36.4 36.4 100.0
Total 107 100.0 100.0

The continuous commitment shows average flow of data as the frequencies dictate in all sections of the assessments. The tallies were fairly distributed among the assessment questions with visible reductions of subscriptions on the options 6 and 7. This factor can be exemplified by the fifth assessment question on continuous commitment as presented in the table.

CC [SQ005]
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1 20 18.7 18.7 18.7
2 20 18.7 18.7 37.4
3 15 14.0 14.0 51.4
4 22 20.6 20.6 72.0
5 19 17.8 17.8 89.7
6 9 8.4 8.4 98.1
7 2 1.9 1.9 100.0
Total 107 100.0 100.0

For the normative and affective commitment, most respondents subscribed to the last four (4, 5, 6, and 7) options depicting the agreements or neutral position to the survey questions. All the frequencies are presented in the appendix for reference.

Apart from the descriptive analysis, there were fundamental correlations conducted to link the aspect of leadership and commitment as presented in the tables.

Statistics
TL average Continuance average Normative commitment Affective average
N Valid 102 107 107 104
Missing 5 0 0 3
Mean 5.7320 3.5834 4.8705 4.8113
Median 5.8571 3.7143 5.0000 5.0625
Std. Deviation .88599 1.32888 1.33314 1.44278

The variables of this study are all correlated as presented by the values written in a yellow background except for the TL and CC. This figure (in yellow) show that there is significant correlation between variables.

Correlations between the four variables
TL average Continuance average Normative average Affective average
TL average Pearson Correlation 1 .033 .318** .452**
Sig. (2-tailed) .741 .001 .000
N 102 102 102 99
Continuance average Pearson Correlation .033 1 .392** .369**
Sig. (2-tailed) .741 .000 .000
N 102 107 107 104
Normative average Pearson Correlation .318** .392** 1 .623**
Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .000 .000
N 102 107 107 104
Affective average Pearson Correlation .452** .369** .623** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000
N 99 104 104 104
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Regression for transformational leadership against continuous commitment

The regression between the TL and continuance average shows that there is no significant impact of TL on CC.

Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .033a .001 -.009 1.33069
a. Predictors: (Constant), TL average
Coefficientsa
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients T Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) 3.263 .867 3.765 .000
TL average .050 .149 .033 .332 .741
a. Dependent Variable: Continuance average

Regression for transformational leadership against normative commitment

The TL has significant and positive influence on the normative commitment as dictated by the values highlighted in yellow.

Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .318a .101 .092 1.22442
a. Predictors: (Constant), TL average
Coefficientsa
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients T Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) 2.189 .797 2.745 .007
TL average .462 .138 .318 3.359 .001
a. Dependent Variable: Normative commitment

Regression for transformational leadership against affective commitment

In the case for TL and AC, the positivity and impacts are similar to the ones presented on the regression analysis of NC.

Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .452a .204 .196 1.27030
a. Predictors: (Constant), TL average
Coefficientsa
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients T Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) .708 .830 .852 .396
TL average .713 .143 .452 4.989 .000
a. Dependent Variable: Affective Average

The interviews conducted to the managers dictate that managers are built through employee development. The managers had worked in the hospitality industry for more than 1 year where 3 of the interviewees worked for more than 13 years. These managers worked for less or equivalent years as general managers. On another perspective, the managers had attained the age of 31 working on full-time basis. Their education was specialized to either serve the hotel industry or integral university studies as alternate possibility for the managers.

Conclusion

As presented in the introduction, this study has evaluated 4 research questions. Three of these questions were answered by the prevailing literature whereas the remaining question was evaluated by use of primary investigation. The primary study evaluated the TL in relation to the employee development attributes. It fills the gap in knowledge regarding TL in the of hotel industry since the available research is limited to provide comprehensive information on it.

The research criterion was to assess TL versus 3 variables by use of best practices of leadership and perceived outcomes from the employees. This section of the paper presents the key research findings, its implications and reflection from the researcher.

Main findings

In relation to the first research question, transformational leadership was defined as a system directing people to attain a goal willingly by creating competition and motivation in their working processes.

The following best practices were identified in relation to the second research question.

The manager should:

  1. Have a clear understanding of where we are going.
  2. Paint an interesting picture of the future for our group.
  3. Always seek new opportunities for the organization.
  4. Inspire others with his/her plans for the future.
  5. Be able to get others committed to his/her dream.
  6. Lead by “doing”, rather than simply by “telling”.
  7. Provide a good model for me to follow.
  8. Lead by example.
  9. Foster collaboration among work groups.
  10. Encourage employees to be “team player”.
  11. Get the group to work together for the same goal.
  12. Develop a team attitude and spirit among employees.
  13. Show us that he/she expects a lot from us.
  14. Insist on only the best performance.
  15. Not settle for second best.
  16. Show respect for my personal feelings.
  17. Behave in a manner thoughtful of my personal needs.
  18. Challenge employees to think about old problems in new ways.
  19. Ask questions that prompt me to think.
  20. Have stimulated me to rethink the way I do things.
  21. Have ideas that have challenged me to re-examine some of basic assumptions about my work.

On the third question, research showed that leaders apply the above practices to achieve affection, integrity, retention of employees within their organization.

Finally, the last question was investigated by the 3 hypothesis and primary research which found that the best practices used on the questionnaires regarding normative commitment and affective commitment were reliable to provide better transformational leadership in the hotel industry. The correlation between the TL versus NC and AC was significant whereas the regression showed positive outcomes. However, the continuance commitment did not show significant correlation to the TL. This outcome implies that the H2 and H3 were accepted while the H1 was rejected as per the research outcomes.

Recommendation and Implications of the research

It is vital to improve the size of the sample population in order to get reliable outcomes in the future researches. Small samples increase the error margin and make the outcomes merely reliable. This research should be part of integrated investigation paying attention to employee development within the hotel industry. Researchers ought to pay attention to this are in order to improvement the leadership strategies and offer competitive services to clients while making huge profits. Finally, studies should be conducted continuously to ensure that the management remains updated with current information on best leadership practices.

