transactional & transformational leadership style, motivation and the effect on team
TRANSCRIPT
1
Transactional & Transformational Leadership Style, Motivation and the Effect on Team Performance & Team Creativity (Stripped/Edited Version) Foreword: This is the stripped version of the original research paper. The researcher was
obliged to cut out the company’s name and background due to confidentiality agreements.
Moreover, the participants of this research were given full disclosure and anonomity to
protect their careers in case anything that was said could be considered as harmful for them or
the company. Therefore, this paper will have less insight into how the case findings were
derived and how these are supported by citations from the interviews. However, the findings
and theory presented in this paper are nonetheless considered to be of value to the field of
research on leadership.
Master Thesis
Author: Jansen, Richard
Student ID: 10323651
MSc Business Studies – International Management
University of Amsterdam
Supervisor: J.P. Lindeque
Second Reader: J.D. Belschak
Date: 18 March 2013
2
Abstract
This study examines how the characteristics of transformational leadership are considered to
influence team creativity in a dynamic environment & how those of transactional leadership
influence team performance within a routine environment. In addition, this research examines
what influences team members’ motivation and how this affects their performance or
creativity. The right mixture of leadership style and motivational constructs increases routine
team performance or dynamic team creativity.
A sample of two teams in different contexts (routine and dynamic) is selected and a multiple
case study design is used in which data is acquired through semi-structured interviews and
surveys. Subsequent analysis has led to mixed support of the working propositions; a mixed
leadership style dependent on the situation at hand is most likely to flourish for a creative
team, whereas a mixed leadership style dependent on outcome results is most likely to
flourish for a routine team. The findings indicate for both teams that commitment,
communication, extrinsic rewards and empowerment are highly influential for motivation.
Increasing motivation leads to higher performance in the routine team and to higher creativity
in the dynamic team.
The results offer managers an insight on what style of leadership fits best in different
situations and how employee motivation can be stimulated, thereby increasing performance or
creativity. Moreover, this study provides support for future research towards the studying of
mutually inclusive leadership styles instead of exclusive leadership styles.
Keywords: Transformational leadership; Transactional leadership; Creativity; Motivation;
Performance; Team; Work context; Empowerment; Rewards; Commitment; Communication;
Feedback
3
Acknowledgements
It wouldn’t have been possible to write and complete this thesis without the help and support
from the friends and family around me.
Above all, I would like to sincerely thank my supervisor Dr. J.P. Lindeque for his expertise,
support, feedback and understanding throughout this thesis process. His guidance has been
invaluable for the completion of this research and therefore my sincere gratitude.
Furthermore, I would like to thank my parents for their help and support throughout this
process, in particular my father for aiding me to get in contact with the company. Without
their help, this research could have fallen apart. Furthermore, I would like to thank the CEO
of the UK based company for giving me complete access to his company, and also my sincere
gratitude to all the interviewees that have contributed greatly to this study with their kindness
to participate and openness during the interviews. Their contributions have been of the utmost
importance for this research.
4
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 7
2. Literature Review ................................................................................................................. 12
2.1 Transformational & Transactional Leadership ............................................................... 12
2.2 Motivation, Commitment and Creativity & Performance .............................................. 19
2.3 Team Creativity & Performance ..................................................................................... 22
3. Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 27
3.1 Research Philosophy and Quality Criteria...................................................................... 27
3.2 The Case Study Research: .............................................................................................. 29
3.3 Research context ............................................................................................................. 31
3.3.1. Case criteria and selection: ......................................................................................... 31
3.3.2. Semi-structured interviews and adapted surveys ........................................................ 32
3.3.3. Background of the company: ...................................................................................... 36
3.4 Data collection & analysis methods ............................................................................... 37
3.4.1. Interviews ................................................................................................................... 37
3.4.2. Surveys ....................................................................................................................... 39
4. Results .................................................................................................................................. 44
4.1 Team Routine/Stable Survey & Interview results .......................................................... 44
4.1.1 Team routine/stable survey results .............................................................................. 44
4.1.2 Team routine/stable interview results .......................................................................... 47
4.1.2.1. Work context and present factors ............................................................................ 47
4.1.2.2. Leadership style and present factors ........................................................................ 48
4.1.2.3. Communication and present factors ........................................................................ 49
4.1.2.4. Expectations and present factors ............................................................................. 49
4.1.2.5. Commitment and influences .................................................................................... 50
4.1.2.6. Empowerment and present factors .......................................................................... 51
5
4.1.2.7. Rewards and present factors .................................................................................... 51
4.1.2.8. Motivation and influences ....................................................................................... 52
4.1.2.9. Team characteristics and present factors ................................................................. 53
4.1.2.10. Performance and influences ................................................................................... 53
4.1.3 Comparing interview and survey results ..................................................................... 56
4.2 Team Dynamic/Creative Survey & Interview results..................................................... 58
4.2.1. Team dynamic/creative survey results ....................................................................... 58
4.2.2. Dynamic/creative team interview results ................................................................... 59
4.2.2.1. Work context and present factors ............................................................................ 59
4.2.2.2. Leadership style and present factors ........................................................................ 60
4.2.3. Comparing interview and survey results .................................................................... 68
4.3 Cross-case analysis ......................................................................................................... 70
4.3.1. Comparison of the survey results of the teams ........................................................... 70
4.3.2. Comparison of the interview results between the teams ............................................ 72
5. Discussion ............................................................................................................................ 79
5.1 Propositions linked to team routine/stable...................................................................... 79
5.2 Propositions linked to team dynamic/creativee .............................................................. 82
6. Concluding Remarks ............................................................................................................ 86
6.1 Limitations ...................................................................................................................... 88
6.2 Scientific relevance and managerial implications .......................................................... 89
6.3 Suggestions for future research ...................................................................................... 89
7. References ............................................................................................................................ 90
6
Index of Tables and Figures
Table 1. Linking the propositions to the questions .................................................................. 34
Table 2. Comparison between team and leader (Team Routine/Stable) .................................. 46
Table 3. Interview results team routine overview ................................................................... 55
Table 4. Comparison results on leadership team routine/stable ............................................... 57
Table 5. Comparison between team and leader (Team Dynamic/Creative) ............................ 59
Table 6. Interview results team creative overview ................................................................... 67
Table 7. Comparison results on leadership team dynamic/creative ......................................... 69
Table 8. Comparison survey scores between teams & leaders ................................................ 71
Table 9. Comparison interview results ..................................................................................... 78
Table 10. Results of the propositions linked to routine/stable team ........................................ 82
Table 11. Results of the propositions linked to dynamic/creative team ................................... 85
7
1. Introduction For a company to achieve consistent above normal market performance, it must create a
sustainable competitive advantage that is unique from its competitors (Barney, 1991; Porter,
1985). Barney (1991) suggests ‘that firms obtain sustained competitive advantages by
implementing strategies that exploit their internal strengths, through responding to
environmental opportunities while neutralizing external treats and avoiding internal
weaknesses’ (Barney, 1991. p. 99). In today’s economic community, worldwide competition
and rapid technological change have put pressure on companies trying to increase their
effectiveness (Mumford, Scott, Gaddis & Strange, 2002). Furthermore, stimulating creative
behavior as well as increasing work performance can be seen as two important aspects that are
increasingly important for organizational survival. Creativity and better performance is an
aspect found at the employee level of the organization. Finding out how management can
influence the employees to perform better and be more creative can hold the key to gaining
this competitive advantage and how to benefit more from it. At the center of organizational
performance are the employees; however this seems to be a level that is often overlooked and
underrated by management. Thereby, not realizing that one of the core competences an
organization can improve is its employee performance. Leadership is considered by many
researchers as one of the most, if not the most, influential factor that influences employees’
creative behaviors and performance (Amabile, 1998; Jung, 2001; Mumford & Gustafson,
1988) and the success of organizational teams (Zaccaro, Heinen & Shuffler, 2009). Therefore,
researchers have spent so much time and attention in studies the last decade on how
leadership can influence and improve employee performance. There are two types of
leadership styles that have been the topic of most research of the last decades on leadership:
transformational leadership and transactional leadership. Previous research has shown the
importance of different aspects and behaviors of leadership for team performance (DeRue,
Barnes & Morgeson, 2010; Manz & Sims, 1987).
Due to the rising complexity of issues (external pressures, time restraints) that organizations
need to take into consideration and deal with, creative work is frequently carried out in teams
consisting out of members with unique specialized work roles (Hoever, v. Knippenberg & v.
Ginkel, 2012). Most employees work in teams organized and directed by a leader. The leader
has a great responsibility as this is the person that is responsible for the employees, their
evaluation and coordination. Previous research suggests that there are two basic behavioral
approaches to team leadership: a coaching, person-focused approach and a directive, more
8
task-focused approach (Burke et al., 2006). DeRue et al. (2010) propose that team member
performance can be stimulated by the right type of leadership by invoking different kinds of
stimulation, and in particular motivation. Osterloh, Frey and Frost (2001) discuss in their
study that the management of employee motivation should be seen as a source of distinctive
firm competences. The right type of leadership that invokes motivation within teams could be
the key to increasing employee creativity and performance.
The two types of leadership that have received most attention in studies are transformational
and transactional leadership (e.g. Nederveen Pieterse, v. Knippenberg, Schippers & Stam,
2009; Zhang, Tsui & Wang, 2011, 2010; Basu & Green, 1997; Kahai, Sosik & Avolio, 2003;
Jaussi & Dionne, 2003). Transformational leadership is commonly described in previous
research as a style of leadership that transforms employees to rise above their self-interest by
changing their morale, beliefs, ideals, interests, and values, motivating them to perform better
than initially expected (Bass, 1985; Yukl, 1999). Transactional leadership is commonly
described as a more directive form of leadership that delegates compliance of his employees
through both rewards and punishments (Bass, 1985; Yukl, 1999). Some studies of
transformational leadership have proposed that transformational leadership has a positive
influence on employee performance outcomes (creativity and innovation) in contrast to
transactional leadership (e.g. Nederveen Pieterse et al., 2009, Shin & Zhou, 2003; Zhang et
al, 2011). The results of the study of Zhang and Bartol (2003) showed that transformational
leadership is positively related with group creativity. They proposed that the growth of firms
in a highly competitive and dynamic context depends critically on the firms' capacity to be
creative and innovative. However, transactional leaders were considered to impede speaking
up and deviant behaviors resulting in a “culture of silence” that may be essential for creativity
to flourish (Zhang et al, 2011). On the other hand, there have also been some studies that have
shown contradictory findings in these relationships, making the overall findings inconsistent
(Basu & Green, 1997, Kahai et al., 2003, Jaussi & Dionne, 2003). Surprisingly, the results of
the study of Kahai et al (2003) observed that creativity was higher under transactional
leadership than under transformational leadership.
Employee creativity, an aspect of innovative behavior, has received slightly more attention as
an outcome variable of transformational and transactional leadership according to Nederveen
Pieterse et al. (2009). These studies are not only divided by contrast in results, but also in their
way of researching (field or experimental studies). The results of previous experimental
studies have shown that employees of transformational leadership are positively related with
9
creative performance (Jung, 2001; Jung & Avolio, 1999). Moreover, these results were also
found in previous field studies (Shin & Zhou, 2003, Gumusluoglu & Ilsev, 2009). However,
the laboratory studies done by Jaussi & Dionne (2003) found no positive relationship. More
surprisingly was that the laboratory study of Kahai et al. (2003) even found a more positive
relationship with transactional leadership. A difference in doing field or laboratory studies
does not give a clear view on the results of the influences of the different leadership styles.
The contradictory findings give the opportunity to look into different variables and a different
approach. Previous studies suggested using a multi-level perspective for future research in
studying leadership that proposes multiple contexts (e.g. Zhang & Bartol, 2003; Kahai et al.,
2003). A very important aspect in the possible research could be the context and setting in
which the employees and leader are active. Transformational leadership is argued to have a
positive influence on employee performance outcomes in a decentralized, creative and non-
routine working environment, whereas transactional environment is argued to have a more
positive effect on routine, simple and centralized work tasks. Not much emphasis has been put
on researching the difference between transformational and transactional leadership in regards
of the context it takes place in, as was performed by De Hoogh, den Hartog & Koopman
(2005). Unfortunately, like the majority of previous research, their findings are based on
results derived from surveys and questionnaires, which are perceived to be more prone to the
loss of meaning and explanation along with often disregarding the context and surroundings it
takes place in (Myers, 2009). Moreover, Yukl (1994) suggested that in contrast to most
research on leadership, future research should focus on studying the perceptions that
employees have on their leader instead of focusing on the perception leaders have on their
own behavior.
This study chooses to focus on a multi-level perspective researching two leadership styles
accross multiple different contexts that were proposed as future research suggestions by prior
research as mentioned in the previous paragraph. In addition, this study addresses the gap of
the forementioned limitations by doing in-depth multiple case analysis performing and
analyzing both surveys and in-depth interviews (triangulative research) with two different
teams and their leaders working in contrasting contexts within the same company, thereby not
only focusing on the perception of the leader, but also on the perception of the team. More
specifically, the objective of this research is to find out how transactional leadership style
influences (routine) performance in a team set in a stable working context and how
transformational leadership style influences creativity in a team set in a dynamic working
10
context. Furthermore, this study will examine how performance or creativity is influenced by
employee motivation and how motivation is influenced by leadership style and other factors
that are considered to be influential for motivation (e.g. commitment, communication,
rewards & empowerment). These factors and their relation to motivation are all described in
the upcoming literature review.
A small multinational enterprise based in London was chosen as the company to do the case
study research for the following reasons: a) the company gave the researcher full assistance
and access to the company, b) the teams of the company were in line with the requirements
made in this research, c) the company is a multinational enterprise which increases the
generalizability of the findings to other multinational companies.
The findings of this research display a mixed leadership style dependent on and adaptive to
the situation at hand to be most likely to flourish for a creative team, whereas a mixed
leadership style dependent on outcome results is most likely to flourish for a routine team.
This study adds new insights about the leadership style and the influence it has on employee
creativity and performance across different contexts, and in addition, how the motivation of
an employee is perceived to be influenced and by what constructs. The findings of this
research would help managers (especially leaders) to become more aware on what style of
leadership is most appreciated and influential according to the context the team works in.
Furthermore, it helps managers to become more aware and better understand the motivational
constructs of employees and what they considered as most influential for motivational state
which leads to higher creativity and performance.
The remainder of this study is structured as following. In the upcoming literature review the
concepts of transactional leadership and transformational leadership are reviewed, which are
used to describe why they are believed to flourish in their related work context. Moreover,
performance, creativity and motivation are reviewed and explained how they are believed to
influence each other according to previous research. Subsequently, 9 propositions are
formulated which hold the potential influential factors of performance and creativity.
Subsequently, in the methodology section, an extensive description of the multiple case
research design will be presented with a background of the participating company and on how
the results were gathered and analysed. A multiple case study approach was adopted in which
qualitative data is collected through semi-structured interviews with two different teams and
the team leaders at the same company. Quantitative data is collected through surveys given to
11
these same teams to complement the qualitative data. This study has used surveys adapted
from previous research of Bass & Avolio (1996) and interviews based on the same surveys
and those of Manz & Simz (1987). The validity of the propositions is analyzed in the results
and discussion sections. At last, this research concludes with a summary of the key findings,
limitations of this research, scientific relevance and managerial implications and suggestions
for future research.
12
2. Literature Review This study will focus on researching the influence of the leadership style on employee
performance and creativity within two different teams operating in contrasting environments.
The study focuses on two leadership styles and their characteristics, within distinct
environments in which according to previous studies they have the biggest positive effect.
Furthermore, motivation and commitment will be discussed and how they impact creative and
non-routine performance. Empowerment, rewards, feedback, commitment and
communication are all factors considered to influence and shape motivation. A higher
motivation is believed to result in higher routine team performance and higher dynamic team
creativity based on previous literature.
2.1 Transactional & Transformational Leadership There are many different types of leadership styles, but recent study has strongly put
emphasize on just two types of leadership: transformational leadership and transactional
leadership. Some authors refer to charismatic leadership instead of transformational
leadership. Previous research has indicated that team leaders engage in a variety of behaviors
aimed at facilitating team functioning and performance (Morgeson, DeRue & Karam, 2010).
Transformational leadership is more commonly defined as influencing employees by
“broadening and elevating followers’ goals and providing them with confidence to perform
beyond the expectations specified in the implicit or explicit exchange agreement” (Dvir,
Eden, Avolio, & Shamir, 2002: p.735). This type of leadership is considered to be more
proactive and more involved in the work of the employees. Transformational leadership
involves encouraging the team to manage its own tasks and developing the team’s capacity to
function effectively without direct intervention from the team leader, this form of leadership
focuses on coaching the team and empowering its self-management (Morgeson et al., 2010).
In contrast to the more coaching form of leadership, some team leaders engage in a more
directive style by actively intervening in a team described as transactional leadership
(Morgeson, 2005). Transactional leadership is commonly described as a form of leadership
that delegates compliance of its employees through both rewards and punishments. It is
commonly described as an exchange commitment where the employee receives a reward in
exchange for accomplishing specific objectives. Expectations on these objectives are clarified
beforehand and the immediate self-interests of leaders and followers are addressed (Bass,
13
1985; Yukl, 1999). Displaying transactional leadership means that employees agree with or
comply with the leader in exchange for external and/or internal rewards (praise, monetary
rewards, and resources) or the avoidance of disciplinary action (Bass, Avolio, Jung & Berson,
2003). Clarifying goals and objectives and providing recognition by the leader once
objectives are achieved should result in employees and teams achieving (above) expected
levels of performance (Bass, 1985).
One of the many major differences mentioned in studies of transactional and transformational
leadership is the way in which leaders influence and stimulate their employees. Many authors
believe that transformational leadership shows signs of empowering and motivating behaviors
that stimulates employees’ ability to become more innovative and creative and enhances their
work performance. Bass (1985) described transformational leadership as leaders that increase
the motivation, attitude and morals of their employees, thereby motivating them to perform
even better than initially expected (Yukl, 1999). Employees are intrinsically stimulated to rise
above their current capacity and become more efficient and effective. Transformational
leadership can be seen as a higher-order construct compromising several components
including influencing and stimulating employees. The component idealized influence can be
described as leading by exception, guiding as a role model for the team. Additionally, it
includes sacrificing self-gain for collective gain, thereby stimulating employees to do so as
well (Pieterse et al., 2010). Employees are motivated by the influencing vision shared by
transformational leadership. Intellectual stimulation is described as encouraging team
members to think for themselves and not consider everything as given, whereas
individualized consideration posits providing support for the individual development needs of
team members (Nederveen Pieterse et al, 2010). By giving employees more responsibility and
autonomy in their jobs, they should become more motivated and the enjoyment of their work
would be perceived as higher.
Proposition 1: Transformational leadership brings more responsibility and self-autonomy
(intellectual stimulation) in work which leads to more creativity through motivation
Previous studies on transactional leaders described the leadership style as influencing their
team through task-focused behaviors; transactional leaders clarify what they expect from their
team. Furthermore they announce the rules, standards & procedures, and what the individuals
will receive upon completing the tasks (Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978; House, 1996). The
individual team members choose to accept the task in expectation to benefit from what they
14
get in return. Transformational leadership qualities are contrasted with the characteristics of
transactional leadership as this is defined as supporting status quo through mutual leader and
follower self-interests across three major factors: contingent reward, active management-by-
exception, and passive management-by-exception (Bass, 1985; Bass and Avolio, 2000). The
contingent reward refers to the leader giving clear expectations and offering recognition,
acknowledgement and agreed upon rewards when expectations are met by the follower. With
active management-by-exception, transactional leaders specify the standards for compliance
and punishment for non-compliance, as well as what stands for ineffective performance (Jung
& Avolio, 2000). This makes the task a routine job in which clear standards are set that must
be fulfilled by the follower. The passive management-by-exception dimension emphasized
close monitoring and giving them feedback if necessary.
