Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 13:331345, 2010

Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 1537-8020 print/1537-8039 online
DOI: 10.1080/15378020.2010.524538

Leadership Role Profile and Job Satisfaction

of Restaurant General Managers
RICHARD F. WILKINSON
School of Family and Consumer Sciences, Eastern Illinois University,
Charleston, IL, USA

Leadership roles (using Quinns Competing Values Framework)

utilized by managers of fast-casual, casual, and quick-service
restaurants were compared for differences. Fast-casual managers
utilize the greatest balance of leadership roles and are the most
effective according to Quinns model. Quick-service managers
have the highest level of job satisfaction but utilize a less balanced and complete leadership role profile than other managers.
No relationship was found between the use of leadership roles
and job satisfaction, intent to stay, or demographic characteristics. Restaurant general managers tend to use the less complex and
less risky leadership roles.
KEYWORDS leadership, job satisfaction, competing values, restaurant managers

INTRODUCTION
The restaurant industry is comprised of numerous types of operations, often
classified into the categories of fine dining, casual dining, family dining,
and quick service. Each type of restaurant has a unique mix of operational
characteristics that require managers in different segments to have a different
set of skills, knowledge, and leadership style to be effective. A new segment
in the restaurant industry, fast casual, has developed and experienced rapid
growth in the last decade. This segment incorporates the food quality and
service quality of the casual restaurant with the speed, efficiency, and lower
prices of the quick-service segment. The growth of fast-casual operations
Address correspondence to Dr. Richard F. Wilkinson, Associate Professor, School of
Family and Consumer Sciences, Eastern Illinois University, Klehm Hall, Charleston, IL 61920,
USA. E-mail: rfwilkinson@eiu.edu
331

332

R. F. Wilkinson

has caused changes in the restaurant industry. As suggested by Gould (2005,

p. 5) . . . these operations are forcing quick serve restaurants to upgrade
their culinary offerings, ambience, and service, while also pulling profits
from some casual players, who, in turn are being forced to increase their
takeout offerings.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

While it is agreed that different types of restaurants require a different
managerial skill set, the identification of those skills has not been fully
explored. The purpose of this study was to identify the leadership role profile of general managers in the restaurant industry and to identify if that
profile differs among managers in the casual, fast-casual, or quick-service
segments of the restaurant industry. A second purpose was to analyze the
relationship between leadership role with job satisfaction, intent to stay, and
demographic characteristics. Research has shown a correlation between job
satisfaction and retention in many types of occupations (Dawis, England, &
Lofquist, 1964; Dawis & Lofquist, 1984). An understanding of how leadership style is related to job satisfaction may provide some insight into the
high turnover rate for restaurant managers.

THEORETICAL BASE
Quinns (1988) Competing Values Framework served as the theoretical base
for this research project. Quinn was one of the first to recognize the inherently paradoxical nature of effective management, which must be at once
be adaptable and flexible yet stable and controlled, and which must be
strategic and goal-oriented [sic] while also behaving pragmatically, attending
to human resources and managing risk (Vilkinas & Cartan, 2006, p. 506).
Quinns approach has been used for a variety of published studies both in
the United States in Australia (Lamond, 2003, p. 48). While Quinns model
has been used in a variety of managerial settings (Cooper & Quinn, 1993;
Giek & Lees, 1993; Rogers & Hildebrandt, 1993; Thompson, 2000), it has not
been widely used in the hospitality industry.
Quinns model identifies eight leadership roles (facilitator, mentor, innovator, broker, producer, director, coordinator, and monitor) that are required
of managers, in varying degrees, in any type of business or operation.
Quinns model is based on two dimensionsfocus (internal focus or external focus) and structure (stability or flexibility). The model incorporates four
separate models of organizational theory which, on the surface, seem to contradict one another. Quinn labels these models as open systems (expansion,

333

Leadership Roles
Innovator
1
Mentor

Facilitator

Broker

Monitor

Producer

Director
Coordinator

FIGURE 1 Quinns Competing Values Framework.

