Chapter 1

Leadership has been described as a process of social influence in which one person can enlist the aid and support of others in the accomplishment of a common task". Other in-depth definitions of leadership have also emerged. Theories Leadership is "organizing a group of people to achieve a common goal". The leader may or may not have any formal authority. Students of leadership have produced theories involving traits, situational interaction, function, behavior, power, vision and values, charisma, and intelligence, among others. Somebody whom people follow: somebody who guides or directs others. Early western history The search for the characteristics or traits of leaders has been ongoing for centuries. History's greatest philosophical writings from Plato's Republic to Plutarch's Lives have explored the question "What qualities distinguish an individual as a leader?" Underlying this search was the early recognition of the importance of leadership and the assumption that leadership is rooted in the
1

characteristics that certain individuals possess. This idea that leadership is based on individual attributes is known as the "trait theory of leadership". The trait theory was explored at length in a number of works in the 19th century. Most notable are the writings of Thomas Carlyle and Francis Galton, whose works have prompted decades of research. In Heroes and Hero Worship (1841), Carlyle identified the talents, skills, and physical characteristics of men who rose to power. In Galton's Hereditary Genius (1869), he examined leadership qualities in the families of powerful men. After showing that the numbers of eminent relatives dropped off when moving from first degree to second degree relatives, Galton concluded that leadership was inherited. In other words, leaders were born, not developed. Both of these notable works lent great initial support for the notion that leadership is rooted in characteristics of the leader. Rise of alternative theories In the late 1940s and early 1950s, however, a series of qualitative reviews of these studies (e.g., Bird, 1940; Stogdill, 1948; Mann, 1959) prompted researchers to take a drastically different view of the driving forces behind leadership. In reviewing the extant literature, Stogdill and Mann found that while some traits were common across a number of studies, the overall evidence suggested that persons who are leaders in one situation may not necessarily be leaders in other
2

situations. Subsequently, leadership was no longer characterized as an enduring individual trait, as situational approaches (see alternative leadership theories below) posited that individuals can be effective in certain situations, but not others. This approach dominated much of the leadership theory and research for the next few decades. Reemergence of trait theory New methods and measurements were developed after these influential reviews that would ultimately reestablish the trait theory as a viable approach to the study of leadership. For example, improvements in researchers' use of the round robin research design methodology allowed researchers to see that individuals can and do emerge as leaders across a variety of situations and tasks. Additionally, during the 1980s statistical advances allowed researchers to conduct meta-analyses, in which they could quantitatively analyze and summarize the findings from a wide array of studies. This advent allowed trait theorists to create a comprehensive picture of previous leadership research rather than rely on the qualitative reviews of the past. Equipped with new methods, leadership researchers revealed the following:

Individuals can and do emerge as leaders across a variety of situations

and tasks.
3

Significant relationships exist between leadership and such individual

traits as:

intelligence adjustment extraversion conscientiousness openness to experience general self-efficacy

While the trait theory of leadership has certainly regained popularity, its reemergence has not been accompanied by a corresponding increase in sophisticated conceptual frameworks. Specifically, Zaccaro (2007) noted that trait theories still: 1. focus on a small set of individual attributes such as Big Five

personality traits, to the neglect of cognitive abilities, motives, values, social skills, expertise, and problem-solving skills; 2. fail to consider patterns or integrations of multiple attributes;

3.

do not distinguish between those leader attributes that are generally

not malleable over time and those that are shaped by, and bound to, situational influences; 4. do not consider how stable leader attributes account for the behavioral

diversity necessary for effective leadership. Attribute pattern approach Considering the criticisms of the trait theory outlined above, several researchers have begun to adopt a different perspective of leader individual differencesthe leader attribute pattern approach. In contrast to the traditional approach, the leader attribute pattern approach is based on theorists' arguments that the influence of individual characteristics on outcomes is best understood by considering the person as an integrated totality rather than a summation of individual variables. In other words, the leader attribute pattern approach argues that integrated constellations or combinations of individual differences may explain substantial variance in both leader emergence and leader effectiveness beyond that explained by single attributes, or by additive combinations of multiple attributes.