Most studies propose that with transactional leadership, employees tend to be more likely
extrinsically motivated, whereas with transformational leadership it is more likely that they
are intrinsically motivated. However, there are always exceptions to the case as former
research has shown that transactional leadership (in combination with rewarding for
performance) to be positively related to employees’ commitment, satisfaction, and overall
performance (Bycio, Hackett, & Allen, 1995; Hunt & Schuler, 1976; Podsakoff, Todor,
Grover & Huber, 1984). Moreover, it tends to not only be related to organizational outcomes
such as performance (Lowe, Kroeck & Sivasubramaniam, 1996), but also to organizational
commitment (Pillai, Schriesheim, & Williams, 1999). Organizational commitment is the
degree to which an employee is attached to the company, involved, not willing to leave and
feels obligated to continue performing for the organization (Meyer & Allen, 1991).
Transactional leadership can build a certain level of trust if the agreed upon appointments
between employees and leader are met according to Bass et al. (2003). Knowing what to
expect from each other can increase commitment and build a longstanding relationship with
the employee and his leader (Sullivan, Mitchell, & Uhl-Bien, 2003; Sanders & Schyns, 2006).
This is especially the case when agreements are being fulfilled by the leader when tasks are
successfully performed.
Proposition 2a: Transactional leadership aids in having clear mutual expectations and
meeting those expectations encourages trust of employees and leads to higher commitment
Proposition 2b: A long-standing relationship between leader and employee aids in having
clear mutual expectations
15
Employees are more likely driven by factors like bonuses and salary promised for completing
the task given to them by their leader according to previous literature on transactional
leadership referred to as transactional contingent reward style (Bycio et., 1995; Hunt &
Schuler, 1976; Podsakoff et., 1984). This exchange relationship between the leader and the
employees is based on a contract that involves positive reinforcement for a higher level of
performance (Avolio & Bass, 1988). Emphasis is put on facilitating the achievement of
objectives agreed upon by employees and their leader, and can be seen as similar to path-goal
theory (Avolio & Bass, 1988; House & Mitchell, 1974). It is argued that transactional
leadership has a negative influence on creativity as employees are not completely free in their
performance, instead are limited and therefore need to focus on merely completing the goal
without room for personal interpretation. These employees are not expected nor stimulated to
go beyond their initial expectations. In addition, they are also not motivated to try out creative
solutions to challenge the status quo (Bass, 1985; Avolio and Bass, 1995). Transactional
leaders give clarifications about the limits and boundaries to within an employee can reach the
given goal, deviating from this goal is not appreciated. Transactional leaders clarify to each
team member their responsibilities, the tasks that must be accomplished, the performance
objectives, pin point performance problems, direct poorly performing members and tell the
benefits that can be gained related to the self-interests of the employees for compliance
(Morgeson et al., 2010). In its more corrective form, the transactional leader specifies the
standards for compliance, and may punish followers for being out of compliance with those
standards (Bass & Avolio, 2000).
Afterwards and during the work performance, the employee will get feedback about meeting
these expectations, as it will indicate the leader’s predilections. Their performance is closely
monitored based on a pre-assigned standard which makes the work considerable as routine.
The transactional leader tends to intervene into the employees’ work process only when their
performance deviates from the pre-assigned standard and is also referred to as ‘management
by exception’ (Bass & Avolio, 1993). The perception of the leader’s preferences is likely to
result in demeaning effects on employees, blocking them from their own creative
opportunities. Moreover, transactional leadership may be perceived as controlling and
demotivating, finally leading to less creative behavior (Deci & Ryan, 1987). However, in
certain jobs that are for example more routine-oriented, creative behavior is not considered as
a necessity and therefore might be less appreciated if an employee shows this type of
16
behavior. Previous research has indicated that a more directive form of leadership can also
enhance team performance (Manz & Sims, 1987;, Pearce & Sims, 2002).
The two types of leadership behavior should not be intertwined because of their underlying
motives or values regarding the leadership role. Even though previous studies suggested that
transformational leaders are mostly team-oriented by their self-sacrificing nature and appeal
to their employees to go beyond their self-interest for the benefit of the team, Zhang et al
(2011) suggested that transformational leaders may have a self-interest motive. Bass and
Steidlmeier (1999) proposed the term pseudo-transformational leadership to describe a leader
that demonstrates most characteristics expected from transformational leadership but has an
underlying motive of self-interest and self-satisfaction seen as more important the interest of
the group. Similarly, transactional leaders may appear to be self-focused because of their
demand for employees to obey their laid-down objectives without deviation, it is however
considered a possibility that transactional leaders actually have the best interest for the team's
benefit (Zhang et al, 2011).
Another difference between studies done on transformational and transactional leadership is
the environment in which the leadership type is most effective. According to several authors
transformational leadership is most likely to flourish in environments characterized by
complex challenges, great opportunities for change and a high degree of self-autonomy (e.g.
Bass, 1985; Conger, 1993; Shamir & Howell, 1999).
Proposition 3a: ‘Transformational leadership will flourish in more creative-oriented and
dynamic working environment’
Bass and Avolio (1993) suggested that transformational leaders are more likely to flourish at
organizations that face rapidly changing technologies and dynamic markets than in
organizations operating under routine and stable conditions. Moreover, Bass (1985) mentions
that transformational leadership is more likely to flourish in times of distress or change and is
influenced by the personality and values of the leader. Shamir and Howell (1999, p.264)
complement this by stating that ‘while perceptions of the environment as calling for change
and the identification of opportunities for change are not fully determined by environmental
conditions, and potentially exist in all circumstances, they are more likely to emerge in
dynamic environments’. Studies have shown that follower creativity will flourish when a
supervisor provides specific behaviors, which are characteristic for an unique leadership style,
such as transformational leadership (Jaussi & Dionne, 2003; Shin & Zhou, 2003). In
17
comparison to employees under transactional leaders, employees influenced by
transformational leaders have been found to have higher creative performance on idea
generation tasks in experimental studies (Jung, 2001; Jung & Avolio, 2000).
Many authors discussed that transactional leadership fits best in an environmental context that
is stable and certain. It is considered that this form of leadership is more likely to operate
within the boundaries of the existing system, has a preference for risk avoidance whilst
emphasizing process rather than substance as a means for maintaining control. Moreover, they
are considered to be effective in stable, routine and predictable environments in which
monitoring current activity against prior performance is the most effective strategy (Lowe et
al, 1996).
Proposition 3b: ‘Transactional leadership will flourish in more routine-oriented and stable
working environments’
Personality might be an important aspect in leadership, especially transformational leadership.
The charisma and appeal of a leader might be a skill that can be learned and mastered by an
individual by focusing and expressing the important personality aspects that belong to it,
making it a possibility for organizations to train personnel to learn how to become a
transformational leader or a transactional leader. Empirical evidence in previous studies has
shown that transformational leadership behavior can be learned (Barling, Weber & Kelloway,
1996; Dvir et al., 2002). Furthermore, life experiences can play a vital role in the development
of transformational leadership (Avolio, 1999). Leaders who demonstrate idealized attributes
and idealized behaviors (formerly the ‘charisma’ dimension) could earn the acknowledgement
and respect from their employees by carefully considering their employees’ needs above those
of their self-interest, talking about their most important values and beliefs, and emphasizing
the importance of the moral and ethical consequences of major decisions and outcomes
(Avolio, 1999; Bass, 1985). Bass (1985) proposed that transformational leaders bring about
these effects by comprising four major factors: charisma, inspirational leadership, intellectual
stimulation, and individualized consideration. De Hoogh et al (2005) proposed that
personality can be seen as an important attribute concerning charismatic leadership in
predicting leader behavior and effectiveness, but the personality factors for transactional
leadership and transformational leadership depends on the degree of which the environment is
seen as dynamic. The results of De Hoogh et al. (2005) indicated that the relationships
between transformational and transactional leadership differ depending on the context. This is
18
in line with the literature previously mentioned. Therefore this study will focus merely on the
environment that matches best with the leadership style based on the previous literature
research. Bass et al (2003) mention that although the literature on transformational and
transactional leadership has grown rapidly over the past 15 years, only a few of these studies
have examined how transformational and transactional leadership actually predicts
performance (Dionne & Jaussi 2003; Dvir et al., 2002). Therefore there is still much to be
discussed on this topic. The choice to examine both leadership styles and their strengths
within specific context in this study seems to be a logical choice based on this assumption.
This study will focus on transformational leadership within a non-routine and dynamic
environment in which creativity is likely to flourish. Whereas transactional leadership will be
studied within a routine-task and stable environment in which performance is expected to
flourish.
Transformational Leadership
Dynamic
Stable
Transactional Leadership
Figure 1. Leadership style according to context
(Source: adapted from Graen et al., 2010; Bass & Avolio, 1995)
Idealized
Influence
Inspirational
Motivation
Intellectual
Stimulation
Individualized
Consideration
Contingent
Reward
Management
-by-
exception
Self-
Interest
Motivation
Directive
Approach
Laissez-
faire
19
2.2 Motivation, Commitment and Creativity & Performance In this section motivation, commitment, creativity and performance are described and how
they are related to each other according to previous research done on the topic. Furthermore,
this section gives an insight on how these concepts are being referred to throughout this study
and which approach is taken in line with previous research.
This study opted to make a distinction between creative performance and routine (non-
creative) performance in line with previous research (Madjar, Greenberg & Chen, 2011;
Oldham & Cummings, 1996). Routine performance is ‘the effectiveness with which an
employee performs activities that contribute to the organization’s technical core’ (Borman &
Motowidlo, 1997, p. 99), whereas creativity can be considered a separate dimension of
performance (Madjar et al., 2011). Creative performance will be referred to as ‘creativity’
throughout this paper, whereas routine performance will be referred to as ‘performance’.
Creativity can be seen as the joint novelty and usefulness of ideas regarding products,
approaches, processes, services and problem-solving (Amabile, 1998; Zhou & Shalley, 2010).
There are many different kinds of motivation found by prior research (e.g. extrinsic, intrinsic,
effectance and competence motivation), however previous research has given most attention
to intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation (e.g. Deci and Ryan, 1985; Amabile, 1998;
Oldham and Cummings, 1996; Jaussi and Dionne, 2003). Motivation can be seen as a coin
with two opposite sides, on the one side there is intrinsic motivation and on the other side
there is extrinsic motivation. Deci & Ryan (1985) described intrinsic motivation as the
motivational state in which employees are driven by their pure interest in the work rather than
being driven by external rewards delivered upon completing the task. Moreover, Amabile
(1998) also agreed that intrinsic motivation influences employees’ decision to initiate and
persist in creative efforts over time. Some examples of instruments than can be offered to
stimulate intrinsic motivation are gaining more knowledge, gain more responsibilities in the
current job and feeling more psychologically empowered. Previous research has shown that
transformational leadership has an effect on creativity by influencing employees’ intrinsic
motivation (Amabile, 1998; Oldham and Cummings, 1996; Shin & Zhou, 2003). However,
there is also empirical evidence for the contrary (Jaussi & Dionne, 2003). Intrinsic rewards
would refer to personal satisfactions inherent in the action itself that can include curiosity,
pride, and the perceived pleasure of learning something new (Covington & Müeller, 2001).
Whereas extrinsic motivation relates to the motivation an employee gets from extrinsic
rewards (Deci and Ryan, 1985). Many studies have believed intrinsic and extrinsic motivation
20
to exist exclusively and no crossover to be possible (e.g. Deci and Ryan, 1985; Amabile,
1998; Oldham and Cummings, 1996). However, in line with the research of Covington and
Müeller (2001), this study believes that these types of motivation can be related and therefore
will look at the overall motivation of employees instead of making a distinction. This is also
in line with the definition of work motivation given by Pinder (1998, p.11) ‘work motivation
is a set of energetic forces that originates both within as well as beyond an individual’s being,
to initiate work-related behavior, and to determine its form, direction, intensity, and duration.’
Proposition 4a: Higher motivation leads to higher employee performance
Proposition 4b: Higher motivation leads to more employee creativity
Another important construct considered to be closely related with motivation is commitment
(e.g. Meyer, Becker & Vandenberghe, 2004). There’s been a lot of research done on the topic
of commitment and motivation, because evidence has shown that there are benefits to be
gained by companies by having a motivated and committed workforce (Meyer & Allen, 1997;
Pinder 1998). Meyer et al. (2004) argued that commitment and motivation are two
distinguishable, but related concepts. Moreover, commitment is considered to be a component
of motivation. Therefore, this research will assume that commitment is a factor that influences
motivation. Commitment is described as ‘a force that binds an individual to a course of action
that is of relevance to a particular target’ (Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001, p. 301).
Proposition 5a: Higher commitment leads to higher employee performance through
motivation
Proposition 5b: Higher commitment leads to higher employee creativity through motivation
Previous research has shown that committed employees are more prone to invest an increase
of effort on behalf of their organization (Meyer & Allen, 1997).
Extrinsic rewards come in the form of receiving incentives, getting promotions, recognition,
salary and status which lead to the employee feeling ‘extrinsically’ motivated. It can be
summed as a quid pro quo deal stimulating an employee’s motivation and is handed down by
their superior. According to the study of Baer, Oldham and Cummings (2003), jobs that are
perceived as complex and where creativity plays an important role taking place in a dynamic
environment are less likely to perform better than initially expected when much emphasis is
placed on extrinsic rewards. Several studies (e.g. Collins & Amabile, 1999) argued that
21
extrinsic rewards can diminish motivation if employees are rather intrinsically rewarded.
Therefore it is suggested that leaders should focus on creating conditions in which motivation
is encouraged.
Proposition 6a: Extrinsic rewards lead to higher employee motivation for routine teams
Creativity can be seen as an outcome, focusing on the production of new and useful ideas
concerning products, services, processes, procedures’ and problem solving solutions (e.g.
Amabile, 1996; Oldham & Cummings, 1996). During the creative work process, the parties
involved must define a problem, gather information, and they must progressively refine and
extend initial ideas in order to come up with a solution that can be implemented (Mumford et
al., 2002). Previous studies have shown that a high level of motivation is needed for creativity
to occur (e.g. Collins & Amabile, 1999). In order for creativity to flourish, leadership needs to
play an active role in fostering, encouraging and supporting creativity (Shalley & Gilson,
2004) and are likely to do so with a proper contingent-reward style. According to the study of
Mumford et al. (2002) creative employees tend to be more motivated by intrinsic reward, by
virtue of their curiosity and achievement motivation. Intrinsic rewards relate to intangible
rewards gained at work and were categorized in four categories by Thomas, K. (2009):
- Sense of meaningfulness: Relates to feeling that your work has a significant impact on
the organization and is of value to the team and company. It includes feeling a part of
the whole company.
- Sense of choice: relates to the degree of freedom and feeling empowered at work.
- Sense of competence: relates to receiving positive feedback on your work when you
exceed your standard performance or quality of output
- Sense of progress: relates to given opportunities to learn new things and feel that your
work is on track and moving in the right direction set out by an employee self.
Proposition 6b: Intrinsic rewards lead to higher motivation for creative teams
An important factor of motivation gained from intrinsic rewards is the degree of
psychological empowerment. Psychological empowerment is a motivational construct
originating in an employee’s perception of having choice in initiating and regulating actions,
having the ability to perform the job well (i.e. self-efficacy, laissez-faire leadership), being
able to have an impact on the working environment, and thus creating more meaningfulness
22
to their job (Spreitzer, 1995; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). Psychologically empowered
individuals see themselves as competent and feel the ability to influence their jobs and
working environments in meaningful ways, showing signs of proactive behavior, taking
initiative, and acting on their own (Spreitzer, 1995; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). Employees
working in a dynamic environment with creative jobs are more likely to be associated with
this freedom and become more psychologically empowered, thereby becoming more
motivated through ‘intrinsic rewarding’ than employees working in a stable environment with
routine jobs. Nederveen Pieterse et al. (2009) therefore suggest that transformational
leadership is likely to inspire highly psychologically empowered employees to actually make
use of the possibility to take matters in their own hand and feel more inspired to show creative
behavior. It is contrasted to exerting transactional leadership style where less psychological
empowerment is expected to come out of leading to employees being less inclined to be
motivated, because it is not appreciated to deviate from the objectives. Therefore,
transactional leadership is more likely to fit in conditions where low psychological
empowerment is expected. Transactional leadership communicates what is expected of the
employee in terms of rules and standards, monitors whether these expectations are met,
thereby providing a sense of direction and emphasis on meeting the objectives without
deviation more than give opportunities for creativity (Nederveen Pieterse et al, 2009). Highly
empowered employees might consider this as controlling and therefore demotivating resulting
in less creative behavior (Deci & Ryan, 1987). However, extrinsic rewards can be a factor
under these conditions to make up for the low perceived psychological empowerment, thereby
creating a stimulant for the employees to perform their task well. A clear distinction must be
made that the enacted leadership style is considered to be responsible for influencing the
feeling of empowerment of an employee and not the context the work takes place in. For
instance, a self-employed person working a routine job can feel high psychological
empowerment. It is the way that an employee is approached and bounded by their leader that
can make them feel less psychologically empowered in their work.
2.3 Team Creativity & Performance This section links the concepts of creativity and performance mentioned in the previous
paragraphs to the concept of team. Furthermore, in this section is described what a team is and
which other factors are believed to influence creativity and performance in teams according to
previous literature.
23
As mentioned previously, creativity plays an important role in the organizations’ ability to
adapt to changing environments and is widely recognized (Zhou & Shalley, 2010; Hoever et
al., 2012). Employees are being encouraged by leadership to take initiative, be innovative, and
develop creative solutions to work-related problems on one side, while on the other side
employees are encouraged to make their work more standardized and routine, cost effective,
and efficient (Madjar et al., 2011). Due to the rising complexity of issues that organizations
face nowadays, teams consist out of more unique specialized work roles where every member
is responsible for their part (Hoever et al., 2012). A team consists out of a small number of
people with complementary skills working together towards a common goal or performance
objectives (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993). Previous theories suggest that whenever the
members of these teams differ in their task-relevant perspectives and knowledge, it will lead
to higher creativity (Jackson, 1992; Hoever et al., 2012) and teams will benefit most when
they engage in information elaboration (Hoever et al., 2012). Bundling these different abilities
may likely equip the team with the tools to successfully perform tasks.
Proposition 7a: A team consisting out of unique task-oriented members leads to higher team
performance
Proposition 7b: A team consisting out of unique task-oriented members leads to higher team
creativity
As mentioned before, this study makes a distinction between creative performance and
routine (non-creative) performance in line with previous research (Madjar et al. 2011; Oldham
& Cummings, 1996). Creative performance is being referred to as creativity throughout this
paper, whereas routine performance is being referred to as performance. Creativity is
considered as vital for organizations and creative work is frequently done in teams, however
little is known about how teams perform creatively (Hoever et al, 2012). This lack of
knowledge on team creativity is caused by a strong emphasis on research focusing more on
individual creativity than on team creativity (Shalley & Gilson 2004). Creativity is often
defined as divergent thinking and is measured as flexibility, originality, innovativeness and
elaboration (Paulus, 2000). Elaboration is posited to be the most important team process
considering the benefits that can be derived from this diversity and is defined as the exchange,
discussion, feedback and integrations of ideas, knowledge, and insights relevant to the team’s
objective (van Knippenberg et al., 2004). The wide use of teams for creative tasks is based on
the idea that they bring a wider pool of perspectives and knowledge to the table (Hoever et al.,
24
2012), thereby generating more ideas and solutions from which teams are expected to benefit
on creative tasks (Jackson, 1992). Team member attributes (ability, motivation) and task
demands (complexity, required creativity) additionally affect whether diverse knowledge and
perspectives are elaborated on (Hoever et al., 2012). Furthermore, another important aspect
that needs to be taken into account is team empowerment and is related to promoting team
performance (Kirkman & Rosen, 1999). Empowerment was defined earlier as a form of
motivational construct. Two dimensions of organizational structure and design related to
empowerment in are decentralization and formalization (Mintzberg, 1979). Clearly the
decentralization of decision making is related to autonomy, considered as a critical element of
empowerment. However, the relationship of formalization with empowerment is not so clear
on the first instance. Formalization can be described as a destructive force to empowerment as
formalization of job roles may hinder empowerment by constraining teams’ flexibility and
creativity, or it could be related to specific values, bring more structure to the work and clarify
goals which can be regarded as beneficial to empowerment by reducing within-company
environmental uncertainty faced by the team (Hempel, Zhang & Han, 2012). Formalization
can be seen as a coin with two sides, it could be beneficial to empowerment or it might be
destructive. This leads to the formulation of the following propositions:
Proposition 8a: Empowerment leads to higher employee performance through formalization
Proposition 8b: Empowerment leads to higher employee creativity without formalization
Kirkman & Rosen (1999) formulated four dimensions regarding empowerment: autonomy,
potency, impact, and meaningfulness. Autonomy perceptions are related to the degree of
freedom the team perceives in their decision making. Empowered teams share the belief in
their common potential capabilities focused on mutual performance rather than specific task
performance (Kirkman & Rosen, 1999). A member of the team perceives the job as
meaningful when it is regarded as important, valuable and worthwhile doing (Spreitzer, 1995;
Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). Therefore, empowered teams share the belief that their mutual
work has an impact on the organization (Hempel et al., 2012).