resource acquisition, external support), rational goal (efficiency, planning,

goal setting), internal process (continuity, communication, stability), and
human relations (training, cohesion, employee morale). Quinns framework
is perhaps best viewed graphically (see Figure 1), where each of the four
organizational theory models is placed into a quadrant formed by the two
axes of focus and structure with two leadership styles in each quadrant.
While the leadership styles in opposite quadrants (e.g., broker and monitor) are polar opposites and contrast with each other, those styles next
to each other in the model share some characteristics (e.g., broker and
innovator).
Quinn labeled his framework as competing values, because it is his
belief that while some of the leadership styles seem to conflict with one
another, an effective manager must use all styles. Each quadrant in the
model represents a major organizational function: people, adaptation, stability, and task accomplishment (Michela & Burke, 2000). Quinn conducted
research with managers in different types of industries in an effort to identify the pattern of leadership roles utilized by the most-effective managers.
He found that effective managers display a balanced use of the leadership
roles or leadership styles. An effective manager does not have to utilize all
leadership roles extensively but should be able to utilize most of them as
the situation requires. In fact, overemphasis on any one role can lead to a
dysfunctional organization (Quinn, 1988). A manager low in three or more
of the leadership roles tended to be judged as ineffective. Quinn (1988)
described ineffective managers as those who do poorly on nearly all of the
roles and those that exceed the mean on just three or four of the roles
(p. 105). Denison, Hooijberg, and Quinn (1995) suggested that the director,
producer, and coordinator roles are highly central to the concept of leadership (p. 534) utilized by managers assessed to be low in effectiveness, and
that these managers may have difficulty differentiating among these three
leadership roles and their appropriate use.

334

R. F. Wilkinson

Following are brief descriptions of the eight leadership roles used in

Quinns Competing Values Framework.
Open systems theory quadrant (vision setters):

Innovator: Facilitates change, conceptualizes needed change, creative or

big picture thinker
Broker: Maintains external legitimacy and resources, persuasive and
politically astute, reputation and image important

Rational goal model quadrant (task masters):

Producer: Task oriented, work and goal accomplishment focus, high

energy
Director: Planning, goal setting, defines problems, generates and evaluates
policies, clarifies expectations

Internal process model quadrant (analyzers):

Coordinator: Maintains structure and minimizes disruptions, budget and

schedule preparation, develop proposals, reliable and dependable
Monitor: Technical analysis, determines if unit is operating at expected
levels and people are following rules, detail oriented

Human relations quadrant (motivators):

Facilitator: Builds cohesion, develops teamwork, manages personal conflict

Mentor: Develops people, gives credit, empathetic and approachable

Recent research has been conducted to identify leadership styles among

managers of different types of retail operations, examining relationships
among leadership styles and type of retail operation, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and career progression (Shin, Lush, & Goldsberry,
2002). Using Quinns framework, they found that managers with a balanced
but average profile of leadership styles had a career progression as rapid as
those that had an above-average profile for the leadership styles. They also
reported that effective managers in different types of retail operations displayed different leadership profiles, and that leadership style is influenced
by the demographic characteristics of education, gender, and ethnicity.
Fisher and Muller (2005) defined leadership as the art and science
of continuous achievement and notable advancement in accomplishing the
vision, goals, and objectives of a passionate constituency with the informed
consent and willful support of that constituency over a sustained period of

Leadership Roles

335

time (p. 2). They also stated that leaders look outside as well as inside
their organizations, while others, such as managers and administrators, are
focused only on the mechanics of the organization, not its direction (p. 3);
this is in line with the Quinn model of leadership in that one of Quinns two
dimensions is an internalexternal focus continuum.
In the restaurant industry, research has been completed that identifies
differences in managerial tasks and skills between the restaurant industry
and the hotel industry, but little has been done in examining differences
among specific segments of the restaurant industry. One study has identified differences in work environment among five restaurant segments
(Wilkinson, 2005). Ghiselli, La Lopa, and Bai (2001) analyzed the relationships among job satisfaction, life satisfaction, and turnover intent among
restaurant managers. They reported that intrinsic job satisfaction, life satisfaction, race, and age were associated with short-term turnover intention,
and that all but age were also associated with long-term intent to turnover.
While research has been conducted on identifying where hospitality students want to work in specific segments of the restaurant and hotel industry
(Woods & Sciarini, 1997), it is limited in that it is based on student perceptions, not actual work conditions or environment. Work has been done
to identify differences in skills required between restaurant managers and
district managers (supervisors of more than one restaurant), but the type of
restaurant was not considered. In general, little research has been conducted
on the fast-casual segment of the restaurant industry, as it is an emerging
concept with a short history.
While some research has been conducted to examine the relationship
between leadership style and job satisfaction, much of it focuses on the
satisfaction of the subordinate employees and not the leader or manager
themselves. Shin and colleagues (2002) stated that . . . studies seeking to
define the relationship between leadership styles and career factors (i.e.,
job characteristics, satisfaction, and commitment) are scarce in the literature (p. 190). They grouped retail managers into three clusters based on
their utilization of leadership roles and found that leaders categorized with
a loner/internal focus had a lower level of job satisfaction and organizational commitment than did the managers in the team-builder/goal-oriented
or conceptual producer/external clusters. Other research in health care and
social service settings has examined the relationship between job satisfaction and leadership styles. In health care settings in Australia and Hong
Kong, Lok and Crawford (2004) found a positive relationship between job
satisfaction and a consideration style of leadership, and a negative relationship between job satisfaction and an initiating structure style of leadership.
The same researchers found a positive relationship between job satisfaction and the consideration style in a separate study in Australia (Lok &
Crawford, 2001). Mulki, Jaramillo, and Locander (2006) identified a positive
relationship between both job satisfaction and organizational commitment

