Leadership Selection with the Fuzzy Topsis Method in the Hospitality Sector in Sultanahmet Region

Abstract

The changing perception towards leadership reveals that different leadership types are felt to be needed to deal with different problems that modern organizations face. Even though there is lots of research which focuses on the effects of different leadership types on organizations’ performance, there is no research to be found which only focuses on employees’ perceptions. Therefore, this paper aimed to figure out the most important leadership characteristic for employees and their choice of leaders to work with. In order to reach these goals, a two-sectioned survey was given to eight hospitality employees in the Sultanahmet Region. Since the evaluations of the employees are subjective, the answers were analyzed with the Fuzzy TOPSIS method by transfiguring the verbal assessments of the participants into numbers to ease the decision-making process. With regard to the results, the most important leadership characteristics discovered were: being a guide to the followers, being capable of creating mission and vision, and encouraging the followers. According to employees’ leader choices, the results showed that the hospitality employees in the Sultanahmet region mostly want to work with Transformational Leaders. Considering the implementation and the results, this paper is important as a pioneering study, which will fill the gap in the literature about investigating employees’ leadership preferences and choices.

1. Introduction

The phenomenon of leadership has been defined in different ways in the historical development process and each definition has created different perceptions about what ‘good’ leader characteristics are [1,2,3]. In the historic past, leadership was seen as an innate gift from God; that is why, in those days, when the concept of leadership was discussed, the characteristics of the leader were not focused on [4]. In the more recent past, the behaviors of the leader became a focus, and it was accepted that leadership could be developed. Throughout this process of change, leadership has been clarified in different definitions [5,6,7].

With the adoption of modern theories of leadership descriptions, the concept has been defined as a term that differs according to the situation. This definition emphasizes that the leader should show different characteristics according to the different situations. As a result, in line with the principles of the modern approach, the leaders are attributed with different adjectives from different characteristics [8] (p. 617).

The importance and function of leadership shows itself mostly in service industries. Since the success of service organizations depends on the success of their employees, creating the motivation to achieve this success requires strong teamwork. This teamwork is only possible with strong team leaders. Therefore, leadership is an issue that needs to be emphasized much more in service industries. As one of the biggest sectors in the service industry, leadership is much more important in tourism as well. The activities are largely based on manpower and the provision of 24/7 service, which are the most important features that reveal the importance of harmonious teamwork in tourism. In achieving this harmony, leaders play a major role.

When the studies about leadership in the tourism industry are examined, it is seen that they only focus on the effects of leadership on employees’ success, company strategies and organizational structure. The studies mostly consider the leadership types individually and do not include any comparisons or crossed evaluations. In addition, no research has been found on the leader type preferences of tourism employees. On the other hand, there are some studies which have focused on particular leadership behaviors and their correlation with leadership types. In the study conducted by Wang et al. [9] in the hospitality industry, it is seen that creativity is especially important for transformational leadership. In addition to this, in a different study applied on hospitality industry leaders, it is revealed that there are different competency factors such as self-management, strategic positioning, implementation, decision-making, innovation, open and effective communication, interpersonal relations, business knowledge and teamwork management [6].

Another study stated that leaders can be trained to coach and inspire their followers, and they provide innovation at the individual or organizational level [10,11]. In addition, it is also stated in the literature that leaders with strong leadership skills should have certain characteristics, such as vision, and that leaders focus on guiding employees with an innovation that is in line with the vision of the organization. It is also emphasized the importance of a leader being competent to make decisions by balancing many variables at the same time [12,13]. Based on this theoretical background, the basic leadership characteristics are determined as encouraging, guiding/coaching, effective communication, being innovative/creative, creating mission/vision, problem-solving, and decision-making in this paper. All these characteristic behaviors of leaders are also evaluated within tourism employees’ point of views.

This paper aims to figure out which type of leader is the most preferred one to work with, according to tourism employees. To determine the most important leadership characteristic is another aim of the research. In order to reach these goals, a survey was conducted with eight tourism employees by asking them which feature is more important and how much the leader types are compatible with these characteristics. As their evaluations are subjective and impossible to calculate quantitatively, the answers of the employees were analyzed with the Fuzzy TOPSIS method, which helps to solve fuzzy environments, occurring based on subjective assessments of people, in a quantitative way. With regard to this, the first part of the study includes a literature review where the basic concepts and related works are explained, while the second part includes the methodology, results and conclusions. Therefore, it is thought that this study will be a pioneer in the literature, by evaluating leadership from the perspectives of tourism employees.

2. Literature Review

Leadership, which is one of the fundamental subjects of management science, has been an important concept in every period, from the past to today, in states, armies, organizations and smaller groups. Along with social, economic, technological and societal changes, leadership, which is a social element, has also changed over time. At first, the characteristic approach, in which the leader’s characteristics are at the forefront, was taken into account. This was followed by the behavioral approach, in which the leader’s behaviors are considered. Then, the situational approach, in which the conditions/situations are at the forefront, emerged. Finally, with the effect of the latest developments, the modern approach was adopted. In this changing process, different definitions of leadership have been made in the literature.

Burns defines leadership as the process of encouraging followers to take action through various forces to achieve goals [14] (p. 425). Leadership, which is the ability to influence the team regarding the realization of goals or vision, is also accepted as the process of influencing and directing the activities of others in order to achieve the goals of the group under certain conditions [15].

Leaders are people who are concerned with “doing the right things” in an organization [16]. Leaders are personally involved in achieving the mission and vision, developing the values necessary for long-term success, applying appropriate movements and manners, and improving the corporate governance system. While doing these, they also coach employees ([17], [18] (p. 146)). Leaders responsible for the effectiveness of organizations [19] are achievement-oriented, ambitious, energetic, stubborn and proactive [20] (p. 52). In addition to having cognitive ability and business knowledge, charisma, confidence, inspiration, showing personal interest and respect to followers, motivating followers with symbols, new ideas and approaches are other behaviors shown by the leader [2,21]. Intelligence, sense of duty, initiative, perseverance, self-confidence, responsiveness to the needs of others, willingness to take responsibility, and the ability to exercise dominance and control when required are considered important for leadership ([2] (p. 20), [22]).

Furthermore, cognitive abilities, extraversion, conscientiousness, emotional stability, openness, agreeableness, social intelligence, self-monitoring, emotional intelligence and problem solving are put forward as the characteristics seen in leaders [23].

