The purpose of this task is to encourage students to expand their thinking through reading and sharing of their ideas in a Web 2.0 format used by many project managers. Timelines and Expectations...

1 answer below »
The purpose of this task is to encourage students to expand their thinking through reading and sharing of their ideas in a Web 2.0 format used by many project managers. Timelines and Expectations Percentage Value of Task: 20% (30 marks) Due: Week 11 – Friday of the Week at 4:00 pm Minimum time expectation: Preparation for this task will take approximately 20 hours Learning Outcomes Assessed The following course learning outcomes are assessed by completing this assessment: K5. Research and critique current and future issues in IT project management in a global context. S2. Demonstrate theoretical and practical implementation of leadership, team building, and performance management approaches for IT projects. S3. Utilise decision making and problem solving approaches to resolve and pre-empt range of problems on IT projects. A1. Construct written and verbal approaches to developing and presenting IT project documentation.


Microsoft Word - ass 3 itech 7401 leadership blog 2018-20 (1).docx ITECH 7401 LEADERSHIP IN IT PROJECT MANAGEMENT CRICOS Provider No. 00103D ass 3 itech 7401 leadership blog 2018-20 (1).docx Page 1 of 3 Assignment 3: Team Leadership Blog Overview The purpose of this task is to encourage students to expand their thinking through reading and sharing of their ideas in a Web 2.0 format used by many project managers. Timelines and Expectations Percentage Value of Task: 20% (30 marks) Due: Week 11 – Friday of the Week at 4:00 pm Minimum time expectation: Preparation for this task will take approximately 20 hours Learning Outcomes Assessed The following course learning outcomes are assessed by completing this assessment: K5. Research and critique current and future issues in IT project management in a global context. S2. Demonstrate theoretical and practical implementation of leadership, team building, and performance management approaches for IT projects. S3. Utilise decision making and problem solving approaches to resolve and pre-empt range of problems on IT projects. A1. Construct written and verbal approaches to developing and presenting IT project documentation. Assessment Details Background A blog is a discussion or informational site published on the web consisting of regular entries or posts in chronological order. A blog features diary-type commentary and links to articles on other websites. Many blogs focus on a particular topic; team blogs will focus on an area of project management leadership. Blogs are useful for first time and experienced project managers, and are widely used in the industry. The purpose of your project management leadership blog is to share the results of your research and investigations with other members of your team, and gather their feedback regarding your thoughts and ideas. For some examples project management blogs see: http://projectnewstoday.com/2013-top-25-project- management-blogs/ Requirements Students are required to work in a team (three to 5 members). Each individual student is required to select a journal article on some area of project management leadership related to the course, or extending the course ideas, and write a blog reviewing the journal article, providing a critique of the ideas including conclusions and lessons learned (approximately 1000 words). The review should be supported by references from literature, demonstrating wider reading and critical thinking. ITECH 7401 LEADERSHIP IN IT PROJECT MANAGEMENT CRICOS Provider No. 00103D ass 3 itech 7401 leadership blog 2018-20 (1).docx Page 2 of 3 Each team member's blog will be reviewed by the other team members (approximately 100-150 words per review). Each team member will be required to review two other team member’s blogs. Each team will submit the aggregated blogs, articles and team members' reviews. Team blogs maybe created in Word, in Moodle (using e.g. ePortfolio) or some other forum. NOTE: Each student should confirm the appropriateness of their journal article with the course lecturer and/or tutor completing this assignment. A list of suggested topic areas is provided below: • history of project management in IT • leadership and power • IT project selection methods • IT project scope management • estimate activity durations • estimate costs • managing project teams • models of change • sources of conflict • project control Academic Presentation Blogs should be presented in accordance with: • General Guide to Referencing: https://federation.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/313328/FEDUNI- GENERAL-GUIDE-TO-REFERENCING-2016-EDITION_ed.pdf • General Guide to Writing and Study Skills: http://federation.