336

R. F. Wilkinson

with a participative leadership style for employees in a large county health

department. No specific examples of studies were found that examined the
relationship between Quinns leadership roles with job satisfaction.
The research questions addressed in this study were:
1. Is there a significant difference in the use of the eight leadership roles by
restaurant general managers?
2. Is there a significant difference in the eight leadership role usage among
casual, fast-casual, and quick-service managers?
3. Is there a significant relationship between the use of the leadership roles
and job satisfaction or intent to stay?
4. Is there a significant relationship between the use of the leadership
roles and tenure with the present employer or total years of managerial
experience?
5. Is there a difference in the use of the leadership roles between genders
or among educational levels of restaurant managers?

METHODOLOGY
A survey was developed using items from Quinns Competing Values
Leadership Instrument to assess leadership roles and, using the work of
Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins, and Klesh (1983), to develop items to assess
overall job satisfaction, organizational involvement, and intent to leave.
The survey contained Likert-scaled questions to assess the use of leadership roles, job satisfaction, intent to stay, and questions designed to obtain
demographic information.
A random sample of restaurants was selected and surveys mailed
directly to the general manager. The population consisted of restaurant
brands/chains listed in the Nations Restaurant News top 200 companies
and classified as casual, fast casual, or quick serve (Nations Restaurant
News, 2008). Simerson (1985) recommended a minimum of 20 supervisors
be utilized to develop a pattern for a given occupation. Based on previous research, a response rate of approximately 1020% was anticipated.
Therefore, 250 restaurants of each type (750 total) were randomly selected.
A stratified selection process, based on restaurant sales in each state, was utilized to further insure generalizability of the sample. Cities from each state
were randomly selected; restaurant addresses were then located in each city
using Yahoo Yellow Pages.
Survey instruments were developed and mailed with a letter of introduction and purpose and a return envelope. Surveys were not coded (except
for restaurant type), and were return mailed directly to the researcher to
insure confidentiality of responses. The cover letter clearly indicated that
employers or supervisors would not have access to the surveys, as managers

337

Leadership Roles

might otherwise feel hesitant to answer questions related to intent to stay or

level of job satisfaction.

RESULTS
Surveys were returned by 79 restaurant general managers (27 quick service, 26 casual, and 26 fast casual). The age of respondents ranged from
2056 years, with an average of 36 years. Roughly one-third had a high
school education, some college or associates degree, or bachelors degree.
Of the general managers participating, 58% were male and 42% female. The
respondents averaged 15 years of foodservice work experience, 12 years
of management experience, and 7 years with their present employer. No
differences existed among the managers in their reported levels of job satisfaction, organizational involvement, or intent to stay, although quick-service
managers had the highest mean rating for all of those characteristics. As seen
in Table 1, casual restaurant managers tended to have the most foodservice
and management experience and fast-casual managers the least.
The specific research questions and results in this study are outlined
below.
1. Is there a significant difference in the use of the eight leadership roles
by restaurant general managers?

Leadership roles were measured using 7-point Likert-scaled questions

in the format of How often do you engage in this management behavior as
part of your job, with 1 = very infrequently and 7 = very frequently. Two
questions were designed to assess each leadership role, which were totaled
to provide an overall measure for each leadership role with a possible range
of 214. Because data were severely negatively skewed, a transformation
was conducted according to the procedures described by Tabachnick and
Fidell (2001); this allowed for data to be more normally distributed and to
meet the assumption of homogeneity of variance, measured by the Levene
TABLE 1 Years of Work Experience and Manager Age by Restaurant Type

Casual managers
Quick-service managers
Fast-casual managers
All managers

Foodservice
experience

Management
experience

Experience with
present company

Age

19.3a
14.4a,b
11.7b
15.2

13.9
11.6
9.7
11.8

6.0b
10.8a
4.2b
6.9

37.6
37.0
34.5
36.4

Note: Numbers with different subscripts in a column have significantly different means at the p = 0.05
level.