As can be understood from the definitions and leadership characteristics given above, the perspectives developed on leadership and the versatility of leadership reveal different approaches, such as the characteristics approach, behavioral approach, situational approach and modern approach. Every leadership style, whether traditional or modern, has the characteristics of one of these approaches and can be evaluated within one of these leadership approaches. The leadership style is explained as the behavior and approach of giving directions, practicing plans and motivating people [24]. Leadership style can be defined as a behavior pattern that a leader uses in all processes upon influencing followers. At this point, both the followers’ assessments and sensations of the leader and the leadership style of the leader are very important.

In this context, the three leadership types are transformational, transactional and laissez-faire within the scope of The Full Range Leadership Theory (FRLT) suggested by Avolio and Bass [25] and proposed in [26] (p. 268). In this paper, these three types of leadership will be considered. In addition to this, the traditional autocratic and democratic leadership styles, which are evaluated as X-Y Theory, work-oriented leadership and interpersonal relations will be discussed. Finally, the charismatic leadership type, which is one of the most well-known types of modern leadership, will be considered. In this way, a total of six leadership styles will be examined.

2.1. Autocratic Leadership

Autocratic leadership, based on X theory in X-Y Theory [27] developed by McGregor [28] on examining managers’ behavior towards employees, is a style of leadership that centralizes authority and uses formal power, reward power and punishment power [29]. Autocratic leaders who are not interested in the socio-emotional dimensions of followers are those who closely control and structure their work, with little regard for their followers’ needs ([30] (p. 1388), [31] (p. 377)).

Autocratic leaders, who limit their subordinates’ participation in decisions and autonomy, display dominant and oppressive behaviors. They have a low level of consideration and support for their followers and do not trust their subordinates. As a result of this situation, it is very difficult for employees to connect to the organization or engage in personal development ([31] (p. 377), [32]). Autocratic leaders, who often make decisions alone, may exhibit behaviors such as giving orders without considering subordinates; setting group policy; giving step-by-step instructions and dictating the task; making decisions on policies and procedures without encouraging group participation; use punishment. As a result of these situations, a lack of communication can be seen between the autocratic leader and his or her followers [33] (p. 149).

2.2. Democratic Leadership

Democratic leadership, also known as participatory leadership, states that the behavior of the leader should be in accordance with the task structure, such as the goal–path theory [15] (p. 385). It is seen as a group where the leader and followers act together for the same purpose, the leadership functions are shared with the group members and the leader is a part of the team [34]. Employees are informed about the work and processes and are encouraged by the leader to express their opinions and make suggestions [35]. Democratic leaders take an equitable approach, distribute responsibility, support and empower their followers and incorporate them in the decision-making process [36]. It is suggested that in-group interaction is increased in a group led by a democratic leader. It is argued that sincerity, helpfulness and encouraging participation are the principles of democratic leadership [34]. It is stated that managers who are close to Theory X beliefs show more authoritarian and intrusive behavior, while managers who adopt the assumptions of Theory Y show more democratic and participatory behavior [37].

2.3. Laissez-Faire Leadership

Laissez-faire leadership, which is seen as a passive and ineffective leadership style, is leadership in which the leader avoids making decisions, does not take responsibility and does not exercise his authority ([38] (p. 166), [39]). Reluctant to provide support, resources and feedback to subordinates, this type of leader avoids interacting with followers and dealing his or her own authorities [40,41]. Laissez-faire leadership, that does not meet the expectations of its subordinates, is also considered a passive aggressive behavior or a type of exclusion [42].

Laissez-faire leadership, which is seen as one of the most common forms of negative leadership in modern organizations, is presented as the least satisfactory and least effective management style. In this leadership, there is an absence of constructive behaviors rather than presence of destructive behaviors [41]. It is claimed to be a suitable type of leadership for employees who are highly experienced and trained and require little supervision and guidance [43] (p. 3112). In laissez-faire leadership, the decisions are taken by the group, not the leader, authority passes to the followers and the followers direct the leader together with the group. At this point, it would not be wrong to consider the leader as affected/neutral, not influencing.

2.4. Transformational Leadership

Transformational leadership, which was used for the first time by Burns within the scope of the leadership approach in the literature [44], is the re-determination of the missions and visions of the employees, the renewal of their responsibilities and the restructuring of the system to achieve the target [45]. Transformational leaders create high morale, motivation and performance in their followers [44]. In addition, transformational leaders enable employees to reveal their talents and skills [46]. Transformational leaders are people who create vision, influence the followers to adopt the vision, have foresight and are masters of change. Transformational leaders can change their environment by creating a new environment instead of adapting to environmental situations [47]. Transformational leaders are leaders who inspire trust, admiration, loyalty and respect [48].

In transformational leadership, where it is important to empower followers, the need for organizations to be less hierarchical, more flexible, team-oriented and participatory is prioritized [49] (p. 161). Creating a sense of trust in the employees, providing high motivation to the followers, focusing on personal development, coaching, being a role model, involving the employees in the decision process, creating a shared and clear mission and vision reveal the characteristics and importance of the transformational leader [50,51].

2.5. Transactional Leadership

Bass [52] describes transactional leadership as “a type of leadership that informs the leader’s followers quite clearly about their expectations and explains what reward they should expect in return for the performance and effort expected of them” [53]. Transactional leadership motivates followers by appealing to their interests, and this is based on an exchange relationship in which barter exists. Transactional leadership, which is claimed to have a limited scope compared to transformational leadership, is a tool in creating an efficient and productive work environment [54] (p. 147).

In transactional leadership, various behaviors can be seen between the leader and followers. These behaviors consist of three dimensions: (i) conditional reward leadership, which clarifies the role and task requirements and provides material or psychological rewards depending on the fulfillment of followers, (ii) management-by-exception active, which describes the active intervention of the leader in the events, and (iii) management-by-exception passive, which intervention after incompatibility has occurred or when errors have already occurred [55].

2.6. Charismatic Leadership

Using the concept of charisma as “charismatic authority”, Weber suggested that the followers believed the leader was a superhuman person or possessed extraordinary powers [56] (p. 22). The charismatic power that exists in charismatic leadership is the power that arises from the personal characteristics of the leader rather than a legal status [29] (pp. 426–427).

