Influence of Innovative Behavior in Employees - Article Example

Report on Leadership Constructs that Influence Innovative Behavior in employees Introduction The case study is about the leadership constructs that influence innovative behavior in employees. It vividly delineates all the traits that predispose employees to embrace innovation. Finally, it concludes by highlighting the limitations that the researchers experienced as they undertook the study and how further study can be done to have more reliable results. This report will find out what really is discussed in the case and relate it to other studies. It will begin by defining leadership and innovation, discussion of the case’s problems, goals and concerns, critique of the case and finally make conclusions. Definition of leadership and innovation Theo Haimann defines leadership as the process by which an executive imaginatively directs, guides and influences the work of others in attaining specified goals. In essence, leadership is a process that involves influencing others to do a given task or tasks in a desired way in order to achieve anticipated outcomes. On the other hand, innovation, as put by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary is the process of coming up with new concepts or products that arise from people’s ideas and the commercialization thereof. So, leadership constructs that influence innovative behavior in employees are the types of leadership activities that can be done in order to encourage employees to come up with ideas that can be commercialized. Innovation undergoes two phases: creative and application phases. In the creative phase, only ideas are produced whereas in the application phase the ideas are applied to bear something of value. The problem/situation/concern in the case The issue being raised in the case study is how leaders can influence innovative behavior in employees. Assumptions made in the case The overriding assumption in the case is that it is only leadership that influences employees’ innovative behavior. A critical examination brings to fore that there are other numerous factors that may induce employees to innovate. The case study also made the assumptions that all leaders are the same in both the knowledge intensive services and other industries which is not the case. Goals of each stakeholder In the context of innovation in any organization the following are the goals of each immediate stakeholder: a) Employees Innovation to employees is aimed at earning rewards in both financial and material. To get recognition from their superiors is also one of the goals. b) Leaders/managers The managers encourage innovativeness in employees so as to produce better products to be competitive in the market by commanding a large market share. c) Customers They embrace innovation in employees so as to be guaranteed new products that can satisfy their emerging tastes and preferences. d) Owners They have a goal of seeing their investments growing and be guaranteed the going concern of the organization. Evidence relevant to innovation It is very evident from the case that the definition of leadership (the process by which an executive imaginatively directs, guides and influences the work of others in attaining specified goals) comprise the following aspects: a) Innovative role modeling This is where the leaders inspire innovative behavior in employees by making sure that they engage themselves in innovative behaviour which can be emulated by their followers or rather subordinates. b) Intellectual stimulation A leader may influence innovativeness in subordinates by poking their mental faculties in order to think critically and formulate solutions to problems that underlie day to day activities. c) Stimulating knowledge diffusion In this construct, the leader encourages the flow of information through open communication and effective feedback. d) Provision of vision Leaders are supposed to clearly spell out the vision so that the employees may know what to do in order to achieve what. This aids in influencing innovativeness in employees as they strive to come up with better means to produce results. e) Consulting Leaders must seek advice from employees and peers before they implement changes in an organization. This serves to encourage the employees to be innovative. f) Delegation Leaders who assign their part of duties to the employees stimulate innovativeness in them unlike those who feel insecure to do so. g) Provision of support The employees should be given enough leeway to make errors in order to be daring enough to innovate. Leaders who rebuke employees when they make mistakes are doomed to have less innovative employees. h) Organizing feedback Leaders should give feedback on the outcomes of the employees efforts so as to induce creativity and innovativeness. i) Recognizing innovative employees The employees who come up with innovative ideas and products should be recognized formally so as to give them impetus to continue doing the same and thereby create a culture of innovativeness. j) Giving rewards Financial and material rewards should be extended to employees that show innovativeness as they do their activities. k) Resource provision Leaders who avail the requisite resources to their employees end up have more innovative employees that those who do the contrary. l) Monitoring This is ensuring that the employees maintain a level of efficiency and effectiveness in order to keep up the tempo of innovation among them. m) Task assignment The leaders should give challenging tasks to their employees that will make them think outside the box before they complete them. This also serves well to the employees as they try and err until they deduce the solution which in this case is innovation. So, for sure all the discussed constructs by the case study are more or less are decomposition of directing, guiding and influencing giving credence to the importance of leadership in influencing innovative behavior in employees. Critique of the case It is not easy to find a leader with all the characteristics discussed. Leaders exhibit a continuum of the mentioned constructs in the case. Furthermore, innovative behavior is not influenced by leadership per se. There are other factors that contribute to an employee adopting an innovative behavior. Such factors may include personality of the employees, family background, working environment inter alia. The type of business being carried out by an organization also determines the level of innovativeness of employees. So business follow strict procedures in order to solve a given problem. These leadership constructs cannot be applied in all organization and if they may be applied, the extent differs across organizations. Conclusion Innovation in employees does not just happen. It takes certain leadership constructs that can stimulate or rather influence innovative behavior in workers. However, it is not only these constructs that influence innovative behavior. Other factors also come into play with regard to the influence of innovative behavior exhibited in employees. References Redmond, M.R., Mumford, M.D. and Teach, R.J. (1993), “Putting creativity to work: leader influences on subordinate creativity”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,Vol.55,pp.120-51. Ruigrok, W., Achtenhagen, L., Ru¨ gg-Stu¨ rm, J. and Wagner, M. (2000), “Hilti AG: shared leadership and the rise of the communication organization”, in Pettigrew, A. and Fenton, E.(Eds),The Innovating Organization, Sage, London. Scott, S.G. and Bruce, R.A. (1994), “Determinants of innovative behavior: a path model of individual innovation in the workplace”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38, pp.1442-65. Senge, P. (1990), The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organisation, Doubleday,NewYork,NY. Shalley, C.E. (1991), “Effects of productivity goals, creativity goals, and personal discretion on individual creativity”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 76, pp. 179-85. Shalley, C.E. and Gilson, L.L. (2004), “What leaders need to know: a review of social and contextual factors that can foster or hinder creativity”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp.33-54. Shalley, C.E. and Perry-Smith, J.E. (2001), “Perry-Smith Effects of social-psychological factors on creative performance: the role of informational and controlling expected evaluation and modelling experience”, Organisational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 84, pp.1-22 Downloaded by Abu Dhabi School of Management (ADSM) At 00:45 17 April 2016 (PT) Shane, S. (2003), A General Theory of Entrepreneurship: The Individual-Opportunity Nexus, Edward,Elgar,Aldershot. Shin, S.J. and Zhou, J. (2003), “Transformational leadership, conservation, and creativity: evidence from Korea”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 46 No. 6, pp. 703-14. Smith, G.P. (2002), “The new leader: bringing creativity and innovation to the workplace”, ChartYourCourse,Conyers,Georgia. Sosik, J.J., Kahai, S.S. and Avolio, B.J. (1998), “Transformational leadership and dimensions of creativity: motivating idea generation in computer-mediated groups”, Creativity Research Journal, Vol. 11, pp. 111-21. Read More