338

R. F. Wilkinson
TABLE 2 Mean Scores and Standard Deviation of Leadership
Roles by all Managers
Mean
a

Coordinator
Director
Producer
Monitor
Facilitator
Mentor
Innovator
Broker

13.1
12.5a,b
12.4a,b
12.2a,b
11.8b
11.8b
11.5b
9.1c

SD
1.2
1.5
1.6
1.9
2.0
1.8
2.1
3.2

Note: Numbers with different subscripts in a column have significantly

different means at p = 0.05.

Statistic. A one-way ANOVA indicated that there were significant differences

(F = 23.8, p = 0.00, 2 = 0.21) in the use of leadership roles among the
79 managers. A post hoc Scheffe test indicated that, as seen in Table 2,
the leadership role of coordinator was utilized more than facilitator, mentor,
innovator, or broker. In addition, the role of broker was used significantly
less than any of the other seven leadership roles. The top four ranked leadership roles are all on the structure, stability, and control side of Quinns
model.
2. Is there a significant difference in the eight leadership roles utilized
among casual, fast-casual, and quick-service restaurant managers?

MANOVA tests indicated no significant differences (F(16, 140), p = 0.11,

= 0.15) in the leadership styles used among the three type of restaurant
managers. A Scheffe post hoc test indicated that fast-casual managers utilized the broker role more than did casual managers. Mean scores for the
leadership roles as reported by managers are displayed in Table 3 and on
Quinns framework in Figure 2.

TABLE 3 Mean Scores of Leadership Roles by Restaurant Managers

Innovator
Broker
Producer
Director
Coordinator
Monitor
Facilitator
Mentor

Fast casual

Casual

Quick service

12.00
10.58a
12.62
12.84
13.35
12.54
12.19
12.19

11.58
8.00b
12.77
12.71
13.04
12.23
12.23
11.96

11.04
8.59a,b
11.93
12.00
12.89
11.78
11.15
11.22

Note: Numbers with different subscripts in a row have significantly different means at
p = 0.05.

339

Leadership Roles
Innovator
14
Broker

Mentor
10

quick serve

Facilitator

Producer

fast casual
casual

Director

Monitor
Coordinator

FIGURE 2 Leadership role profiles of managers by restaurant type.

As a whole, managers in fast-casual restaurants generally reported a

higher use rate for the leadership roles, with the highest mean score on
six of the eight roles. Casual managers had the highest mean score for the
producer and facilitator roles. Quick service managers generally reported
the lowest use rate for the leadership roles having the lowest mean score on
seven of the eight roles. Quick-service managers exceeded casual managers
in the broker role.
3. Is there a significant relationship between the use of the leadership
roles and job satisfaction or intent to stay?

Multiple regression conducted on all managers indicated that there was

not a significant relationship between job satisfaction and leadership roles
(p = 0.63, R 2 = 0.08). While none of the leadership roles were significantly
related to job satisfaction, the role of facilitator had the strongest relationship.
Three of the leadership rolesproducer, director, and coordinatorhad a
negative relationship with job satisfaction.
Separate multiple regression tests were conducted for each restaurant
type; results are summarized in Table 4. For fast-casual managers, a significant relationship was found between job satisfaction and all leadership roles
(p = 0.01, R 2 = 0.59); the roles of broker and mentor were negatively related
at p < 0.10. For quick-service managers, no significant relationship was
found between job satisfaction and all leadership roles (p =0 .53, R 2 = 0.29).
The role of broker was negatively related, and the role of mentor was
positively related at p < 0.10. For casual managers, no significant relationship was found between job satisfaction and all leadership roles (p = 0.52,
R 2 = 0.30). The role of facilitator was positively related at p < 0.10. An
examination of the direction of the relationships indicated that fast-casual
managers reported just two leadership roles negatively related (broker and
mentor), quick-service managers reported five roles negatively related (innovation, broker, coordinator, monitor, and facilitator), and casual managers