Behavioral and style theories

In response to the early criticisms of the trait approach, theorists began to research leadership as a set of behaviors, evaluating the behavior of successful leaders, determining a behavior taxonomy, and identifying broad leadership styles. David McClelland, for example, posited that leadership takes a strong personality with a well-developed positive ego. To lead, self-confidence and high self-esteem are useful, perhaps even essential.

A graphical representation of the managerial grid model Kurt Lewin, Ronald Lipitt, and Ralph White developed in 1939 the seminal work on the influence of leadership styles and performance. The researchers
6

evaluated the performance of groups of eleven-year-old boys under different types of work climate. In each, the leader exercised his influence regarding the type of group decision making, praise and criticism (feedback), and the management of the group tasks (project management) according to three styles: authoritarian, democratic, and laissez-faire. The managerial grid model is also based on a behavioral theory. The model was developed by Robert Blake and Jane Mouton in 1964 and suggests five different leadership styles, based on the leaders' concern for people and their concern for goal achievement. Positive reinforcement B.F. Skinner is the father of behavior modification and developed the concept of positive reinforcement. Positive reinforcement occurs when a positive stimulus is presented in response to a behavior, increasing the likelihood of that behavior in the future. The following is an example of how positive reinforcement can be used in a business setting. Assume praise is a positive reinforcer for a particular employee. This employee does not show up to work on time every day. The manager of this employee decides to praise the employee for showing up on time every day the employee actually shows up to work on time. As a result, the employee comes to work on time more often because the employee likes to be
7

praised. In this example, praise (the stimulus) is a positive reinforcer for this employee because the employee arrives at work on time (the behavior) more frequently after being praised for showing up to work on time. The use of positive reinforcement is a successful and growing technique used by leaders to motivate and attain desired behaviors from subordinates. Organizations such as Frito-Lay, 3M, Goodrich, Michigan Bell, and Emery Air Freight have all used reinforcement to increase productivity. Empirical research covering the last 20 years suggests that reinforcement theory has a 17 percent increase in performance. Additionally, many reinforcement techniques such as the use of praise are inexpensive, providing higher performance for lower costs. Situational and contingency theories Situational theory also appeared as a reaction to the trait theory of leadership. Social scientists argued that history was more than the result of intervention of great men as Carlyle suggested. Herbert Spencer (1884) (and Karl Marx) said that the times produce the person and not the other way around. This theory assumes that different situations call for different characteristics; according to this group of theories, no single optimal psychographic profile of a leader exists. According to the theory, "what an individual actually does when acting as a leader

is in large part dependent upon characteristics of the situation in which he functions." Some theorists started to synthesize the trait and situational approaches. Building upon the research of Lewin et al., academics began to normalize the descriptive models of leadership climates, defining three leadership styles and identifying which situations each style works better in. The authoritarian leadership style, for example, is approved in periods of crisis but fails to win the "hearts and minds" of followers in day-to-day management; the democratic leadership style is more adequate in situations that require consensus building; finally, the laissezfaire leadership style is appreciated for the degree of freedom it provides, but as the leaders do not "take charge", they can be perceived as a failure in protracted or thorny organizational problems. Thus, theorists defined the style of leadership as contingent to the situation, which is sometimes classified as contingency theory. Four contingency leadership theories appear more prominently in recent years: Fiedler contingency model, Vroom-Yetton decision model, the path-goal theory, and the Hersey-Blanchard situational theory. The Fiedler contingency model bases the leader's effectiveness on what Fred Fiedler called situational contingency. This results from the interaction of leadership style and situational favorability (later called situational control). The
9