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/190044/General- Guide-to-Writing-and-Study-Skills.pdf, see p.36. Submission Mt Helen students should create team blogs in Moodle (check with your course lecturer). The blog will be marked within the Moodle shell. Partner students are expected to check this with their course lecturer(s) or tutor(s). Marking Criteria/Rubric Criteria Marking Scale Poor Excellent 1 ....................... 5 team – submission of aggregated blogs 0 individual – quality of discussion review of article 0 individual – quality of conclusions and lessons learned 0 individual – evidence of research 0 individual – copy of journal article 0 individual – reviews of other student’s blogs conducted and included 0 Total Mark [30 marks] 30.0 Total Worth [20%] 20.0 ITECH 7401 LEADERSHIP IN IT PROJECT MANAGEMENT CRICOS Provider No. 00103D ass 3 itech 7401 leadership blog 2018-20 (1).docx Page 3 of 3 Feedback Feedback and marks will be provided in Moodle. Marks will also be available in FDL Marks. Plagiarism: Plagiarism is the presentation of the expressed thought or work of another person as though it is one's own without properly acknowledging that person. You must not allow other students to copy your work and must take care to safeguard against this happening. More information about the plagiarism policy and procedure for the university can be found at http://federation.edu.au/students/learning-and-study/online-help-with/plagiarism Please refer to the Course Description for information regarding late assignments, extensions, and special consideration. A reminder all academic regulations can be accessed via the university’s website, see: http://federation.edu.au/staff/governance/legal/feduni-legislation Project Leadership and Resistance to Change Lundy, V., & Morin, P. (2013). Project leadership influences resistance to change: The case of Canadian public service. Project Management Journal, 44(4) , 45-64. Introduction This paper is based on a case study qualitative research involving sixteen participants drawn from employees of Environment Canada’s Information Management/Technology branch, whose job functions are computer related. This data was used to examine how leadership affects resistance to change in projects, in the Canadian Public Service. It explores the influence of the project manager on the change process and the potential resistance resulting from it, and also investigates what actions, behaviors, and attitudes of the project manager can potentially reduce resistance and facilitate the change. This article although only representative of one organization in the Canadian Public Service is an extremely useful reference for project managers and other stakeholders alike, in helping them understand the role of leadership in change management. The authors purpose for this research is fulfilled as it comes up with some useful insights on how concerns regarding uncertainties about the unknown, novelty, routine distraction, culture change, and loss of status influence resistance to change. Interestingly, their research found that an engaging leadership style, developed through proper training, effectively reduce resistance to change. That may explain why some project managers are more successful than others in managing change. Analysis The conclusions reached by the authors of this article seem to corroborate that of previous studies which acknowledge the importance of leadership in change management (Noer, 1997; Nadler & Nadler, 1998; Higgs & Rowland, 2005; Michaelis, Stegmaier & Sonntag, 2009). Noer (1997) argues that leaders are probably the most important tools for change, given that their spirit, insight, wisdom, compassion, values, and learning skills are all vital ingredients in ensuring that others embrace change without resistance. There is no doubt that it is the leader’s behavior that makes the change efforts more effective (Higgs & Rowland, 2005). This is because people usually resist change because they are comfortable with the status quo, and are unwilling to welcome any changes that could take them out of their comfort zone (Frost, 2015). That is why charismatic leadership is needed to guide people from the beginning to the end of the change implementation process (Michaelis, Stegmaier & Sonntag, 2009). The limitation of this study lies in the research methodology used. Since this study is a case study qualitative research involving 16 participants, there is a possibility that it influenced the outcome of the study. Case study research sometimes lack rigor, reflect the researchers’ bias, and provide insufficient data for generalization (Yin, 1984; Maoz, 2002; Yin, 2009). It is likely that if a similar study is carried out elsewhere, the finding would be different, hence the https://moodle.federation.edu.au/user/view.php?id=57913&course=23579 generalizability of the findings of this study is limited (Tellis, 1997). Furthermore, the study’s reliance on qualitative methods imposses limitations on