The basis of the “Great Man Theory”, the oldest known theory of leadership approaches, asserts that a great leader has some innate qualities or was formed as a result of a supernatural miracle as a child [4]. This theory is now a part of the Trait Theory of Leadership. From this perspective, it can be thought that the theory of charismatic leadership is partially, if not completely, based on the great man theory and the theory of traits.

Charismatic leaders create a strong commitment, outstanding performance, motivation and commitment to the leader and his mission in followers [52,57]. Being more effective than non-charismatic leaders, charismatic leaders [58] show self-confidence, strong ideological beliefs, trust in followers and individualized interest behaviors. It is suggested that the overall level of influence on the work, participation in the task and extra effort, acceptance of the leader, obedience to the leader, self-confidence of the follower and the support felt are the effects of charismatic leadership [58].

2.7. Related Works

When the previous research is examined, it is seen that there are no works directly related to leadership type choices in the tourism industry. At the same time, it is also seen that all accessed research mainly focuses on the effects of the leadership types on business strategies of tourism establishments, employees’ performance, innovational efforts and organizational cooperation. However, Campos et al. [59] considered leadership in general and suggested that top management leadership should be included in the Total Quality Culture critical success factors in the tourism industry.

According to the first study accessed, De Hoogh and Den Hartog [32] claimed that charismatic leaders enhance the meaningfulness of the job and develop positive emotions. They also argued that charismatic leaders communicate with their followers about vision and great expectations and designate demanding performance standards. In the study of hotel businesses by Bozkurt and Göral [60], they concluded that the transactional leadership style affects the imitative and traditional innovation strategy.

Another study conducted with 345 hospitality frontline employees shows that both transformational leadership and employee service creativity significantly affect innovative behavior [61]. Quintana et al. [62] (p. 477) have investigated the effect of transactional leadership on extra effort and effectiveness on 191 hotel employees operating in Spain and concluded that transactional leadership positively affects employees’ extra efforts and effectiveness.

Bodenhausen and Curtis [63] conducted a study with students who were about to work in accommodation businesses and revealed that transformational leadership had an effect on employee involvement. According to their research, it is important that employees ask for goals from their leaders, try to reach these goals, have performance expectations and receive individual support and mentorship from their leaders [63].

In a study by Belias et al. [64] with 209 employees working in hotels in Athens, they concluded that transformational leadership is related with extra effort and effectiveness. It is argued that leaders make satisfactory collaborative efforts within the organization. This confirms the theory that transformational leadership can meet the needs of employees. The research also reveals that transformational leadership has the ability to take into account the individual needs and expectations of subordinates and assumes the role of a coach, mentor and consultant aimed at increasing the personal development of employees.

Furthermore, in the study of Erol and Köroğlu [65], it is suggested that people working with transformational leaders do not have organizational silence or the intent to participate in every kind of interaction. In two different studies of Cinnioğlu et al. [66,67] it is also revealed that tourism employees, who work with transformational leaders, do not intend to leave the job. From this result, it can be commented that tourism employees are willing to work with people who have transformational leader characteristics.

Differing from the studies in the literature, this paper concentrates on the tourism employees’ leadership choices. Without searching for the possible effects of leadership types on the tourism industry, this paper also tries to reveal the employees’ expectations from the leaders they want to work with. In this perspective, it is thought that this paper will fill the gap in the literature about this topic.

3. Methodology

This study, which was prepared based on the literature review, was designed as exploratory research; that is why the research problems were determined as “Which leadership characteristic is important for the employee?” and “What type of leader do the employees prefer to work with?”. According to these research questions, the main aim of this study was to determine which leadership characteristic/s are more important for employees. It also aimed to reveal which type of leadership is more popular among tourism employees.

In order to achieve these goals, the most common leadership characteristics and the most common six leadership types have been determined, which are based on the classical and modern approaches in the literature. These are used to put forth the most preferred leadership type.

Since it is difficult and time-consuming to reach all tourism employees, the convenience sampling method, which is one of the non-random sampling methods, was used. The sampling size was limited to eight employees, as the analysis technique suggests, in order to obtain the most accurate results.

To complete the analysis, a two-sectioned survey was given to hospitality employees who work in the Front Office Department in the Sultanahmet Region. In the first part, the leader characteristics are listed, and the employees were asked to evaluate them according to their perceived importance for a leader. Then, in the second part, they were requested to evaluate the leadership types by considering the leadership characteristics.

The data gathering process was completed between 30 August and 15 September 2021. During data collection, all participants were provided the detailed descriptions of all leadership styles used in the survey. With the help of these descriptions, the participants answered the questions according to their subjective evaluations based on their own observations in their companies. All obtained data was analyzed by using the Fuzzy TOPSIS method, which was developed as one of the multiple criteria decision-making methods.

As the evaluations of hospitality employees are subjective during the data gathering process, their subjective evaluations create a fuzzy environment in which there are lots of options, making a decision difficult. These problems are commonly solved by using multiple criteria decision-making methods, in order to more easily complete the process.

In multi-criteria decision-making problems, the best alternative is selected by considering the existing criteria among the set of alternatives [68]. To do so, various methods can be used, such as TOPSIS, ELECTRE, FURIOUS TOPSIS, VIKOR, WASPAS [69] AHP, Fuzzy AHP, ANP, etc. Among these methods, TOPSIS and VIKOR methods are frequently used in the literature as multi-criteria decision-making tools when choosing among various alternatives that take into account many criteria [70]. When comparing these two methods, it can be said that VIKOR and TOPSIS are similar, but there are still some differences, such as VIKOR using linear normalization while TOPSIS uses vector normalization. This helps TOPSIS to create higher resolution. On the other hand, the use of VIKOR is more complicated because its logic is based on a compromise solution with conflicting criteria and gives the most suitable alternative solution to the ideal. However, TOPSIS requires fewer mathematical calculations to make more effective decisions, as it has lower complexity in implementation and more transparent logic [69,70].

The TOPSIS method is one of the most used techniques in the literature, in both qualitative and quantitative research, due to its advantages, such as rationality and easy understanding, simplicity in calculation and allowing weighting of evaluation criteria [71]. Consequently, in this paper, the TOPSIS method has been used as the data analysis method.