theory defined two types of leader: those who tend to accomplish the task by developing good relationships with the group (relationship-oriented), and those who have as their prime concern carrying out the task itself (task-oriented). According to Fiedler, there is no ideal leader. Both task-oriented and relationshiporiented leaders can be effective if their leadership orientation fits the situation. When there is a good leader-member relation, a highly structured task, and high leader position power, the situation is considered a "favorable situation". Fiedler found that task-oriented leaders are more effective in extremely favorable or unfavorable situations, whereas relationship-oriented leaders perform best in situations with intermediate favorability. Victor Vroom, in collaboration with Phillip Yetton (1973) and later with Arthur Jago (1988), developed a taxonomy for describing leadership situations, which was used in a normative decision model where leadership styles were connected to situational variables, defining which approach was more suitable to which situation. This approach was novel because it supported the idea that the same manager could rely on different group decision making approaches depending on the attributes of each situation. This model was later referred to as situational contingency theory. Varieties of individual power
10

According to Patrick J. Montana and Bruce H. Charnov, the ability to attain these unique powers is what enables leadership to influence subordinates and peers by controlling organizational resources. The successful leader effectively uses these powers to influence employees, and it is important for leaders to understand the uses of power to strengthen their leadership. The authors distinguish the following types of organizational power:

Legitimate Power refers to the different types of professional

positions within an organization structure that inherit such power (e.g. Manager, Vice President, Director, Supervisor, etc.). These levels of power correspond to the hierarchical executive levels within the organization itself. The higher positions, such as president of the company, have higher power than the rest of the professional positions in the hierarchical executive levels.

Reward Power is the power given to managers that attain

administrative power over a range of rewards (such as raises and promotions). Employees who work for managers desire the reward from the manager and will be influenced by receiving it as a result of work performance.

Coercive Power is the manager's ability to punish an employee.

Punishment can be mild, such as a suspension, or serious, such as termination.

11

Expert Power is attained by the manager due to his or her own talents

such as skills, knowledge, abilities, or previous experience. A manager who has this power within the organization may be a very valuable and important manager in the company.

Charisma Power: a manager who has charisma will have a positive

influence on workers, and create the opportunity for interpersonal influence.

Referent Power is a power that is gained by association. A person

who has power by association is often referred to as an assistant or deputy.

Information Power is gained by a person who has possession of

important information at an important time when such information is needed to organizational functioning. Job satisfaction describes how happy an individual is with his or her job. The happier people are within their job, the more satisfied they are said to be. Logic would dictate that the most satisfied (happy) workers should be the best performers and vice versa. This is called the "happy worker" hypothesis. However, this hypothesis is not well supported, as job satisfaction is not the same as motivation or aptitude, although they may be clearly linked. A primary influence on job satisfaction is the application of Job design,which aims to enhance job
12

satisfaction and performance using methods such as job rotation, job enlargement, job enrichment and job re-engineering. Other influences on satisfaction include management styles and culture, employee involvement, empowerment, and autonomous work position. Job satisfaction is a very important attribute and is frequently measured by organizations. The most common technique for measurement is the use of rating scales where employees report their thoughts and reactions to their jobs. Questions can relate to rates of pay, work responsibilities, variety of tasks, promotional opportunities, the work itself, and co-workers. Some examinations present yes-or-no questions while others ask to rate satisfaction using a 1-to-5 scale, where 1 represents "not at all satisfied" and 5 represents "extremely satisfied." Definition Job satisfaction can simply be defined as the feelings people have about their jobs.It has been specifically defined as a pleasurable (or unpleasurable) emotional state resulting from the appraisal of ones job, an affective reaction to ones job, and an attitude towards ones job. These definitions suggest that job satisfaction takes into account feelings, beliefs, and behaviors. History