The ability to learn and giving team members the opportunity to improve themselves can be
considered as an important aspect contributing to organizational success (Senge, 1990). Team
feedback is considered to play an important role in this. Previous research has suggested that
feedback influences and shapes the effort of an employee (Walter & Van der Vegt, 2012) and
can therefore increase team performance and its commitment to the company as a whole.
25
Feedback can be described as having a clarifying or directing function in which specific goals
are being more clarified or making sure that employees are more directed towards the goal by
the leader (Nadler, 1979). Team members who receive feedback on the performance of their
overall team are more likely to focus their efforts on possible ways to facilitate team
performance (Walter & Van der Vegt, 2012). Van der Vegt, de Jong, Bunderson and
Molleman (2010) posited that feedback will lead to an emphasis on a collective improvement
orientation instead of a focus towards self-improvement. The team member is therefore more
likely to commit towards the overall goal and well-being of the team. This leads to the
formulation of the following proposition:
Proposition 9a: Team feedback will lead to an increase of employee commitment
Kratzer et al., (2006) show in their results that there is support for task characteristics and the
proper management and evaluation are positively related to team creativity through variability
(Kratzer et al., 2006). Proper management and leadership styles were identified as
complementing sets of external factors that shape this effect and is in line with the research of
Shin & Zhou (2007). Moreover, Kratzer et al. (2006) also discuss the importance of proper
type of communication in their research. This research proposed that proper communication
could be considered as helpful in the creative process and implementation of ideas (Kratzer et
al., 2006). Therefore, having a good communication could aid in providing new insights,
knowledge and information from other members in the organization that could stimulate
creativity. Furthermore, previous research has indicated that commitment is strongly
influenced by communication (e.g. Meyer & Allen, 1997). A team leader could be considered
as responsible for ensuring good overall communication for the team. It was proposed in
previous research that effective leadership should be considered as one of the most important
factors in the success of organizational teams (Zaccaro et al., 2009).
Proposition 9b: Proper communication leads to higher employee commitment
Proposition 9c: Ensuring proper communication in the team leads to higher creativity
All the formulated propositions and concepts are shown in the conceptual model (figure 2). In
the conceptual model it is shown how the concepts are related to each other. Performance and
creativity are the output concepts of this research and are each linked to a different team. Each
team is categorized by their working environment and will both follow the same path down
the conceptual model only the dynamic team will end up at creativity, whilst the stable team
26
will end up at performance. Hence, the teams will be categorized as team dynamic/creative
and team routine/stable.
Figure 2. Conceptual model based on propositions
Source: Author
Leadership Style: Transactional/Transformational
Working Environment (WP 3a,b)
Communication and Feedback (WP 9 a, b, c)
Commitment (WP5 a & b)
Motivation WP 4 a,b)
Empowerment (WP8a)
Clear expectations WP2 a, b)
Performance Creativity
Team Characteristics (WP 7a, b)
Empowerment (WP8b)
Intellectual Stimulation (WP1)
Rewards (WP 6a,b)
27
3. Methodology This section describes the methodology used in this research. It contains an extensive
description of the philosophical assumption used, the multiple-case study, research context
and the data collection & analysis techniques. The overall philosophical assumption used for
the research in this study can be described as post-positivist. The research design of this study
is a multiple-case study and will also be described in the following section. The data
collection technique used, were interviews and surveys. The results derived from the
interview data collection were coded and analyzed using qualitative software, whereas the
survey results were analysed using descriptive statistics. The following section will describe
the research design structure more extensively as to why these approaches were used in this
study.
3.1 Research Philosophy and Quality Criteria Based on the underlying assumptions of this research, this study can be classified as post-
positivist research. Propositions have been formulated in terms of independent concepts and
how they are related, and effect between them in the previous chapter based on past literature
on the subjects (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 2003). This research seeks to genereealize existing
theory to understand the phenomena (Yin, 2003; Eisenhardt, 1989). The assumptions made in
positivistic research is that ‘reality is objectively given and can be described by measurable
properties, which are independent of the observer (researcher) and his or her instruments’
(Myers, 2009; p. 37). This is not completely in line with this research; therefore a post-
positivist philosophy seems to be more suited for this research in particular. The major
difference between post-positivist and positivist assumption is that post-possitivism is seen as
critical realism whereas positivism is seen as naïve realism (Guba & Lincoln, 1994).
Positivism assumes that its findings are to be accepted as facts or laws, whereas post-
positivism assumes its findings as non-falsified and therefore may be regarded as probable
facts or laws (Guba & Lincoln, 1994).
Furthermore, triangulation (the use of qualitative and quantitative research) is a method often
used in post-posivitism and is also used in this research to give the researcher the option to
look at the subject from different angles whilst trying to diminish the disadvantages
associated with both research types (Myers, 2009; Guba & Lincoln, 1994). The quantitative
data collection method used in this research is interviews and the qualitative method used is
28
surveys. One of the major disadvantages of doing quantitative research without qualitative
research is that a lot of meaning and explanation is lost and the context in which it takes place
is disregarded (Myers, 2009). Qualitative research makes up for this loss in this research as it
gives the researcher the option to explore deeper into these questions. Therefore making the
results more valid than quantitative results independently would be. A big disadvantage of
using only qualitative research however, would be that it is often more difficult to generalize
the data and results to a larger population, because the sample size is in most cases too small
for generalization on account of the researched phenomenon taking place in one location
(Myers, 2009). The reasons for a smaller sample size is that it is more difficult to gain full
access to multiple companies, let alone one company and furthermore it is more time
consuming to collect data than it would be with qualitative data (Myers, 2009). However, the
surveys used in this research could be used to overcome this disadvantage.
The surveys used in this research are an adaptation from the Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire (MLQ-5x/Short Form) of Bass and Avolio (1995); therefore the researcher has
the option and ability to compare the survey results against other public made research data
that used the same survey whilst having explanatory quantitative data to back the results up
and show how these survey results are derived. The biggest strength of qualitative research is
in contrast to quantitative research, that it gives the opportunity to study the subject more in
depth and is less subject to loss of context. The survey results by itself can be considered as
somewhat ‘empty’ and are subject to the researcher’s interpretation to explain how these
results came into being without regarding the context in which it took place to make it more
generalizable across a population (Myers, 2009). Having qualitative research besides
quantitative research makes up for this weakness. Furthermore, triangulation decreases the
chance that questions on the survey have been mistakenly answered due to misunderstanding
the terms or questions and are directly taken as granted for the results. The interview data
gives the researcher the ability to look at what the participant actually meant with their
answer. Therefore, triangulation increases the validity and generalizability of a research by
having each approach cancel out each others weaknesses, while keeping the strengths of both
types. However, it should be mentioned that the main focus of the data used in this study will
be based on those derived from the interviews due to the advantages of qualitative research
outweighing those of quantitive for this particular research. For instance, the interview
questions are more extensive and go deeper into the subjects than the surveys do, but the
interview questions do overlap with all questions asked in the surveys and therefore have the
extra benefit of providing an explanatory factor (Yin, 1994). Furthermore, previous research
29
on leadership (Conger, 1998) had indicated the following as the biggest advantages of doing
qualititative research on leadership in contrast to quantitative research:
- provides more flexibility to follow up on the unforeseen ocurrance of ideas during
research and to explore processes more effectively;
- more emphasis is put on contextual factors and social meaning and how it affects
individuals, which is advantageous particularly in the social sciences;
- ability to study symbolic dimensions and social meaning
Thereby, it is safe to assume that the advantages of qualitative research related to this study
outweigh those of the quantitave research method and therefore an emphasis will be put on
the results derived from the qualitative research.
3.2 The Case Study Research: A case study can be defined as the investigation of an occurring phenomenon in a real-life
context, for example in an organization, in which the lines between phenomenon and context
are not clearly visible (Yin, 2003). This means that the phenomenon being studied is being
researched within its context in which it takes place (Myers, 2009). Moreover, the researcher
has absolutely no control on the situation in contrast to laboratory studies. This distinguishes
this study from the previous studies done on the subject of leadership that took place in
laboratory settings (e.g. Kahai et al., 2003; Jaussi & Dionne, 2003) where the researcher tries
to maintain control over their variables and separates the context in which it takes place from
the phenomenon (Myers, 2009).
A research design’s primary focus is to link the data to the findings (Yin, 2003). Poor research
designs leave the quality of the research and general validity of the findings subject to
challenge. Therefore, the critical design phase must be well-conducted and adequately
specified (Eisenhardt, 1994; Yin, 2003). Yin (2003) considered five important compononts
essential for a good case study design:
1. Presenting a clear and adequate specification of the theoretical issues and, from this,
the questions that frame the study.
2. Clearly defining the unit(s) of analysis
30
3. Clearly specifying the selection criteria for choosing the case studies
4. Choosing an appropriate and effective data collection and analysis approach.
5. The criteria for interpreting the findings
Yin (2003) and Eisenhardt (1994) considered case study method as most likely to be
appropriate for ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions. Therefore, initially a good research question
needed to be formulated that sets out the rest of the research and fits this type of research. The
second component involves having good propositions that direct attiontion to a concept that
needs to be examined within the theme of the study. The third component unit of analysis is
considered to be the basis for the case and its key determinant remains the research question
defined for the study (Yin, 1989). Proper case selection is considered a crucial part and must
be determined by the research purpose, questions, propositions and theoretical context (Yin,
1989). Finally, it is considered very important to decide which data is necessary to support or
reject the propositions, and to decide on the criteria for interpreting the findings.
In this research, the propositions were developed prior to carrying out the case study research
as an attempt for testing and refining these propositions in the real-life context. This is in line
with Yin’s case study approach (2003) where he discussed the importance of propositions and
emphasis is put on validity & reliability in order to ensure that the case study meets the
quality requirements of a positivistic study.
The biggest advantages of a case study research is that it provides face validity and it allows
the research to be done in real-life situations where things aren’t perfectly conditioned,
therefore making it less difficult for most researchers to identify with (Myers, 2009). On the
other hand, there are some disadvantages associated with a case study. It can be quite difficult
to gain full access to a company, besides that it can also take a long time to actually gain this
access and finally do the research at the company as the researcher is quite dependent on the
company’s time schedule. The researcher has no full control over the situation. This is a
problem the researcher of this study underwent, resulting in a month’s delay of gathering the
data and writing up the results.
Validity consists out of construct validity (operationalizing concepts), internal validity
(exclusion of alternative explanations and illegitimate relationships) and external validity
(relating to the extent to which the findings can be generalized) (Yin, 2003). This research
follows the example of Yin (2003) using different sources of evidence to ensure construct
31
validity, namely surveys and interviews. By providing the backgrounds of the organization
and the teams that are being analyzed to test the theory and prior propositions contribute to
the internal validity of this research. The external validity is improved by performing a multi-
case study based on Yin’s (2003) replication logic. This theory consists out of literal
replication, indicating that each case is considered as an individual experiment where similar
results are expected to be found or on the contrary, the exact opposite results are expected to
be found based on the previous literature (theoretical replication) (Yin, 2003). Furthermore,
external validity is increased by adopting a multiple-case study, as Eisenhardt (1989)
proposed that each case within a multiple case design can incrementally increase the degree of
generalizability. Eisenhardt proposed that "cases may be chosen to replicate previous cases or
extend emergent theory, or they may be chosen to fill theoretical categories and provide
examples of polar types." (1989, p. 537). Considering that Eisenhardt (1989) and Yin (2003)
are seen as prominent authors on the subject of qualitative case study, this research is mostly
structured to meet the requirements set up by their work.
3.3 Research context 3.3.1. Case criteria and selection:
For this multi-case study, a multinational company was approached that preferably had a set
of two different teams. These teams can be categorized as dynamic/creative and
routine/stable. Based on previous literature, the expectance is that the results of the teams will
be opposite. This is in line with Yin’s (2003) theoretical replication. The minimum of each
team needed to be 5 participants (including the leader) to ensure a good sample size and
improve generalizability of the results.
The case selection was based on two factors, the degree of access at the company and the
sample variation set up in the two previous mentioned categories. The first factor was
completely determined by the company, but full cooperation and access needed was given to
the researcher. This factor includes the company’s provision of needed resources, that is to
say exempting personnel from work to aid in the interview, providing the researcher with
information on the company and the projects it is involved in and making a private room
available for conducting the interview.
32
The second factor could partially be influenced by the researcher. The company aided in
selecting and providing the teams, however the researcher had the final sayings on which
teams to interview and which people to ensure that the requirements previously mentioned are
completely met. The team categorized as dynamic/creative operates in a dynamic
environment involving creative problem-solving tasks. On the other hand, the team
categorized as routine/stable operates in a stable environment that focuses on what is
classified as more routine tasks.
3.3.2. Semi-structured interviews and adapted surveys
Interviews were conducted based on a set of questions adapted from previous research
conducted by Bass & Avolio (1995) and Manz & Simz (1987) with each team member and
leader. In line with the suggestion of Yukl (1994), this research focusses on the perception
that the team members have of their leader and the perception of the leader self. Yukl (1994)
proposed that future research should focus more on the perceptions that employees have on
their leader in contrast to most of previous research where the results are obtained by the
leader’s self-evaluation. Therefore, the questions for the team members and team leader differ
slightly in the way it is formulated to fit the view of the participant more, but the essence of
the questions remain the same. The interviews are semi-structured involving the use of some
pre-formulated questions in order to get all important aspects answered by every participant to
ensure cross-checking whilst maintaining an open window leaving room for new questions or
topics that might emerge during the interview. The interviewee could also give more thoughts
on the subject that was considered as possibly useful and perhaps missed by the researcher at
the end of the interview. These interviews were completed one-on-one in a closed room to
ensure the complete privacy of this conversation. Before the interviews were conducted, the
participants were asked to fill out a survey constructed by Bass & Avolio (1995)
complemented by questions on the perceived working environment, age, gender, duration at
the company, role and duration of that role. The leaders received a slightly adapted survey
that was based on their views on the team, however the essence of the questions remained the
same in order to remain the possibility of cross-checking both forms of surveys. The surveys
consist out of questions measured on a five-point Likert scale, 0 meaning ‘not at all’ and 4
meaning ‘frequently, if not always’. The surveys were also conducted in presence of the
researcher so that if anything unclear with the questions would arrive, the researcher could
step in and provide explanation. The surveys would provide extra validity if they match with
the interviews results and provide the possibility to easily and quickly get a direct comparison
33
between both cases. The interviews give the possibility to go deeper in on these questions in
more details and provide the explanation on why the interviewee chose their answer on the
survey. A consent form was disclosed indicating how far comfortable the interviewee is with
the degree of anonymity and the use of a recorder device. These interviews and questionnaires
are confidential and therefore will be not made visible for anyone except the researcher of this
paper. This is for the general safety and protection of the careers of the employees and to
decrease the possibility of biased outcomes. The general outcome and results of all the
interviews will be used to support or reject the propositions made and will hold the
information that further supports this research paper. These results will provide this research
with possible recommendations and conclusions that might be beneficial to the studies on this
subject and moreover to multinational companies in general.
34
Table 1. Linking the propositions to the questions
Questions: P1 P2a P2b P3a P3b P4a P4b P5a P5b P6a P6b P7a P7b P8a P8b P9a P9b P9c
Can you give a description of your job? (Context, work autonomy, formalization consequences)
X
X
X
X
X
X
Can you give a description of the team? (Task specialization, involvement of the leader, degree of independence, related creativity/performance)
X
X
X
X
X
Can you give a description of the leader? (Shared vision/belief, directive or coaching, degree of mutual trust, knowledgeable, commitment, expectations, rewards
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
35
Table 1. (continued)
Questions: P1 P2a P2b P3a P3b P4a P4b P5a P5b P6a P6b P7a P7b P8a P8b P9a P9b P9c
How is the feedback procedure structured? (direct/indirect, coaching/directive, stimulating rewards)
X
X
X
How do you perceive the overall communication? (team, organizational)
X
X
X
What do you consider as most important in your work? (commitment, motivation, rewards, communication, satisfaction)
X
X
X
What would you like to see different in your job and company?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Source:Author
36
3.3.3. Background of the company:
The multi-case study was performed at a company based in London, UK. The company
provided full assistance in aiding with the research. The company has branch offices and
operations across Europe, North-Americ and Asia. It is a multinational enterprise with
specialized operations selling and marketing niche European and U.S. manufactured
equipment across different regions of the world.
The company operates through 3 divisions:
- Technologies – integration, manufacturing, sales & distribution
- Outsourcing - manufacturing & engineering outsourcing
- Manpower – engineering services & personnel consultancy
The company is quite diverse in their operations and the markets they serve. It provides
flexibility for manufacturing companies as it offers project-based contracted personnel all
over the world. These personnel can be seen as ‘freelancers’ working on project-based
contracts. Most of their customer companies don’t have the resources nor the worldwide
network needed to find clients for their products. Therefore these companies turn to this
company to provide aid in marketing their products on their behalf. These are considered as
projects for the company. Their extensive worldwide network of partners and resources could
be considered the major key asset of this company compared to potential competitors.
The interviews were conducted on site in London. Two teams were made available by the
company in line with the requirements (set up by the researcher) of this research. The team
regarded by the company as being involved with more routinized work is responsible for the
operations aspect. Whereas the team that is considered as being involved in more creative-
based work is responsible for bringing in, setting up projects & contracts and outsourcing
personnel. The operating team is responsible for carrying out the manufacturing and
engineering projects brought in by the project team. This involves the ordering and delivering
of components and equipment disclosed in the projects brought in by the other team. Each
team has a separate leader that is responsible for monitoring their performance and ensuring
that the team is achieving their objectives in time.
37
3.4 Data collection & analysis methods This section describes the data analysis methods used to examine the data collected from the
interviews and surveys. The interview data is used to test and refine the working propositions
seeking to answer ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions (Yin, 2003). The survey data is used to make a
direct and distinct comparison and quick overview of the two teams, whilst not having any
explanatory power without the interview data. Furthermore, it categorizes the leadership style
present at that time according to the team and the leader.
3.4.1. Interviews
Initially, the recorded interviews needed to be translated into transcripts before they could be
coded and categorized. The next step is to do a content analysis of the transcripts where the
aim is to look for the useful information and to systematically allocate the content to the pre-
formulated categories and afterwards be able to quantify and interpret the outcomes (Payne &
Payne, 2004). Ryan and Bernard (2003) refer to this method as thematic coding. The
researcher needs to formulate categories containing key terms related to the theme of the
study. These categories become codes in which the useful sentences, terms or paragraphs
from the transcripts can be linked to. Miles and Huberman (1994: p. 56) described it as the
following ‘Codes are tags or labels for assigning units of meaning to the descriptive or
inferential information compiled during a study. Codes are attached to ‘chunks’ of varying
size – words, phrases, sentences, or whole paragraphs, connected or unconnected to a specific
setting’. These codes are linked to the theme of the research and lead to the explanation to the
‘how’ and ‘why’ of the subject being studied.