the reliability of the findings. Utilizing qualitative research methods increases the possibility that the data used for a study will be unreliable, some important issues will be overlooked, and the conclusion reached will reflect the personal experiences of the researchers (ACAPS, 2012; Choy, 2014). Finally, the fact that only 16 persons were interviewed for the study makes the findings of the study even less generalizable. In the field of information systems, qualitative interviews should involve between 15 and 30 people, and the higher the number of interviews, the higher the reliability of the outcome (Marshall, Cardon, Poddar, & Fontenot, 2013). The number of participants in this study (16) falls within the lower band of the required range, thereby casting aspersions on the reliability of the findings. Conclusion In spite of the few limitations identified above, the study is significant in so many ways. The results of the study provide useful evidence regarding how training impacts on leadership style, and how the later in-turn influences resistance to change during projects. This paper is a very useful addition to the growing literature on the factors that affect the change management process in projects, as it goes beyond identifying leadership to be a factor that affects the change management process, to specifically determine that effective and competent leadership has the potential to eliminate or reduce incidents of resistance to change to the barest minimum. This study could be a basis for further research on the factors that influence the leadership style of project managers in different cultures. There are several factors that underpin resistance to change, however effective leadership is the antidote. Lessons for the IT Manager There are important lessons that project managers can learn from this study. Project managers can deduce from the findings of this paper that they need good training in order to become engaging and effective leaders. More importantly, they can learn that if they are able to provide effective leadership during projects, the problem of resistance to change will be eliminated or reduced to the barest minimum. In summary, the role of the project manager requires good leadership skills, and good leadership skills are acquired through proper training. References ACAPS. (2012). Qualitative and quantitative research techniques for humanitarian needs assessment. Choy, L. T. (2014). The strenghts abd weaknesses of research methodology: Comparison and complementary between qualitative and quantitative approaches. Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 19(4) , 99-104. Frost, S. (2015). Barriers & challenges to change implementation. Retrieved April 17, 2015, from Chron: http://smallbusiness.chron.com/barriers-challenges-change- implementation-30842.html Hiatt, J. M., & Creasey, T. J. (2003). Change management: The people
Answered Same DaySep 21, 2021ITECH7401

Answer To: The purpose of this task is to encourage students to expand their thinking through reading and...

Kshitij answered on Sep 24 2021
143 Votes
SAW8 - ITECH7401 - GN44899 - Journal.pdf
Journal of Innovation Management Kesting, Ulhøi, Song, Niu
JIM 3, 4 (2015) 22-41
HANDLE: http://hdl.handle.net/10216/81805

ISSN 2183-0606
http://www.open-jim.org
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0 22
The impact of leadership styles on innovation
management - a review and a synthesis
Peter Kesting1, John P. Ulhøi1, Lynda Jiwen Song2, Hongyi Niu3
1 Department of Business Administration, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
Bartholins Allé 10, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark, Tel: +45 87164965
{petk, jpu}@badm.au.dk,
2 School of Business, Renmin University of China
[email protected]
3 Martin Bencher Professional Shipping and Forwarding Services
[email protected]
Abstract. This paper reviews the insights that research offers on the impact of
different leadership styles on innovation management. To do so, we develop a
framework structuring existing insights into four generic dimensions: people,
means, effects, and goals. Based on this framework, we review studies on:
directive and participative leadership, interactive leadership, charismatic
leadership, transformational leadership, transactional & instrumental leadership,
strategic & CEO leadership, and shared & distributed leadership. We find strong
indications that different innovation stages and types raise different demands on
leadership. Against this background, transformational leadership is not the only
style to lead innovations, but different leadership styles fit differently well with
different innovation types and stages. However, the specification of this fit is still
very incomplete and the answer to the question of how to lead innovations
remains sketchy. Before closing, future research needs as well as practical
implications are addressed.