340

R. F. Wilkinson

TABLE 4 Relationship of Leadership Role Use with Job Satisfaction and Intent to Stay;
Significance Levels and Direction
Job satisfaction

Innovator
Broker
Producer
Director
Coordinator
Monitor
Facilitator
Mentor
p

< 0.10;

Intent to stay

Quick service

Fast casual

Casual

Quick service

Fast casual

Casual

0.94
0.10
0.26
0.38
0.13
0.49
0.57
0.06

0.83
0.10
0.25
0.40
0.27
0.88
0.15
0.09

0.70
0.14
0.31
0.67
0.32
0.36
0.06
0.31

0.48
0.69
0.42
0.40
0.12
0.42
0.87
0.32

0.07
0.27
0.74
0.10
0.53
0.22
0.45
0.19

0.97
0.05
0.50
0.52
0.83
0.73
0.87
0.42

< 0.05.

reported four roles negatively related (producer, director, coordinator, and

monitor) to job satisfaction.
Multiple regression conducted on all managers indicated that there was
not a significant relationship between intent to stay and leadership roles
(p = 0.83, R 2 = 0.06). While none of the leadership roles were significantly
related to intent to stay, the role of monitor had the strongest relationship.
Four of the leadership rolesdirector, coordinator, monitor and mentor
had a negative relationship with intent to stay.
Again, separate multiple regression tests were conducted for each
restaurant type, and significance values are displayed in Table 4. For fastcasual managers, no significant relationship was found between intent to
stay and all leadership roles (p = 0.47, R 2 = 0.32); the roles of innovator
and director were positively related at p < 0.10 For quick-service managers,
no significant relationship was found between intent to stay and all leadership roles (p = 0.86, R 2 = 0.17); no leadership roles were significant at the
p < 0.10 level. For casual managers, no significant relationship was found
between intent to stay and all leadership roles (p = 0.44, R 2 = 0.33); the role
of broker was positively related at p < 0.05. An examination of the direction
of the relationships indicated that fast-casual managers reported four leadership roles negatively related (broker, monitor, facilitator, and mentor), quickservice managers reported five roles negatively related (innovation, broker,
coordinator, monitor, and facilitator), and casual managers reported just
three roles negatively related (director, monitor, and mentor) to intent to stay.
4. Is there a significant relationship between the use of the leadership
roles and tenure with the present employer or total years of managerial
experience?

Multiple regression indicated no significant relationship between leadership roles and years of work with the present employer (p = 0.19,

Leadership Roles

341

R 2 = 0.14). Just one leadership role, innovator, was found to have a relationship with years of work with the present employer, and that relationship
was negative.
Multiple regression tests indicated a significant relationship between
leadership roles and total years of management experience (p = 0.01,
R 2 = 0.30). The monitor (p = 0.00) and facilitator (p = 0.06) roles were
positively related to years of management experience, while the roles of
broker (p = 0.01) and innovator (p = 0.04) had a negative relationship. This
indicates that the managers with the most experience tend to be the least
innovative and instead rely on building and monitoring cohesive teams.
5. Is there a difference in the use of the leadership roles between
genders or among educational levels of restaurant managers?

MANOVA tests indicate no significant difference (F(16, 140) = 1.07,

p = 0.39, 2 = 0.11) in the use of the eight leadership roles among those
with a high school education, some college education, or a bachelors
degree. Just one respondent indicated an educational level beyond the
bachelors degree and was not included in this analysis. Additional analysis indicated no significant difference (F(8, 69) = 1.03, p = 0.42, 2 = 0.11)
in the use of the eight leadership roles between genders.

DISCUSSION
Quinn suggests that the better or more effective managers are those that
display an above average yet balanced profile of leadership roles. In this
study, fast-casual managers had the lowest variance among scores on the
eight leadership roles (they had the most balanced profile) and were above
the average score of all managers on all eight leadership roles. Casual managers were below the average on two of the eight leadership roles, and
quick-service managers were below average on all eight leadership roles.
Clearly, according to Quinn, the fast-casual manager leadership profile most
closely matches that of an effective manager, even though they have the least
amount of foodservice and managerial experience. While their level of job
satisfaction is not significantly different from casual or quick-service managers, they report utilizing six of the eight leadership roles more than casual
managers and all of the leadership roles more than quick-service managers.
The leadership role with the greatest reported difference between fast-casual
managers and other managers is that of broker. This role includes communicating with those outside the business to obtain financing or other resources,
maintaining a positive public image and reputation, and being persuasive
with outside constituents. Perhaps, as the fast-casual concept is relatively
new, its managers were required to often describe their business model and

