The Behaviour and Attitude of Leaders (Leadership Practice) (Coursework Sample)

THE BEHAVIOR AND ATTITUDE OF LEADERS AND HOW IT IMPACTS ON THE TYPE AND AMOUNT OF INNOVATION IN AN ORGANIZATION
By Students Name
Management
Tutor:……………………………..
University of……………….
Department of……..
Date
Introduction
Leadership is a key factor that affects the creativity of an organization and how innovation projects are launched and implemented (Nadler and Tushman 1990). Its importance cannot be overemphasized for productivity in terms of innovation and the reduction of resistance in the organization (Gilley et al. 2008). Corporate leaders act as either the catalyst of promotion or obstruction of innovation (Somech 2006). Different leadership styles have different effects on the employee’s participation and dedication which directly affects the environment for innovation management (Bel 2010). Deschamps (2006) denotes that the ineffectiveness of innovation and projects can be directly attributed to bad leadership skills and attitude.
Leadership can be defined as the process of influencing individual’s attitudes and conduct and the way groups interact with each other and also within the group so as to achieve the desired goals (Cherry 2012) (Bass 1990). Chemers (1997) defined leadership as the ability of social influence to procure the support of others with the aim of achieving common objectives. Therefore, it can be concluded that leadership constitutes of four factors which include people, the leadership style, leadership effect and desired goals. In this paper the leadership style and effect will be the main focus.
Innovation
Innovation should also be defined in great depth equal to that of leadership. Innovation can said to be a process that undergoes many stages from which firms move from ideas to products and processes that will compete competitively in the market (Baregheh et al. 2009 p 1334). It can also be understood as the successful execution of creative concepts in an organization (Amabile et al. 1996 p 1155).
The performance of leaders truly impacts organizational performance both immediately and in the long-run. The continued growth of skills by organization leaders such as risk management, strategy and planning, and people management can alter the fortunes of a company positively. Therefore it is prudent for managers to continuously develop their leadership style and attitudes so that they can adapt to growth opportunities that arise from increased innovation practices (Department for Business, Innovation & Skills Leadership 2012).
Literature Review
There are numerous styles of leadership, however, the need for authenticity in an individual leadership style that matches an individual’s personality will aid in building employee relationships that will positively impact innovation. A good leadership style will help build rapport and trust between the management and the firm. Conversely, the application of an unsuitable leadership style will limit employees and this has a direct impact on the level of innovation in an organization. Leaders must be self-aware so that they can pick an appropriate leadership style. The various styles of leadership and their impact on innovation are covered below.
Concepts of Leadership Style and Innovation
Lorinkova et al. (2013 p. 573) defined directive leadership as a leader’s position which is distinguished by the deportments directed at earnestly constituting an employees’ work by providing spelt out expectations regarding a strict compliance to instructions. Participative leadership can be explained as a shared influence in the making of decisions (Somech 2006). Both styles require that the end decision will ultimately lie with the leader. The major difference in the two is how much involvement in the decision making process is availed to the employee, and if they are ultimately allowed to voice their opinion. In regards to innovation, participative leadership helps to spur creativity and growth of new visions (Frischer 1993; Nijstad et al. 2002). In a study done by Yan (2011) the conflict levels in participative leadership were higher during the earlier stages of innovation as compared to directive leadership which offered better structure during the later stages of innovation. Directive leadership will help set out clear procedures and rules during the stages of innovation. In general, a participative style of leadership enhances product innovation and greater research and development (Stoker et al. 2001).
Interactive leadership is another valuable style. It can be defined as the ability of the interactive leader to encourage others to innovate and actively participate in the innovation cycle. They also educate others on best innovation practices (Bossink 2004 p. 216). Burpitt and Bigoness (1997) suggested that not only individuals can be empowered, but also teams. However such levels of empowerment are only applicable to specific projects or functional bases, and are highly dependent on the interactive leader. Other studies illustrate how this style of leadership requires guidance, support and continuous coaching so that empowered employees can continue innovating (Bossink 2007). Markham (1998) observed that interactive leaders used cooperative strategies to handle the actions of empowered employees. In regard to innovation, this style of leadership contributes to a positive effect in the innovation environment and encourages employees to participate and contribute to innovation efforts (Bossink 2004). However, some scholars discovered that this leadership style lacks a long term vision which may hamper innovation and advice, and that it should be applied in conjunction with other leadership styles. (Norrgren et al. 1999).
Charismatic leadership is also another leadership style that is relevant. Weber (1978) explained this leadership style as one that relies on the character, devotion and internal sanctity of an individual. Shamir et al (1993) expounded that a charismatic leader must create a feeling of collective identity. These types of leaders increase the level of commitment and help to lead employees toward new objectives and aspirations. They generate a high level of energy among individuals and inspire new values (Nadler and Tushman 1990; James and Lahti 2011). Avolio et al (1993) denoted that individuals who practice this leadership style evoke respect, loyalty and a sense of mission from employees.
Some scholars have actually determined a positive relationship between innovativeness and charismatic leadership (Eisenbach et al. 1999; Paulsen et al. 2009). However, others have disputed the notion of charisma being key to innovation success (Nadler and Tushman 1990). Bossink (2004) conducted a study that concluded that charismatic leaders who did not participate in a knowledge network had a high rate of project failure. This type of leadership needs to be complemented by other leadership styles for it to achieve innovation success (Nadler and Tushman 1990).
Burns (1979) introduced the idea of transformational leadership which was later further developed by scholars. Most see it as an expansion of charismatic leadership and many scholars use it mutually (Smith, et al. 2004; Paulsen et al. 2009). Transformational leaders inspire and motivate others. They have exceptional personalities, are aware of what to do, and have the stomach to take necessary risks (Howell & Higgins 1990).
There have been a number of studies on this leadership style’s effect on innovation. Most of them have settled on the same conclusions as those of the charismatic style of leadership since the characteristics of self-efficiency, employee motivation and empowerment are shared by both leadership styles (Gumusluoğlu & Ilsev 2009; Paulsen et al. 2013). Additionally transformational leaders also raise performance expectations, help employees evolve their self-awareness, and help guide employees into a higher aspiration level (Kahai et al. 2003). Some authors also found a relationship between transformational leadership and the level of trust (Dirks & Ferrin 2002). However, there is no consensus on whether transformational leadership can plug the deficiencies in charismatic leadership. Some skeptics like Jamaludin and Rahmnan (2011) hold that transformational leadership only stimulates innovativeness and creativity but does not follow through the implementation process. However, Gumusluoğlu & Ilsev, (2009) believe that transformational leaders help guarantee commercial success of innovative ideas unlike charismatic leaders.
Transactional leadership differs from transformational leadership in that it doesn’t focus on change (Bass and Avolio 1994). It only depends on the clear description of work tasks, its’ rewards and risks, and clear communication of the same. It also aims to address the basic needs of the employees (Daft 2001). Instrumental leadership also uses rewards and penalties but mainly focuses on setting goals and control (Nadler and Tushman 1990). Regarding innovation, Howell and Avolio (1993) found that transactional leadership comes in handy when keeping track of innovation during its implementation stage but fails when it comes to the stimulation of original ideas (Pieterse et al. 2010). Transformational leaders are better equipped at directing radical innovations but for incremental innovations it is better left to a transactional leader (Keller 2008). For organizations to achieve straight forward objectives, transactional leadership would be better applied to achieve them. These types of goals are mainly required by the research and development department. Bossink...