According to Burns (1978) the term leadership is aptly the most observed while least understood

phenomena in the field of literature. Research also indicates that until recently leadership as a
term has been used without proper knowledge by academics and specialists within the field of
hospitality and tourism (Brotherthon 1999). Hence it is first important to clarify the correct use
of the term leadership within hospitality industry. This is followed by highlighting evolution of
leadership theories and then identifying scientific contribution of different leadership style that is
widely in practice by researchers within hospitality and tourism industry.

In first step towards identifying leadership is to distinguish a boundary between the management
and leadership that has more or often used by researchers under the same context. According to
Cutler (2010) the word manage comes from Latin word a hand or manus which more so
often refers to as handling resources, people or money. On the other hand lead comes into
existence from Anglo Saxon word laed that means a way and a journey (Ispas 2010). Based on
this leadership can simply be explained as taking an individual from one position to another.
However in their efforts to find a more clear and precise definition, researchers have published
several definition that try to determine specific skills, traits, habits, situation or power source
through which a leader can effectively influence his/her subordinates. Independent studies
comparing concept of leadership with management reveals that differences exist from a
standpoint of functionality. Where the concept of management is to harness order and
consistency, leadership involves change and movement ((Levinta 2006).

In the beginning of hospitality industry a large percentage of hospitality organization was family
owned where the leadership was generally associated with ownership of the properties. Over the
decades, academic researchers have introduced a great many number of definition on leadership
where Rost (1991) in his publication titled leadership of the twenty-first century has listed
approximately 221 definitions. This in turn indicates that academically an excellent progress has
been made to debate on how to define leadership. An important outcome of these efforts indicate
that leaders in comparison to managers are capable of influencing subordinates other than by
traditional approaches like reward and punishment/carrot and stick but more by influencing
their subordinate by instilling a sense of empathy towards work goals and appealing to their self-
esteem needs. This means leaders do not force/threaten their subordinates into a particular action
but rather inspire them. On the other hand, Ciulla (2002) after reviewing Rost (1991) 221
definition observed certain similar traits i.e. leadership is about an individual getting another
individual to do something. Further she noted that differences amongst these definitions do exist
in terms of how leaders motivate their followers and who is responsible for setting goals.
Similarly Bennis (2007) was also able to find certain commonalities on a fundamental level
where he argues that leadership can be explained as a relational phenomenon that in its simplest
form is a tripod and consist of a leader or leaders, followers and common goal where all three
elements are dependent of each other and cannot exist individually. Darth (2008) states that
although there is commonality and interlinking traits amongst leadership studies, Alvesson
(2003) argues that for practical purpose a common unified theory of leadership cannot exist.
The evolutionary progression of leadership theory can be summarized as follows which includes
indicative dates as to when these theories came into existence along with short theoretical
summary of each.

In 1990, Thomas Carlyle first proposed great man/trait theory of leadership that focuses on
identify different personality traits and characteristics that are associated with successful leader
across a wide variety of situation (Cherry 2016). This theory also states that physical and
psychological qualities associated with leaders are characteristic trait few individual are born
with and not something one can acquire or develop. However wide variety of academic research
using principles of trait theory failed to identify or distinguish between leaders and followers
(Cherry 2016). According to 1950s, behavioral theory paints an opposite picture of leadership in
comparison to trait theory and states that through observable actions and reactions, individuals
can be trained to become leaders rather than born (Denison 2016). This means that successful
leader can be categories based on definable and learnable behaviour. This theory put more
emphasis on what a leader actually does rather than on their qualities (Denison 2016).

On the other hand, 1950s situational /contingency theory states that the effectiveness of a leader
depends upon demand imposed by a given situation. This involves a number of different factors
that includes personality of the leader, the nature of task and type of group that is being led
(Fiedler 1958). This theory creates an emphasis to use different leadership style to the needs
created by different organization situation. Hence no particular leadership behaviour can be
imposed indefinably by a leader (Fiedler 1958). According to 1960s humanistic leadership
theory, a leader should incorporate and recognizes the dignity and worth of every subordinate
within his organization. Humanistic leaders are grounded to make all decisions on sound
knowledge and moral ethics and not just assumptions. The sole purpose of such leaders is to
instate and operate their organization with meaning and purpose of giving back to society
(Bredfeldt 2006). 1970s transformational and charismatic leadership style states that leader
should be persuasive and charming in nature while being driven by commitment and conviction
to their cause. Although charismatic and transformational leaders share similarities but their main
difference is focus and audience, where charismatic leaders are involved in making status quo,
transformational leaders are focused towards transforming organization along lines of leaders
vision (Spahr 2016).