38
Figure 3. Conceptual model based on the transcript categories
Source: Author
Leadership Style -Leader involvement -Leader knowledge -Leader personality -Feedback form and interaction
Working Environment -Structured procedures, standards -Degree of freedom at work
Communication (related to inspirational motivation) -Shared Belief & Vision -Regular meetings -Organizational Communication
Expectations -Longstanding relationship - Build-up trust
Rewards -Intrinsic -Extrinsic
Empowerment (related to intellectual stimulation) -Structured procedures, standards -Degree of freedom at work
Commitment -Longstanding relationship - Build-up trust - Mutual feedback -rewards as promised -motivation
Motivation -Communication -Feedback -Mutual feedback -Agreements - Rewards
Performance -Increase performance -Freedom work related to performance -Team characteristics -Rewards
Creativity -Increase creativity -Freedom work related to creativity -Team characteristics -Rewards
Team Characteristics -Team description
Empowerment -Structured procedures, rules & standards
39
The themes used in the coding process were derived from the key terms used in the
propositions. These themes are: ‘Leadership style’, ‘Working environment’, ‘Idealized
influence’, ‘Communication’, ‘Empowerment’, ‘Rewards’, ‘Commitment’, ‘Motivation’,
‘Performance’, ‘Creativity’ and ‘Team characteristics’. Codes have been assigned in these
categories that relate most to the themes in combination to what has been discussed in the
interviews. The themes of the surveys of Bass & Avolio (1995) are ‘Idealized influence’,
‘Inspirational motivation’, ‘Intellectual stimulation’, ‘Individualized considered’, ‘Contingent
reward’, ‘Management-by-exception’ and ‘Laissez-faire leadership. These themes are broken
down to multiple codes used in the transcripts and moreover acted as guidelines for the semi-
structured interview questions. Idealized influence is connected to the codes: build-up trust
and longstanding relationship. Inspirational motivation relates to the following codes: shared
belief & vision, motivation and leader involvement. Intellectual stimulation is linked to the
codes of feedback form, leader involvement and commitment. Whereas individualized
consideration is related to feedback & interaction and regular meetings. Contingent reward is
subdivided into the codes of rewards and expectations. Management-by-exception relates to
structures, procedures & standards. Finally, the laissez-faire relates to the degree of freedom
at work. The recorded interviews were transformed into transcripts using word processing
software called Word. Afterwards the transcripts were coded and analyzed using Nvivo,
qualitative research software recommended by Myers (2009).
3.4.2. Surveys
The data of the surveys were put into a statistics program called SPSS. The variables were
labeled and combined according to the study of Bass & Avolio (1995). The sum of the scores
per combination indicate how the value should be interpreted on a score range with 0-4 being
low, 5-8 being moderate and 9-12 considered as high. Figure 4 gives a more detailed
overview of these variables, their combination per factor and how their scores should be
interpreted. It also provides a description of all 7 themes that appeared in the survey. The
adapted surveys for the leader and team members can be found in figure 4 with a description
how these scores should be combined and interpreted. The results were derived using
descriptive statistics.
40
Figure 4. Survey Questions
Multifactor Team Member Questionnaire Instructions: This questionnaire provides a description of your leader’s leadership-style. Twenty-one descriptive statements are listed below. Judge how frequently each statement fits your situation. KEY: 0 = Not at all 1 = Once in a while 2 = Sometimes 3 = Fairly often 4 = Frequently, if not always
1. I feel good around my team leader. 0 1 2 3 4 2. My team leader expresses with a few simple words what I
can and should do. 0 1 2 3 4
3. My team leader enables me to think about old problems in new ways. 0 1 2 3 4 4. My team leader helps me to develop myself. 0 1 2 3 4 5. My team leader tells me what I need to do to be rewarded for my work. 0 1 2 3 4 6. The team leader is satisfied when I meet agreed-upon standards. 0 1 2 3 4 7. The team leader is content to let me continue working in the same
way as always. 0 1 2 3 4
8. I have complete faith in my team leader. 0 1 2 3 4 9. The team leader provides appealing images about what I can do. 0 1 2 3 4
10. The team leader provides me with new ways of looking at puzzling things. 0 1 2 3 4 11. The team leader gives regular feedback about my work. 0 1 2 3 4 12. The team leader provides recognition/rewards when I reach my goal. 0 1 2 3 4 13. The team leader does not try to change anything, as long as things
are working. 0 1 2 3 4
14. The team leader gives me complete freedom to do their work. 0 1 2 3 4 15. I feel proud to be associated with my team leader. 0 1 2 3 4 16. My team leader helps me to find meaning in my work. 0 1 2 3 4 17. My team leader helps me to rethink ideas that I would never had
questioned myself before. 0 1 2 3 4
18. My team leader gives personal attention when I need it. 0 1 2 3 4 19. My team leader lets me know what I can get for what I accomplish. 0 1 2 3 4 20. My team leader tells the standards I need to know to carry out my work. 0 1 2 3 4 21. My team leader does not ask more of me than is absolutely essential. 0 1 2 3 4 22. I perceive my job and its tasks as ever-changing and non-routine. 0 1 2 3 4
General Questions: Q. What is your gender? Q. What is your Age? o Male o Female Q. What is your role at the company? Q. For how long have you been in this role?
Q. How long have you been at this company?
41
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Instructions: This questionnaire provides a description of your leadership style. Twenty-one descriptive statements are listed below. Judge how frequently each statement fits you. The word “others” refers to your employees/group members. KEY: 0 = Not at all 1 = Once in a while 2 = Sometimes 3 = Fairly often 4 = Frequently, if not always
1. I make others feel good to be around me. 0 1 2 3 4 2. I express with a few simple words what we could and should do. 0 1 2 3 4 3. I enable others to think about old problems in new ways. 0 1 2 3 4 4. I help others develop themselves. 0 1 2 3 4 5. I tell others what to do if they want to be rewarded for their work. 0 1 2 3 4 6. I am satisfied when others meet agreed-upon standards. 0 1 2 3 4 7. I am content to let others continue working in the same way as
always. 0 1 2 3 4
8. Others have complete faith in me. 0 1 2 3 4 9. I provide appealing images about what we can do. 0 1 2 3 4
10. I provide others with new ways of looking at puzzling things. 0 1 2 3 4 11. I let others know how I think they are doing. 0 1 2 3 4 12. I provide recognition/rewards when others reach their goals. 0 1 2 3 4 13. As long as things are working, I do not try to change anything. 0 1 2 3 4 14. Whatever others want to do is O.K. with me. 0 1 2 3 4 15. Others are proud to be associated with me. 0 1 2 3 4 16. I help others find meaning in their work. 0 1 2 3 4 17. I get others to rethink ideas that they had never questioned before. 0 1 2 3 4 18. I give personal attention to others who seem rejected. 0 1 2 3 4 19. I call attention to what others can get for what they accomplish. 0 1 2 3 4 20. I tell others the standards they have to know to carry out their work. 0 1 2 3 4 21. I ask no more of others than what is absolutely essential. 0 1 2 3 4 22. I perceive the team’s work and their tasks as ever-changing
and non-routine. 0 1 2 3 4
General Questions: Q. What is your gender? Q. What is your Age? o Male o Female Q. What is your role at the company? Q. For how long have you been in this role?
Q. How long have you been at this company?
42
Interpretation Scores Questionnaires
Idealized Influence (items 1, 8, & 15) _____ Factor 1
Inspirational Motivation (items 2, 9, & 16) _____ Factor 2
Intellectual Stimulation (items 3, 10, & 17) _____ Factor 3
Individualized Consideration (items 4, 11, & 18) _____ Factor 4
Contingent Reward (items 5, 12, & 19) _____ Factor 5
Management-by-exception (items 6, 13, & 20) _____ Factor 6
Laissez-faire Leadership (items 7, 14, & 21) _____ Factor 7
Score Range: High = 9-12 Moderate = 5-8 Low = 0-4
SCORE INTERPRETATION
Factor 1. Idealized Influence indicates whether you hold subordinates’ trust, maintain their faith and respect, show dedication to them, appeal to their hopes and dreams, and act as their role model.
High score indicates Transformational leadership characteristic Low score indicates Transactional leadership characteristic
Factor 2. Inspirational motivation measures the degree to which you provide a vision, use appropriate symbols and images to help others focus on their work, and try to make others feel their work is significant.
High score indicates Transformational leadership characteristic Low score indicates Transactional leadership characteristic
Factor 3. Intellectual stimulation shows the degree to which you encourage others to be creative in looking at old problems in new ways, create an environment that is tolerant of seemingly extreme positions, and nurture people to question their own values and beliefs and those of the organization.
High score indicates Transformational leadership characteristic Low score indicates Transactional leadership characteristic
Factor 4. Individualized consideration indicates the degree to which you show interest in others’ well-being, assign projects individually, and pay attention to those who seem less involved in the group.
High score indicates Transformational leadership characteristic Low score indicates Transactional leadership characteristic
Factor 5. Contingent reward shows the degree to which you tell others what to do in order to be rewarded, emphasize what you expect from them, and recognize their accomplishments.
High score indicates Transactional leadership characteristic Low score indicates Transformational leadership characteristic
Factor 6. Management-by-exception assesses whether you tell others the job requirements, are content with standard performance, and are a believer in “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
High score indicates Transactional leadership characteristic Low score indicates Transformational leadership characteristic
Factor 7. Laissez-faire measures whether you require little of others, are content to let things ride, and let others do their own thing.
Source: Adapted from Bass & Avolio (1995)
43
The mean of each factor per team was calculated to make a direct comparison between the
scores of the teams. These results can be found in the next section.
44
4. Results The next section will provide an overview of the results derived from the data. As mentioned
in the methodology section, this research consists out of two different data collections. First,
the results from the surveys will be presented to give a quick overview and comparison of the
two teams and their scores on the different factors. Secondly, the results from the coded
interview transcripts will be presented. The transcript results are the main focus for the results
in this study as they are more extensive and act as a complementary explanatory extension to
the ‘empty’ survey results. These results will hold the explanatory power that will explain the
‘how’ and ‘why’ of the phenomenon studied and support the working propositions (Yin,
2003; Eisenhardt, 1989). Moreover, the interview results not only give an explanation on why
the present leadership style is perceived as it is by the team, but also provide the style of
leadership that is considered to be most efficient in this context.
4.1 Team Routine/Stable Survey & Interview results 4.1.1 Team routine/stable survey results
This research focuses on studying two different teams that are subject to different work
environments concerned with different approaches for outcomes. In table 2 the results of the
routine/stable team is presented. This table gives a comparison of the scores of the variables
between the leader and the overall team. The survey results display the present style of
leadership according to the team members and the team leader self. The survey findings are
presented in a logical fashion following the line of order in which the themes are described in
the survey of Bass & Avolio (figure 4). The comparison will provide an indication of how the
team perceives the leader and how the leader perceives him and if those perceptions match
(see table 2). Previous research considers transactional leadership to be most effective in a
suiting context which is considered to be a routine working environment (Lowe et al, 1996;
De Hoogh et al.).
As can be seen in table 2, the scores of the team and the leader can be considered in most
cases as not that different. There are only two cases where the perceptions on the leader can
be seen as quite distinctive, namely individualized consideration and laissez-faire leadership.
In the individualized consideration factor, the leader has a score of 5,00 where the leader
perceives himself as moderate, in contrast to the teams score of 8.50 which can be seen as
moderate/higher. The leader is perceived by the team as being quite interested in their well-
45
being, assigns tasks individually to the team members and pays attention to those that need it
in the team (Bass & Avolio, 1992). This is considered as an aspect of transformational
leadership (Pieterse et al, 2010; Bass, 1985). However, there has also been previous
contrasting research indicating that it might be a possibility for transactional leadership to be
team-oriented (Zhang et al, 2011). Therefore scoring high on this factor does not necessarily
indicate one type of leadership. Furthermore, the scores on laissez-faire leadership can be seen
as even more different. Here the leader has a score of 4, whereas the team has a score of 9.
Laissez-faire leadership can be described as giving the team members room to do their own
thing, involvement of the leader is quite low and it is expected that the team members are able
to handle the projects individually (Bass & Avolio, 1992). This is considered as another
aspect of transformational leadership when the score in this factor is high. So according to the
team, the leader can be characterized by another transformational characteristic (Spreitzer,
1995; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). However, the leader perceives this differently, in fact as
much lower and therefore more fitting with transactional leadership. This is a quite
remarkable difference and unfortunately cannot be explained by the results of the survey
alone. This is a good example of where the survey results lacks of confidence and explanatory
power (Yin, 2003; Myers, 2009). The interview results might give more insight on this
difference.
Another remarkable result is the scores on management-by-exception. Both the team and
leader perceive this as equally high. The leader can be described by this factor as telling the
team members the job requirements, being content with ‘standard’ performance leaving no
room for out of the box thinking and not open to new ways of working if the results are being
met. This is in line with the previous research on transactional leadership (Bass, 1985; Bass &
Avolio, 2000) and depicts the leader in this aspect as transactional.
However, in general, the leader is perceived by the team and the leader self as moderate on
nearly every factor. Therefore, the present style of leadership can be characterized between
transactional leadership and transformational leadership in. To be distinctively characterized
as a one type of leader, the results should be either low or high on multiple factors depending
on the description of those factors (see figure 4). One clear distinction can be made with the
scores on management by exception indicating a more transactional leadership approach.
Whereas the team perceives the leader as more transformational based on the factors of
individualized consideration, idealized influence and laissez-faire leadership. This is not in
46
line with previous research that argued for a distinctive transactional leadership style to be
present in a routine/stable context.
Table 2.
Comparison between team and leader (Team Routine/Stable)
Factor Team Role Mean of Total score per team
Implied Leadership Style
Idealized Influence
Leader 8,00 (Moderate) Mix of styles
Team members 8,75 (Moderate/High) Mix: higher degree of
Transformational
Inspirational Motivation
Leader 7,00 (Moderate) Mix of styles
Team members 5,75 (Moderate) Mix of styles
Intellectual Stimulation
Leader 6,00 (Moderate) Mix of styles
Team members 6,25 (Moderate) Mix of styles
Individualized Consideration
Leader 5,00 (Moderate) Mix of styles
Team members 8,50 (Moderate/High) Mix: Higher degree of
Transformational
Contingent Reward
Leader 6,00 (Moderate) Mix of styles
Team members 7,75 (Moderate) Mix of styles
Management By Exception
Leader 9,00 (High) Transactional
Team members 9,00 (High) Transactional
Laissez-faire Leadership
Leader 4,00 (Low) Transactional
Team members 9,00 (High) Transformational
47
4.1.2 Team routine/stable interview results
In this section the results of the interviews are displayed and described. It will consist out of the
results per team depending on their work context. Due to the confidentiality forms signed by the
interviewees prior to the interviews, the researcher was opted to remove most of the data that gave
a clearer insight and overview on how and why these results came into being. Therefore, this
section will give a mere overview of the results derived from the interviews on the present factors
and influences.
Firstly, the interview results of the routine/stable team will be presented. The results are
presented in a table that is ordened in a specific way and is upheld for the results of both
teams. The tables are based on the themes (categories) that were discussed in the previous
section (4.3 Data collection & analysis methods) and can be found in the overview of the
conceptual model in figure 3. These themes are presented in the table in a logical order
consistent with the conceptual model (figure 3). The themes are subdivided into the
corresponding codes that are related to that theme. The themes are reciprocated by presence
and influence which can be explained as whether it is seen as a causal factor or influenced
factor. The themes reciprocated by presence show the extent to which the corresponding
codes are present in this case and the quotes will give more insight on this matter. The themes
reciprocated by influence show the degree to what extent the themes and their present codes
have an influence on the theme. This causal and influential relation can also be derived from
figure 3. The quotes will give support to the findings and can be used to give more insight on
‘why’ and ‘how’ these findings came into being. It should be noted that during the
conductment of the interviews it became clear that the team leaders are not responsible or in
charge of every single aspect being studied in this research like extrinsic rewards, shared
vision and overall communication. These aspects are in the hands of the CEO of the company
and that person has final sayings on how these aspects are treated. However, the team leaders
do have the possibility to point out and suggest the necessity or change needed in these
aspects at the CEO, but that does not necesarrily guarantee execution of the suggestions.
Therefore, some aspects were more related to organizational level (top management) instead
of the team leader. But it is taken into account forming the results if the leader has made
suggestions on that topic to the CEO on behalf of the team.
4.1.2.1. Work context and present factors
Table 3 shows the results of the interviews of the routine/stable team. In line with the
beforehand requirements set for this team, this team perceives their working context as high
48
in routine. Moreover, the team indicates that there are certain procedures and standards
involved in their jobs that they must follow in order to complete their task in an efficient way.
The leader of the team also describes himself as a person that wants everything very
structured, whilst maintaining the urge to improve these structures and standards. However,
the team doesn’t perceive having structures and standard procedures as bounding or limiting
in their work and most of them declare having enough freedom to structure and do their jobs
on their own terms around these procedures. This freedom is mostly described as having own
time management within the deadline framework of the project. Therefore, the degree of
freedom was considered as moderate and the standards, rules & procedures were considered
as high with a small tendency towards moderate.
4.1.2.2. Leadership style and present factors
The leader is depicted by the team as a very friendly, helpful and supportive person. The
leader is described as the type of leader that can be charismatic, but able to step back and be
strict and professional when necessary. The leader is considered by him and the team to be
medium/highly involved in the team’s work. This was broken down into multiple reasons by
the team, like unauthorized work where the leader needs to step in. However, the leader is not
considered as much involved in the daily work of the team member and does not constantly
monitor their performances and this view is also shared by the leader self. This would indicate
the leader involvement as medium. Moreover, the leader is considered as very knowledgeable
on most work aspects of the team and this is considered as an important characteristic by all
of the team members. The leader is considered to know what is concerned in everyone’s tasks
and the requirements that are needed. For these reasons, and especially for the leader having
knowledge in all work aspects of the team, the leader’s knowledge was considered as high.
Furthermore, the team and leader have both indicated that there is constant and direct
communication taking place between the team and leader. It was indicated by the team and
leader that regular feedback meetings or sessions do not often take place within the team or
even at all at organizational level. It was indicated by both the team and leader that the leader
gives feedback on performance when needed during the regular communication that takes
place with individual team members. Therefore, feedback interaction was considered to be a
moderate extent.
49
4.1.2.3. Communication and present factors
It was indicated that there is no real company vision or direction present at this company. It
was indicated as an aspect the company is lacking of and a communicated clear direction in
which the company is headed or aiming for would be very appreciated by not only the team
members, but also the leader. This is one of the indications that a team leader can also be
bound or limited in his decision making power by the CEO of the company. As mentioned
earlier, team feedback was done on occasion during regular interaction between member(s)
and leader, however organizational feedback sessions do not often take place in general, only
when perceived as necessary. Furthermore, it was noted by all the interviewees that a review
on organizational level is not often done after completion of a project to reflect back on the
team’s performance or the entire organization’s performance as a whole. The communication
within the entire organization is considered low and can be considered as detrimental to the
performance of employees, a positive solution would be to be better informed on the
organization as a whole. An offset that can be derived from this is that different departments
act in isolation from each other and have no knowledge of what exactly is going on in the
other departments, causing an isolated feeling, separating it from the other departments in
relation to work and information.
Organizational communication was noted as low. However, the within team communication
and interaction was perceived by all interviewees as much better.