342

R. F. Wilkinson

operations to potential employees, vendors, customers, and financers. This

operational concept may also include more managers that are owners or
part owners, who, it would seem, would utilize the broker role more than
a salaried (non-owner) manager. Or perhaps the explanation could be that
as the fast casual concept developed and grew, it did so by attracting the
better (more effective) managers from other types of service businesses and
restaurants. It will be interesting to see if fast-casual managers continue to
report greater usage of the leadership roles and a balanced profile as the
concept matures and employs a larger pool of managers.
Quick-service managers report some interesting and conflicting information. They clearly are lowest in terms of using the eight leadership roles.
This would tend to indicate that these managers are not very effective.
However, these managers have the longest employment with their current
employer and reported the highest level of job satisfaction and intent to
stay. This indicates that quick-service managers are happy with what they
are doing and are not inclined to seek other employment opportunities as
much as their counterparts. Perhaps the quick-service operation does not
require as complex a set of leadership skills as the casual or fast-casual
operations. Quick-service managers report a negative relationship between
job satisfaction and the roles of innovator, broker, monitor, and coordinator.
This conflicts with the Quinn model, as the roles of innovator and broker are
opposites to the roles of monitor and coordinator. For quick-service managers, the leadership role with the strongest relationship to job satisfaction
was mentor. This role emphasizes developing a cohesive team of employees who are encouraged to develop their skills and are given credit when
it is due by an empathetic and approachable manager. It appears that the
job satisfaction of the quick-service manager is impacted more by people
than policies, procedures, budgets, and bottom-line results. Perhaps this is
why their managers may be satisfied but not viewed as effective as other
managers.
Casual managers seem to fall in between fast-casual and quick-service
managers in terms of their use of the eight leadership roles. An interesting
note for casual managers is that all four of the leadership roles considered
to be on the flexible end of the structure continuum were found to be
positively related to job satisfaction. While these managers clearly do not
use these leadership roles as much as fast-casual managers, especially the
role of broker, it seems that if they would, their job satisfaction levels would
be higher. For casual managers, the role of broker was significantly related
to both job satisfaction and intent to stay, yet they report using this role less
than both fast-casual and quick-service managers. Again, allowing the casual
manager to utilize the broker leadership role more would seem to lead to
greater satisfaction. An interesting contrast is that there is a negative relationship between use of the broker role and job satisfaction for fast-casual
managers, who utilize the broker role far more than the casual managers.

Leadership Roles

343

Additional conclusions drawn from this study are that managers leadership style in these three segments of the restaurant industry does not seem
to be related to demographic characteristics. Gender, educational level, age,
or experience was not found to be related to the type of leadership roles
that managers use. While the results of this study conflict with some previous research that indicated differences based on age and education, there
is no consensus on those findings. While not a focus of this study, a strong
relationship was identified between job satisfaction and intent to stay; this
supports previous research used to develop the Theory of Work Adjustment
(Dawis & Lofquist, 1984; Dawis et al., 1964), which indicates the more
satisfied a worker is, the less likely he will be to seek other employment.
Quinns model was designed to assess leadership roles used by managers, with the underlying belief that managers at times must employ
roles that contrast with one another. The model was developed to capture
the complexity associated with leadership behavior. When the model was
applied to managers assessed as not effective, the roles of coordinator, producer, and director were central to their leadership profile (Denison et al.,
1995). The top four leadership roles used by restaurant general managers in
this study were coordinator, director, producer, and monitor. These roles are
all on the stability (as opposed to flexibility) end of the structure continuum
in the model. Perhaps this is because restaurant managers were all part of a
chain, and adherence to company policy was viewed as a critical leadership
skill. However, it is disconcerting that, despite the fact these managers oversee muti-million dollar businesses and empowerment and responsibility of
the general manager position have increased over the past few years, they
seem to have created a priority that allows them to fall back on the least
complex leadership roles and to avoid risk or innovation.
This study was limited by the difficulty of categorizing restaurants into
three categories of quick service, fast casual, and casual. Clearly, some fastcasual operations are closer to casual than others, while some are closer to
quick service. As the fast-casual concept continues to evolve, the lines used
to separate it from other restaurant categories will likely become undistinguishable. While every attempt was made to gather information from a
variety of companies and geographic locations, generalizability of the results
are also limited due to a low response rate. In addition, all managers contacted were in restaurants located in the United States; results from managers
in the same chains but in international locations may be very different.
The results of this study indicate that managers in different types of
restaurant operations tend to use leadership roles in the same manner and
priority, and that leadership role use is largely unrelated to manager job
satisfaction or intent to stay. Further research should be conducted to determine if the relationship between a balanced leadership role profile and
manager effectiveness, as Quinn suggests exists, is found in the restaurant
industry.

