You are on page 1of 4

Ruhiyati Idayu Abu Talib

2008354043

EMBA 6
RUHIYATI IDAYU
ARTICLE CRITIQUE
HOW LEADER’S INFLUENCE EMPLOYEES’ INNOVATIVE BEHAVIOUR
Jeroen P.J de Jong &Deanne N.Den Hartog
European Journal of Innovation Management Vol.10 No.1 (2007)

The purpose study was to provide an inventory of leader behaviours likely to


enhance employees’ innovative behaviour, including idea generation and
application behaviour. The study was carried out in knowledge-intensive services
firm and the researcher approach was based on a combination of literature research
and in-depth interviews.

12 participants were selected through purposive sampling. Each participant


was a manager and/or entrepreneur (business owner) in a small knowledge-
intensive service firm (< 100 employees’). Within the sample, five participants are
considered “front runner” of their respective industry and seven participants are the
“average leaders” who agreed to participate. The interviewees are from a wide
range of sectors, including research, engineering, consultancy, accountant and IT.
The samples focus primarily on leaders in knowledge-intensive services and it has
created some limitation. A larger sample with regards to leaders from all sector in
knowledge-intensive services firms would have aided in the data analysis, perhaps
some different leader behaviours might be found in other sectors.

The instrument utilized was 13 leaders behaviour that they found to be


connected to innovative behaviour. Six behaviours were believed to relate to only
one type of innovative behaviour, the others are likely to affect both idea
generation and application behaviour. Intellectual stimulation, stimulating
knowledge diffusion, organizing feedback, rewards, providing resources and task
assignment were found to relate strongly with innovative behaviours. Whereas,
innovative role-modelling, providing vision, support for innovation, recognition and
monitoring are aimed more directly at stimulating employees’ idea generation
and/or application effort. Some behaviour such as consulting and delegating are
more general in nature.

Based on their findings, leaders trying to enhance individual innovation


among their employees could attempt to consult them more often, ensure that
employees have sufficient autonomy in deciding on how to go about their task, and
support and recognize people’s initiatives and innovative efforts. Creating a positive
and safe atmosphere that encourages openness and risk taking seems to encourage
RUHIYATI IDAYU
ARTICLE CRITIQUE
HOW LEADER’S INFLUENCE EMPLOYEES’ INNOVATIVE BEHAVIOUR
Jeroen P.J de Jong &Deanne N.Den Hartog
European Journal of Innovation Management Vol.10 No.1 (2007)

idea generation and application. Overall, leaders have to walk a fine balance
between stimulating innovative behaviour and ensuring short-term effectiveness
and efficiency. Their overview also contains behaviours shown by leaders with the
explicit purpose of influencing individual innovation by communicating an attractive
vision hence it helped to guide idea generation and application behaviour in
employees.

While the study has merit, the methods need to be re-evaluated. The power
of the study needs to be increase by obtaining a larger sample size. By adding more
number of respondents in the study, the result conclude will be more accurate. The
researchers mention that the selections of the interviewee were based on the
recommendation of consultancy firm Synten to trace the suitable participants. It is
not mention here if they have specific criteria to define the “front-runners” from the
“average leader “. The recommendations were based on the strong relationship
that the consultancy have between the interviewee. How long the
managers/entrepreneur in the leadership position would greatly affect how they
responded to the question being asked, yet this was not considered in the study.

Interview report was studied intensively to identify common categories of


meaning. If there are any differences in categories, it were discussed and resolved.
Thus, this method exposes the researcher with a few factors that could affect the
internal validity of the study. Without empirical data to back up the result of the
study, it is hard to relate how significant each interview question with the study.
How does each measurement correlate with the innovative behaviour and how does
it affect leadership? It is also not mention here, how they study the report
intensively. What method that they are using to evaluate the answer from the
interview. Without these, it is impossible to evaluate the potential meaningfulness
of this study.

Reference :
RUHIYATI IDAYU
ARTICLE CRITIQUE
HOW LEADER’S INFLUENCE EMPLOYEES’ INNOVATIVE BEHAVIOUR
Jeroen P.J de Jong &Deanne N.Den Hartog
European Journal of Innovation Management Vol.10 No.1 (2007)

Abraham Carmeli,Ravit Meitar and Jacob Weisberg. (2006) “Self-leadership skills


and innovative behaviour at work”. International Journal of Manpower,Vol.27
No.1 pp 75-90.

E.Isaac Mostovic,Nada K.Kakabadse, Andrew P. Kakabadse (2009) “ A dynamic


theory of leadership development”. Leadership and Organization Development
Journal, Vol.30.No.6 pp 563-576.

Barbara Czarniawska. (2006) “ Organization Theory”. Edward Elgar Publishing


Limited.

Gibson,Ivancevich,Donnelly,Konopaske. (2003).”Organizations”. McGraw-Hill Higher


Education.