13

One of the biggest preludes to the study of job satisfaction was the Hawthorne studies. These studies (19241933), primarily credited to Elton Mayo of the Harvard Business School, sought to find the effects of various conditions (most notably illumination) on workers productivity. These studies ultimately showed that novel changes in work conditions temporarily increase productivity (called the Hawthorne Effect). It was later found that this increase resulted, not from the new conditions, but from the knowledge of being observed. This finding provided strong evidence that people work for purposes other than pay, which paved the way for researchers to investigate other factors in job satisfaction. Scientific management (aka Taylorism) also had a significant impact on the study of job satisfaction. Frederick Winslow Taylors 1911 book, Principles of Scientific Management, argued that there was a single best way to perform any given work task. This book contributed to a change in industrial production philosophies, causing a shift from skilled labor and piecework towards the more modern of assembly lines and hourly wages. The initial use of scientific management by industries greatly increased productivity because workers were forced to work at a faster pace. However, workers became exhausted and dissatisfied, thus leaving researchers with new questions to answer regarding job satisfaction. It should also be noted that the work of W.L. Bryan, Walter Dill Scott, and Hugo Munsterberg set the tone for Taylors work.
14

Some argue that Maslows hierarchy of needs theory, a motivation theory, laid the foundation for job satisfaction theory. This theory explains that people seek to satisfy five specific needs in life physiological needs, safety needs, social needs, self-esteem needs, and self-actualization. This model served as a good basis from which early researchers could develop job satisfaction theories. Job satisfaction can also be seen within the broader context of the range of issues which affect an individual's experience of work, or their quality of working life. Job satisfaction can be understood in terms of its relationships with other key factors, such as general well-being, stress at work, control at work, home-work interface, and working conditions. Models of job satisfaction Affect theory Edwin A. Lockes Range of Affect Theory (1976) is arguably the most famous job satisfaction model. The main premise of this theory is that satisfaction is determined by a discrepancy between what one wants in a job and what one has in a job. Further, the theory states that how much one values a given facet of work (e.g. the degree of autonomy in a position) moderates how satisfied/dissatisfied one becomes when expectations are/arent met. When a person values a particular facet
15

of a job, his satisfaction is more greatly impacted both positively (when expectations are met) and negatively (when expectations are not met), compared to one who doesnt value that facet. To illustrate, if Employee A values autonomy in the workplace and Employee B is indifferent about autonomy, then Employee A would be more satisfied in a position that offers a high degree of autonomy and less satisfied in a position with little or no autonomy compared to Employee B. This theory also states that too much of a particular facet will produce stronger feelings of dissatisfaction the more a worker values that facet. Dispositional theory Another well-known job satisfaction theory is the Dispositional Theory. It is a very general theory that suggests that people have innate dispositions that cause them to have tendencies toward a certain level of satisfaction, regardless of ones job. This approach became a notable explanation of job satisfaction in light of evidence that job satisfaction tends to be stable over time and across careers and jobs. Research also indicates that identical twins have similar levels of job satisfaction. A significant model that narrowed the scope of the Dispositional Theory was the Core Self-evaluations Model, proposed by Timothy A. Judge, Edwin A. Locke, and Cathy C. Durham in 1997.[5] Judge et al. argued that there are four Core Selfevaluations that determine ones disposition towards job satisfaction: self-esteem,
16

general self-efficacy, locus of control, and neuroticism. This model states that higher levels of self-esteem (the value one places on his/her self) and general selfefficacy (the belief in ones own competence) lead to higher work satisfaction. Having an internal locus of control (believing one has control over her\his own life, as opposed to outside forces having control) leads to higher job satisfaction. Finally, lower levels of neuroticism lead to higher job satisfaction. Opponent process theory According to opponent process theory, emotional events, such as criticisms or rewards, elicits two sets of processes. Primary processes give way to emotions that are steady with the event in question. Events that seem negative in manner will give rise to the feelings of stress or anxiety. Events that are positive give rise to the feeling of content or relaxation. The other process is the opponent process, which induces feelings that contradict the feelings in the primary processes. Events that are negative give rise to feelings of relaxation while events that are positive give rise to feelings of anxiety. A variety of explanations have been suggested to explain the uniformity of mood or satisfaction. This theory shows that if you try to enhance the mood of individual it will more likely fail in doing so. The opponent process theory was formulated to explain these patterns of observations. Equity theory
17