Fuzzy TOPSIS

The choice of leadership type in the study is a complex process in which more than one decision maker is involved, and there are multiple criteria expressed with different criteria. This decision process, which is shaped by uncertainty and the perception of the decision maker, has been subjected to the fuzzy multi-criteria decision models in attempts to be solved. Moreover, because the classical multi-criteria decision-making techniques fall short of incorporating uncertainty and turbidity into the solution process. Thus, Fuzzy Set Theory has been proposed and developed to consider this missing and fuzzy information in analysis [72]. The logic of these methods is that linguistically expressed evaluations are blurred and used in analysis [73]. The approach here, is that decisions can be expressed qualitatively rather than definitively. Criteria/properties and relative weights are usually explained with fuzzy numbers.

The Fuzzy TOPSIS method was included in the literature by Hwang and Yoon in 1981 [74] by using fuzzy number sets, which were firstly presented by Lotfi A. Zadeh in 1965, and used to solve the fuzzy environments [75]. The phD Thesis of Negi (1989) and the book of Chen and Hwang [76] made this method more popular, by advising that the main components of the method are the decision makers (DM), who will make all the evaluations, the decision criteria (C), which include the factors or features to be evaluated, and the alternatives (A) to be preferred.

Despite the fact that Fuzzy TOPSIS helps people to evaluate the qualitative criteria in a quantitative way, the researchers claimed that there are some missing points in the method. That is why, the final structure of the method was completed by Chen in 2000 [68], when he tried to fulfill these missing points. Differing from the other method developers, Chen accepted the rank between 0 and 1, used in the grading step, as $v_j^{*}$ = (1,1,1) and $v_j^{-}$ = (0,0,0), and claimed that the most preferred model should be prepared by using triangular numbers in order to make calculations easier [74,77]. According to Chen, a triangular fuzzy number should be identified as $“\tilde{n}”(n_1 , n_2 ,n_3)$.

The importance weights of the decision criteria and the values of the alternatives that show qualitative features are accepted as linguistic variables in the Fuzzy TOPSIS method and are expressed with positive triangular number equivalents as shown in

Table 1. The importance weights for linguistic variables of decision criteria.

VH	Very High	0.9	1.0	1.0
H	High	0.7	0.9	1.0
MH	Medium High	0.5	0.7	0.9
M	Medium	0.3	0.5	0.7
ML	Medium Low	0.1	0.3	0.5
L	Low	0	0.1	0.3
VL	Very Low	0	0	0.1

Resource: [74], p. 5.

and

Table 2. Linguistic variables used for alternative criteria.

VG	Very Good	9	10	10
G	Good	7	9	10
MG	Medium Good	5	7	9
F	Fair	3	5	7
MP	Medium Poor	1	3	5
P	Poor	0	1	3
VP	Very Poor	0	0	1

Resource: [74], p. 5.

[74].

All the evaluations of DMs are numbered with the triangular equivalents shown in the tables above. After this quantification, the order of preference is solved by using the nine-step algorithm of the method. According to the algorithm developed by Chen, the steps of Fuzzy TOPSIS, which have a specific formulation, are [74] (p. 6):

• Determine the decision makers and identify the decision criteria;
• Make the DMs evaluate the decision criteria and the alternatives by using the linguistic variables;
• Transform the linguistic variables into triangular fuzzy numbers and calculate the importance weights of decision criteria and the criteria values of alternatives with the formulas of:

  $${\tilde{w}}_j=\frac{1}{K}[{\tilde{w}}_j^1 (+) {\tilde{w}}_j^2(+)\dots \dots \dots (+){\tilde{w}}_j^K] \mathrm{and} {\tilde{x}}_{ij}=\frac{1}{K}[{\tilde{x}}_{ij}^1 (+) {\tilde{x}}_{ij}^2(+)\dots \dots \dots (+){\tilde{x}}_{ij}^K]$$
• Construct of fuzzy decision and the normalized fuzzy decision matrices with the formulas of:

  $$\begin{array}{ccc}{C}_1 & C_2& \begin{array}{cc}\dots & C_n\end{array}\end{array}$$

  $$\tilde{D}=\begin{array}{c}\begin{array}{c}{A}_1\\ A_2\\ ⋮\end{array}\\ A_m\end{array}\left[\begin{array}{c}\begin{array}{ccc}{x}_{11}& x_{12}& \dots \\ x_{21}& x_{22}& \dots \\ \begin{array}{c}⋮\\ x_{m1}\end{array}& \begin{array}{c}⋮\\ x_{m2}\end{array}& \begin{array}{c}\dots \\ \dots \end{array}\end{array} \begin{array}{c}{x}_{1n}\\ x_{2n}\\ \begin{array}{c}⋮\\ x_{mn}\end{array}\end{array}\\ \end{array}\right], \tilde{W}=\left[ w_1,w_2,w_3\dots w_n\right] \mathrm{and} r_{ij}=\left(\frac{a_{ij}}{c_j^{*}},\frac{b_{ij}}{c_j^{*}},\frac{c_{ij}}{c_j^{*}}\right), j\in B;$$

  $$c_j^{*}\hspace{1em}\underset{i}{\max }\hspace{1em}{c}_{ij}, j\in B$$
• Construct of the weighted normalized fuzzy decision matrix with the formula of:

  $${V=\left[v_{ij}\right]}_{\mathit{mxn}} i=1, 2,\dots m; j = 1, 2,\dots n, v_{ij}=r_{ij} (.)w_j$$
• Figure the positive and negative ideal fuzzy solution sets as:

  $$A^{*}=\left(v_1^{*}{v}_2^{*}{v}_3^{*}\dots v_n^{*}\right) \mathrm{and} A^{-}=\left(v_1^{-}{v}_2^{-}{v}_3^{-}\dots v_n^{-}\right)$$
• Calculate the distance of each alternative from positive and negative solution sets with the formulas of:

  $$d_i^{*}{{\displaystyle \sum }}_{j=1}^{n}d\left(v_{ij},v_j^{*}\right), i=1, 2, \dots m\mathrm{and} d_i^{-}{{\displaystyle \sum }}_{j=1}^{n}d\left(v_{ij},v_j^{-}\right), i=1, 2, \dots m$$
• Calculate the distance coefficient of each alternative with the formula of: $C{C}_i=\frac{d_i^{-}}{d_i^{*}+d_i^{-}}$.
• Rank the alternatives’ preference order according to the distance coefficient of each by giving the highest rank to the alternative of which coefficient is nearest to 1.

