Transformational Leader as Champion and Techie: Implications for Leadership Educators

Abstract

The effects of innovation on leadership abilities have not been widely investigated. Although diffusion of innovation theory has existed for some time, there is a need for more research detailing the relationship between innovation and transformational leadership. In a survey of organizational members (N = 294), innovation was significantly related to all subscales of transformational leadership. The relationship between innovation and transactional leadership was generally not significant, and the relationship with laissez-faire leadership was inverse and significant. Implications emerging from the relationship between transformational leadership and innovation are discussed, including the distinction between the champion and "techie" styles of innovation and their basis in leadership activity. Innovation Theory Research about innovation assumes that technological innovation occurs within a social context (Goodman, Griffith, & Fenner, 1990; Van de Ven, 1986). New technologies change the organization because of the way people make sense of their surroundings (Weick, 1990). Rogers (1983) suggested that innovation is a communication process about something newer or better. Innovation, like communication, is not a one-way linear event. Rogers further posited innovation is relational and dynamic. Rogers (1983) defined a range of personal behaviors toward innovation based on a bell-shaped innovation curve. Behavioral categories range from an innovator (at the highly innovative end) to a laggard (at the low innovation end). Rogers (1986) explained that diffusion is the process that communicates an innovation over time among members of a social system. Thus, diffusion of innovation is both a social and individual activity. He theorized that a small number of people innovate very quickly. Next, a substantial number of individuals are early adopters. Early adopters precede the early majority who adopts a little before others in their social network. The next group, on the other side of the mean, is late adopters. Late adopters are still ahead of the final classification, the laggard. Laggards are not interested in integrating new technology. Rogers' theory helps define the range of personal behaviors in relation to innovation. His model is an appropriate foundation for empirical study and gives further basis for the quantification of personal innovativeness. Historically, innovation research focused more on the process of adoption. More recent research has been centered on the social implications of innovation. Research from authors like Walther (1994), Howell and Higgins (1990a, 1990b, 1990c), and Rice (1987) suggests that the act of innovating has definite social implications in the personal, organizational, and global context. Given the current social influence direction of modern leadership, it seems reasonable that innovation may be related to transformational leadership qualities.

Effects of transformational leadership and organizational position on knowledge management

“…The strong R squared value associated with the relationship suggests that a substantial amount of variance in transformational leadership can be accounted for by knowledge management skills (19.5 percent). This research finding is certainly parallel with prior research by Crawford (1998Crawford ( , 2000Crawford ( , 2003 that isolated the strong link between transformational leadership and innovation. That set of studies demonstrated that 30.8 percent of the variance of transformational leadership could be attributed to personal innovativeness.…”

“…In a series of articles, Crawford (1998), Crawford andStrohkirch (1997a, b, 2000), and Crawford et al (2003) established the argument that transformational leadership was related to personal innovation. In their findings, transformational leaders were significantly more innovative than transactional and laisse-faire leaders.…”

Positive effects of laissez-faire leadership: conceptual exploration

“…Non-involvement of laissez-faire leadership could stimulate psychological empowerment, and highly skilled and educated "knowledge workers", who become the core of a rapidly growing segment of the workforce (Parker, Wall, & Cordery, 2001), would appreciate autonomy by non-involvement of a leader. Individuals can engage in innovative activities if operating under the condition of self-supervision (Crawford, Gould, & Scott, 2003), however, leaders still affect subordinates' motivation by creating a climate where employees feel inspired thereby stimulating intrinsic motivation (cf. Maynard, Gilson, & Mathieu, 2012).…”

Is Reward System and Leadership Important in Knowledge Sharing Among Academics?

“…Knowledge sharing is the contributions by individuals to the collective knowledge of an organization that is gradually more accepted as an important research topic. Within an organization, knowledge in the form of various job-related documents, organizational rules, working procedures, personal experience, and know-how is often shared among employees (Hansen, 2002;Mc Dermott and O'Dell, 2001;Jabar et al, 2010;Crawford et al, 2003).…”