For an efficient and effective relationship to be established, the leadership system must identify the relevant component. In this case, the components are the customer’s need and organization requirement. Customer’s requirement relates to level of confidence of an organization in delivering the expected services and goods in a consistent manner while the organization requirement will refers to combination of resources in a cost effective manner that seeks to maximize the company revenue generating ability (Ingold, 2006).

The efficiency and effectiveness of a quality leadership system enables the organization to meet its obligation. This is made possible due to that fact that the system can interact with all segments of the organization. In doing this, the system helps the decision and policy makers in identifying customer specification and desires. This, in turn, put in place measures that will enhance the organization in meeting the customer need. This system will help in raising the morale of the employees, facilitate further training in areas where there are weakness, lowering the operational costs of the organization, boosting the hotel ability to increase its market share, minimizing wastage of resources that lead to optimization, incorporate staff input, facilitate improvement of system control and establish the hotel general direction (Kainthola, 2009).

Many scholars from various lines of specialization have carried out studies and researches about the subject of flexibility in a system especially communication system. Fundamentally, they have come into conclusion that there is no optimal level of flexibility in any business activity (Watson, 2002). On the other hand, it is clear that there is a direct relationship between flexibility and efficiency of the system functioning which can be likened to functioning of a manufacturing system. This means that there are no universal standards of establishing the level of flexibility.

An extremely flexible system has proved to have negative effects on the overall hotel performance. This is a similar case to restrictive system. A restrictive system bars the users from accessing majority information while the flexible system overwhelms the user. Therefore, no meaningful conclusion can be made by the user (Rutherford, 2002). Scholars have arrived into an agreement that setting of flexibility level of these systems is not realistic. However, guidelines have been developed to direct the flexibility of the hotels.

Information manager are compelled in establishing a convenient level of flexibility which is influenced by the nature of business and needs of the customer. On this light, hotel industry is changing rapidly with increased competition (Kainthola, 2009). It means that managers have to adapt new business strategies that are coming up. Some of the strategies applicable to the hotels involve making information relating to the accessibility, reducing technical formalities and performing rapid customer support. In this case, compatibility of computer software is eminent due to the electronic money transfer and bookings (Ingold, 2006).

Reliability Review

A system will prove to be reliable if it has various characteristics that are associated with an effective system. Customer focusing is the primary character that a system must have to prove its reliability (Sheela, 2002). Any system that has a customer focus aspect must identify and convert the customers’ needs in the products. This is done through audits of the system with respect to the kind of customer’s needs. Top leadership commitment on implementing the system is a good characteristic of a reliable system. This will ensure that every employee, including the top managers, is bound by internal control measures that have been set by the system. On this light, uniformity of tasks will be archived. A reliable system involves the entire employee in realizing the needs for prioritizing the customers’ satisfaction (Rutherford &Fallon, 2009).

A system will archive reliability if it adopts a process approach. This means that every input brought into the system is transformed to an output of value to the customer. In business sensitive areas, the key elements are subjected to strict instructions that the leadership feels are livelihood of the business (Singh & Dewan, 2009). A collection of various process approaches, therefore, leads to a system approach which is responsible for overall system coordination.

Relevance to profitability

The aim of any business is to generate profits among other social obligations. They have realized continuous flow of revenue due to its diligence in quality leadership. The system they have adopted has served as the key pillar in attracting and retaining their customer. The business has built on future customer base continuously due to its strategic positioning. From the stakeholders’ feedbacks, it has been shown that the pricing is fair since most feel that they receive value for their money. The business has, therefore, enhanced profitability today and in the future.

Hospitality also came out as pertinent aspects that the authorities need to consider when creating their image and brand. They should avoid being branded with violence around the world since that can destroy their outward and general picture. This was closely related to the need for hospitality in the city during such visitation. It is, therefore, the responsibility of the citizens and the authorities to ensure that the employees and clients are treated well so that they can have a positive attitude to the city. As a result, they will portray the same mentality to the people in other areas around the world and hence influence their perspectives too.

The leadership of the hotels should diversify the attraction aspects in such activities as tourism through boosting workers capabilities and motivation. In this case, it was noted by the respondents that hotels has dwelled so much on cultural heritage and neglected other sectors (Gems, 2008). In addition, the authorities should go out of their way to build up on such attractions as wildlife, modern structures, and beaches that can form part of tourists’ exploration. They should ensure that these attraction sceneries are near to each other so that the clients can explore many sites over a short period of time. This was also reinforced by the view that the authorities in charge of hotel policing should incorporate this with technology so that the idea of cultural heritage is spiced up by modernity. In essence, they felt that blending between modernity and authenticity could be an irresistible pair that would see the clients being more satisfied.

In addition, the quality of services should be improved and maintained satisfactorily. In this case, the provision of information, security, and service of food should not be compromised. This was based on the fact that these services are the backbone of having an enjoyable trip in any destination (Mosedale, 2011). Hospitality was a main determining factor when it came to measuring satisfaction. In essence, a person sets out to meet people in a destination and enjoy to the fullest. If they meet dull and antisocial people within that destination, it would imply that satisfaction is not attained. As a result, the role of promoting as tourists’ destination is a responsibility of all stakeholders, including the government, citizens, and the investors themselves.

Hotel leadership can also play a major role in the promotion of culture integration and the creation of a destination brand. It was stated that the local hospitality was the starting point. The respondents were of the idea that the local hotels would serve as a way of letting people own their own country. They noted that the citizens were completely unaware of the sites and hospitality resources present in their nation. As a result, they cannot act as representative of the city such that they are unable to market it to foreign friends and relatives. In addition, some respondents found hotels as a source of income that cannot be ignored by the authorities. In essence, some of these respondents did not consider hotels as a way of marketing the city to other people. Instead, they regarded as an actual market that would help the sector to earn sizeable revenue for the promotion of its growth. Also, the authorities should encourage the restaurants’ owners to implement loyalty programs in their respective premises. This will ensure that clients get bonuses after visiting these hotels. As a result, they will be prompted to come back for the services since they have an attachment.