4. Results

In this paper, to determine which feature is more important in leadership according to the point of view of employees, and to figure out the most preferred leadership type in the tourism sector by the Fuzzy TOPSIS method, eight tourism employees, working in different hotels but the same departments in the Sultanahmet Region of Istanbul were chosen as decision makers. The descriptive statistics of DMs are shown in

Table 3. The descriptive statistics of decision makers.

Decision Makers	Gender	Age	Education	Working Industry
DM1	Male	25	Graduate	Hosp./Front Office
DM2	Male	30	Graduate	Hosp./Front Office
DM3	Female	27	Graduate	Hosp./Front Office
DM4	Female	35	Graduate	Hosp./Front Office
DM5	Female	42	Graduate	Hosp./Front Office
DM6	Male	38	Graduate	Hosp./Front Office
DM7	Female	33	Graduate	Hosp./Front Office
DM8	Male	27	Graduate	Hosp./Front Office

.

The sample was limited to eight people, considering other studies in the literature. The maximum number of samples recommended in the literature for this analysis method is fifteen [74]. Although the eight-person sample seems insufficient to make a generalization for the entire tourism industry, it is also known that there are studies in the literature in which preference rankings and decisions are made with such a small number of participants [74,77,78,79,80]. Since this research is limited to the Sultanahmet region and it is known that there are twelve five-star hotels in this region, it is thought that the sample will reflect the general opinion for the research area.

The seven leadership characteristics, which were: to encourage the followers (C₁), to guide the followers (C₂), effective communication (C₃), being innovative and entrepreneurial (C₄), creating mission and vision (C₅), being a problem-solver (C₆) and being a decision-maker (C₇) were presented to them as decision criteria. The reason for choosing these features, is that they are the most common features mentioned in the literature and valid for every leadership type. The decision makers were asked to score these features according to their importance perceptions by using the linguistic variables which are shown in Table 1. The results of their assessments are in

Table 4. Assessment of decision criteria by decision makers.

Criteria	DM1	DM2	DM3	DM4	DM5	DM6	DM7	DM8
C1	M	MH	VH	VH	VH	VH	VH	VH
C2	MH	VH	VH	VH	VH	VH	VH	VH
C3	H	H	VH	VH	Y	VH	VH	H
C4	ML	MH	VH	VH	MH	H	VH	MH
C5	VH	VH	VH	VH	Y	VH	VH	MH
C6	L	H	VH	VH	M	VH	H	VH
C7	VL	VH	VH	VH	L	VH	H	H

.

After the evaluation of the features, the hierarchical structure tree of variables was created (Figure 1).

After determining the features of leaders, the six leadership types were selected from the literature. Three of them were chosen from among the classical types and three were from the modern leadership types, which are well-known in the literature. These leadership types were used as alternatives to be ranked in order of preference, such as the Autocratic Leader (A₁), Laissez-Faire Leader (A₂), Democratic Leader (A₃), Transactional Leader (A₄), Charismatic Leader (A₅) and Transformational Leader (A₆). After determining the alternatives, the DMs were asked to assess them by using the decision criteria and the linguistic variables shown in Table 2. The results of their assessments are shown in

Table 5. Evaluation of leader alternatives by decision makers.

Criteria	Alternatives	Decision Makers
		DM1	DM2	DM3	DM4	DM5	DM6	DM7	DM8
C1	A1	O	MP	MP	VP	MP	MP	VG	MP
	A2	G	MG	VG	G	VG	F	P	F
	A3	G	VG	VG	G	VG	MG	VG	G
	A4	F	F	VG	G	VG	VG	VG	G
	A5	VP	VG	G	VG	VG	VG	VG	G
	A6	F	VG	VG	VG	VG	VG	VG	VG
C2	A1	VP	MP	MG	P	F	G	VG	P
	A2	F	F	MG	G	G	MP	VP	F
	A3	MG	G	MG	G	G	G	F	MG
	A4	MP	MP	VG	G	G	VG	G	G
	A5	F	VG	MG	VG	P	VG	VG	MG
	A6	MG	VG	VG	VG	VG	VG	VG	G
C3	A1	MP	P	MP	P	P	F	VG	F
	A2	MG	F	VG	MG	F	MG	MG	F
	A3	VG	MG	VG	G	MG	VG	VG	MG
	A4	VG	F	VG	G	MG	VG	VG	G
	A5	MG	G	MG	VG	G	VG	VG	VG
	A6	MP	G	VG	VG	MG	VG	VG	G
C4	A1	F	F	MP	P	VP	MP	VG	MG
	A2	MP	MP	VG	G	MG	G	MG	F
	A3	F	MG	VG	G	MP	VG	MG	G
	A4	P	P	VG	MG	F	VG	VG	MP
	A5	MG	MG	F	VG	MG	MG	VP	MG
	A6	MG	VG	VG	VG	F	VG	VG	VG
C5	A1	MG	F	F	F	MG	G	VG	MG
	A2	VG	MG	VG	G	MP	F	VP	F
	A3	MP	G	MG	G	F	VG	VG	F
	A4	G	F	VG	G	VP	VG	F	MG
	A5	VG	G	F	VG	VP	G	F	F
	A6	G	G	VG	VG	MP	VG	VG	VG
C6	A1	G	MG	MG	MG	G	MG	VG	F
	A2	P	G	VG	VG	P	VG	VG	MG
	A3	P	F	MG	VG	P	VG	VG	MG
	A4	MG	F	VG	MG	P	VG	P	MP
	A5	MP	MG	F	VG	MP	G	F	F
	A6	P	G	VG	VG	VP	VG	VG	G
C7	A1	VG	VG	VG	MG	VG	VG	VG	VG
	A2	VP	VG	MG	VG	VP	MP	MG	P
	A3	VP	MG	MG	VG	VP	G	F	MG
	A4	VP	F	VG	G	MP	VG	VG	F
	A5	P	G	MG	VG	F	VG	VG	G
	A6	VP	MG	VG	VG	P	VG	VG	G

.

After all the evaluations were completed, the linguistic variables were transfigured into positive triangular fuzzy numbers by using the figures in Table 1 and Table 2, and are shown in

Table 6. Transfiguration of importance weights of decision criteria into positive triangular fuzzy numbers.