When it comes to leadership studies conducted within hospitality industry, researchers have
given particular significance to two leadership theories i.e. Leader-Member Exchange (LMX)
and transformational leadership theories. Based on characteristics of these two theories,
academics have applied its principles in number of different hospitality studies.

Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) theory was developed by Graen (1975) and his colleagues and
was initially labeled as Vertical Dyad theory and focused on value based relationship that exists
between leaders and followers. The main concept of LMX explains that leadership occurs
between individual through effective relationships. These relationships further evolve through a
series of social exchanges which in turn generates value between leaders and subordinates over a
given period of time. This theory further explains that depending upon work environment of an
organization, the quality communication between leaders-members differs. An organization with
low quality LMX generally share fewer valued resources with its member compared to those
organization with high quality LMX relationship. A leader that supports LMX relationship are
generally more favored by their members and communication relationship in such organization
amongst leaders and members surpass limitation of formal employment contracts. In these
circumstances members/subordinates receive more encouragement and support from their
leaders thereby giving subordinates greater responsibility and autonomy to perform their day to
day operations.

According to Cogliser (2009) these group of high quality and low quality LMX relationship can
sometimes also be referred as trusted assistants and hired hands. LXM theory has been
applied in numerous hospitality studies. Results from these studies indicate that hospitality
organization promoting high LMX groups fosters a work culture where there is higher trust and
satisfaction amongst employees and superiors. On a separate study, Kim (2010) research to
understand relation between LMX and employee turnover in mid-level management indicate that
high quality LMX is inversely proportional to turnover. This study while examining frontline
subordinates of hospitality industry reveals existence of a curvilinear relationship between LMX
and turnover intent. In two separate hospitality studies involving application of LMX leadership
theory was performed in China to evaluate relationship between Chinese value and
organizational behaviour. First study involving evaluation of 960 hospitality employees working
in mainland China indicates that Chinese values have positive result on LMX and LMX
improved the commitment of employee towards their organization. Second study examined
relationship in job performance between 54 supervisors and 298 subordinates and found that
human resources practices involving LMX principle have dramatically increased employee job
performance by 20-25% (Frenkel 2012).

Northouse (2001) research on application of LMX leadership theory within hospitality industry
highlights four advantages. First advantage, the theory being descriptive in nature helps
hospitality organization to find which individuals are contributing highest in a specific
organization. Even though application of LMX theories has potential to create a hostile work
atmosphere since such leaders become bias towards their decision making but in long run
practical application of LMX helps to develop long lasting relationships within the organization.
Second advantage, this theory is unique in comparison to other theories as it promotes the
concept of dyadic relationship in organization behaviour. As dyadic relationship promotes a
group of two individuals to work together, in practicality dyadic work force will be able to
accomplish more than their counterparts. Third advantage, this theory informs the importance of
communication this is because high quality LMX requires effective communication amongst all
levels of an organization. The last advantage of this theory is that it promotes positive
organization outcome within hospitality organization like healthy work environment, increased
commitment towards organization and other organizational variables.

Transformational leadership was first purposed by Burns (1978) were he characterized this
theory as a process though which leaders can motivate their subordinates through moral values
and appealing to higher ideals. Transformational leader are able to influence peers and
subordinates by defining a grander vision for their organization and in doing so transform
variables of individual on personal level like increasing their motivation and on organization
level help to resolve conflicts amongst team members. Avolio and Bass (1990) further described
transformational theory into four primary dimensions, (figure1).

The first dimension is referred to as idealized influence (II) were leaders are supposed to act as
role models for their followers and promote a value of learning and internalizing amongst their
subordinates (Hay 2014). Providing a sense of challenge along with long term vision towards the
organization helps to foster the spirit of teamwork and commitment. idealized influence (II)
leaders lead their subordinate by setting examples while showing strong commitment towards
their goal which in turn creates trust and confidence amongst employees (Schieltz 2013). The
second dimension is inspirational motivation (IM) were leaders inspire their followers to
overcome their comfort zones, while communicate a sense of optimism about task in hand and
about future goals. An inspirational aspect of leadership includes quality to communicate
effectively thus ensuring that vision is powerfully and precisely understood through all levels.
Leaders that demonstrate inspirational motivation (IM) have more followers that are ready to
invest more effort in their task thus being encouraging and optimistic about their personal
abilities and future by large (Hay 2014).

The third dimension is intellectual simulation (IS), through which transformational leaders can
nurture and encourage sense of creative and innovation amongst their members. Such leaders are
associated with creating a safer environment for members within their organization to share ideas
and experiment their thought into practical reality (Hay 2014). They also encourage use of noval
ideas to tackle old problems and in going so inspire employees to think out of box and share new
ideas amongst themselves (Schieltz 2013). This behaviour thus encourages creativity, aiming
towards creativity, empowering subordinates to disagree with leadership and empowering risk
taking to achive difficult goals. The fourth dimension is individual consideration (IC) that
involves leaders paying attention to needs of each subordinate, while also acting as coach or
mentor and in doing so listen to the concerns of each follower. Few other traits include ability to
empathize and discuss the needs of individual worker, ability on convey genuine compassion and
encourage professional and personal development of employees (Hay 2014).