Quality is the secret to establishing competitive advantage in any line of business. It is, also, ethical for a business to realize profits from customer satisfaction. The massive investment of establishing a working system has benefited the functioning and profitability of the hotel. The hotel can, therefore, be said to have effectively adopted an effective and efficient operation management system.

References

Adullah, R., Samsudin, M., Armia, R., Derani, N., Nair, G., & Ayob., R. (2012).. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development, 1(1), 242-255.

Al-Ababneh, M., & Al-Hussein T. (2013) Leadership Style of Managers in Five-Star Hotels and its Relationship with Employee’s Job Satisfaction. International Journal of Management & Business Studies, 3(2), 93-98.

Albattat, A., & Som, A. (2013). Employee dissatisfaction and turnover crises in the Malysian hospitality industry. International Journal of Business and Management, 8(5), 62-71.

Alhassan, F., & Sakara, A., (2014). Factors influencing market segmentation in the hotel industry. International Journal of Economicas, Commerce and Management, 2(9), 1-16.

Alipour, H., Nodehi, F., Malvany, M., Nemati, M., Nia, F., & Zadeh, S. (2013). Study and impact of manager’s role in improving employees’ empowerment process. Kuwait Chapter of Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review, 2(10), 30-36.

Andrews, S. (2008). Textbook of front office management and operations. New Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill.

Arokiasamy, A. (2013). A study on employee satisfaction perspectives in the hotel industry in Malysia. International Journal of Management and Strategy, 4(6). Web.

Ayupp, K., & Chung, H. (2010). Empowerment: Hotel employees’ perspective. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management¸ 3(3), 561-575.

Babu, G. (2013). Kesar Singha contributions to statistical methodology. Statistical Methodology, 3, 345-413.

Barrows, C., & Powers, T. (2009). Introduction to management in the hospitality industry (9th ed.). Hoboken, N.J: John Wiley & Sons.

Bass, B., & Riggio, R. (2006). Transformational leadership (2nd ed.). Mahwah: Erlbaum Associate Publishers.

Baytok, A., Kurt, M., & Zorlu, O. (2014). The Role of Transformational Leader on Knowledge Sharing Practices: A Study about International Hotel Chains. European Journal of Business and Management, 6(7), 46-61.

Berg, B. L. (2009). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (7th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Blayney, C., & Blotnicky K., (2010). Leadership in the Hotel Industry: Evidence from Canada. International Journal of Management And Marketing Research 3(3), 134.

Blayney, C., & Blotnicky, K. (2010). Leadership in the hotel industry: Evidence from Canada. International Journal of Management and Markeitng Research, 3(3), 53-66.

Bonn, M., & Forbringer, L. (2014). Reducing turnover in the hotel industry: An overview of recruitment, selection and retention. International Journal of Hospitality and Management, 11(1), 47-63.

Borkar, S., & Koranne, S. (2014). Study of service quality management in hotel industry. Pacific Business Review International, 6(9), 21-25.

Borovskaya, I., & Dedova, M. (2014). Creativity in hospitality industry study of hostels in St. Petersburg. Coactivity Philosophy and Communivation, 22(2), 137-144.

Bouncken, R. & Pyo, S. (2002). Knowledge management in hospitality and tourism. New York:Haworth Hospitality Press.

Bruns-Smith, A., Choy, V., Chong, H., & Verma, R. (2015). Environmental sustainability in the hospitality industry: Best practices, guest participation, and customer satisfaction. Cornell Hospitality Reports, 15(3), 6-16.

Bush, T. (2003). Theories of educational leadership and management (3rd ed.). London: Sage Publications.

Cetin, I. (2013). Motivation and its impact on labour productivity at hotel business “a conceptual study”. International Journal of New Trends in Arts, Sports & Science Education, 2(1), 70-79.

Chew, M., Cheng, J., & Petrovic-Lavare, S. (2006). Managers’ role in implementing organizational change: Case of the restaurant industry in Melbourne. Journal of Global Business and Technology, 2(1), 58-67.

Chiang, C., & Wang, Y. (2012). The Effects of Transactional and Transformational Leadership on Organizational Commitment in Hotels: The Mediating Effect of Trust. Journal of Hotel and Business Management, 1(1), 1-11.

Clawson, J. (2011). Level three leadership: Getting below the surface. New York: Prentice Hall.

Collis, J., & Hussey, R. (2009). Business research: a practical guide for undergraduate & postgraduate students (3rd ed.). Basingstoke, Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.

Curtis, R., Upchurch, R., & Severt, D. (2009). Employee motivation and organizational commitment: A comparison of tipped and nontipped restaurant employees. International Journal of Hospital and Tourism Adminstration, 10(3), 253-269.

Darbi, W., (2012). Of mission and vision statements and their potential impact on employee behavior and attitudes: The case of a public but profit-oriented tertiary institution. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(14), 95-109.

Davidson, C. M. (2008). Dubai: the vulnerability of success. New York: Columbia University Press.

Denscombe, M. (2009). Ground Rules for Social Research Guidelines for Good Practice. (2nd ed.). Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill International (UK) Ltd..

Dominici, G., & Guzzo, R. (2010). Customer satisfaction in the hotel industry: A case study from Sicily. International Journal of Marketing Studies, 2(2), 3-12.

DuBrin, A. (2004). Leadership: research findings, practice, and skills (4th ed.). New York: Houghton Mifflin.

Elena, A. (2012). Comparative Analisys – Servant Leadership And Transformational Leadership. Cross-cultural Management Journal, 14(1). 167.

Emmett, R. B., & Biddle, J. (2010). Research in the history of economic thought and methodology a research annual. Bingley, UK: Emerald.

Enz, C. (2011). Competing successfully with other hotels: The role of strategy. Web.

Erkutlu, H. (2008). The impact of transformational leadership on organizational and leadership effectiveness: The Turkish case. Journal of Management Development, 27(7), 708-726

Eunson, B. (2007). Conflict management. Milton: Wiley Publishers.

Fernandes, C., & Karnik, A. V. (2010). Estimating Elasticity of Demand for Tourism In Dubai. Tourism Analysis, 15(1), 57-69.