Criteria	DM1	DM2	DM3	DM4	DM5	DM6	DM7	DM8
C1	0.3;0.5;0.7	0.5;0.7;0.9	0.9;1;1	0.9;1;1	0.9;1;1	0.9;1;1	0.9;1;1	0.9;1;1
C2	0.5;0.7;0.9	0.9;1;1	0.9;1;1	0.9;1;1	0.9;1;1	0.9;1;1	0.9;1;1	0.9;1;1
C3	0.7;0.9;1	0.7;0.9;1	0.9;1;1	0.9;1;1	0.7;0.9;1	0.9;1;1	0.9;1;1	0.7;09;1
C4	0.1;0.3;0.5	0.5;0.7;0.9	0.9;1;1	0.9;1;1	0.5;0.7;0.9	0.7;0.9;1	0.9;1;1	0.5;0.7;0.9
C5	0.9;1;1	0.9;1;1	0.9;1;1	0.9;1;1	0.7;0.9;1	0.9;1;1	0.9;1;1	0.5;0.7;0.9
C6	0;0.1;0.3	0.7;0.9;1	0.9;1;1	0.9;1;1	0.3;0.5;0.7	0.9;1;1	0.7;0.9;1	0.9;1;1
C7	0;0;0.1	0.9;1;1	0.9;1;1	0.9;1;1	0;0.1;0.3	0.9;1;1	0.7;0.9;1	0.7;0.9;1

and

Table 7. Transfiguration of evaluations of leader alternatives into positive triangular fuzzy numbers.

Criteria	Alt.s	Decision Makers
		DM1	DM2	DM3	DM4	DM5	DM6	DM7	DM8
C1	A1	0;1;3	1;3;5	1;3;5	0;0;1	1;3;5	1;3;5	9;10;10	1;3;5
	A2	7;9;10	5;7;9	9;10;10	7;9;10	9;10;10	3;5;7	0;1;3	3;5;7
	A3	7;9;10	9;10;10	9;10;10	7;9;10	9;10;10	5;7;9	9;10;10	7;9;10
	A4	3;5;7	3;5;7	9;10;10	7;9;10	9;10;10	9;10;10	9;10;10	7;9;10
	A5	0;0;1	9;10;10	7;9;10	9;10;10	9;10;10	9;10;10	9;10;10	7;9;10
	A6	3;5;7	9;10;10	9;10;10	9;10;10	9;10;10	9;10;10	9;10;10	9;10;10
C2	A1	0;0;1	1;3;5	5;7;9	0;1;3	3;5;7	7;9;10	9;10;10	0;1;3
	A2	3;5;7	3;5;7	5;7;9	7;9;10	7;9;10	1;3;5	0;0;1	3;5;7
	A3	5;7;9	7;9;10	5;7;9	7;9;10	7;9;10	7;9;10	3;5;7	5;7;9
	A4	1;3;5	1;3;5	9;10;10	7;9;10	7;9;10	9;10;10	7;9;10	7;9;10
	A5	3;5;7	9;10;10	5;7;9	9;10;10	0;1;3	9;10;10	9;10;10	5;7;9
	A6	5;7;9	9;10;10	9;10;10	9;10;10	9;10;10	9;10;10	9;10;10	7;9;10
C3	A1	1;3;5	0;1;3	1;3;5	0;1;3	0;1;3	3;5;7	9;10;10	3;5;7
	A2	5;7;9	3;5;7	9;10;10	5;7;9	3;5;7	5;7;9	5;7;9	3;5;7
	A3	9;10;10	5;7;9	9;10;10	7;9;10	5;7;9	9;10;10	9;10;10	5;7;9
	A4	9;10;10	3;5;7	9;10;10	7;9;10	5;7;9	9;10;10	9;10;10	7;9;10
	A5	5;7;9	7;9;10	5;7;9	9;10;10	7;9;10	9;10;10	9;10;10	9;10;10
	A6	1;3;5	7;9;10	9;10;10	9;10;10	5;7;9	9;10;10	9;10;10	7;9;10
C4	A1	3;5;7	3;5;7	1;3;5	0;1;3	0;0;1	1;3;5	9;10;10	5;7;9
	A2	1;3;5	1;3;5	9;10;10	7;9;10	5;7;9	7;9;10	5;7;9	3;5;7
	A3	3;5;7	5;7;9	9;10;10	7;9;10	1;3;5	9;10;10	5;7;9	7;9;10
	A4	0;1;3	0;1;3	9;10;10	5;7;9	3;5;7	9;10;10	9;10;10	1;3;5
	A5	5;7;9	5;7;9	3;5;7	9;10;10	5;7;9	7;9;10	0;0;1	5;7;9
	A6	5;7;9	9;10;10	9;10;10	9;10;10	3;5;7	9;10;10	9;10;10	9;10;10
C5	A1	5;7;9	3;5;7	3;5;7	3;5;7	7;9;10	7;9;10	9;10;10	5;7;9
	A2	9;10;10	5;7;9	9;10;10	7;9;10	1;3,5	3;5;7	0;0;1	3;5;7
	A3	1;3;5	7;9;10	5;7;9	7;9;10	3;5;7	9;10;10	9;10;10	3;5;7
	A4	7;9;10	3;5;7	9;10;10	7;9;10	0;0;1	9;10;10	3;5;7	5;7;9
	A5	9;10;10	7;9;10	3;5;7	9;10;10	0;0;1	7;9;10	3;5;7	3;5;7
	A6	7;9;10	7;9;10	9;10;10	9;10;10	1;3;5	9;10;10	9;10;10	9;10;10
C6	A1	7;9;10	5;7;9	5;7;9	5;7;9	7;9;10	5;7;9	9;10;10	3;5;7
	A2	0;1;3	7;9;10	9;10;10	9;10;10	0;1;3	9;10;10	9;10;10	5;7;9
	A3	0;1;3	3;5;7	5;7;9	9;10;10	0;1;3	9;10;10	9;10;10	5;7;9
	A4	5;7;9	3;5;7	9;10;10	5;7;9	0;1;3	9;10;10	0;1;3	1;3;5
	A5	1;3;5	5;7;9	3;5;7	9;10;10	1;3;5	7;9;10	3;5;7	3;5;7
	A6	0;1;3	7;9;10	9;10;10	9;10;10	0;0;1	9;10;10	9;10;10	7;9;10
C7	A1	9;10;10	9;10;10	9;10;10	5;7;9	9;10;10	9;10;10	9;10;10	9;10;10
	A2	0;0;1	9;10;10	5;7;9	9;10;10	0;0;1	1;3;5	5;7;9	0;1;3
	A3	0;0;1	5;7;9	5;7;9	9;10;10	0;0;1	7;9;10	3;5;7	5;7;9
	A4	0;0;1	3;5;7	9;10;10	7;9;10	1;3;5	9;10;10	9;10;10	3;5;7
	A5	0;1;3	7;9;10	5;7;9	9;10;10	3;5;7	9;10;10	9;10;10	7;9;10
	A6	0;0;1	5;7;9	9;10;10	9;10;10	0;1;3	9;10;10	9;10;10	7;9;10

.