Although past hospitality research indicate importance of both transactional and transformational
leadership quality is need to be successful within hospitality industry, a review of more recent
leadership studies from hospitality field indicate transformational leadership appears to have
higher value. This can be analyzed through case studies that involve reviewing positive outcomes
achieved by application of transformational leadership within hospitality industry.

Cichy (1992) conducted survey amongst 56 top food-service leaders with aim to investigate and
identify which traits are associated with effective leadership. The quality that respondents
consider most important for leaders to include: a visionary individual with strong personal belief
system who encourages risk taking and has good listening skills. This research summarized that
application of transformational leadership theory helps leaders to create an atmosphere of trust
amongst their subordinates by creating an safe environment for individuals to communicate.

Based on the earlier studies, Cichy and Schmidgall (1997) that involves surveying a group of 181
financial executives at leadership positions within hotel industry found similar results as
mentioned above. The quality that these respondents associated with being an effective leader
within hospitality industry is similar to the dimension of transformational leadership. This
includes having a strong belief system, having ability to listen and empower colleagues, being
flexible and having ability to inspire subordinates to make their desired goals tangible. As these
qualities are similar to the findings from those of the food-service leaders discussed above.
Based on this consistency we can conclude that qualities of transformational leadership persist
amongst different levels and occupation within hotel industry.

In conclusion results from a number of different academic papers suggest that in practice
hospitality leaders are consistent of with various leadership theories. In particular situation where
a number of hospitality leaders have defined task and have responsibility to handle colleagues
that are less skilled in such situation application of transactional leadership style is beneficial in
long run. In contrast those leaders in hospitality industry who have to lead team members who
are highly motivated and skilled should tend to focus on applying characteristics from LMX
leadership theory combined with a relaxed view of transactional leadership styles.
 Reference
Brotherton B ., .1999. Towards a definitive view of the nature of hospitality and hospitality
management. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management. 11 (2), p153-172.

Burns, J.M, 1978, Leadership, N.Y, Harper and Row

Cutler A ., .2010. Aspire to inspire Inspirational Leadership within the Hospitality, Leisure,
Travel and Tourism. Available:
https://books.google.co.in/books/about/Aspire_to_Inspire_Inspirational_Leadersh.html?
id=SfD8AQAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y. [Accessed 21st Nov 2016].

Cherry, K., .2016. What Is the Trait Theory of Leadership?. Available:

https://www.verywell.com/what-is-the-trait-theory-of-leadership-2795322. [Accessed 21st Nov
2016].

Denison, R., .2016. Behavioral Theories of Leadership. Available:

http://www.technofunc.com/index.php/leadership-skills-2/leadership-theories/item/behavioral-
theories-of-leadership. [Accessed 21st Nov 2016].

Fiedler, F., .1958. Leader Attitudes and Group Effectiveness. Available: http://www.leadership-
central.com/fiedler's-contingency-theory.html#axzz4RNt16CUX. [Accessed 21st Nov 2016].

Bredfeldt, G., .2006. Great Leader, Great Teacher: Recovering the Biblical Vision For
Leadership. Available: ttps://books.google.co.in/books?id=x1dm0KconOMC&pg. [Accessed
21st Nov 2016].

Spahr, P., .2006. What is Charismatic Leadership? Leading Through Personal Conviction.
Available: http://online.stu.edu/charismatic-leadership/. [Accessed 21st Nov 2016].

Cichy, R. F., & Schmidgall, R. S., .1997. Financial Executives in US Clubs. Cornell Hotel and
Restaurant Administration Quarterly. 38 (5),p 45-56.

Cichy, R. F.. , .1992. Food-service leadership: Could Attila run a restaurant?. Cornell Hotel and
Restaurant Administration Quarterly. 33 (5), 34-67.

Schieltz, M., .2013. Four Elements of Transformational Leadership. Available:

http://smallbusiness.chron.com/four-elements-transformational-leadership-10115.html.
[Accessed 22nd Nov 2016].
Hay, I., .2014. Transformational Leadership: Characteristics and Criticisms. Available:
http://www.leadingtoday.org/weleadinlearning/transformationalleadership.htm. [Accessed 22nd
Nov 2016].

Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M., .1990. Transformational leadership, charisma, and beyond..
Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in organizational effectiveness. 12 (2), p153-172.

Figure 1: Characteristics of Transformational Leadership