Keywords: Leadership styles, Innovation, Leadership, Transformational
Leadership
1 Introduction
There are strong indications that leadership is important for innovation management
(Nadler and Tushman, 1990; Denti and Hemlin, 2012). Leadership plays a decisive role
in enhancing organizational creativity (Mumford et al., 2002; Amabile et al., 2004
),
launching and driving innovation projects (Stoker et al., 2001; Bossink, 2007), and
implementing innovation projects and overcoming resistance (Gilley et al., 2008).
Somech (2006) concludes that corporate leaders are the key drivers, who either promote
or inhibit innovation management in the organization. According to Bel (2010),
different leadership styles are likely to have different impacts on employee involvement
and commitment, which in turn influence the climate for innovation management.
Deschamps (2005) goes even further, saying that the failure of innovation projects is
most likely due to ineffective leadership skills (see also Bass 1990b).
Against this background, it is hardly surprising that a large number of publications have
Journal of Innovation Management Kesting, Ulhøi, Song, Niu
JIM 3, 4 (2015) 22-41
http://www.open-jim.org 23
already addressed various aspects of the relation between leadership and innovation
management (Rickards and Moger, 2006). Since sketching the relationship between
leadership and innovation in general is too complex a topic for a single paper, the focus
of this review is exclusively on leadership styles with regard to innovation
management. The main advantage of focusing on leadership styles is that they are
representative of different lines of thought and comprehensive at the same time. Of the
different leadership styles that have been identified and described over the years, we
will only focus on those that have already established significant links to innovation
management. Relevant contributions can be both, conceptual or empirical. What counts
is that they explicitly and substantially contribute to the knowledge about the links
between a certain leadership style and innovation management. In this paper, we will
review how these links have been conceptualized and look at available empirical
evidence.
We do not believe that a mere survey of peer-reviewed journal articles gives an accurate
picture of the relevant research body, therefore scholarly essay collections and
monographs are also included. Specifically, an initial search has been grounded on the
authors’ previous knowledge of the field as well as on a systematic search in the
database: “Business Source Complete – EBSCOhost”. The terms used for the search
did not only include the generic terms “leadership” and “innovation”, but also related
terms like “manager”, “change agents”, “champions”, “change” and “transformation”
(a detailed account of all used keywords and the number of hits can be obtained from
the authors). However, to get a more comprehensive picture of the research body we
also included publications referenced by reviewed articles. Additionally we followed
up the forward citations (“cited by”) of some key publications in Google Scholar.
2 Key constructs
2.1 Leadership
According to the definition of Bass (1990a: 19), “leadership consists of influencing the
attitudes and behaviors of individuals and the interaction within and between groups
for the purpose of achieving goals.” Chemers (1997) defines leadership as “a process
of social influence in which one person is able to enlist the aid and support of others in
the accomplishment of a common task.” Because of their general acceptance among
scholars, we have taken these definitions as a conceptual foundation for this review.
They imply the existence of four generic dimensions in leadership:
People – By its very nature, leadership is a supra-individual concept that requires a
logical distinction between leaders and followers. This distinction can be explicit or
implicit, temporary or persistent, but without it, leadership is pointless.
Means – The essence of leadership is that leaders lead, i.e. they carry out certain
activities in order to direct or influence followers. The review below will show that
these means can include very heterogeneous activities like coaching, empowering, or
even servicing. But without such activities there is no leadership.
Effects – The effect of leading is to induce a certain reaction in the followers, i.e. to
make them follow. The review will show that the effects can include very
Journal of Innovation Management Kesting, Ulhøi, Song, Niu
JIM 3, 4 (2015) 22-41
http://www.open-jim.org 24
heterogeneous reactions, like increased enthusiasm or commitment, implicit
convictions, the rational optimization of rewards, etc. But without any effect,
leadership efforts go nowhere.