4.1.2.4. Expectations and present factors
Most of the employees in the team have been working at the company for the duration of a
couple of years and also under the same team leader who has been there from the start,
therefore it was considered by the team and leader to have a longstanding relationship with
each other. Having worked with each other for a long period was experienced by all
interviewees as resulting in knowing each other’s strengths and weaknesses as well as
knowing what to expect from one and another. Therefore, the presence of a long-standing
relationship was considered to have a high influence on the expectations that the team and
leader have of each other. All of these reasons were indicated by most of the team to have
lead to having a high build-up trust between the team and leader. This perception was shared
by the leader. However, it was also indicated that the trust of the leader and his team should
not be regarded as too high, as this could result in an offset, eventually being detrimental to
the team. The team leader should able to step back, when necessary, and become a strict and
50
professional leader if a team member would go out of line or show signs of decreasing
performance. It was reckoned this to be the case for the team leader, as being able to step back
and take control when necessary. Not just taking the word of the team member as a guarantee
that performance will be better, but take corrective action as a guarantee. Therefore, this trust
between the leader and team was indicated as medium/high. That in combination with a high
long-standing relationship leads to the overall expectations present being considered as high
within this team.
4.1.2.5. Commitment and influences
This study proposed that commitment is influenced by the themes ‘expectations’ and
‘communications’ (figure 3). In the preceding paragraphs was mentioned which factors of
these themes were perceived as present according to the interviews with the team members
and to what extent (figure 3). ‘Expectations’ is a theme expected to have a high influence on
the degree of commitment team members feel towards their work and company. Having a
leader that knows his team well and vice versa was perceived by the team members and leader
as an important characteristic for feeling more committed towards the team and for some also
to the company. Therefore, expectations (longstanding relationship and build-up mutual trust)
were considered to have a high influence on commitment in this team. Furthermore,
communications was also perceived as an important aspect to increase commitment from the
team members and leader. However, this was only indicated towards organizational
communication and not communication within the team (including the leader) self. The
communication within the team self was considered as good. It was often mentioned like in
the previous paragraph, that there is not enough organization communication as in regular
meetings/briefings in which employees are informed about the progress of the company and
direction it is headed. This results in a feeling of isolation of the team from the rest of the
company which eventually leads to becoming less committed to the overall cause. This is not
an aspect directly related to the team leader per se, but it does indicate the importance of
communication in general and the influence it has on employee commitment. For these
reasons, communication is considered to have a high influence on the commitment of
employees in this team.
51
4.1.2.6. Empowerment and present factors
As mentioned before, the team members considered having structures, rules and standard
procedures in their work in relation to the routineness involved in their work. However, it was
not perceived as bounding or limiting by the team members in their job. It was actually
considered as helpful and providing a sense of direction if needed. It was believed to be seen
in terms of a safety net to fall back on in case it would be needed. Moreover, they perceive
enough freedom in their jobs to structure it in their own way (self-management). According to
Hempel et al. (2012) this can be referred to as empowerment in routine work even though
rules, structures and standards are involved.
4.1.2.7. Rewards and present factors
Some forms of rewards cannot be handed down or promised by the team leader self, but is
decided at the organizational top level. This was clearly indicated by the team members and
leader in the interview on several occasions. This is another indication that a team leader does
not necessarily has all the autonomy to make such decisions. In this case, the CEO of the
company has the full autonomy of rewarding employees. However, this still gives the
opportunity to examine the influence that specific rewards can have based on the desires of
the team members.
Based on the interviews, there is a low presence of extrinsic rewards at this company. There
are practically no incentive rewards nor developmental opportunities made available within
this company. Both intrinsic and extrinsic rewards are considered as important as half of the
team members indicated wanting more opportunities to learn new things and develop
themselves more in order to become less replacent (sense of progress; Thomas, 2009).
However, these opportunities were not really provided. Monetary rewards do seem to be more
appreciated in general than other forms of rewards. Furthermore, work was considered as not
always having a significant impact on the organization, not receiving appraisal for the team’s
work in the organization (sense of meaningfulness; Thomas, 2009). This is related to intrinsic
motivation and is also partially related to the isolation of departments within this company,
being unaware of each other’s accomplishments and work. There is considered to be a sense
of choice, as mentioned earlier these team members do feel empowered in their work
regardless of the structured procedures and standards. Most of the interviewees indicated that
extrinsic and intrinsic rewards should come hand in hand. Therefore, it was considered that
the presence of intrinsic rewards and extrinsic rewards were low according to this team. In
52
general, there doesn’t seem to a clear incentive system in place within this organization based
on the information given by the interviewees.
4.1.2.8. Motivation and influences
This research assumes in line with previous literature (e.g. Collins & Amabile, 1996; Bear et
al, 2003; Spreitzer, 1995; Walter & Van der Vegt, 2012) that the motivation of the team
members are influenced by ‘communication’, ‘empowerment’ and ‘rewards’ (figure 3). In the
foregoing paragraphs these themes were discussed by out of what factors they consist and to
what degree it was considered as present in this case.
Organizational communication within the organization was regarded by the entire team as an
important aspect of communication influencing motivation, but also for the team leader and
therefore received a higher emphasis than the other communication factors by the
interviewees in relation to motivation. Furthermore, rewards were also considered to have a
high influence on the motivation of the individual team members by all interviewees. Both
types of rewards were seen as having a low presence within the firm, but were perceived as
nearly equally important factors than can influence the motivation of a team member.
However, there seemed to be a favor specifically towards monetary rewards within this team,
instead of e.g. appraisal or developing rewards. On multiple occasions it was indicated that it
was believed that extrinsic and intrinsic rewards should come hand in hand by some of the
team members and leader, and therefore should not be looked at separately when trying to
motivate employees. Receiving a monetary reward was considered by some team members as
an indication that the work is performed well and leads to the perception of more satisfaction
and enjoyment in the work. It establishes a form of proudness within the team member
influenced upon receiving the monetary reward. The monetary reward would then act as a
form of recognition or appraisal. Receiving a form of reward for your effort and performance
would make a team member feel appreciated and therefore more driven to perform better on
regular occasion was behind the reasoning of these same interviewees.
Empowerment was considered to be present in this team even though rules, structured
procedures and standards were considered present in this routine line of work and is in line
with previous research of Hempel et al. (2012). The rules, structured procedures and standards
involved in this team were not considered as limiting or bounding, but perceived as helping
and making the job less complicated at times. Furthermore, the leader was considered by the
team members as not being involved too extensively in their daily tasks and the team
53
members perceived having enough room for their own work and time management within
these boundaries. However, feeling empowered in their work was not perceived as the highest
by most team members as a high influential factor for motivation. Only a few of the team
members, including the leader perceived empowerment as an influential factor towards job
satisfaction, which eventually would lead to motivation.
4.1.2.9. Team characteristics and present factors
While describing the team characteristics, an analogy was made comparing the team to a
football team, consisting out of different players with each having their own individual skills
that bring something to the team. All the team members described their team as consisting out
of different members all having their own specialized role within the team and working
together towards the same outcome. It is also perceived by everyone as an important
characteristic for an efficient team. The results of previous research (Hoever et al., 2012)
show the same outcomes, that teams function better with different roles.
4.1.2.10. Performance and influences
The most important outcome studied in this team in relation to the research topic is the
performance. This study proposed that motivation, team characteristics and empowerment are
all considered influential factors that can increase performance (figure 3). Motivation was
considered as an important aspect by most of the team members and leader on their
performance. A decrease of motivation resulted in feeling less inclined to go the extra mile for
the company and performing better than is necessary.
As mentioned before, team characteristics were perceived by the team members as an
important factor for good team performance. They indicated that having a diverse team adds
to the overall team performance and was considered to be the present in this team.
Having a team leader that is not directly involved in the daily tasks of the team and not
constantly monitoring their performance was considered by most as pleasant in their work.
Rules, structured procedures and standards were perceived as helpful in their work instead of
creating a sense of feeling limited by these boundaries. Furthermore, having the ability to
manage and structure their own work within the boundaries of the deadline and rules,
structures and standard procedures is nonetheless perceived as satisfactory and pleasant. A
few team members had indicated that if everything would be more strictly, it would most
likely decrease their job satisfaction resulting in less performance. This all relates to feeling
54
empowered in routine work by having structures and clear goals and how this benefits
performance (Hempel et al., 2012).
In table 3 an overview of the interview results can be found with the present codes per theme
and how the degree to which these themes are considered influential. Furthermore, illustrative
quotes were provided in this table to show how these results came into being.
55
Table 3. Interview results team routine overview
Themes Codes
Work Context Routine: High
Rules, standards & structured procedures: Moderate/High Degree of Freedom: Moderate
Leadership style (presence) Leader Personality: Friendly, helpful and professional Leader Knowledge: High
Feedback form and interaction: Directive/coaching and Moderate Leader involvement: Moderate
Communication (presence) Shared belief & Vision: Not present Overall Feedback frequency: Low (only when necessary) Organizational communication: Low
Expectations (presence) Longstanding relationship: High
Build-up trust: Moderate/High
Commitment (influences) Expectations influence: High
Communications influence: High
Empowerment
(Presence)
Structured Procedures: Moderate/High
Degree of freedom: Moderate
Rewards (Presence) Intrinsic: Low
Extrinsic: Low
Rewards as promised: Not present
Motivation (influences) Communication: High
Rewards: High
Empowerment: Moderate
Team Characteristics (presence) Task specific roles: High Performance (influences) Motivation: High
Team characteristics: High
Empowerment: High
56
4.1.3 Comparing interview and survey results
It should be noted that the interviews were more extensive than the surveys and covered more
aspects involved in the team and organization that were studied in this research. The surveys
are more directly related to the leadership style that was perceived as present. Therefore, only
the results related to the leadership aspects covered in the surveys can be compared with those
results derived from the interviews. In table 4 the comparison between both methods are
presented for team routine/stable. The results are based on the interpretation of the total mean
per theme scores of the surveys and the interpretation of the interview codes that are linked to
those themes (see section 4.3). When comparing the results of both methods, it can be
concluded that the results from the surveys and interviews match in general. There are not
much clear dissimilarities to be noted besides a few minor differences, therefore only a few
themes are being described. Idealized influence is considered to be somewhat higher in the
interviews than in the surveys. The explanation for the high trust was having worked with
each other for a long time, thereby knowing what to expect from each other and indicating
that this relates to having trust. It could be that the survey scores were scored lower due to the
questions regarding acting as a role model and appealing to their dreams and hopes which
were not considerd relevant during the interviews. Contingent reward scoring a bit lower than
the survey results can be explained by the interview results indicating that the leader of this
team is not in charge of certaint rewards and therefore can’t promise them. It was therefore
considered to be low/moderate as expectancies are still being emphasized, but not in relation
to rewards. Laissez faire is moderate as it was indicated that there are structured procedures
and standards present that members are bound by, but within those boundaries are free to
structure and time manage their work. This can be the reason why the leader scored low on
the surveys and team members scoring high, both giving a higher emphasis on one each end
of this spectrum. The leader put more emphasis on the structured procedures, whereas the
team had put more emphasis on the freedom within those boundaries. However, these remain
the researcher’s own interpretations on what could be the reason why the answers are
different between the surveys and interviews. This indicates the offset of validity the findings
of surveys can be prone to.
57
Table 4.
Comparison results on leadership team routine/stable
Factor Method Team Role Mean of Score Implied Leadership Style
Idealized
Influence
Survey
Leader Moderate Mix of styles
Member Moderate/High Mix: higher degree of
Transformational
Interview Leader High Transformational
Member High Transformational
Inspirational
Motivation
Survey Leader Moderate Mix of styles
Member Moderate Mix of styles
Interview Leader Moderate Mix of styles
Member Moderate Mix of styles
Intellectual
Stimulation
Survey Leader Moderate Mix of styles
Member Moderate Mix of styles
Interview Leader Moderate/High Mix: higher degree of
transformational Member Moderate/High Mix: higher degree of
transformational
Individualized
Consideration
Survey Leader Moderate Mix of styles
Member Moderate/High Mix: higher degree of transformational
Interview Leader Moderate Mix of styles
Member Moderate Mix of styles
Contingent
Reward
Survey Leader Moderate Mix of styles
Member Moderate Mix of styles
Interview Leader Low Mix: higher degree of
transformational Member Low Mix: higher degree of
transformational
Management
By Exception
Survey Leader High Transactional
Member High Transactional
Interview Leader High Transactional
Member Moderate/High Mix: higher degree of transactional
Laissez-faire
Leadership
Survey Leader Low Transactional
Member High Transformational
Interview Leader Moderate Mix of styles
Member Moderate Mix of styles
58
4.2 Team Dynamic/Creative Survey & Interview results 4.2.1. Team dynamic/creative survey results
In table 5 the results of team dynamic/creative are presented. Likewise, a comparison is made
between the leader’s perceptions and that of the team members. Previous research expects that
transformational leadership is most likely to flourish in dynamic contexts (Bass, 1985; Bass &
Avolio, 1993; Shamir & Howell, 1999). The comparisons of factor scores that stand out in
this table are inspirational motivation, contingent reward and laissez-faire leadership. In the
case of inspirational motivation, the leader perceives himself as quite low (4.00) whereas the
team regards him higher as moderate (6.75). The leader regards him as not focusing much on
providing a vision and trying to make the work of the team members feeling as significant
(Bass & Avolio, 1992). Scoring high on this factor would indicate a characteristic of
transformational leadership and was expected in this context in line with research mentioned
previously. A slight difference can be found between the scores of the factor contingent
difference, summarizing the leader’s score as low and the team’s score as moderate.
Contingent reward can be described as making clear to the team what needs to be done in
order to be rewarded, emphasize expectations and rewarding the individual team members
when their expectations are met (Bass & Avolio, 1992). Scoring low and moderate could
indicate that there is no clear reward system or it is not clearly described what is expected
from the team in order to be rewarded. Contingent reward is associated with transactional
leadership (Bass 1985; Bass & Avolio, 2000) and scoring low would contrast this aspect. A
more remarkable difference can be found at laissez-faire leadership where the leader’s self
perception is much lower (4.00) than that of the team (7.75). The team regards the leader as
letting them do their own thing and is content and trustworthy with letting them take care of
business by themselves, whereas the leader regards that is as nearly the contrary. This same
remarkable difference was found at the routine/stable team and could indicate that the leaders
and the team have different perceptions on the meaning of the questions. In general, the
overall team perceives the leader as moderate on most factors whilst the leader perceives him
in general as lower on specific factors. In overall, a high score in the factors idealized
influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration and
laissez-faire leadership was expected in line with previous research on transformational
leadership (Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 2000; Pieterse et al, 2010). This does not give a clear
indication of one type of leadership, however it leans a bit more towards transactional
leadership than it does towards transactional leadership.
59
Table 5.
Comparison between team and leader (Team dynamic/creative)
Factor Team Role Mean of Total Score Implied Leadership Style
Idealized Influence
Leader 8,00 (Moderate) Mix of styles
Team members 8,25 (Meoderate) Mix of styles
Inspirational Motivation
Leader 4,00 (Low) Transactional
Team members 6,75 (Moderate) Mix of styles
Intellectual Stimulation
Leader 7,00 (Moderate) Mix of styles
Team members 7,75 (Moderate) Mix of styles
Individualized Consideration
Leader 6,00 (Moderate) Mix of styles
Team members 6,50 (Moderate) Mix of styles
Contingent Reward
Leader 4,00 (Low) Transformational
Team members 5,25 (Moderate) Mix of styles
Management By Exception
Leader 6,00 (Moderate) Mix of styles
Team members 7,50 (Moderate) Mix of styles
Laissez-faire Leadership
Leader 4,00 (Low) Transactional
Team members 7,75 (Moderate) Mix of styles
4.2.2. Dynamic/creative team interview results
4.2.2.1. Work context and present factors
In table 6 the results of the interviews are presented for the dynamic/creative team. In line
with the requirement made prior to conducting the interviews, this team and leader perceived
the working environment as high in dynamic (constantly changing). Furthermore, the team
members perceived their work related freedom as quite high and are not bound by many
standard procedures and structures that are set up for the job. The leader also mentioned that
the team members were free to completely structure their work as they deemed fit as long as it
would bring in satisfactory results. Therefore, the degree of freedom is considered to be high
60
in this team. The only bounding standards and structured procedures that were considered as
applicable were those of setting up contracts, deadlines and concerning payments of
outsourced manpower in their line of business. Previous research (e.g. Mintzberg, 1979;
Kirkman & Rosen, 1999)) has shown that creativity is most likely to flourish with a high
degree of freedom and not bound by standards and structured procedures.
4.2.2.2. Leadership style and present factors
The leader of this team was considered as slightly distant and directive by some of the team
members. This could be seen as a detrimental attribute, whilst it can also be considered to be a
good thing, being a strong and directive leader that leads the way. The leader himself
acknowledges the forementioned and would describe him as a non-charismatic person that
does not give out motivational speeches, but a person that leads by example and with his work
ethic. Work results seemed to be the most important outcome for this leader. When feedback
is given, it’s mostly done in a directive manner. However, feedback does not seem to be given
often within this team. The team and leader both pointed out that feedback in the team was
only given when necessary, and necessary meaning when results were bad. The team depicted
the feedback style as mostly directive and low on coaching, this is in line with the leader’s
self opinion that he is not a motivational speaker, but wants to set out an example. Therefore,
interaction was considered to be low between the team and leader. All of these
beforementioned factor results are considered as distinctive traits for transactional leadership
by previous research (e.g. Bass & Avolio, 1997; Scott DeRue et al., 2010). Furthermore, the
self perception of the knowledge of the leader was not considered as higher than those of the
team members, but more specialized in his own tasks. This perception was shared by half of
the team; while in contrast, the other half of the team members considered their leader as very
knowledgeable on most aspects of the organization. The leader explained his perception by
saying that he considered his team members as having the knowledge and skills on their own
working area that the leader self does not necessarily need to possess and found this a
necessity for a good functioning team. A few other members agree that a leader does not
necessarily need to possess all the skills or knowledge of all aspects of the team. Therefore,
the leader’s knowledge was considered to be moderate. Furthermore, the involvement of the
leader in the work of the team was perceived as quite low according to the results of the
interviews. There were multiple reasons for this indication. The team members and leader self
declared that the leader only gets involved in the team when it is really necessary, this relates
to very urgent deadlines or when performance is considered as questionable by the leader.
61
This is considered as a positive characteristic of the leader by the team. A less involved leader
was considered as favored in this team. Another reason that became clear from the interviews
was that the leader of this team is quite often widely dispersed and unavailable due to constant
travelling. This was also the case for some of the other team members, therefore the
expectancy was that team members are able to do their work individually and this could
explain the high degree of freedom and lack of standards and structured procedures.
Therefore, the leader’s involvement was considered to be low in this team.
4.2.2.3. Communication and present factors
This team also mentioned that there is not really a shared vision or communicated direction
made clear within the organization. This was also acknowledged by their leader. It was
perceived as an important aspect by most team members and was perceived to make the work
feel empty, as in somewhat meaningless on occasions. Feedback seemed to be scarce within
this team. Members of the team talked about only having feedback sessions when the
performance of the team was bad or when things are going wrong. The leader also
acknowledged that there were not many occasions where feedback was given, unless it was
very necessary. A reason indicated for this was the constant travelling and being remote from
the team, but also that the entire team was rarely on location at the same time. If feedback was
given, these sessions would be done with the entire team and not on a personal level, however
as mentioned, not frequently. Most team members indicated that appraisal did not seem to be
given often or even at all in this team. Therefore, feedback was considered to be low. In
general, the communication within the organization was perceived by the team members as
low. This is in line with the results of the interview of the routine/stable team. It was even
indicated by some of the dynamic/creative team members that a monthly briefing with all the
other departmens would be appreciated, but because of time restraints and important members
being on travel frequently it seemed to be difficult to enact these regular meetings within the
company. The overall presence of communication can be considered as quite low based on
these factors.
4.2.2.4. Expectations and present factors
Build-up trust and longstanding commitment were considered by most interviewees as an
important aspect in this type of work. A few of the team members are quite new to the team
and therefore didn’t speak of a long-standing relationship yet. They would consider the
longstanding relationship to be medium and not a big influential factor yet. The other team
62
members had been in this team for quite some years now and considered it to be helpful to
know someone for a long time. It was perceived as aiding in knowing what to expect from
each other and having shared experiences to relate back on. Trust was also considered by the
leader as an important issue as it was regarded as necessary to trust other members to
handling their part of the work and come through for the team, foremost when the leader is
constantly remote from the team due to travelling. Longstanding relationship was considered
to be moderate/high and the build-up trust to be moderate.
