Implementing process innovations: the benefits of combining delegative-participative with consultative-advisory leadership.

Our initial reasoning for the mutual risk compensation effect of delegative-participative and consultative-advisory leadership (Hypothesis 3) appears not to be valid in the context of process innovations, at least in this sample. This may be so because with respect to process innovations, the posited buffering effects occur not so much when the levels of the two leadership patterns are high but rather when the level of one of these leadership styles is low. In other words, neglecting either delegative-participative or consultative-advisory leadership behavior entails specific risks, and these risks can be held in check by enacting high levels of the respective other leadership pattern.

On a theoretical level, this shows that not only the relationship between a particular leadership style and the implementation success of innovations merits consideration but that the dynamics resulting from the interplay of different sets of leadership behavior should also be analyzed. One important aspect to examine would be how different combinations of leadership patterns affect success. A better understanding of the interplay of different leadership styles presupposes a clear description of the risks entailed by both high levels and low levels of the respective leadership behaviors. The present study underscores the importance of this question by illustrating the theoretical and practical importance not only of the interactions of leadership behaviors but also of the specific form of these interaction effects. The absence of one of the two sets of leadership behaviors discussed earlier is apparently linked with specific risks that need to be compensated by the other complementary set of leadership measures to ensure high levels of success.

Practical Conclusions

With respect to practical implications, the present study indicates that the quality of the implementation of process innovations and thus the effectiveness and efficiency of the respective work unit are highest when leaders exhibit both delegative-participative and consultative-advisory leadership behavior simultaneously. Thus, leaders would be well advised to combine these leadership facets. If, for whatever reason, a leader is unable to provide both of these leadership aspects (i.e., both delegative-participative and consultative-advisory leadership), the importance of the respective other complementary set of behaviors becomes all the more important during the implementation process. Thus, at the very least, a leader should enact high levels of one of these sets of leadership behaviors (i.e., either delegative-participative or consultative-advisory leadership). Ideally however, a leader should strive to employ a combination of these two leadership styles so that the specific risks entailed by one set of behaviors are compensated by the effects of the respective complementary leadership pattern and vice versa.

Our results offer important implications for both leadership and management (cf. Yukl, 2006). With respect to management however, we would argue at a higher level of abstraction. Specifically, our results indicate that in the effort to foster implementation success, a holistic management perspective is called for. That is, a company's management must not only anticipate the respective positive and negative effects of delegative-participative and consultative-advisory leadership but also needs to consider the effects of combinations of leadership patterns. This entails that management acknowledges the dynamics of leadership patterns--namely, their antagonistic and/or complementary effects.

The usefulness of such a management approach has already been established with respect to other outcome criteria (e.g., increasing innovation speed, fostering innovation quality, decreasing innovation costs, promoting team innovations, enhancing organizational change) (cf. Atuahene-Gima, 2003; Gebert, Boerner, & Kearney, 2006; Quinn & Cameron, 1988; Sheremata, 2000). We propose that this approach is also conducive to successfully implementing process innovations. Hence, we would advocate a greater emphasis on holistic leadership in management education and training programs.

References

Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1154-1184.

Anderson, N. R., & King, N. (1993). Innovations in organizations. In C. I. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 8, pp. 1-33). Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Atuahene-Gima, K. (2003). The effects of centrifugal and centripetal forces on product development speed and quality: How does problem solving matter? Academy of Management Journal, 46, 359-373.

Axtell, C. M., Holman, D. J., Unsworth, K. L., Walt, T. D., Waterson, P. E., & Harrington, E. (2000). Shopfloor innovation: Facilitating the suggestion and implementation of ideas. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73, 265-285.

Bauer, T. N., & Green, S. G. (1996). Development of leader-member exchange: A longitudinal test. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1538-1567.

Brehm, J. W. (1966). Theory of psychological reactance. New York: Academic Press.

Brockner, J., & Siegel, P. A. (1996). Understanding the interaction between procedural and distributive justice. The role of trust. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 390-413). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Burpitt, W. J., & Bigoness, W. J. (1997). Leadership and innovation among teams. The impact of empowerment. Small Group Research, 28, 414-423.

De Dreu, C. K. W. (2006). When too little or too much hurts: Evidence for a curvilinear relationship between task conflict and innovation in teams. Journal of Management, 32, 83-107.

Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The critical incidents technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51, 327-358.

Frese, M., & Zapf, D. (1994). Action as the core of work psychology: A German approach. In H. C. Triandis, M. D. Dunnette, & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 271-340). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Gebert, D., Boerner, S., & Kearney, E. (2006). Cross-functionality and innovation in new product development teams: A dilemmatic structure and its consequences for the management of diversity. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15, 431-458.

Jehn, K. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 256-282.

Krause, D. E. (2004). Influenced-based leadership as a determinant of the inclination to innovate and of innovation-related behaviors--An empirical investigation. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 79-102.

Krause, D. E., & Kearney, K. (2006). The use of power in different contexts: Arguments for a context specific perspective. In C. A. Schriesheim & L. L. Neider (Eds.), Power and influence in organizations. New empirical and theoretical perspectives. Research in management: Vol. 5 (pp. 59-86). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York: Oxford University Press.

Lewis, L. K., & Seibold, D. R. (1993). Innovation modification during intraorganizational adoption. Academy of Management Journal, 18, 322-354.

Manz, C. C., Bastien D. T., Hostager, T. J., & Shapiro, G. L. (1989). Leadership and innovation: A longitudinal process view. In A. H. Van de Ven, H. L. Angle, & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Research on the management of innovation: The Minnesota studies (pp. 613-636). New York: Harper & Row.

Mumford, M. D., Scott, G. M., Gaddis, B., & Strange, J. M. (2002). Leading creative people: Orchestrating expertise and relationships. Leadership Quarterly, 13, 705-750.

Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 607-634.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.

Quinn, R. E., & Cameron, K. S. (Eds.) (1988). Paradox and transformation: Toward a theory of change in organizations and management. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1998). Following the leader in R&D: The joint effect of subordinate problem-solving style and leader-member relations on innovative behavior. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 45, 3-10.

Sheremata, W. (2000). Centrifugal and centripetal forces in radical new product development under time pressure. Academy of Management Review, 25, 398-408.

Spector, P. E. (2006). Method variance in organizational research. Truth or urban legend? Organizational Research Method, 9, 221-232.

Tierney, P., Farmer, S. M., & Graen, G. B. (1999). An examination of leadership and employee creativity: The relevance of traits and relationships. Personnel Psychology, 52, 591-618.

Tyler, T. R., Degoey, P., & Smith, H. (1996). Understanding why the justice of group procedures matters: A test of the psychological dynamics of the group-value model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 913-930.

West, M. (2002). Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model of creativity and innovation implementation within groups. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51, 355-386.

Yukl, G. (2006). Leadership in organizations (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.