Goals – Leadership is ultimately associated with certain goals. These goals can be broad
visions of promising future states, but they can also be very concrete targets. In either
case, leadership points towards a direction. In the context of this paper, goals are
essential as leadership here is always directed towards the goal of innovation – this is
what this review is about.
The four dimensions (people, means, effects and goals) allow for systematizing the
review of the specific leadership styles as they organize logical distinct elements in a
consistent way. This allows for creating a systematic and stringent overall analytical
framework, making it much easier to compare across leadership styles with regard to
the 'essence' of leadership (i.e. the four dimensions). To our knowledge, the “people-
means-effects-goals framework” has not been used by other researchers so far.
According to House and Aditya (1997: 451), the term of leadership styles refers “to the
manner by which leaders express specific behaviors.” Leadership styles are important,
since they represent different ways of practicing leadership. In relation to this, the traits
of leaders reflect the ability of individuals to practice specific leadership styles.
Contextual factors shape the conditions for different leadership styles, specifically the
effects they have and the goals that they serve. Therefore, contextual factors cannot
simply be added as a “fifth dimension” to the framework; instead, the framework is
only valid with respect to specific contextual factors. Against this background, the
differences in leadership styles can be specified in terms of the four key dimensions of
the “people-means-effects-goals framework”. That not all key dimensions have been
specified with regard to a specific leadership style does not mean that they do not exist,
only that the research is incomplete.
Although there are several constructs closely related to leadership, lack of space means
that the discussion of this relationship remains very short. While there have been
countless discussions about the relation between leadership and management (Yukl,
1989; Kelley and Lee, 2010), the essence of leadership is that it includes both formal
and informal authority, and that it has a very strong focus on the (new) goals to be
achieved. Management research is included inasmuch as it meets these criteria. The
same applies for other related constructs like change agents (Nikolaou et al., 2007),
champions (Howell and Higgins, 1990), etc.
2.2 Innovation
There are perhaps at least as many definitions of innovation management as there are
of leadership. According to a rather broad definition by Baregheh et al. (2009: 1334),
“Innovation is the multi-stage process whereby organizations transform ideas into
improved products, service or processes, in order to advance, compete and differentiate
themselves successfully in their marketplace.” Amabile et al. (1996: 1155) understand
innovation management as the “successful implementation of creative ideas within an
organization.” Creativity is therefore a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for
innovation (Amabile et al., 2004). However, we know of no conceptualization that does
not qualify innovation as a kind of change. Therefore, change is broadly understood as
Journal of Innovation Management Kesting, Ulhøi, Song, Niu
JIM 3, 4 (2015) 22-41
http://www.open-jim.org 25
the genus of innovation, and innovation is broadly understood as a subset of change
(there is no innovation without change). Differences in the conceptualization of
innovation result from different specifications of change (the differentia) with regard
to substance (what is the subject of change) and impact (what types of change count as
innovation). Since leadership and innovation are too broad concepts to be addressed in
one review paper, we limit our focus on research contributions investigating the effects
of different leadership practices (leadership styles) on innovation processes (innovation
management).
It is generally assumed (and this is important for this review) that innovations are
typically complex procedures, consisting of a variety of different activities. One
classical approach to structure this complexity is the distinction between different
innovation stages or phases, like the distinction between ideation and implementation
(Amabile et al., 1996; Anderson et al. 2004) or the distinction between
conceptualization, development, and commercialization (Stemberg, Kaufman and
Pretz, 2004). Creativity is typically seen as an element of the ideation or
conceptualization stage and the impact of different leadership styles on creativity is
therefore included in this review, but only inasmuch as it relates to innovation (and
limited to insights that research offers on leadership). Another classical distinction is
that between different innovation types with regard to substance (for instance: product,
process, organizational, and market innovation, Schumpeter 1934) and impact (for
instance: radical and incremental innovation, Dosi 1982). Also more specific elements
of the innovation process have been distinguished, like R&D, resistance and path
dependence, creativity, task completion, and others.