4.2.2.5. Commitment and influences
This study proposed that commitment is influenced by the themes ‘expectations’ and
‘communications’ (figure 3). In the preceding paragraphs was mentioned which factors of these
themes were perceived as present according to the interviews with the team members and to what
extent. Expectations are considered to have a high influential effect on the commitment of the
team members. Longstanding relationship was partially considered to be an influential factor
of expectations for commitment, but only by the team members who have been working with
the same leader for a longer period of time. The other team members did not consider this to
be as influential for their commitment as build-up trust. It was considered by most team
members as very detrimental to their trust and eventually to their commitment towards the
company if agreed-upon promises are not delivered. It was seen as detrimental to their self-
esteem and the perception of their work when promises made by a leader wouldn’t be
delivered upon. Communication was perceived by nearly all interviewees as low, especially in
the form of an organizational periodic feedback, organizational briefings and even regular
team meetings. Therefore, it was considered that communication and expectations have a high
influence (primarily due to ‘build-up trust’) on commitment based on the results of this team.
4.2.2.6. Empowerment and present factors
Empowerment is broken down into two factors: structured procedures and degree of freedom.
As mentioned earlier, the team perceived their work related freedom as high and structured
procedures as low. The team indicated that they are allowed to structure their job in any way
as they wanted to and considered their work as being very open. Furthermore, as mentioned
earlier it was considered by the leader that every person knows their own job best and
therefore should be left completely free to carry out that work as they best see fit unless the
63
results start to deteriorate. This freedom without layed out structures procedures and standards
were perceived by all team members as satisfactory and pleasant, and even considered by
most as necessary for this line of work. Only budget decisions were mentioned as a factor that
could act as a constraint and would need approval from the team leader before carrying out
the work. Having a high degree of freedom was considered as pleasant by all team members,
however it was perceived by one member that on certain hectic ocassions a more strict
procedural guideline could be beneficial as individuals could become too easy minded and
less efficient. This was partially in line with the thoughts of the leader, who believed work
related freedom to be good as long as the results are met. For these reasons, structured
procedures and standards were considered to be low and the degree of freedom to be high.
4.2.2.7. Rewards and present factors
As was also mentioned earlier in the routine/stable interview results, there doesn’t seem to be
a clear bonus or incentive structure present at this company and this perception was shared by
this team. Therefore, it was considered that there is a low presence of monetary rewards.
Furthermore, all team members shared the opinion of the importance of both intrinsic as
extrinsic rewards as beneficial constructs for motivation and satisfaction. Nearly all team
members thought that both types of rewards should come and be considered hand in hand. It
was by said by one of the team members that you can’t ignore the one or the other; they
should come hand in hand. This belief was shared amongst most of these interviewees.
Moreover, it was said that just rewarding a person every year would temporary intrinsically
satisfy a person, but would become pointless in the end if you don’t provide opportunities to
develop that person as well. In this team, the sense of meaningfulness related to individual
work was also considered low. There was not much appreciation shown for the work done,
thereby most other employees in the organization would not be able to tell what each team
member exactly is working on. This resulted for some team members in perceiving that their
work does not necessarily have a significant impact on the organization or is considered as of
value to their leader. This indicated the low emphasis put on receiving/handing intrinsic
rewards in this team. However, there seems to be a slight higher preference towards monetary
rewards. Based on the interviews it seemed to be mostly influenced by factors derived from
outside the company like family status, economic status and other external uncertainties that
would place more value on money, instead of intrinsic rewards like appraisal or gaining
knowledge. If these conditions would all be in a ‘perfect’ state, less emphasis would be placed
on monetary rewards. In general, there seemed to be a low presence of rewards at this
64
company even though it was highly valued by the team. The team leader argued that extrinsic
rewards were not a subject of discussion in this company. When profits were made, these
profits would be shared amongst all the employees regardless of their individual or team
performances and therefore there was not a real incentive reward structure present. Therefore,
the leader believed that the only tools available for rewarding in this company were appraisal
and positive feedback or salary increase and promotion. Furthermore, he argued, that even
though intrinsic rewards were considered to be important by him, he believed that monetary
rewards were the main aspiration of everybody.
Overall, the results indicated that rewards as promised were considered to be low, moreover
both extrinsic and intrinsic rewards were also perceived to be low according to the results of
this team.
4.2.2.8. Motivation and influences
This research assumes in line with previous literature (e.g. Collins & Amabile, 1996; Bear et al,
2003; Spreitzer, 1995; Walter & Van der Vegt, 2012) that the motivation of the team members are
influenced by ‘communication’, ‘empowerment’ and ‘rewards’ (figure 3). In the foregoing
paragraphs these themes were discussed by out of what factors they consist and to what degree it
was considered as present in this case.
Motivation is expected to be influenced by organizational communication, rewards and
empowerment in in line with previous research (e.g. Collins & Amabile, 1996; Bear et al, 2003;
Spreitzer, 1995; Walter & Van der Vegt, 2012) and can be found in figure 4. In the preceding
paragraphs these themes were discussed by the factors they consist out of and to what degree it
was considered as present for this team. Within this team organizational communication was
considered as an important influential factor for their motivation. It was perceived by most
that the company does not invest time in their people, trying to find out what moves them and
what their desires are. Moreover, the communication also lacks in informing the entire
information on what direction the company is headed in or to reflect back on past projects
with the other departmens. This was regarded as very demotivating by most of the team
members. Furthermore, credit and acknowledgement were also perceived to be never given by
some team members and again this was regarded upon as very demotivating. Getting
appraisal was considered to give an extra motivational push for certain team members. The
leader does indicate the importance of regular meetings and giving feedback, however does
not seem to have the time to follow up on regular meetings, briefings or be the type of person
65
to give motivational feedback without realizing that this is leading towards demotivating
some of the team members. Moreover, rewards were considered to be a good stimulation for
extra motivation and it was acknowledged that they do not necessarily come in the form of
money by the leader and team members, however monetary rewards are most favored. Some
team members have indicated that only money does not necessarily lead to an extra
motivational push as job satisfaction, efficiency and acknowledgement could do for them.
Being able to perform your own job well to your own likings and according to your own
structure was considered to be an important motivational influence. Therefore, by feeling
highly empowered in your job it is very likely that this will lead to higher motivation for these
team members and is in line with previous research (e.g. Mintzberg, 1979). It was considered
that all of communication, rewards and empowerment all have a high influence on the degree
of motivation a team member has.
4.2.2.9. Team characteristics and present factors
The team was described as very diverse and consisting out of unique member each
responsible of bringing a different aspect to the team by all of the interviewees.
4.2.2.10. Creativity and influences
The most important outcome studied in this team in relation to the research topic was the
creativity. This study proposed that motivation, team characteristics and empowerment are all
considered influential factors that can increase creativity (figure 3). Motivation was
considered as an important factor that influences team members’ creative performance
(Collins & Amabile, 1999) through beforementioned present factors. Some members
indicated to be less inclined to go the extra mile now, because of decreased motivation.
As mentioned before, everyone had something unique to bring to the team and the creative
performance of the team would benefit from this. This was also considered in this research as
an influential factor for creativity besides motivation and empowerment in line with previous
(Jackson, 1992; Hoever et al., 2012).
Furthermore, empowerment also seemed to have a big influence on creativity. It was
perceived according to the results that having a high element of freedom aids in the possibility
to come up with new ideas. Moreover, gaining more responsibilities and not being bound by a
low degree of autonomy due to standards and structured procedures were also regarded as
66
helpful for creativity. Therefore it was considered that motivation, team characterstics and
empowerment are big influences for creativity by this team.
In table 6 a quick overview of the interview results can be found with the present codes per
theme and how the degree to which these themes are considered influential. Furthermore,
illustrative quotes were provided in this table to show how these results came into being.
67
Table 6. Interview results team creative overview
Themes Codes
Work Context Dynamic: High Standards & structured procedures: Low
Degree of Freedom:High
Leadership style (presence) Leader Personality: Directive,distant, professional
Leader knowledge: Moderate
Leader involvement: Low
Feedback form and interaction: High Directive /low Coaching &Low Presence
Communication (presence)
Shared belief & Vision: Not present
Overall Feedback Frequency:Low
Organizational Communication: Low
Expectations (presence) Longstanding Relationship: Moderate/High
Build-up Trust: Moderate
Commitment (influences)
Expectations Influence: High
Communication Influence: High
Empowerment (Presence)
Structured Procedures: Low
Degree of Freedom: High
Rewards (Presence) Intrinsic: Low Extrinsic: Low presence Rewards as promised: Low
Motivation (influences)
Communication: High
Rewards: High
Empowerment: High
Team Characteristics (presence)
Task specific roles: High
Creativity (influences)
Motivation: High
Team characteristics: High
Empowerment: High
68
4.2.3. Comparing interview and survey results
However, when a comparison is made between the results of the surveys and the results on
present factors from the interviews of team dynamic/creative, a high count of dissimilarities
between the interview and surveys results can be noted except for the themes idealized
influence and inspirational motivation (table 7). This high count of dissimilarities can
indicate an offset of the validity of one of these research methods, most likely the surveys as
they hold less explanatory power on how these results were derived and the reasoning behind
it. This could indicate that certain survey questions were not clear to the interviewees or were
misunderstood during the filling out of the surveys, but were clearer during the interviews.
These dissimilarities can lead to different results concerning the working propositions,
therefore as mentioned in the methodology section, the emphasis is given on the usage of the
interview results to support the working propositions on the fact that the interviews are more
extensive, cover more aspects and qualitative results have a more explanatory power (Yin,
1991). Moreover, the extensiveness of the interviews are not just characterized by more
explanatory power, but also by the dinstinguishable results consisting out of information on
factors present at the time and information on factors considered as most effective by the
interviewees.
69
Table 7.
Comparison results on leadership team dynamic/creative
Factor Method Team Role Mean of Score Implied leadership Style
Idealized
Influence
Survey Leader Moderate Mix of styles
Team member Moderate Mix of styles
Interview Leader Moderate/High Mix: higher degree of
transformational Team Member Moderate Mix of styles
Inspirational
Motivation
Survey Leader Low Transactional
Team Member Moderate Mix of styles
Interview Leader Low Transactional
Team Member Low/Moderate Mix: higher degree of transactional
Intellectual
Stimulation
Survey Leader Moderate Mix of styles
Team Member Moderate Mix of styles
Interview Leader Low Transactional
Team Member Low Transactional
Individualized
Consideration
Survey Leader Moderate Mix of styles
Team Member Moderate Mix of styles
Interview Leader Low/Moderate Mix: higher degree of
transactional Team Member Low Transactional
Contingent
Reward
Survey Leader Low Transformational
Team Member Moderate Mix of styles
Interview Leader Moderate/High Transactional
Team Member Low/Moderate Mix: higher degree of transformational
Management
By Exception
Survey Leader Moderate Mix of styles
Team Member Moderate Mix of styles
Interview Leader Low Transformational
Team Member Low Transformational
Laissez-faire
Leadership
Survey Leader Low Transformational
Team Member Moderate Mix of styles
Interview Leader High Transformational
Team Member High Transformational
70
4.3 Cross-case analysis In this section a comparison will be drawn between the results of the surveys and interviews
of the dynamic/creative team and routine/stable team Firstly, a comparison will be made
between the survey results of the different teams and leaders, followed by the comparison
between the interview results. Furthermore, the results of the cross-case analysis were used to
compare the cases based on the results of the two research methods to find patterns which
could support the propositions formulated in this study and will be briefly discussed
(Eisenhardt, 1989). These propositions will be described more extensively in relation to the
results and linked to previous theory or used to formulate new possible theories in the
following discussion section.
4.3.1. Comparison of the survey results of the teams
When the survey results between both teams are compared and the perceptions on present
leadership styles (see table 8), a clear distinction should be visible between the two expected
leadership styles according to previous research (Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 2000; Shamir &
Howell, 1999; Lowe et al, 1996; Jaussi & Dionne, 2003; Shin & Zhou, 2003). It is expected
that the scores of the routine/stable will lean towards what is favorable for transactional
leadership in contrast to the dynamic/creative team that is expected to show more
characteristics of transformational leadership. However, this does not seem to be apparent in
this case. In most factors both teams score almost equal, but there are some scores that can be
distinguished from this. With intellectual stimulation the dynamic/creative team scores higher
than the routine/stable team. This factor is related to the degree those team members are being
encouraged to look at the task in creative and new ways and are surrounded by an
environment tolerant to what appears as extreme positions (Bass & Avolio, 1992). This can be
subscribed to the creative aspect of the dynamic team. Remarkably, the routine/stable team
perceives the leader more towards the characteristics of a transformational leader than the
dynamic/creative team depicts their leader according to the results of the factors
individualized consideration and laissez-faire leadership. Additionally, the contingent reward
and management by exception scores indicate the routine/stable leader more towards
exercising transactional leadership. Previous research (Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolo, 2000)
clearly indicates that the factors contingent reward and management-by-exception are
considered as transactional leadership qualities. In contrast, Bass (1985) proposed that
transformational leadership qualities comprise the factors: idealized influence, inspirational
motivation, intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration. No strong indicators can
71
be found to support these theories based on the survey results. Unfortunately, no clear
explanations can be given for these remarkable results based on the surveys alone.
Table 8. Comparison survey scores between teams & leaders
Factor Team Context & Role Mean of Total score per team
Implied Leadership Style
Idealized Influence
Routine/stable Leader 8,00 (Moderate) Mix of styles
Member 8,75 (Moderate/High) Mix: higher degree of Transformational
Dynamic/creative Leader 8,00 (Moderate) Mix of styles
Member 8,25 (Moderate) Mix of styles
Inspirational Motivation
Stable Leader 7,00 (Moderate) Mix of styles
member 5,75 (Moderate) Mix of styles
Dynamic Leader 4,00 (Low) Transactional
member 6,75 (Moderate) Mix of styles
Intellectual Stimulation
Stable Leader 6,00 (Moderate) Mix of styles
Member 6,25 (Moderate) Mix of styles
Dynamic Leader 7,00 (Moderate) Mix of styles
Member 7,75 (Moderate) Mix of styles
Individualized Consideration
Stable Leader 5,00 (Moderate) Mix of styles
Member 8,50 (Moderate/High) Mix: higher degree of Transformational
Dynamic Leader 6,00 (Moderate) Mix of styles
member 6,50 (Moderate) Mix of styles
Contingent Reward
Stable Leader 6,00 (Moderate) Mix of styles
member 7,75 (Moderate) Mix of styles
Dynamic Leader 4,00 (Low) Transformational
member 5,25 (Moderate) Mix of styles
Management By Exception
Stable Leader 9,00 (High) Transational
member 9,00 (High) Transactional
Dynamic Leader 6,00 (Moderate) Mix of styles
member 7,50 (Moderate) Mix of styles
Laissez-faire Leadership
Stable Leader 4,00 (Low) Transactional
member 9,00 (High) Transformational
Dynamic Leader 4,00 (Low) Transactional
member 7,75 (Moderate) Mix of styles
72
4.3.2. Comparison of the interview results between the teams
Fortunately, in addition to the surveys, the interview results can give more insight and
explanations on why and how these remarkable results have come about and can be found in
the in this section. In addition to the results of factors being present at the time, the interview
results also hold information given by the team members as what is considered most effective
according to them.
4.3.2.1. Work context
In table 9 a comparison is drawn between the survey and interview results of both teams can
be found. The first clear distinction that can be made is how the work context was perceived
by the teams. The entire routine/stable team perceived their work context as highly routine, in
contrast to the dynamic/creative team which perceived it to be constantly changing, therefore
highly dynamic. Another clear distinction that can be made in line with the expectations of
this study is the standards and structured procedures that seemed to be highly present
according to the routine/stable team, whereas the dynamic/creative team considered having
not many standards and structured procedures involved in their work. Furthermore, the
perceived work related freedom was considered to be moderate in the routine/stable team,
whilst it being perceived as high in the dynamic/creative team.
4.3.2.2. Leadership style
This section describes to what extent the propositions related to leadership style, and more
specifically how leadership style in relation to the work context and the theme of
‘expectations’, and ‘empowerment (in relation to intellectual stimulation)’, are in line with
the findings of this research (table 9). However, a remark should be made that two different
findings concerning leadership style in each team were found, one related to the present
leadership style and the other related to what is perceived as most preferred and influential by
the team members. The latter one is considered to be of higher value for discussing the
propositions.
Based on the results discussed in the previous section, the present leadership style of the
routine/stable team can be depicted as a mixed leadership style bearing distinctive traits of
both transactional and transformational, however with a slightly higher tendency towards
transformational (see table 9). In the interviews of the routine/stable team members it became
apparent that a friendly, charismatic and open leader with the ability to become strict and
73
directive if a team member shows sign of slacking resulting in lower results. Furthermore, in
contrast with transactional leadership, the leader should only be moderately involved and not
constantly be monitoring the every move of an employee. A leadership with the ability to let
the strings a bit lose was perceived as the best leadership style according to this team.
Furthermore, a good leader was considered to be highly knowledgeable according to this
team. These characteristics would indicate a preference towards a mixed leadership style that
bears the distinct transformational charismatic personality, but with the ability to become
transactional depending on the performance. However, this is considered not to be in line with
the propositions made in this study where a dinstinct transactional leadership style was
expected in this work context (Lowe et al., 1996)
Whereas in the dynamic/creative team, the present leadership style can also be described as a
mixed leadership style, but with a slightly higher tendency towards transactional (see table 7).
According to the results of the dynamic/creative team members a preference was given for a
leader that is professional, approachable and more charismatic, but also able to be strict when
the situation calls for it. Moreover, the leader does not necessarily need to have high
knowledge of all team aspects, but at least to a moderate extent as in having a general
knowledge on all aspects. In this team a low to moderately involved leader was preferred,
depending on chaotic situations where more involvement of the leader is needed to affirm
stricter control of the process or when results decline. This was considered to be related to the
high degree of freedom in this team, thus in such situations need to be bound. These
characterics would also in this case indicate a preference towards a mixed leadership style
consisting out of distinct transactional and transformational leadership style traits depending
on the situation. It becomes apparent in both teams that a leader should be able to wear two
different hats depending on the occurring situation. The propositions of this study expected
transformational leadership as most likely to flourish in a dynamic/creative work context
(Bass 1985; Conger 1993; Shamir & Howell, 1999).
Bass (1985) stated that effective leadership needs to consist out of both transactional and
transformational leadership traits. The forementioned results of both teams are in line with
this statement of Bass’ (1985) effective leadership style.
4.3.2.3. Communication
Both teams indicated that there was not a communicated shared vision or mutual belief
present within the team or organization. Furthermore, this was perceived as something that is
74
missing and would be considered of value to increasing the meaning of their work. The loss
of a shared vision was considered to be related to the lack of organizational communication
and isolation of departments according to most team members in both teams. The
routine/stable team leader seemed to attach a higher value to the lack of organizational
communication than the dynamic/creative team leader, who considered it as of value, but not
a subject that needed prioritization according to the interviews. This value placed on
organizational communication stems from both teams and can be considered as a construct of
proper communication in relation to the propositions formulated on communication in this
study.
4.3.2.4. Expectations
This section covers the presence of the factors build-up trust and longstanding relationship
related to the propositions on expectations formulated in this study.
All the team members of the routine/stable team have worked with the same leader for over a
couple of years now. Whereas, two team members of the dynamic/creative team were newer
to the team in comparison to the other team members who have been working with the same
leader for more than two years. Therefore, based on these results a higher degree of
longstanding relationship is present in the routine/stable team, than in the dynamic/creative
team. Moreover, in general the build-up trust was considered to be higher for the
routine/stable team than it was for the dynamic/creative team related to possible
misconceptions on promises. Bligh and Schyns (2007) proposed in their research that
promises made by the leader can lead to employees’ ‘romanticizing’ their leader and build
expectations around them, until in the long run when promises don’t come true and
employees’ expectations are not lived up to, it can result in detrimental behaviors and
decreasing efforts by those employees.