Flick, U. (2009). An introduction to qualitative research (4th ed.). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Gems, S. (2008). Socio-cultural effects of tourism in Abu Dhabi: analyzing attitudes, beliefs, and behavior of locals towards tourism. Saarbruc̈ken, Deutschland: VDM Verlag Dr. Mul̈ler.

Ghuman, K., & Aswathappa, K. (2010). Management: concept, practice, and cases. New Delhi: Tata McGraw Hill.

Givens, R. (2008). Transformational Leadership: The Impact on Organizational and Personal Outcomes. Emerging Leadership Journeys, 1(1), 4-24.

Go, F., & Govers, R. (2010). International place branding yearbook 2010 Place branding in the new age of innovation. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Goodburn, D., Norman, K., Elders, J., & Popescu, E. (2012). Preservation In Situ for Tourism: An Early Christian Monastic Complex on Sir Bani Yas Island, Western Abu Dhabi, UAE. Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites, 14(1), 249-262.

Govers, R., & Go, F. (2009). Place branding: glocal, virtual and physical identities, constructed, imagined and experienced. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Gray, W., & Liguori, S. (2003). Hotel and motel management and operations (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J: PH/PTR.

Gustafsson, A., Johnson, M., & Roos, I. (2006). The Effects Of Customer Satisfaction, Relationship Commitment Dimensions, And Triggers On Customer Retention. Journal of Marketing, 69(4), 210-218.

Gustavo, N. (2013). Marketing management trends in tourism and hospitality industry: Facing the 21st Century environment. International Journal of Marketing Studies, 5(3), 13-25.

Hailey, A. (1965). Hotel (1st ed.). Garden City, N.Y: Doubleday.

Hammer, D. (2012). Servant leadership. Sinaloa: Pacific Creek Books.

Hinkin, T. (2011). Becoming a leader in the hospitality industry. Web.

Huda, K., Haque, A., & Khan, R. (2014). Effective recruitment challenges faced by the hospitality industry in Bangladesh: A study on selected star rated residential hotels. Economia Seria Management, 17(2), 210-222.

Ingold, A. (2006). Yield management (2nd ed.). London: Thomson.

Ishak, N., Abdullah, F., & Ramli, Z. (2011). The association between hard and soft human resources management orientations in the Malaysian hotel organizations. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(22), 213-220.

Ispas, A., & Tebeian, A. (2012). Comparative analysis: Servant leadership and transformational leadership. Cross-cultural Management Journal,16(1), 5-11.

Ivanov, S., & Zhechev, V. (2012). Hotel revenue management: A critical literature review.Tourism Review, 60(2), 175-197.

Jha, N. (2008). Research methodology. Chandigarh: Abhishek Publications.

Jin-zhao, W., & Jing, W. (2009). Issues, Challenges, and Trends, that Facing Hospitality Industry. Management Science and Engineering, 3(4), 53-58.

Jong, J., & Hartog., D. (2007). How leaders influence employee’s innovative behavior. European Journal of Innovation Management,10(1), 41-64.

Kainthola, V. (2009). Principles of hotel management, Delhi: Chandni Chowk.

Kamau, S., & Waudo, J. (2012). Hospitaltiy industry emplyer’s expectation of employees’ competencies in Nairobi hotels. Journal of Hospitality Management and Tourism, 3(4), 55-63.

Kanten, S., & Yaşlioglu, M. (2012). Role of innovation in creating customer value in hotel establishments: A study on managers. The Journal of Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 17(2), 437-449.

Kanuk, A. (2013). Capital markets of India an investor’s guide. Hoboken, N.J: Wiley.

Kara, D. (2012). Differences in psychological empowerment perception of female employees working in hospitality industry. Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research, 12(4), 436-443.

Karunaratne, W., & Jayawardena, L. (2010). Assessment of customer satisfaction in a five star hotel: A case study. Tropical Agriculture Research, 21(3), 258-265.

Kasimu, B., Zaiton, S., & Hassan, H. (2012). Hotels involvement in sustainable tourism practices in Klang Valley, Malaysia. International Journal of Economics and Management, 6(1), 21-34.

Kingir, S., & Mesci, M. (2010). Factors that affect hotel employees’ motivation: The case of Bodrum. Serbian Journal of Management, 5(1), 59-76.

Kuria, S., Wanderi, P., & Ondigi, A. (2012). Hotel employment in Kenya: Contingent work or professional career? International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 2(7), 394-404.

Ladkin, A. (1999). Hotel general managers: A review of prominent research themes. International Journal of Tourism Research, 1, 167-193.

Lis, A., Glińska-Neweś, A., & Kalińska, M. (2014). The role of leadership in shaping interpersonal relationships in the context of positive organizational potential. Journal of Positive Management, 5(4), 28-49.

Mariam, H., & Taylor, E. (2011). Strengthening food control in a multi-cultural society: Abu Dhabi food safety training initiatives. Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes, 3(5), 422-431.

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. (2011). Designing qualitative research (5th ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.

Mattila, A., & O’Neill. (2003). Relationships between hotel room pricing, occupancy and guest satisfaction: A longitudinal case of a midscale hotel in the United States. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 20(10), 1-15.

McBurney, D., & White, T. (2010). Research methods (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Menon, S. (2001). Employee Empowerment: An Integrative Psychological Approach. Applied Psychology, 50(1), 153-180. Web.

Mohammed, A., & Rashid, B. (2012). Customer relationship management (CRM) in hotel industry: A framework proposal on the relationship among CRM dimensions, marketing capabilities and hotel performance. International Review of Management and Marketing, 2(4), 220-230.

Mohanty, S., & Mohanty, K. (2014). Employee retention: A key driver to the growth of tourism and hospitality in Odisha. International Journal of Innovation Education and Research, 2(12), 94-112.

Mosedale, J. (2011). Political economy of tourism: a critical perspective. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

Nath, A., Vatsal, T., & Vithalani, J., (2004). Horizons: the Tata-India century 1904-2004. India Book House: Mumbai.

Ncube, F., Sibanda, P., & Maunganidze, L. (2013). The competitive advantages of organizations in Zimbabwe’s hospitality industry: A case of two organizations. Journal of Emerging trends in Economics and Management Sciences, 4(3), 328-336.