Equity Theory shows how a person views fairness in regard to social relationships. During a social exchange, a person identifies the amount of input gained from a relationship compared to the output, as well as how much effort another persons puts forth.Equity Theory suggests that if an individual thinks there is an inequality between two social groups or individuals, the person is likely to be distressed because the ratio between the input and the output are not equal. For example, consider two employees who work the same job and receive the same benefits. If one individual gets a pay raise for doing the same or less work than the other, then the less benefited individual will become distressed in his workplace. If, on the other hand, one individual gets a pay raise and new responsibilities, then the feeling of inequality is reduced.. Discrepancy theory The concept of self-discrepancy theory explains the ultimate source of anxiety and dejection. An individual, who has not fulfilled his responsibility feels the sense of anxiety and regret for not performing well, they will also feel dejection due to not being able to achieve their hopes and aspirations. According to this theory, all individuals will learn what their obligations and responsibilities for a particular function, over a time period, and if they fail to fulfill those obligations then they are punished. Over time, these duties and obligations consolidate to form an
18

abstracted set of principles, designated as a self-guide. Agitation and anxiety are the main responses when an individual fails to achieve the obligation or responsibility. This theory also explains that if achievement of the obligations is obtained then the reward can be praise, approval, or love. These achievements and aspirations also form an abstracted set of principles, referred to as the ideal self guide. When the individual fails to obtain these rewards, they begin to have feelings of dejection, disappointment, or even depression. Two-factor theory (motivator-hygiene theory) Frederick Herzbergs Two-factor theory (also known as Motivator Hygiene Theory) attempts to explain satisfaction and motivation in the workplace. This theory states that satisfaction and dissatisfaction are driven by different factors motivation and hygiene factors, respectively. An employees motivation to work is continually related to job satisfaction of a subordinate. Motivation can be seen as an inner force that drives individuals to attain personal and organizational goals (Hoskinson, Porter, & Wrench, p. 133). Motivating factors are those aspects of the job that make people want to perform, and provide people with satisfaction, for example achievement in work, recognition, promotion opportunities. These motivating factors are considered to be intrinsic to the job, or the work carried out. Hygiene factors include aspects of the working environment such as pay, company
19

policies, supervisory practices, and other working conditions.While Hertzberg's model has stimulated much research, researchers have been unable to reliably empirically prove the model, with Hackman & Oldham suggesting that Hertzberg's original formulation of the model may have been a methodological artifact. Furthermore, the theory does not consider individual differences, conversely predicting all employees will react in an identical manner to changes in motivating/hygiene factors. Finally, the model has been criticised in that it does not specify how motivating/hygiene factors are to be measured.

Objective of the project To study about the Luxury hotels at madurai Leadership styles at thease hotles To study about the job satisfaction of employees on behalf of leadership CHAPTERISATION The introduction chapter includes scope, objective, hypothesis, aim of the study, which are all the ingredients of a research study. Second chapter lights on the review of literature. Third Chapter describes deals with the Hotels in general
20

and Madurai Luxury hotel detail .

Fourth chapter gives a brief sketch about

leadership and jobsatisfaction in hotel In Fifth chapter processing, analysis and interpretation of data is done. Seventh chapter is devoted to the summary and conclusion, suggestions and recommendations. This research report will prove helpful in the development of genuine future research studies on this subject. METHODOLOGY Sampling Technique The sampling technique used is simple convenience sampling method. Information is collected only from a representative part of the population; the method of collection is called sampling. This is based on law of statistical regularity. Sample Size The total population of employees in Various Luxury hotels at Maduri Tamilnadu Beach Orchid International is 150. Out of which the sample size taken is 100 Tools for data analysis Questionnaire is the tool used for data analysis.

21