344

R. F. Wilkinson

REFERENCES
Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, G., & Klesh, J. (1983). Assessing the attributes
and perceptions of organizational members. In S. E. Seashore, E. E. Lawler,
H. Mirvis, & C. Cammann (Eds.), Assessing organizational change (pp. 71138).
New York: Wiley.
Cooper, R., & Quinn, R. (1993). Implications of the competing values framework
for management information systems. Human Resource Management, 32(1),
175201.
Dawis, R., England, G., & Lofquist, L. (1964). A theory of work adjustment
[Monograph]. Minnesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation, 15. Minneapolis
University of Minnesota Press.
Dawis, R., & Lofquist, L. (1984). A psychological theory of work adjustment: An
individual-differences model and its application. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
Denison, D., Hooijberg, R., & Quinn, R. (1995). Paradox and performance: Toward
a theory of behavioral complexity in managerial leadership. Organizational
Science, 6(5), 524540.
Fisher, W., & Muller, C. (2005). Four-dimensional leadership: The individual, the
life cycle, the organization, the community. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Prentice Hall.
Ghiselli, R., La Lopa, J., & Bai, B. (2001). Job satisfaction, life satisfaction, and
turnover intent. Cornell Hotel & Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 42(2),
2853.
Giek, D., & Lees, P. (1993). On massive change: Using the competing values
framework to organize the educational efforts of the human resource function in New York state government. Human Resource Management, 32(1),
928.
Gould, A. (2005, January 31). Letter from the publisher. Nations Restaurant News,
39(2), 5.
Lamond, D. (2003). The value of Quinns competing values model in an Australian
context. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18(1), 4659.
Lok, P., & Crawford, J. (2001). Antecedents of organizational commitment and the
mediating role of job satisfaction. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 16(8),
594613.
Lok, P., & Crawford, J. (2004). The effect of organizational culture and leadership
style on job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Journal of Managerial
Development, 23(4), 321338.
Michela, J., & Burke, W. (2000). Organizational culture and climate in transformations for quality and innovation. In N. Ashkanasy, C. Wilderom, & M. Peterson
(Eds.), Handbook of organizational culture & climate (pp. 225244). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mulki, J., Jaramillo, F., & Locander, W. (2006). Emotional exhaustion and organizational deviance: Can the right job and a leaders style make a difference?
Journal of Business Research, 59, 12221230.
Nations Restaurant News. (2008). Top 100 chain and company rankings. Nations
Restaurant News, 42(26), 6990.

Leadership Roles

345

Quinn, R. E. (1988). Beyond rational management. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Rogers, P., & Hildebrandt, H. (1993). Competing values instruments for analyzing
written and spoken management messages. Human Resource Management,
32(1), 121142.
Shin, S., Lusch, R., & Goldsberry, E. (2002). Leadership style profiles of retail managers: Personal, organizational and managerial characteristics. Journal of Retail
& Distribution Management, 30(4), 186201.
Simerson, G. (1985). Minnesota job description questionnaire. In D. Keyser &
R. Sweetland (Eds.), Test critiques: Vol. 2. Kansas City, MO: Test Corporation of
America.
Tabachnick, B., & Fidell, L. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Needham
Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Thompson, M. (2000). Gender, leadership orientation, and effectiveness: Testing the
theoretical models of Bolman & Deal and Quinn. Sex Roles, 42(11/12), 969992.
Vilkinas, T., & Cartan, G. (2006). The integrated competing values framework: Its
spatial configuration. Journal of Management Development, 25(6), 505521.
Wilkinson, R. (2005). A comparison of work aspect preferences and reinforcement
patterns in foodservice career paths. Journal of Foodservice Business Research,
8(2), 3954.
Woods, R., & Sciarini, M. (1997). Where hospitality students want to work. Journal
of Hospitality and Tourism Education, 9(2), 69.

Copyright of Journal of Foodservice Business Research is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express
written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.