Nzonzo, J., & Chipfuva, T. (2013). Managing talent in the tourism and hospitality sector: A conceptual view point. International Journal of Academic Research in Accounting, Finnance and Management Sciences, 3(2), 92-97.

Oki, E. (2014). The impact of employee retention on customer satisfaction in the Nigerian service organizations. International Journal of Managerial Studies and Research, 2(9), 140-154.

Panacek, E. (2008). Survey-based Research: Performing the Survey. Air Medical Journal, 27(2), 64-66.

Parker, C., Baltes, B., Young, S., Huff, J., Altmann, R., LaCost, H., & Roberts, J. (2003). Relationships between psychological climate perceptions and work outcomes: a meta-analytic review. J. Organiz. Behav., 24(4), 389-416. Web.

Peccei, R., & Rosenthal, P. (2001). Delivering Customer-Oriented Behaviour through Empowerment: An Empirical Test of HRM Assumptions. Journal Of Management Studies, 38(6), 831-857. Web.

Perry, S. (2009). Beyond the Distinction between Positivism and Non-Positivism. Ratio Juris, 22 (3), 311-325.

Phadtare, M. (2011). Strategic management: concepts and cases. New Delhi, India: PHI Learning.

Pivcevic, S., & Pranicevic, D. (2012). Innovation activity in the hotel sector: The case of Croatia. Economic Research, 25(1), 337-363.

Pizam, A., & Ellis, T. (1999). Customer Satisfaction And Its Measurement In Hospitality Enterprises. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 11(7), 326-339.

Robbins, T., Crino, M., & Fredendall, L. (2002). An integrative model of the empowerment process. Human Resource Management Review, 12(3), 419-443. Web.

Rudani, R. (2013). Principles of management. New Delhi: McGraw-Hill Education.

Rust, R., & Zahorik, A. (1993). Customer satisfaction, customer retention, and market share. Journal of Retailing, 69(2), 193-215.

Rutherford, D. & Fallon, M. (2009). Hotel management operations (5th ed.). Hoboken, N.J: John Wiley.

Rutherford, D. (2002). Hotel management and operations (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley.

Sachdeva, J. (2009). Business research methodology, Mumbai: Himalaya Pub. House.

Shankar, V., Smith, A., & Rangaswamy, A. (2002). Customer satisfaction and loyalty in online and offline environments. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 153-175.

Sheela, A. (2002). Economics of hotel management. New Delhi: New Age International (P) Ltd.

Siegall, M., & Gardner, S. (2000). Contextual factors of psychological empowerment. Personnel Review, 29(6), 703-722. Web.

Sigler, T., & Pearson, C. (2000). Creating an empowering culture: examining the relationship between organizational culture and perceptions of empowerment. Journal of Quality Management, 5(1), 27-52. Web.

Singh, U., & Dewan, J. (2009). Hotel management. New Delhi: APH Pub Corp.

Storey, J. (2001) Human Resource Management Today: An Assessment, in: J. Storey, (ed.), Human Resource Management: A Critical Text. London: Thomson Learning, pp. 3-20.

Tavitiyamana, P., Qu, H., & Zhang, H. (2011). The impact of industry force factors on resource competitive strategies and hotel performance. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30, 648-657.

Tracey, B., & Hinkin, R. (1994). Transformational leadership in the hospitality industry. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 35 (2), 18-24.

Trompenaars, F. & Voerman, E. (2009). Servant Leadership Across Cultures Harnessing the Strength of the World’s Most Powerful Leadership Philosophy, Infinite Ideas Ltd, Oxford.

Tsaur, S., & Lin, Y. (2004). Promoting service quality in tourist hotels: the role of HRM practices and service behavior. Tourism Management, 25(4), 471-481. Web.

Uran, M. (2010). The organizational gap model for hotel management. Managing Global Transitions, 8(4), 405-422.

Utami., F. & Utami, M. (2013). How intellectual stimulation effects knowledge sharing, innovation and firm performance. International Journal of Science and Humanity, 3(4), 420-425.

Vasquez, D. (2014). Employee retention for economic stabilization: Qualitativ phenomenological study in the hospitality sector. International Journal of Management, Economics and Social Sciences, 3(1), 1-17.

Watson, S. (2002). Human resource management: international perspectives in hospitality and tourism. London: Continuum.

Witzel, M. (2010). Tata: the evolution of a corporate brand. New Delhi: Penguin Portfolio.

Wood, R. (2015). Hospitality management. Washington: Sage Publications.

Yin, R. (2009). Case study research: design and methods (4th ed.). Los Angeles, Calif: Sage Publications.

Zhang, C., & Ma, J. (2009). Enhanced sampling in generalized ensemble with large gap of sampling parameter: Case study in temperature space random walk. The Journal of Chemical Physics, 130(9), 194.

Zou, W., Zheng, Y., & Liu, J. (2015). The Impact of Transformational Leadership on the Helping Behavior of Hotel Employee. Journal of Economics, Business and Management, 3(3), 322-325.

Appendix 1: Questionnaires

Leadership in the Hotel Industry

Welcome to this survey and thank you very much for taking the time to fill out these questions.

Please know that all answers will remain confidential and will only be used for research purposes.