When all evaluations were transfigured into triangular numbers, according to the 4th step of the algorithm, the fuzzy decision matrix was created by calculating the arithmetic average of each alternative for each criteria. In order to ease the calculations, the decision matrix was normalized by dividing each value to the biggest number of related column, and the normalized fuzzy decision matrix was created.

According to the 5th step of the algorithm, the arithmetic average of importance weights of each criteria was calculated, and the fuzzy weights matrix of each decision criteria was created. This was followed by creating the weighted normalized decision matrix, which was created by multiplying the figures in fuzzy decision matrix with decision criteria weights. The results are shown in

Table 8. Fuzzy weights of decision criteria.

	C1	C2	C3	C4	C5	C6	C7
Weight	0.78;0.90;0.95	0.85;0.96;0.99	0.80;0.95;1	0.63;0.79;0.90	0.83;0.95;0.99	0.66;0.80;0.88	0.63;0.74;0.80

and

Table 9. Weighted normalized decision matrix.

	C1	C2	C3	C4	C5	C6	C7
A1	0.14;0.30;0.47	0.27;0.44;0.60	0.17;0.35;0.55	0.18;0.35;0.56	0.46;0.72;0.91	0.42;0.67;0.88	0.54;0.72;0.80
A2	0.42;0.64;0.79	0.31;0.52;0.7	0.39;0.64;0.85	0.31;0.55;0.77	0.41;0.62;0.77	0.44;0.64;0.78	0.23;0.35;0.48
A3	0.61;0.84;0.95	0.49;0.75;0.93	0.59;0.85;0.98	0.38;0.62;0.83	0.48;0.73;0.89	0.36;0.56;0.73	0.27;0.42;0.57
A4	0.55;0.77;0.89	0.52;0.75;0.88	0.59;0.85;0.97	0.30;0.49;0.68	0.47;0.69;0.84	0.29;0.48;0.67	0.32;0.48;0.61
A5	0.58;0.77;0.85	0.53;0.73;0.85	0.61;0.87;0.99	0.32;0.54;0.76	0.45;0.67;0.81	0.29;0.52;0.72	0.39;0.57;0.70
A6	0.65;0.85;0.92	0.71;0.92;0.99	0.57;0.82;0.94	0.51;0.75;0.90	0.66;0.90;0.98	0.46;0.65;0.77	0.38;0.53;0.64

.

After the normalization process was finished, the positive and negative fuzzy solution sets were calculated according to the 6th step of the algorithm. The solution sets helped to calculate the distance of each alternative to fuzzy positive and negative solution sets. The distance was calculated with the Vertex formula, which is stated as: $d \left(\tilde{m},\tilde{n}\right)=\sqrt{\frac{1}{3}[(m_{1 }– n_1{)}^2+(m_2-n_2{)}^2+(m_3-n_3{)}^2}]$. Then, the distance coefficient of each alternative was calculated by using the formula of: $C{C}_i=\frac{d_i^{-}}{d_i^{*}+d_i^{-}}$. According to the algorithm, the alternative which has the biggest coefficient is the most preferred leader to work with in the tourism sector. All the results gathered in one table are shown in

Table 10. Distances from fuzzy +/− solutions, the distance coefficients and the preference order.

	${\mathit{d}}_{\mathit{i}}^{*}$	${\mathit{d}}_{\mathit{i}}^{-}$	CCi	Preference Order
A1	3.0912	2.1367	0.4087	6
A2	2.6942	2.4743	0.4787	5
A3	2.0615	3.1678	0.6058	2
A4	2.2315	2.9098	0.5660	4
A5	2.2116	3.0552	0.5913	3
A6	1.5034	3.6225	0.7067	1

$d_i^{*}$: Sum of distances from fuzzy positive ideal solution. $d_i^{-}$: Sum of distances from fuzzy negative ideal solution. CC_i: Distance coefficient of each alternative.

as follows.

5. Discussion

As today’s organizations have complex social and managerial structures, the need for different leadership styles is increasing. As leaders or managers constantly encounter different problems, they have to apply different methods each time to solve them. This means that there are many different types of leadership that adopt classical or modern approaches today. In order to find solutions to the problems of today’s organizations, the leader needs to take on new roles. These changes in the roles of the leader require new studies on leadership. To meet this need, many studies have been and continue to be conducted.

When the academic studies on leadership in the tourism industry are examined, it is seen that many studies focus on the effects of different types of leadership on employees. The contribution of leadership types in creating organizational strategies is another subject included in the research. However, no study has been found that explores what tourism employees expect from a leader, which leadership qualities are more important to them and which type of leader the employees most want to work with. This creates a gap in the literature. Within this perspective, it is thought that this research will be important in order to fill this gap.

This paper shows that, according to hospitality employees of the Sultanahmet Region, guiding the followers, capability of creating mission and vision, and encouraging the followers are the most important characteristics that a leader should have. When all the explanations in the literature have been considered, this result is not surprising to encounter as the most basic feature expected of a leader, since classical approaches, has been to guide the followers about both their individual and professional development. These results agree with the results of previous research carried out by Slatten and Mehmetoglu in 2014 [61] and by Bodenhausen and Curtis in 2016 [63]; they also claimed that the participants were expecting individual support and mentorship from their superiors. When considered from this aspect, it can be suggested that the leaders, whatever type of leader they are, should always retain the ability to be an effective guide and role model to his followers in the future as well.