These distinctions are relevant for this review because there are strong indications that
different activities make different demands on leadership (Nijstad and de Dreu, 2002;
Anderson et al., 2004; Gilley A. et al., 2008, see also the review below). This has an
important impact on goal setting. With regard to leadership, it is not sufficient to specify
the goal as being merely “innovation” as such, but it is necessary to distinguish between
different stages, types and specific elements that are functionally related to innovation.
We argue that leadership styles are relative to these more specific innovation aspects.
The question is then how different leadership styles contribute to the achievement of
these more specific, innovation-related goals.
3 Leadership styles and innovation
This section reviews the insights produced by research into different leadership styles
with regard to innovation management. Among the different leadership styles available
in the literature, we have selected only those who make substantial contributions, and
are thus already related to innovation management. We review each style separately
and focus on the insights with regard to the four key dimensions: people, means, effects,
and goals. Here, we proceed as follows: People – most of the contributions do not make
people an issue and many implicitly assume that there is only one leader. We have only
included research that explicitly addresses this issue. Means – we have reviewed
insights into how leaders are supposed to act (conceptually) and also how they actually
practice leadership (empirically). Effects - we have reviewed empirical insights into the
effects of the different leadership styles on followers. Goals – we have reviewed
Journal of Innovation Management Kesting, Ulhøi, Song, Niu
JIM 3, 4 (2015) 22-41
http://www.open-jim.org 26
empirical indications for the support of innovation-related goals by the different
leadership styles. For instance, Elenkov et al. (2005) offer empirical indications that
strategic/CEO leadership can be supportive to achieve organizational innovations. That
strategic/CEO leadership is the only leadership style that has been associated with
organizational innovation in this review does not mean that no other styles have the
potential to do so, but that to date no empirical support has been given for any other
leadership style to do so. We conclude each section with a “profile”, summarizing the
most important findings with regard to the four key dimensions of leadership.
3.1 Directive and participative leadership
According to Lornikova et al. (2013: 573), directive leadership “is associated with a
leader’s positional power and is characterized by behaviors aimed at actively
structuring subordinates’ work by providing clear directions and expectations regarding
compliance with instructions.” In contrast to that, Somech (2006: 135) defines
participative leadership as “shared influence in decision making”. In both cases, the
final decision-making power rests with the leader. The main differences relate to both
the extent to which leaders consult with followers and the extent to which followers are
allowed to express their opinion in the decision-making process. We discuss both styles
jointly in this section to compare insights regarding the impact of different forms of
participation on innovation. Basically, directive and participative leadership are to be
seen as opposite ends of a continuum. However, we acknowledge a potential confusion
in the structure. In consequence, we have separated them as LS1a and LS1b in table 1,
2 and 9.
Research offers a few insights into the means, i.e. how directive and participative
leadership are executed in innovation projects. In her case study, Kanter (1982) finds
that directive leaders drive innovation processes by controlling, monitoring, instructing,
and hierarchical influence. Somech (2006: 140) specifies that directive leaders provide
“team members with a framework for decision making and action in alignment with
the superior’s vision.” Burpitt and Bigoness (1997) found that participative leaders
succeeded in encouraging team-level innovation by getting involved early, and staying
involved throughout the entire project, but giving team members the freedom to
develop new solutions at the same time.
Research on innovation provides evidence on the specific benefits of directive and
participative leadership with regard to different innovation-related goals. On the one
hand, research shows that directive leadership is particularly beneficial for establishing
clear rules (Somech, 2006). On the other hand, several studies show that participative
leadership stimulates creativity and the development of new ideas (Frischer, 1993;
Nijstad et al., 2002). Possibly as a side effect of that, Yan (2011) found in a study of
201 companies that participative leadership generally raises the conflict level during
the innovation period. This line of research gives the general impression that
participative leadership is beneficial during the early innovation stages, whereas
directive leadership may be required more in the later stages. With regard to innovation
types, Stoker and colleagues (2001) found that participative leadership is particularly
supportive for product innovations and R&D.