There are 17 questions in this survey

Employee Details

What is your gender? *

Please choose only one of the following:

  • Female
  • Male

What is your age? *

Please choose only one of the following:

  • 20 years and below
  • 21-30 years old
  • 31-40 years old
  • 41-50 years old
  • 51-60 years old
  • 61 years old and above

What is your marital status? *

Please choose only one of the following:

  • Unmarried
  • Married
  • Other

What is your current education level? *

Please choose only one of the following:

  • Secondary education but no degree
  • High School degree
  • College degree
  • University degree
  • Graduate degree

How long have you been working for this hotel? *

Please choose only one of the following:

  • 0.5 years and below
  • 0.5 – 1 years
  • 1 – 3 years
  • 3 – 5 years
  • 5 – 7 years
  • 7 – 9 years
  • 9 years and above

What is your work status? *

Please choose only one of the following:

  • Full time
  • Part time

In what department do you work? *

Please choose only one of the following:

  • Front office
  • Housekeeping
  • Food and Beverage
  • Administration
  • Human resources
  • Marketing
  • Procurement
  • Engineering
  • Other

How many years have you worked in the hotel industry? *

Please choose only one of the following:

  • 0.5 years and below
  • 0.5 – 1 years
  • 1 – 3 years
  • 3 – 5 years
  • 5 – 7 years
  • 7 – 9 years
  • 9 years and above

Employer Information

What is the gender of your manager? *

Please choose only one of the following:

  • Female
  • Male

How many years has your manager been working in the Hotel Industry? *

Please write your answer here:

How many years have you been working for your manager? *

Please choose only one of the following:

  • 0.5 years and below
  • 0.5 – 1 year
  • 1 – 3 years
  • 3 – 5 years
  • 5 – 7 years
  • 7 – 9 years
  • 9 years and above

Does your manager have a background (education) in the Hospitality Industry? *

Please choose only one of the following:

  • Yes
  • No

What type of manager (level) is your manager ?

Please choose only one of the following:

  • Entry level management
  • ( Deputy ) manager or above
  • Other

Transformational Leadership

My manager….

Please tick against the appropriate response for each item:

Strongly Disagree Mostly Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Agree Mostly Agree Strongly Agree
Has a clear understanding of where we are going.
Paints an interesting picture of the future for our group.
Is always seeking new opportunities for the organisation.
Inspires others with his/her plans for the future.
Is able to get others committed to his/her dream.
Leads by “doing”, rather than simply by “telling”.
Provides a good model for me to follow.
Leads by example.
Fosters collaboration among work groups.
Encourages employees to be “team player”.
Gets the group to work together for the same goal.
Develops a team attitude and spirit among employees.
Shows us that he/she expects a lot from us.
Insists on only the best performance.
Will not settle for second best.
Shows respect for my personal feelings.
Behaves in a manner thoughtful of my personal needs.
Challenges me to think about old problems in new ways.
Ask questions that prompt me to think.
Has stimulated me to rethink the way I do things.
Has ideas that have challenged me to re-examine some of basic assumptions about my work.

Continuance Commitment

Do you agree with these statements?

Please tick against the appropriate response for each item:

Strongly Disagree Mostly Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Agree Mostly Agree Strongly Agree
It would be very hard for me to leave my hotel right now, even if I wanted to.
Too much in my life would be disrupted if I decided I wanted to leave my hotel now.
It would be too costly for me to leave my hotel now.
Right now, staying with my hotel is a matter of necessity as much as desire.
I feel that I have too few options to consider leaving this hotel.
One of the few serious consequences of leaving this hotel would be the scarcity of available alternatives.
One of the major reasons I continue to work for this hotel is that leaving would require considerable personal sacrifice – another hotel may not match the overall benefits I have here.

Normative Commitment

Do you agree with the following statements?

Please tick against the appropriate response for each item:

Strongly Disagree Mostly Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Agree Mostly Agree Strongly Agree
I believe that a person must always be loyal to his or her hotel.
Jumping from hotel to hotel seems unethical to me.
One of the major reasons I continue to work for this hotel is that I believe that loyalty is important and therefore feel a sense of moral obligation to remain.
If I got another offer for a better job elsewhere I would not feel it was right to leave my hotel.
I was taught to believe in the value of remaining loyal to one organisation.
Things were better in the days when people stayed with one organization for most of their careers.
I think that wanting to be a “company man” or “company woman” is sensible.

Affective Commitment

Do you agree with the following statements?

Please tick against the appropriate response for each item:

Strongly Disagree Mostly Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Agree Mostly Agree Strongly Agree
I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with this hotel.
I enjoy discussing my hotel with people outside it.
I really feel as if this hotel´s problem is my own.
I think that I couldn´t easily become as attached to another hotel as I am to this one.
I feel like “part of the family” at my hotel.
I feel “emotionally attached” to this hotel.
This hotel has a great deal of personal meaning for me.
I feel a strong sense of belonging to my hotel.

Thank you very much for taking the time to complete this survey. Your help is greatly appreciated.

If you have any questions regarding this survey please do not hesitate to contact me.

Kind regards,

Name

E-mail

Submit your survey.

Thank you for completing this survey.