The paper also shows that hospitality employees of the Sultanahmet Region prefer to work with Transformational Leaders. These results of preference order also agree with the studies completed by Slatten and Mehmetoğlu in 2014 [61], Bodenhausen and Curtis in 2016 [63] and Belias et al. [64]; they all claimed that transformational leadership has positive effects on their employees in terms of mentorship, guidance and capability of considering the needs of employees. However, as the sampling is limited to eight people, it is obvious that this sample group will not represent the entire tourism industry. Nevertheless, it is possible to say that this study constitutes a starting point, given that it is a preliminary study that conducts a general case study. Therefore, in further studies, it is recommended that this study be continued by investigating the leadership preferences in other hotel agglomeration areas in Istanbul and, thus, determining the general perspective of the entire accommodation sector.

The main limitation of this study is the data sampling. As it is suggested in the algorithm by Chen in 2000 [74], the biggest matrix used in the analysis is 15 × 15 (alternatives × DMs). If the number of sampling increases, it will be much more difficult to solve this algorithm as the distance coefficients will be closer and will make the decision environment fuzzier; therefore, a similar study is suggested that will be processed in detail with larger samplings by using different statistical analysis.

6. Conclusions

The aim of this study was to determine the most important feature of leadership according to the perspective of employees and to determine the most preferred type of leader to work with in the industry. With this aim, the leadership characteristics summarized from the literature review were presented to the tourism employees, who were the decision makers of this research, and were asked for their evaluation according to their perception. Then, the leadership types were described to them as evaluation alternatives. The decision makers evaluated these alternatives according to their adequacy in terms of these features (decision criteria). All these subjective evaluations of employees were transfigured into quantitative equivalents and analyzed by using the Fuzzy TOPSIS method.

According to the calculations, when the importance weights of decision criteria are analyzed, it can be said that the weight of C₂ is nearer to 1 than the others. This means the most important feature of a leader is guidance to the followers for an employee while working in a team. Furthermore, the weights of C₅, C₃ and C₁ are also near to 1 and there is a little difference with C₂. Thus, it is possible to say that capable of creating mission and vision and encouraging the group members/followers are also important while working with a leader.

To determine which leadership type is more preferred among tourism employees, the distance coefficients of alternatives have been considered. As the algorithm suggests, the alternative with the nearest coefficient to 1 should be accepted as the most preferred one. According to the results of coefficients, it is seen that the highest value belongs to A₆ with 0.6258. When the other values are ranked from the highest to the lowest, the preference order is determined as A₃, A₅, A₄, A₂ and A₁. This means, the most preferred leader type is the Transformational Leader among the tourism employees and the rest are the Democratic Leader, Charismatic Leader, Transactional Leader, Laissez-Faire Leader, and Autocratic Leader. This result supports that tourism employees have a need for guidance and mentorship from their superiors and transformational leaders are the people who create high morale and motivation among their followers as well as help their followers to reveal their potential.

7. Implications

7.1. Theoretical Implications

This study is important as a pioneering study in the literature in terms of determining the types of leaders that individuals want to work with, according to their preference order by considering the most important leadership characteristics. Within this perspective, it is believed that this research will fill the gap in the literature.

Determining the leadership type preference by using the Fuzzy TOPSIS method is also a unique application in the organizational behavior field. This method is mostly used for destination choices, the preference order of accommodation or travel establishments and the location site choices of companies. This research has proven that the application field of this method cannot be limited, and it can be used in every area where individuals make their subjective judgements. Therefore, researchers should be encouraged to use these kinds of methods in different fields of the social sciences, as it will provide useful results where the level of importance varies from person to person in the decision-making process.

When looking at the least preferred types of leaders, laissez-faire and autocratic leaders took the last two places. Although the laissez-faire leader seems to be more preferred because he frees his employees, this freedom is not a desirable quality for teamwork cohesion. These kinds of leaders do not carry the basic leadership characteristics, are accepted as people who avoid interacting with their followers in every way and behave like all the members of the group are separate leaders. As this imposes a second responsibility on employees, the workload of individuals increases even more. However, individuals want to be in accordance with a certain procedure while performing the tasks assigned to them and, therefore, they look for someone who can consult and guide them when necessary. Contrastingly, although autocratic leaders have general leadership characteristics, the extremely oppressive attitude they apply to their employees creates the perception of being trapped in individuals. Therefore, it is not preferred by the employees. Nonetheless, it is recommended that the reasons underlying the preferences of the employees towards the leader types should be investigated in detail with a larger sample in future studies.

7.2. Practical Implications

Determining the order of preference of leadership type alternatives according to the point of view of the decision makers (who are tourism employees in this paper) will help the organizations to build the most effective teams in the company. As it is known who wants to work with whomever, the harmony and motivation within the team will increase, and it will contribute to strengthen the work efficiency. Additionally, since the employees will follow their leaders voluntarily, there will be no deviations in the chain of command principle in the organizations.

According to the order of preference results of this research, the leadership types were ranked as transformational, democratic, charismatic, transactional, laissez-faire and autocratic, respectively. This result can be interpreted as hospitality employees in the Sultanahmet being mostly intent to work with a transformational leader. Considering that the first three leadership types include the most important features, this was the expected order for the preference result. Moreover, since transformational leaders are described as people who coach their followers, are a role model for them, involve the followers in the decision-making process and create a shared mission and vision, it is inevitable that it is the most preferred leader type to work with.

The result of this study is suitable for generating hypotheses that can be verified by statistical approaches with larger participant groups in future research. As the tourism industry has its own dynamics, the leadership preferences can be changed among specific job fields of the industry. Some departments can work with autocratic leaders, while others may prefer transformational or laissez-faire, for instance. Therefore, a comparative study should be conducted with new and larger samplings about the leadership preferences of tourism employees within the different departments as well as tourism establishment types. Afterwards, it is suggested to determine the leadership preferences of the whole sector by comparing the results.

To take this research forward, future studies should investigate the underlying preferences of employees for leader types, especially in the different areas of the tourism industry, as the characteristics that the leaders possess could function differently in more specific areas, such as food and beverages, sales, reservations, front desk, housekeeping, etc. Apart from the Fuzzy TOPSIS method, a similar study can be carried out with different methods, such as VIKOR, DEMATEL, or ELECTRE, by comparing the results obtained from these methods with each other, and the consistency of the results could be checked.

This study can be seen as a preliminary study to help them understand what kind of leadership is preferable within the hospitality sector. This study also provides a perspective on how leadership styles should be designed for a particular field. Organizations can prepare leadership development programs in line with the ideas provided by the study. Together with suggestions for future studies, this study offers a perspective for choosing the appropriate type of leaders within the appropriate tourism field to increase the service quality in the tourism industry.