4.3.2.5. Commitment
This section describes to what extent the propositions related to commitment are in line with
the findings of this research (table 9).
The members of both teams considered longstanding relationship and build-up trust to be
highly influential for their commitment towards their leader. This is considered to be in line
with the proposition of this study on expectations in relation to commitment. However, it
needs to be mentioned that this is not necessarily due to transactional leadership style as was
75
proposed, on account of mentioning earlier that there is not distinct transactional leadership
present in neither of the teams. Both teams indicated that proper organizational
communication is preferred and that it could increase commitment. Therefore, the findings of
the routine/stable team are considered to be in line with the propositions on commitment in
relation to proper communication. Despite there not being an overall consensus on the
importance of organizational communication in team dynamic/creative, the findings are still
considered to be most likely in support with the propositions due to the fact that the
propositions are directed at employee commitment level. Furthermore, in team routine/stable
team feedback was not considered to be as influential for commitment as overall
organizational communication (this including overall mutual feedback sessions and briefings).
This was considered to be partially in line with the dynamic/creative team, placing more
emphasis on the importance of team feedback, but also still considered overall organizational
communication as most influential for commitment.
4.3.2.6. Empowerment
According to the interviews both teams feel empowered in their work, however in contrasting
ways. The routine/stable team perceived enough freedom to organize their work to their
personal taste within the boundaries set by the structured procedures and considered these
standards and procedures as a ‘safety net’ to fall back on when sitations became hectic or
suddenly changed. This resulted in job satisfaction despite being bounded by procedures. On
the other hand, the dynamic/creative team considered having complete freedom as an
important influential factor for higher creative performance and also job satisfaction.
Therefore, in line with the propositions of this study, both teams were considered feeling
highly empowered in their work, however due to contrasting factors (Hempel et al., 2010;
Kirkman & Rosen, 1999; Kirkman et al., 2004)
4.3.2.7. Rewards
Both teams indicated that incentive reward systems were considered to have a low presence
within the company. Albeit, the leader of the routine/stable team foremost indicated not
having the autonomy to make such decisions. In remark of the leader of the dynamic/creative
team, the leader indicated only having the options to reward team members with appraisal or
positive feedback. Other possibilities were seen as almost non-existent in his opinion. Both
teams indicated to favor monetary rewards over other forms of rewards. For the routine/stable
team this is considered to be in line with the proposotions formulated in this study. On the
76
contrary, this slight favorism towards extrinsic rewards was also apparent in the
dynamic/creative team and is not in line with the proposition of this study. Especially team
members with a family place more value towards monetary rewards due to uncertain factors
deriving from outside the company. A smaller amount of members per team indicated to favor
gaining new knowledge, responsibilities and appraisal as favorable for perceiving more job
satisfaction. A small part of each team considered rather having intrinsic rewards, however
the majority in each team favored extrinsic rewards. The general consensus across both teams
however was the belief that both rewards come in hand in hand.
4.3.2.8. Motivation
The propositions of this study on motivation are nearly all considered to be supported
according to these results. Overall motivation in the routine/stable team was perceived to be
highly influential mostly by rewards, but also organizational comunnication This was also
indicated by the dynamic/creative team. However, this team also put more emphasis on team
feedback as an important influence for motivation, which was considered to be missing more
than in the other team. In addition, the findings of this study indicate that there might be a
possible relation between organizational communication and intrinsic rewards, in particular
sense of meaningfulness. Thomas (2009) stated that the sense of meaningfulness is a part of
intrinsic rewards described by the perception an employee has relating to the significant
impact the work has on the organization and is considered of value to the team and company.
It includes feeling part of the whole company. Therefore, increasing organizational
communication could be seen as intrinsic rewarding, placing more value on the perception of
the team member’s work and also thereby increasing motivation. In contrast, the
dynamica/creative team leader indicated that according to him extrinsic rewards, specifically
monetary rewards are the motivational aspiration of everyone. However, the team members
considered intrinsic and extrinsic rewards to come hand in hand, even though a slight
preference was given towards monetary rewards in this team due to external environmental
factors (related to family and uncertain economical conditions). Rewards were considered to
be quite non-existent in any form in this team; therefore it was considered that just a sign of
appreciation or recognizing good effort by the leader could already increase motivation for
some team members.
77
4.3.2. 9. Team characteristics
Both teams and leaders indicated that their team consisted out of unique members and that
this was believed to contribute to the performance of the routine team and the creative
performance of the dynamic team.
4.3.2.10. Performance/Creativity
This section described to what extent the working propositions related to performance (in the
case of the routine/stable team) and creativity (referring to the dynamic/creative team) and
more specifically how the three interrelated categories of ‘motivation’, empowerment.’ and
‘team characteristics’ are in line with the findings of this research (table 9).
In line with the propositions motivation is regarded upon as highly influential towards
performance and creativity.
Empowerment was also considered to be beneficial towards performance, however not as
highly influential as it was considered to be for creativity according to the dynamic/creative
team. Empowerment was considered to be beneficial in the first case as it was regarded as a
‘safety net’ that was there in case they were needed, as in reducing environmental uncertainty
faced by the team (Hempel et al., 2012).
Both teams and their leaders consistently shared the opinion that a good functioning team
should exist out of members with unique task characteristics, abilities and specialized roles
that would complement each other and this would eventually lead to higher creativite or
routine performance (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993; Hoever et al., 2012).
All of the propositions of this study related to performance and creativity are considered to be
supported based on these results.
These findings will be more elaborately discussed in relation to the propositions formulated in
this study and related to findings of previous research. This discussion can be found in the
following section.
78
Table 9. Comparison interview results
Themes Codes Team Routine Leader Routine Team Creative Leader Creative Work Context Routine/Dynamic Routine: High Routine: High Dynamic: High Dynamic: High
Standards & structured procedures
Moderate / High Moderate / High Low Low
Degree of Freedom Moderate Moderate / High High High Leadership style (presence)
Leader Personality Friendly, Helpful, Professional
Friendly,Strict procedures, Open-minded
Lead-by-example, Non-charismatic
Professional, Strong, Directive, Distant
Leader Knowledge High High Moderate Moderate Feedback form & interaction Mixture, Moderate Mixture, Moderate Directive, Low Directive, Low Leader involvement Moderate Moderate Low Low
Communication (presence)
Shared belief & Vision Not present Not present Not present Not present Overall Feedback frequency Low Low Low Low Organizational communication Low Low Moderate Low
Expectations (presence) Longstanding relationship High High Moderate/ High High Build-up trust Moderate / High High Moderate High
Commitment (influences)
Expectations influence High High High Moderate/ High Communication influence High High High Moderate/ High
Empowerment (Presence)
Structured Procedures Moderate / High Moderate / High Low Low Degree of freedom Medium / High Medium High High
Rewards (Presence) Intrinsic Low Low/ Moderate Low Moderate Extrinsic Low Low Low Moderate Rewards as promised Not present Not present Low Moderate
Motivation (influences)
Communication High High High Moderate Rewards Moderate / High High Moderate / High High Empowerment High High High High
Team Characteristics (presence)
Task specific Roles High High High High
Performance/Creativity (influences)
Motivation High High High High Team characteristics High High High High Empowerment High Moderate / High High High
79
5. Discussion This section discusses how the findings of this research are in line with the working
propositions; thereby explaining to what degree the theoretical constructs of this study could
be applied to real-life situations concerning leadership styles and teams.
First, all the findings about the propositions are discussed in relation to prior research and
how they are present in these cases. Secondly, the findings about the propositions are
discussed in relation to what is preferred by the teams and considered as most valued to
influence their creativity and (routine) performance. It became apparent during the interviews
that the present situations are not necessary in accordance with the more valued situation
appraised by the team’s members. Therefore, the propositions will only be linked to the
beliefs and assumptions of the team’s most influential constructs for motivation, performance
or creativity and most appreciated leadership style.
5.1 Propositions linked to team routine/stable The results on the propositions of this study have led to mixed results (see table 10). First, the
leadership style expected to most likely flourish in the routine/stable work context was
transactional leadership. In line with previous research (Lowe et al., 1996), this study
expected transactional leadership to be present in a stable and certain context as this form of
leadership was considered more likely to operate within the boundaries of the existing system,
has a preference for risk avoidance whilst emphasizing process rather than substance as a
means for maintain control. Even though some of these elements were found to be present
according to the results, there was more a presence of a mixed leadership style with elements
of transactional leadership and transformational leadership. Bass (1985) proposed that
effective leaders should demonstrate traits of both transformational and transactional
leadership. However, Bass (1985) does not give any real causal explanations of how and why
a mixed leadership style is deemed most efficient in real situations, moreover lacks the
empirical evidence to support this statement. These findings are also in line with the
(reformulated) path goal theory of House (1996). According to the findings of this study, the
mixed leadership style of the routine/stable team is explained as by being more related
towards inadequate employee performance, where the leader needs to step in and act strict.
Whereas in ‘regular’ situations, a more charismatic and laissez-faire leadership is appreciated.
Thereby, the findings of this case support the statement of Bass (1985) concerning ‘effective’
80
leadership style by linking this mixed leadership style to performance outcomes. This is in
line with the ‘management-by-exception’ of Bass & Avolio (1993) proposing that the
transactional leader tends to intervene into the employees’work process only when their
performance deviated from the pre-assigned standard. When performance is considered
adequate, the leader can be more charismatic, friendly and less controlling as this was
regarded to be most pleasant by the team members. This is considered to be in line with the
research of Deci & Ryan (1987) that states that constant transactional leadership may be
perceived as controlling and demotivating, which in this case will lead to less adequate
performance outcomes. Therefore, propositions 3b is considered to be partially supported.
Proposition 2a is considered only to be partially supported on the findings showing that
having clear mutual expectation does encourage trust of employees and leads to higher
commitment, nevertheless is not necessary aided by transactional leadership.
As expected, the findings on having a long-standing relationship between leader and
employee and having clear mutual expectations are in line with proposition 2b of this study
(Sullivan et al., 2003; Sanders & Schyns, 2006).
The propositions about commitment were nearly all fully supported by the preceding findings
of this team (table 10). All interviewees indicated that commitment is considerd to be
increased by proper communication, in this case organizational communication. In addition,
clear expectations between leader and team members were perceived to increase trust which
leads to increased employee commitment. Team feedback was also considered as an
important aspect, but not as important to commitment as organizational communication was
perceived. Therefore, this proposition is only partially supported. Again this emphasizes the
importance that must be put on proper communication and strongly communication can
influence commitment (Kratzer et al., 2006; Meyer & Allen, 1997). Commitment is
considered to be a construct that is distinguishable from, but closely related to motivation
(Meyer et al., 2004). Less commitment leads according to the findings to less motivation
within the team. Therefore, more commitment is likely to result in more motivation.
In line with the proposition of this study, extrinsic rewards were considered to be more
influential than intrinsic rewards for routine teams, in particular monetary rewards. This was
also the case for creative teams and both teams share the opinion that these types of rewards
should not be considered in exclusive ways, but as mutually inclusive. Furthermore, the
reason for the emphasis towards favoring monetary rewards can be explained with Maslow’s
81
hierarchy of needs theory (1970) stating that if the lower boxes (biological & physhiological
needs and safety needs) of the pyramid are sufficiently covered in regards of team member’s
family, housing, food, safety, etc., it would become more likely that intrinsic rewards would
be more valued referring to the top boxes (figure 5).
Figure 5. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs
Source: adapted from Maslow A.H. (1970)
All propositions concerning performance are supported. The findings indicate that
empowerment was perceived in a routine work environment and was perceived as reducing
uncertainty and thereby ensuring performance instead of being regarded upon as bounding
and detrimental towards performance in line with prior research (Hempel et al., 2012).
Furthermore, teams consisting out of unique task-oriented members were considered to lead
to higher performance (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993; Hoever et al., 2012).
In the case it was evident that a lack of motivation resulted in team members being less
inclined to perform above the minimal requirements. Consequently, higher motivation is
likely to increase performance.
Self-actualization personal growth and fulfilment
Esteem needs
achievement, status, responsibility, reputation
Safety needs
protection, security, order, law, limits, stability
Biological and Physiological needs basic life needs
82
Table 10.
Results of the propositions linked to routine/stable team
Description Results
Proposition 2a Transactional leadership aids in having clear mutual expectations and meeting those expectations encourages trust of employees which leads to higher commitment
Partially supported
Proposition 2b A long-standing relationship between leader and employee aids in having clear mutual expectations
Supported
Proposition 3b Transactional leadership will flourish more in routine-oriented and stable working environments
Not supported
Proposition 4a Higher motivation leads to higher employee performance Supported
Proposition 5a Higher commitment leads to higher employee performance through motivation
Supported
Proposition 6a Extrinsic rewards lead to higher employee motivation for routine teams
Supported
Proposition 7a A team consisting out of unique task-oriented members leads to higher team performance
Supported
Proposition 8a Empowerment leads to higher employee performance through formalization
Supported
Proposition 9a Team feedback will lead to an increase of commitment Partially supported
Proposition 9b Proper communication leads to higher employee commitment
Supported
5.2 Propositions linked to team dynamic/creativee The findings on the propositions linked to the creative team have also led to some mixed
results. In line with previous research (Bass, 1985; Conger, 1993; Shamir & Howell, 1999)
this study expected that transformational leadership would be the most likely style considered
to flourish in a dynamic/creative work context. The team did indicate to prefer a more leader
that was more charismatic and approachable, than the leader currently mostly displaying
transactional leadership traits. A mixed leadership is according to this team also regarded as
most effective (Bass, 1985). Thereby, the findings of this case also support the statement of
Bass (1985) concerning ‘effective’ leadership style by linking this mixed leadership style to
performance outcomes. This is explained by as a mixed leadership dependent on the situation
83
that takes place, thereby indicating a leadership to be most effective if it is able to and willing
to adapt according to the situation at hand. It was indicated that the leader should be able to
step in and be more controlling and remove some of the freedom when the situation calls for
it. These findings regarding the preferences of the dynamic/creative team are in line with the
path goal theory of House (1996) stating that a leadership style should be adopted that is
fitting for the occurring situational characteristics of the working environment. As this team’s
working environment is considered to be dynamic and constantly changing, the leadership
style should be mixed and the leader should have the ability to adapt to a style fitting to the
occurring situation (House, 1996). Additionally, the leader should also be able to recognize
the situations that are occurring and be willing to change the leadership style to fit this
situation in the most effective way. If the occurring situation is unapparent, Somech &
Wenderow (2006) suggest a transformational leadership style to identify the key factors of the
situation and choose the most effective style to match that situation.
Moreover, the team regarded having a high degree of freedom accompanied with
responsibilities in their work which led to more job satisfaction, but were not indicated to lead
to more motivation. In addition, more responsibility was also not necessarily related to
transformational leadership as the findings suggest a mixed leadership style with a tendency
towards transactional leadership style present. However, self-autonomy (intellectual
stimulation) was perceived as lacking and was indicated to be a possible factor for increasing
team member’s motivation. This is related to the charismatic and approachable part related to
transformational leadership that could lead to higher motivation and eventually more
creativity, by providing motivational speeches to stimulate the team members intellectually.
The team leader did indicate, as mentioned in the findings, that he was not the type of leader
considered to give motivational speeches. On the basis of these findings, proposition 1 is
partially supported.
As expected, the findings on having a long-standing relationship between leader and
employee and having clear mutual expectations are in line with proposition 2b of this study
(Sullivan et al., 2003; Sanders & Schyns, 2006). This same result was found in the routine
team.
The propositions about commitment were nearly all fully supported by the preceding findings
of this team (table 11). All interviewees indicated that commitment is considered to be
increased by proper communication, in this case organizational communication. In addition,
84
clear expectations between leader and team members were perceived to increase trust which
leads to increased employee commitment. Team feedback was also considered as an
important aspect, more importantly than the other team perceived it to be. An explanation
could be that this team indicated that they only have team feedback sessions when results are
believed to be disappointing and never in general. This increases the emphasis put on the
importance of proper communication and strong communication can influence commitment
(Kratzer et al., 2006; Meyer & Allen, 1997). Also here the findings suggest that commitment
is considered to be a construct that is distinguishable from, but closely related to motivation
(Meyer et al., 2004). Less commitment leads according to the findings to less motivation
within the team. Therefore, more commitment is likely to result in more motivation.
In contrast with prior research (Mumford et al., 2002), extrinsic rewards were considered to
be more influential than intrinsic rewards for creative teams, in particular monetary rewards.
However, it was indicated that intrinsic rewards were also believed to be beneficial towards
motivation, there was just at the moment a higher favoring towards monetary rewards
according to most team members and were all related to external environmental conditions.
This was also the case for the routine team as previously mentioned. Here, both types of
rewards were also considered to be mutually inclusive. The previous reasoning for the
emphasis towards favoring monetary rewards explained with Maslow’s hierarchy of needs
theory (1970) can also be accounted for here.
All propositions concerning creativity are supported, except for the one mentioned earlier
being partially supported (table 11). The findings indicate that empowerment contributes to
more creativity, but also to motivation by having more autonomy and freedom to structure
and influence work in one’s own favored fashion, giving more meaning to the work
(Nederveen et al., 2009; Deci & Ryan, 1987; Spreitzer, 1995). Furthermore, teams consisting
out of unique task-oriented members were considered to lead to higher creativity in line with
prior research (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993; Hoever et al., 2012).
In the case it was also evident that a lack of motivation resulted in team members being less
inclined to perform above the minimal requirements. Consequently, higher motivation is
likely to increase creativity. Thereby, improving the previous mentioned constructs is
considered to increase motivation which leads to higher creativity.
85
Table 11.
Results of the propositions linked to dynamic/creative team
Description Results
Proposition 1 Transformational leadership brings more responsibility and self-autonomy (intellectual stimulation) in work which leads to more creativity through motivation
Partially supported
Proposition 2b A long-standing relationship between leader and employee aids in having clear mutual expectations
Supported
Proposition 3a Transformational leadership will flourish in more creative-oriented and dynamic working environment
Not Supported
Proposition 4b Higher motivation leads to more employee creativity Supported
Proposition 5b Higher commitment leads to higher employee creativity through motivation
Supported
Proposition 6b Intrinsic rewards lead to higher motivation for creative teams
Partially supported
Proposition 7b A team consisting out of unique task-oriented members leads to higher team creativity
Supported
Proposition 8b Empowerment leads to higher employee creativity without formalization
Supported
Proposition 9a Team feedback will lead to an increase of commitment Supported
Proposition 9b Proper communication leads to higher employee commitment
Supported
Proposition 9c Ensuring proper communication in the team leads to higher creativity
Supported
86
6. Concluding Remarks This study investigated how the characteristics of transformational leadership are considered
to influence team creativity in a dynamic environment & how those of transactional
leadership influence team performance within a routine environment. Prior research suggested
that transformational leadership was to flourish in dynamic contexts by giving more freedom
and responsibilities to employees, thus creating more substance and meaning to the work
resulting in more motivation and creativity (e.g. Bass, 1985; Jung, 2001). Transactional
leadership, in contrast to transformational leadership, was believed to flourish in routine
environments and is described as an exchange relationship in which expectations are clarified
and the immediate self-interests of leaders and employees are addressed (e.g. Lowe et al.,
1996). When the goal is achieved, employees are rewarded upon as expected (Bass, 1985).
This was considered in this study to lead to higher motivation resulting in increased
performance in contexts characterized by high degrees of standardization and structured
procedures. However, limitations were that most of previous research has based their findings
of perceptions of leader’s own behaviors (Yukl, 1994), did not take the context in which the
work took place into account and based their findings on surveys which are subject to biased
outcomes and lack explanatory power (Myers, 2009).