Appendix 2: Frequencies

TL [TL1]
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 3 2 1.9 1.9 1.9
4 3 2.8 2.8 4.7
5 21 19.6 19.6 24.3
6 46 43.0 43.0 67.3
7 35 32.7 32.7 100.0
Total 107 100.0 100.0
TL [TL2]
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 3 4 3.7 3.7 3.7
4 8 7.5 7.5 11.2
5 29 27.1 27.1 38.3
6 40 37.4 37.4 75.7
7 26 24.3 24.3 100.0
Total 107 100.0 100.0
TL [TL3]
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 2 1 .9 .9 .9
3 4 3.7 3.7 4.7
4 16 15.0 15.0 19.6
5 25 23.4 23.4 43.0
6 28 26.2 26.2 69.2
7 33 30.8 30.8 100.0
Total 107 100.0 100.0
TL [TL4]
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1 1 .9 .9 .9
2 1 .9 .9 1.9
3 5 4.7 4.7 6.5
4 12 11.2 11.2 17.8
5 26 24.3 24.3 42.1
6 34 31.8 31.8 73.8
7 28 26.2 26.2 100.0
Total 107 100.0 100.0
TL [TL5]
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1 1 .9 .9 .9
2 1 .9 .9 1.9
3 7 6.5 6.5 8.4
4 11 10.3 10.3 18.7
5 28 26.2 26.2 44.9
6 34 31.8 31.8 76.6
7 25 23.4 23.4 100.0
Total 107 100.0 100.0
TL [TL6]
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1 2 1.9 1.9 1.9
2 2 1.9 1.9 3.7
3 8 7.5 7.5 11.2
4 7 6.5 6.5 17.8
5 23 21.5 21.5 39.3
6 30 28.0 28.0 67.3
7 35 32.7 32.7 100.0
Total 107 100.0 100.0
TL [TL7]
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1 1 .9 .9 .9
2 4 3.7 3.7 4.7
3 3 2.8 2.8 7.5
4 7 6.5 6.5 14.0
5 26 24.3 24.3 38.3
6 35 32.7 32.7 71.0
7 31 29.0 29.0 100.0
Total 107 100.0 100.0
TL [TL8]
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1 2 1.9 1.9 1.9
2 1 .9 1.0 2.9
3 3 2.8 2.9 5.7
4 9 8.4 8.6 14.3
5 22 20.6 21.0 35.2
6 38 35.5 36.2 71.4
7 30 28.0 28.6 100.0
Total 105 98.1 100.0
Missing System 2 1.9
Total 107 100.0
TL [TL9]
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1 1 .9 .9 .9
2 1 .9 .9 1.9
3 3 2.8 2.8 4.7
4 7 6.5 6.6 11.3
5 27 25.2 25.5 36.8
6 39 36.4 36.8 73.6
7 28 26.2 26.4 100.0
Total 106 99.1 100.0
Missing System 1 .9
Total 107 100.0
TL [T10]
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1 2 1.9 1.9 1.9
3 1 .9 .9 2.8
4 9 8.4 8.4 11.2
5 19 17.8 17.8 29.0
6 36 33.6 33.6 62.6
7 40 37.4 37.4 100.0
Total 107 100.0 100.0
TL [T11]
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1 1 .9 .9 .9
3 2 1.9 1.9 2.8
4 6 5.6 5.7 8.5
5 23 21.5 21.7 30.2
6 35 32.7 33.0 63.2
7 39 36.4 36.8 100.0
Total 106 99.1 100.0
Missing System 1 .9
Total 107 100.0
TL [T12]
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1 1 .9 .9 .9
2 1 .9 .9 1.9
3 4 3.7 3.7 5.6
4 8 7.5 7.5 13.1
5 18 16.8 16.8 29.9
6 36 33.6 33.6 63.6
7 39 36.4 36.4 100.0
Total 107 100.0 100.0
TL [T13]
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 3 3 2.8 2.8 2.8
4 3 2.8 2.8 5.6
5 16 15.0 15.0 20.6
6 40 37.4 37.4 57.9
7 45 42.1 42.1 100.0
Total 107 100.0 100.0
TL [T14]
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 3 3 2.8 2.8 2.8
4 4 3.7 3.7 6.5
5 21 19.6 19.6 26.2
6 28 26.2 26.2 52.3
7 51 47.7 47.7 100.0
Total 107 100.0 100.0
TL [T15]
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 3 6 5.6 5.7 5.7
4 11 10.3 10.4 16.0
5 21 19.6 19.8 35.8
6 32 29.9 30.2 66.0
7 36 33.6 34.0 100.0
Total 106 99.1 100.0
Missing System 1 .9
Total 107 100.0
TL [T16]
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1 3 2.8 2.8 2.8
2 2 1.9 1.9 4.7
3 6 5.6 5.6 10.3
4 8 7.5 7.5 17.8
5 22 20.6 20.6 38.3
6 37 34.6 34.6 72.9
7 29 27.1 27.1 100.0
Total 107 100.0 100.0
TL [T17]
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1 3 2.8 2.8 2.8
2 1 .9 .9 3.7
3 7 6.5 6.5 10.3
4 9 8.4 8.4 18.7
5 24 22.4 22.4 41.1
6 24 22.4 22.4 63.6
7 39 36.4 36.4 100.0
Total 107 100.0 100.0
TL [T18]
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1 2 1.9 1.9 1.9
3 5 4.7 4.7 6.5
4 13 12.1 12.1 18.7
5 25 23.4 23.4 42.1
6 32 29.9 29.9 72.0
7 30 28.0 28.0 100.0
Total 107 100.0 100.0
TL [T19]
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1 1 .9 .9 .9
3 3 2.8 2.8 3.7
4 13 12.1 12.1 15.9
5 26 24.3 24.3 40.2
6 28 26.2 26.2 66.4
7 36 33.6 33.6 100.0
Total 107 100.0 100.0
TL [T20]
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 3 3 2.8 2.8 2.8
4 11 10.3 10.3 13.1
5 22 20.6 20.6 33.6
6 35 32.7 32.7 66.4
7 36 33.6 33.6 100.0
Total 107 100.0 100.0
TL [T21]
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 3 4 3.7 3.7 3.7
4 8 7.5 7.5 11.2
5 20 18.7 18.7 29.9
6 38 35.5 35.5 65.4
7 37 34.6 34.6 100.0
Total 107 100.0 100.0
CC [SQ001]
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1 9 8.4 8.4 8.4
2 7 6.5 6.5 15.0
3 8 7.5 7.5 22.4
4 22 20.6 20.6 43.0
5 27 25.2 25.2 68.2
6 26 24.3 24.3 92.5
7 8 7.5 7.5 100.0
Total 107 100.0 100.0
CC [SQ002]
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1 16 15.0 15.0 15.0
2 13 12.1 12.1 27.1