Journal of Innovation Management Kesting, Ulhøi, Song, Niu
JIM 3, 4 (2015) 22-41
http://www.open-jim.org 27
Table 1. Profile of existing research on directive leadership (LS1a).
People Means Effects Goals
One leader
(direct)
Controlling, monitoring, instructing,
hierarchical influence
Providing a framework for decision
making and action
Establishing
clear rules Implementation
Table 2. Profile of existing research on participative leadership (LS1b).
People Means Effects Goals
One leader
(consult)
Freedom to develop solutions
Early involvement in projects
Innovative
climate
Increased
conflict level
Ideation
Product
innovation
R&D
2 Interactive leadership
The concept of interactive leadership dates back to a study of female leaders by Rosener
(1990). In this study, Rosener singled out four core characteristics of interactive
leadership: encouragement for participation, widespread sharing of information and
power, efforts to enhance self-worth of employees, and energizing employees for
different work tasks. With regard to innovation, Bossink (2004: 216) has specified that
the interactive leader “empowers others to innovate, cooperates with them to innovate
and shows them how to become innovation leaders in the organization themselves.” In
this sense, not only individuals, but also teams can be empowered (Burpitt and
Bigoness, 1997). However, in contrast to distributed and shared leadership, this
empowerment is restricted (typically to a project or functional base) and still carried
out under the control of the interactive leader. In this sense, empowered leaders act as
delegates of the interactive leader.
Research shows that interactive leadership typically involves some kind of guidance,
showing empowered employees how to innovate by coaching and providing them with
other relevant support (Bossink, 2007). Markham (1998) found that interactive leaders
have also used cooperative tactics to direct the activities of empowered employees.
Regarding the effects, research demonstrates that interactive leadership is particularly
suited to encourage followers to participate and contribute, and that this has a positive
effect on the innovation climate, raising the general level of enthusiasm about
innovation (Bossink, 2004). However, some researchers argue that this leadership style
may not be sufficient for innovation due to its inherent lack of a specific future vision,
and thus recommend carrying it out in combination with other leadership styles (1998;
Norrgren et al. 1999).
Regarding the goals, research offers some evidence that interactive leadership does
indeed contribute to firm innovativeness. In their investigation of 60 teams in 20
companies, Burpitt et al. (1997) found that teams have been most innovative when
Journal of Innovation Management Kesting, Ulhøi, Song, Niu
JIM 3, 4 (2015) 22-41
http://www.open-jim.org 28
actively engaged and empowered. Bossink’s (2004) case study gives some indication
that interactional leadership can contribute to the success of innovation projects. There
is no further specification of innovation stages or types, however.
Table 3. Profile of existing research on interactive leadership (LS2).
People Means Effects Goals
One leader
(delegate)
Temporary
empowerment of
individuals or teams
Coaching, guiding,
supporting
Encouraging participation
Raising enthusiasm
Emphasizing involvement
Creating Commitment
Unspecified
positive effect on
innovativeness and
innovation success
3.3 Charismatic leadership
According to Weber, charismatic leadership is “resting on devotion to the exceptional
sanctity, heroism or exemplary character of an individual person” (1921/78: 215). In
the same vein, Shamir et al. (1993) argue that creating a sense of collective identity is
essential to being a charismatic leader.
With regard to the means of leadership, there is some solid empirical indication that
charismatic leaders lead innovation projects primarily on the basis of their “behavior,
beliefs, and personal example” (House et al., 1991: 336; see also Eisenbach et al.,
1999). Personal engagement mediates this effect (Nohe et al., 2013). Several studies
have reported that...
SOLUTION.PDF

Answer To This Question Is Available To Download

Related Questions & Answers

More Questions »

Submit New Assignment

Copy and Paste Your Assignment Here