This study overcomes these limitations pointed out in previous literature by an in-depth
multiple case study design with two teams of the same company operating in different
working contexts. Interviews and surveys were used to gather information on the perception
of the team members on the situation and their leader and the perception of their leader. The
goal of this research was to examine how transformational
This study, in line with the future research suggestions made in prior research (e.g. Yukl,
1994; Zhang & Bartol, 2003; Kahai et al., 2003), overlap these limitations though an in-depth
multiple case analysis in two different teams that work in contrasting contexts in the same
company. The goal of this study was to examine how the characteristics of transformational
leadership are considered to influence team creativity in a dynamic environment & how those
of transactional leadership influence team performance within a routine environment. In
addition, this research examines what influences team members’ motivation and how this
affects their performance or creativity. The right mixture of leadership style and motivational
constructs increases routine team performance or dynamic team creativity. House (1996)
proposed eight leadership styles in relation to specific situations which are believed by this
research to be most effective; however House does mention that most effective leadership in
87
relation to outcomes can be achieved in ways which are not considered in the present theory.
The findings of this study support the propositions of the path goal theory of House to the
extent that leaders should choose a leadership style that fits the situation, thereby opting for a
mixed and able to adapt leadership style, instead being long-term fixed. This study suggests
that the most effective leadership style is very dependent on the team at hand and the situation
it is working in, therefore suggests that leaders and organizations should find out what
motivates their employees and furthermore find out which leadership style is deemed most
effective with that team. If the occurring situation is unapparent for a leader, Somech &
Wenderow (2006) suggest a transformational and charismatic leadership style to identify the
key factors of the situation, find out what motivates the team members and choose the most
effective style to match that situation.
The findings of this study indicate that in a stable environment characterized by routine work
a mixed leadership style is most effective dependent on the performance of employees. This
leadership is characterized as transformational in regular situations and transactional when
performance of team members is considered below standard. In this case, the leader needs to
become more transactional, displaying strict and controlling behavior to correct the slacking
team member(s). Whereas in a dynamic environment characterized by creative work, a mixed
leadership most effective, however dependent on the situation at hand. Dynamic
environments are prone to constant changing and therefore the leadership style should adapt
with the context to the most effective leadership style fitting that situation. In regular and
uncertain situations, a transformational type of leadership is considered most effective to find
out what type of situation is occurring and to match the leadership style to fit that situation.
The findings of this research also show that motivation is influenced by multiple factors:
commitment, proper communication, feedback and rewards. A remarkable finding of this
study is that in contrast to previous research (e.g. Mumford et al., 2002) extrinsic rewards, in
particular monetary rewards were considered as the most desired form of reward for not just
the routine team, but also the creative team. In addition, this desire for specific rewards are
not shaped by the internal factors at the company or within the team, but derive from external
factors related to the private situation of the employees. These factors that shape the desire of
an employee can be explained by Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (1970). Furthermore, the
findings of this research suggest that increasing motivation results in increased performance
in routine teams and increased creativity in creative teams. Organizations and team leaders
can improve performance/creativity by finding the perfect balance of the constructs that
88
influence motivation of team members. In addition, the findings also suggest that a team
consisting out of different members each specialized in their own task and all bringing a
unique contribution to the team is beneficial to the performance and creativity of a team.
Moreover, empowerment in teams characterized by routine work contexts are perceived by
perceiving structured procedures and standards as decreasing organizational uncertainty
thereby being beneficial towards performance. Whereas, teams characterized by creative a
working context feel empowered by having more autonomy, responsibilities and freedom that
are beneficial for creativity.
6.1 Limitations Although the findings of this study are encouraging for research on leadership, there were several
limitations that can be pointed out in its design. First, is that the research is done at only at one
multi-national company; therefore the results might be considered to be less generalizible for a
bigger population. As pointed out by Myer (2009) for doing a multi-case study it is very difficult
to get full access to a company that is willing to participate and give up their time for an outside
research. Furthermore, the researcher acknowledges the need to do a cross-check between the
survey results of previous research to compare results; however access to previous survey data on
this subject is limited to the reach of the researcher. Thereby, making the survey results more a
secondary and complemantary source in comparison to the interview results. This resulted in
having the focus more on the interview results for the discussion of the findings, thereby putting
less emphasis on the survey results.
Another limitation of this study is that it is unlikely that this researcher will do a follow up study
with the same teams at the same company. It would be very informative to explore the results of a
follow up research in which the leaders have taken up on the advice of this paper and display the
most effective leadership style according to their teams and what the effect on the outcome of the
teams would be.
Furthermore, a major limitation of this research is the confidentiality promised to the interviewees
in regards to getting the most honoust and unbiased information from them. The majority of
interviewees and leaders have indicated wanting to stay anonymous and don’t want the citations
of this research to be published. Publishing this paper could identify what was said by which
employee and could possibly harm their future career. Therefore, the researcher has opted to
completely defer the public making of this research in its complete form. This could mean that
this research will never be an addition to the field of research on leadership or at least not in its
full extent.
89
6.2 Scientific relevance and managerial implications The results offer managers an insight on what style of leadership fits best in different
situations and how employee motivation can be stimulated, thereby increasing
performance/creativity. Moreover, this study provides a basis for future research towards the
studying of mutually inclusive leadership styles instead of exclusive leadership styles. The
findings of both work contexts (dynamic and stable) suggest a mixed leadership style to be
most effective dependent on the type of situation occurring. This study thereby shows support
for the (reformulated) path goal theory of House (1996). House (1996) suggested 8 leadership
styles that could fit according to the situation at hand, but recognized that these leadership
styles are not necessary the most effective leadership style. He mentioned that a different, not
considered leadership style is also likely to fit the situation at hand. This paper aims to raise
awareness amongst leaders and organizations to invest more time and resources in finding out
more about their employees to get the full potential out of them. Many organizations
underestimate the importance of the employees on organizational performance and the huge
amount of organizational potential benefits that can be derived from them. The key to getting
the full potential of employees is to better understand their motivation and their desires.
Organizations can benefit from stimulating and motivating their employees to achieve better
than expected, resulting in more efficient performance and higher performance outcomes and
creativity.
6.3 Suggestions for future research Future research could overcome the limitations drawn in this research by researching this
topic on leadership on a larger scale consisting out of more samples of teams from
multinational companies. It would also be interesting to see what the findings would be when
companies of different regions are investigated and compared to see how cultural differences
can play a part in the effect of leadership style and see if culture plays a part in which factors
motivates employees. Furthermore, a follow up research would be interesting in which the
previous made suggestions to leaders in the preceding research is followed up by and where
the teams, leaders and outcomes are re-evaluated after a period of time would be very
informative to investigate if the suggestions truly have had effect.
90
7. References Amabile, T.M. (1998). How to kill creativity. Harvard Business Review, 76(9): 77-87
Avolio, B. (1999). Full Leadership Development: Building the Vital Forces in Organization.
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1988). Transformational leadership, charisma, and beyond. In J.
G. Hunt, B. R. Baliga, H. P. Dachler, & C. A. Schriesheim (Eds.), Emerging
leadership vitas (pp. 29-49). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Baer, M., Oldham, G. R., &Cummings, A. (2003). ‘Rewarding Creativity: When does it
Really Matter?’ The Leadership Quarterly, Vol.14, pp. 569-586.
Barling, J., Weber, T.& Kelloway, E.K. (1996), ``Effects of transformational leadership
training and attitudinal and fiscal outcomes. A field experiment’’, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 81, pp. 827-32.
Barney, J. 1991. Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of
Management , Vol. 17, 99-120.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: The Free
Press.
Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J. & Jung, D. I. Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit
performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol 88(2), 207-218.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2000). Technical report for the MLQ (2nd ed.). Redwood: Mind
Garden.
Bass, B.M., & Avolio, B.J. (1993). Transformational leadership: A response to critiques. In
M.M. Chemers & R. Ayman (Eds.), Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and
direction (pp. 49–88). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
91
Bass, B., & Avolio, B. (1995). Multifactor leadership questionnaire leader form (5x-short).
Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden.
Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic transformational
leadership behavior [Electronic Version]. Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 10, 181.
Basu, R., & Green, S. G. (1997). Leader-member exchange and transformational leadership:
An empirical examination of innovative behaviors in leader-member dyads. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 27, 477–499.
Bligh, M.C. and Schyns, B. (2007) ’Leading questions : the romance lives on : contemporary
issues surrounding the romance of leadership.’, Leadership., Vol. 3 (3). pp. 343-360.
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1997). Task performance and contextual performance:
The meaning for personnel selection research. Human Performance, Vol. 10, 99 –109
Bycio, P., Hackett, R. D. & Allen, J. S. (1995). Further assessments of Bass's (1985)
conceptualization of transactional and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol 80(4), Aug 1995, 468-478
Burke, C. S., Stagl, K. C., Klein, C., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & Halpin, S. M. (2006). What
type of leadership behaviors are functional in teams? Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 17,
288-307.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. Harper & Row, New York, NY.
Collins, M. A., & Amabile, T. M. (1999). Motivation and creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.),
Handbook of creativity (pp. 297–312). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Conger, J.A. 1993. The brave new woUOG�RI�OHDGHUVKLS�GHYHORSPHQWெ��Organizational
Dynamics, Vol. 21 ( 3), pp. 46-58.
Conger, J. (1998). Qualitative Research as the cornerstone methodology for understanding
leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 9 (1): 107-121
92
Covington, M. V., & Müeller, K. J. (2001). Intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation: an
approach/avoidance reformulation. Educational psychology review, Vol. 13(2), 157-
176.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human
behavior. New York: Plenum.
Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. (1987). The support of autonomy and the control of behavior.
Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, Vol. 53, 1024–1037.
De Hoogh, A. H. B., Den Hartog, D. N., & Koopman,P. L. (2005). Linking the Five-Factors
of personality to charismatic and transactional leadership: Perceived dynamic work
environment as a moderator. Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 26 , 839-865.
DeRue, D.S., Barnes C.M. & F.P. Morgeson (2010). Understanding the Motivational
Contingencies of Team Leadership. Small Group Research, Vol. 41(5), 621-651.
Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B. J., & Shamir, B. (2002). Impact of transformational leadership
on follower development and performance: A field experiment. Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 45, 735–744.
Eisenhardt, K.M. 1989. ‘Building Theories from Case Study Research’, Academy of
Management Review 14:532-550.
Eisenhardt, K. M. 1991. Better stories and better constructs: The case for rigor and
comparative logic. Academy of Management Review, 16: 620 – 627.
Graen G., Rowold J. & Heinitz K. (2010). Theoretical and Practitioner Letters Issues in
operationalizing and comparing leadership constructs. The Leadership Quarterly, Vol
21, 563-575
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N.K.
Denzin & YS Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105-117)
93
*XPXVOXRJOX��/DOH�DQG�øOVHY��$U]X��7UDQVIRUPDWLRQDO�/HDGHUVKLS, Creativity, and
Organizational Innovation. Journal of Business Research, Vol. 62, pp. 461-473, 2009.
Hempel P.S., Zhang ZX, Han Y. (2012). Team Empowerment and the Organizational Context
Decentralization and the Contrasting Effects of Formalization. Journal of Management
March 2012,Vol. 38 (2). 475-501
Hoever I.J., van Knippenberg D. & van Ginkel W.P. (2012). Fostering Team Creativity:
Perspective Taking as Key to Unlocking Diversity’s Potential. Journal of Applied
Psychology, vol. 97 (5). 982-996
House R.J., Path-goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy, and a reformulated theory, The
Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 7 (3), Autumn 1996, Pages 323-352
Hunt, J.G. and Schuler R.S. (1976). Leader reward and sanctions: behavior relations criteria
in a large public utility, Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois Press.
Jackson, S. E. (1992). Team composition in organizational settings: Issues in managing an
increasingly diverse workforce. In S. Worchel, W.Wood, & J. A. Simpson (Eds.),
Group processes and productivity (pp.138–173). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Jaussi, K. S., Dionne, S. D. (2003). Leading for creativity: The role of unconventional leader
behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 14, 475–498.
Jung D.I. (2001). Transformational and transactional leadership and their effects on creativity
in groups. Creativity Research Journal. Vol. 13(2). 185-195.
Jung, D. I., and Avolio, B. J. (1999), Effects of Leadership Style and Followers’ Cultural
Orientation on Performance in Group and Individual Task Conditions, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 42, 208–218.
94
Jung, D., & Avolio, B.J. (2000). Opening the black box: An experimental investigation of the
mediating effects of trust and value congruence on transformational and transactional
leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 21, 949-964.
Kahai, S. S., Sosik, J. J., & Avolio, B. J. (2003). Effects of leadership style, anonymity, and
rewards on creativity relevant processes and outcomes in an electronic meeting system
context. The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 14, 499–524.
Katzenbach, J.R. & Smith, D.K. (1993). The Wisdom of Teams: Creating the High-
performance Organization. Boston: Harvard Business School.
Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (2005). The Discipline of Teams. (cover story). Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 83(7/8), 162-171.
Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. (1999). Beyond self-management: Antecedents and
consequences of team empowerment. Academy of Management Journal,Vol. 42, 58-
74.
van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Homan, A. C. (2004). Work group diversity and
group performance: An integrative model and research agenda.Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 89,1008-1022
Kratzer, J., Leenders, R. T. A. J. & Engelen, J. M. L. V. (2006) Managing creative team
performance in virtual environments: an empirical study in 44 R&D teams.
Technovation, Vol. 26, 42–49.
Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of
transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ
literature. Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 7, 385-425.
Madjar, N. , Greenberg, E. & Chen, Z. (2011) Factors for Radical Creativity, Incremental
Creativity, and Routine, Noncreative Performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol.96(4), 730-743
95
Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (1987). Leading workers to lead themselves: The external
leadership of self-managing work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 32,
106-128.
Maslow, Abraham H. (1970). Motivation and Personality. 2nd ed. New York: Harper & Row.
Meyer, J. P., Becker, T. E., & Vandenberghe, C. (2004). Employee Commitment and
Motivation: A Conceptual Analysis and Integrative Model. Journal Of Applied
Psychology,Vol. 89(6), 991-1007.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational
commitment. Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 1(1), 61.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and
application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Meyer, J. P. & Herscovitch, L. (2001). Commitment in the workplace: toward a general
model. Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 11, 299-326.
Myers, M.D. (2009). Qualitative Research in Business & Management. SAGE Publications
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded
Sourcebook (2nd edn). Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organizations: A synthesis of the research. Prentice-
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
Morgeson, F. P. 2005. The external leadership of self-managing teams: Intervening in the
context of novel and disruptive events. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90: 497-508.
Morgeson, F. P., DeRue, D. S., & Karam, E. P. (2010). Leadership in teams: A functional
approach to understanding leadership structures and processes. Journal of
Management, 36, 5-39.
96
Mumford M.D., Scott G.M., Gaddis B. & Strange J.M. (2002). Leading creative people:
Orchestrating expertise and relationships. Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 13, 705–750.
Mumford M.D., Gustafson S.B. (1988). Creativity syndrome: Integration, application, and
innovation. Psychological Bulletin. Vol. 103, 27-43.
Nadler, D.A. (1979). The effects of feedback on task group behavior: A review of
experimental research. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 23,
309–338.
Nederveen Pieterse A., van Knippenberg D., Schippers M., Stam D. (2009). Transformational
and transactional leadership and innovative behavior: The moderating role of
psychological empowerment. Journal of Organizational Behavior. Vol. 31 (4,) 609-
623.
Oldham, G.R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual
factors at work. Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 13: 705-750.
Osterloh M., Frey B.S. & Frost J. (2001). Managing Motivation, Organization and
Governance. Journal of Management & Governance, Vol. 5 (3-4), 231-239.
Paulus, P.B. (2000). Groups, teams and creativity: The creative potential of idea generating
groups. Applied Psychology: An International Review, Vol. 49, 237–262.
Payne, G., & Payne, J. (2004). Key concepts in Social Research. London: Sage
Pearce, C.L., and Sims, H.P., Jr. (2002) Vertical versus Shared Leadership as Predictors of
the Effectiveness of Change Management Teams: An Examination of Aversive,
Directive, Transactional, Transformational, and Empowering Leader Behaviors,
Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice,Vol. 6 (2), 172-197.
Pillai, R., Schriesheim, C.A., & Williams, E. (1999). Fairness perceptions and trust as
mediators for transformational and transactional leadership: A two-sample study.
Journal of Management, Vol. 25(6), 897–934.
97
Pinder, C.C., (1998). Work Motivation in Organizational Behavior. Prentice Hall
Podsakoff, P. M., Todor, W.D., Grover, R.A., & Huber, V.L. (1984). Situational moderators
of leader reward and punishment behaviors: Fact or fiction? Organizational Behavior
and Human Performance, Vol. 34, 21-63.
Porter, M. 1985. Competitive advantage. New York: Free Press.
Ryan, G.W. & Bernard H.R. (2003). Techniques to Identify Themes. Field Methods
Vol. 15, 1 85-109.
Sanders, K. & Schyns, B. (2006). Trust, conflict and cooperative behaviour: Considering
reciprocity within organizations. Personnel Review, Vol. 35, 508-518
Senge, P. (1990). The Fifth Discipline. New York, Doubleday.
Shalley, C.E., Gilson, L.L. (2004). A little creativity goes a long way: An examination of teams’ engagement in creative processes. Journal of Management, Vol. 30, 453-470.
Shamir, B., & Howell, J.M. (1999). Organizational and contextual influences on the
emergence and effectiveness of charismatic leadership. Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 10
(2), 257-283
Shin, S., & Zhou, J. (2003). Transformational leadership, conservation, and creativity:
Evidence from Korea. Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 46, 703-714.
Somech, A. & Wenderow, M. (2006). The impact of participative and directive leadership on
teachers' performance: The intervening effects of job structuring, decision domain, and
LMX. Educational Administrative Quarterly, Vol. 42, 746-772.
Spreitzer, Gretchen M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions,
measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 (5), 1442-
1465.
Sullivan, D.M., Mitchell, M.S., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2003). The new conduct of business:
98
Leading questions: Romance of Leadership 35 How LMX can help capitalize on
cultural diversity. In G. B. Graen (Ed.), Dealing with diversity, LMX leadership: The
Series Vol. I, 183-218.
Thomas, K.W. (2009). The Four Intrinsic Rewards That Drive Employee Engagement. Ivey
Business Journal, Vol. 73 (6), 9
Thomas, K.W. and Velthouse, B.A. 1990. Cognitive Elements of Empowerment: An
‘Interpretive’ Model of Intrinsic Task Motivation. The Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 15, 666-681.
Van der Vegt, G.S., de Jong, S., Bunderson, J.S. and Molleman, E. 2010. Power asymmetry
and learning in teams: The moderating role of performance feedback. Organization
Science, Vol. 21, 347–361.
Walter, F., & Van der Vegt, G.S. (2012). Harnessing members' positive mood for team-
directed learning behavior and team innovation: The moderating role of perceived
team feedback. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. Vol,. 1-14.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study Research: Design and Methods (3rd edn). Newbury Park, CA:
Sage
Yukl, G.A. (1994). Leadership in Organizations (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall
Yukl, G.A. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and
charismatic leadership theories. The Leadership Quarterly Vol.10, 285–305.
Zaccaro, S.J., Heinen, B., & Shuffler, M. 2009. Team leadership and team effectiveness. In
E. Salas, G.F. Goodwin, & C.S. Burke (Eds.), Team effectiveness in complex
organizations: Cross-disciplinary perspectives and approaches: 83-111. New York:
Routledge.
99
Zhang A.Y., Tsui A.S. & Wang D.X. (2011). Leadership behaviors and group creativity in
Chinese organizations: The role of group processes. Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 22
851-862.
Zhang X., Bartol K.M. (2003). Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: The
influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process
engagement. Academy of Management Journal, 2010, Vol. 53 (1), 107-128.
Zhou, J., & Shalley, C.E. (2010). Deepening our understanding of creativity in the
workplace. In S. Zedeck et al. (Eds.), APA Handbook of Industrial–Organizational
Psychology Vol. 1, 275-302.