3 13 12.1 12.1 39.3
4 28 26.2 26.2 65.4
5 22 20.6 20.6 86.0
6 13 12.1 12.1 98.1
7 2 1.9 1.9 100.0
Total 107 100.0 100.0
CC [SQ003]
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1 14 13.1 13.1 13.1
2 20 18.7 18.7 31.8
3 14 13.1 13.1 44.9
4 29 27.1 27.1 72.0
5 15 14.0 14.0 86.0
6 11 10.3 10.3 96.3
7 4 3.7 3.7 100.0
Total 107 100.0 100.0
CC [SQ004]
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1 21 19.6 19.6 19.6
2 15 14.0 14.0 33.6
3 16 15.0 15.0 48.6
4 21 19.6 19.6 68.2
5 21 19.6 19.6 87.9
6 10 9.3 9.3 97.2
7 3 2.8 2.8 100.0
Total 107 100.0 100.0
CC [SQ005]
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1 20 18.7 18.7 18.7
2 20 18.7 18.7 37.4
3 15 14.0 14.0 51.4
4 22 20.6 20.6 72.0
5 19 17.8 17.8 89.7
6 9 8.4 8.4 98.1
7 2 1.9 1.9 100.0
Total 107 100.0 100.0
CC [SQ006]
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1 27 25.2 25.2 25.2
2 19 17.8 17.8 43.0
3 8 7.5 7.5 50.5
4 29 27.1 27.1 77.6
5 10 9.3 9.3 86.9
6 10 9.3 9.3 96.3
7 4 3.7 3.7 100.0
Total 107 100.0 100.0
CC [SQ007]
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1 27 25.2 25.2 25.2
2 14 13.1 13.1 38.3
3 12 11.2 11.2 49.5
4 25 23.4 23.4 72.9
5 14 13.1 13.1 86.0
6 8 7.5 7.5 93.5
7 7 6.5 6.5 100.0
Total 107 100.0 100.0
NC [NC1]
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1 1 .9 .9 .9
2 1 .9 .9 1.9
3 6 5.6 5.6 7.5
4 10 9.3 9.3 16.8
5 22 20.6 20.6 37.4
6 40 37.4 37.4 74.8
7 27 25.2 25.2 100.0
Total 107 100.0 100.0
NC [NC2]
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1 6 5.6 5.6 5.6
2 16 15.0 15.0 20.6
3 9 8.4 8.4 29.0
4 21 19.6 19.6 48.6
5 17 15.9 15.9 64.5
6 25 23.4 23.4 87.9
7 13 12.1 12.1 100.0
Total 107 100.0 100.0
NC [NC3]
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1 5 4.7 4.7 4.7
2 5 4.7 4.7 9.3
3 5 4.7 4.7 14.0
4 18 16.8 16.8 30.8
5 26 24.3 24.3 55.1
6 31 29.0 29.0 84.1
7 17 15.9 15.9 100.0
Total 107 100.0 100.0
NC [NC4]
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1 13 12.1 12.1 12.1
2 12 11.2 11.2 23.4
3 10 9.3 9.3 32.7
4 18 16.8 16.8 49.5
5 19 17.8 17.8 67.3
6 22 20.6 20.6 87.9
7 13 12.1 12.1 100.0
Total 107 100.0 100.0
NC [NC5]
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1 5 4.7 4.7 4.7
2 6 5.6 5.6 10.3
3 5 4.7 4.7 15.0
4 15 14.0 14.0 29.0
5 20 18.7 18.7 47.7
6 37 34.6 34.6 82.2
7 19 17.8 17.8 100.0
Total 107 100.0 100.0
NC [NC6]
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1 6 5.6 5.6 5.6
2 7 6.5 6.5 12.1
3 6 5.6 5.6 17.8
4 31 29.0 29.0 46.7
5 15 14.0 14.0 60.7
6 30 28.0 28.0 88.8
7 12 11.2 11.2 100.0
Total 107 100.0 100.0
NC [NC7]
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1 4 3.7 3.7 3.7
2 3 2.8 2.8 6.5
3 4 3.7 3.7 10.3
4 29 27.1 27.1 37.4
5 25 23.4 23.4 60.7
6 26 24.3 24.3 85.0
7 16 15.0 15.0 100.0
Total 107 100.0 100.0
AC [AC1]
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1 12 11.2 11.2 11.2
2 6 5.6 5.6 16.8
3 8 7.5 7.5 24.3
4 11 10.3 10.3 34.6
5 25 23.4 23.4 57.9
6 31 29.0 29.0 86.9
7 14 13.1 13.1 100.0
Total 107 100.0 100.0
AC [AC2]
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1 2 1.9 1.9 1.9
2 5 4.7 4.7 6.6
3 4 3.7 3.8 10.4
4 13 12.1 12.3 22.6
5 33 30.8 31.1 53.8
6 32 29.9 30.2 84.0
7 17 15.9 16.0 100.0
Total 106 99.1 100.0
Missing System 1 .9
Total 107 100.0
AC [AC3]
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1 7 6.5 6.5 6.5
2 8 7.5 7.5 14.0
3 6 5.6 5.6 19.6
4 21 19.6 19.6 39.3
5 26 24.3 24.3 63.6
6 22 20.6 20.6 84.1
7 17 15.9 15.9 100.0
Total 107 100.0 100.0
AC [AC4]
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1 7 6.5 6.5 6.5
2 7 6.5 6.5 13.1
3 11 10.3 10.3 23.4
4 22 20.6 20.6 43.9
5 26 24.3 24.3 68.2
6 21 19.6 19.6 87.9
7 13 12.1 12.1 100.0
Total 107 100.0 100.0
AC [AC5]
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1 5 4.7 4.7 4.7
2 7 6.5 6.6 11.3
3 10 9.3 9.4 20.8
4 16 15.0 15.1 35.8
5 27 25.2 25.5 61.3
6 27 25.2 25.5 86.8
7 14 13.1 13.2 100.0
Total 106 99.1 100.0
Missing System 1 .9
Total 107 100.0
AC [AC6]
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1 6 5.6 5.7 5.7
2 7 6.5 6.6 12.3
3 6 5.6 5.7 17.9
4 17 15.9 16.0 34.0
5 29 27.1 27.4 61.3
6 29 27.1 27.4 88.7
7 12 11.2 11.3 100.0
Total 106 99.1 100.0
Missing System 1 .9
Total 107 100.0
AC [AC7]
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1 5 4.7 4.7 4.7
2 8 7.5 7.5 12.1
3 6 5.6 5.6 17.8
4 19 17.8 17.8 35.5
5 29 27.1 27.1 62.6
6 25 23.4 23.4 86.0
7 15 14.0 14.0 100.0
Total 107 100.0 100.0
AC [AC8]
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1 6 5.6 5.6 5.6
2 5 4.7 4.7 10.3
3 5 4.7 4.7 15.0
4 18 16.8 16.8 31.8
5 30 28.0 28.0 59.8
6 27 25.2 25.2 85.0
7 16 15.0 15.0 100.0
Total 107 100.0 100.0
Check the price of your paper