research paper of leadership qualities

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Leadership: A Comprehensive Review of Literature, Research and Theoretical Framework

2020, Leadership: A Comprehensive Review of Literature, Research and Theoretical Framework. In: Journal of Economics and Business, Vol.3, No.1, 44-64.

This paper provides a comprehensive literature review on the research and theoretical framework of leadership. The author illuminates the historical foundation of leadership theories and then clarifies modern leadership approaches. After a brief introduction on leadership and its definition, the paper mentions the trait theories, summarizes the still predominant behavioral approaches, gives insights about the contingency theories and finally touches the latest contemporary leadership theories. The overall aim of the paper is to give a brief understanding of how effective leadership can be achieved throughout the organization by exploring many different theories of leadership, and to present leadership as a basic way of achieving individual and organizational goals. The paper is hoped to be an important resource for the academics and researchers who would like to study on the leadership field.

Related Papers

Sonali Sharma

Shanlax International Journal of Commerce

vivek deshwal

Journal of Leadership and Management; 2391-6087

Betina Wolfgang Rennison

The theoretical field of leadership is enormous-there is a need for an overview. This article maps out a selection of the more fundamental perspectives on leadership found in the management literature. It presents six perspectives: personal, functional, institutional, situational, relational and positional perspectives. By mapping out these perspectives and thus creating a theoretical cartography, the article sheds light on the complex contours of the leadership terrain. That is essential, not least because one of the most important leadership skills today is not merely to master a particular management theory or method but to be able to step in and out of various perspectives and competently juggle the many possible interpretations through which leadership is formed and transformed.

Fila Bertrand, Ph.D.

Leadership and the numerous concepts on leadership styles have been subjects of both study and debate for years. Every leader approaches challenges differently, and his or her personality traits and life experiences greatly influence his or her leadership style and the organizations they lead. Furthermore, leadership is a notion resulting from the interaction between a leader and followers, and not a position or title within the organization. This essay examines some of the contemporary theories of leadership, the leadership qualities and traits necessary to be successful in today's competitive environment, the impact of leadership to the organization, and the importance of moral leadership in today's world.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INNOVATIVE RESEARCH AND KNOWLEDGE

Vivian A . Ariguzo , Michael okoro

Diverse views have emerged on leadership definitions, theories, and classification in academic discourse. The debate and conscious efforts made to clarify leadership actively has generated socio-cultural and organizational research on its styles and behaviours. This study seeks to identify the theoretical views of various academic scholars on some of the main theories that emerged during the 20 th century include: the Thomas Carlyle's Great Man theory, Gordon Allport's Trait theory, Fred Fiedler's Contingency theory, Hersey and Blanchard Situational Theory, Max Weber's Transactional theory, MacGregor Burns' Transformational theory, Robert Houses' Path-goal theory, and Vroom and Yetton's Participative theory. Empirical discourse that revealed findings of academic scholars have enshrined the import of leadership in organizations. Various academic literature that already have been subject to validity and reliability tests were reviewed and used to arrive at the findings. The study postulated the Mystical-man theory after a rich discourse and recommended it as the ideal theory for all Christian leaders to adopt as it is assumed to provide above average performance at all times, irrespective of followership behaviour.

Neil D . Walshe

The three topics of this volume—leadership, change, and organization development (OD)—can be viewed as three separate and distinct organizational topics or they can be understood as three distinct lenses viewing a common psycho-organizational process. We begin the volume with a comprehensive treatment of leadership primarily because we view leadership as the fulcrum or crucible for any significant change in human behavior at the individual, team, or organizational level. Leaders must apply their understanding of how to effect change at behavioral, procedural, and structural levels in enacting leadership efforts. In many cases, these efforts are quite purposeful, planned, and conscious. In others, leadership behavior may stem from less-conscious understandings and forces. The chapters in Part I: Leadership provide a comprehensive view of what we know and what we don’t know about leadership. Alimo-Metcalfe (Chapter 2) provides a comprehensive view of theories and measures of leadershi...

Transylvanian review of administrative sciences

Cornelia Macarie

The paper endeavors to offer an overview of the major theories on leadership and the way in which it influences the management of contemporary organizations. Numerous scholars highlight that there are numerous overlaps between the concepts of management and leadership. This is the reason why the first section of the paper focuses on providing an extensive overview of the literature regarding the meaning of the two aforementioned concepts. The second section addresses more in depth the concept of leadership and managerial leadership and focuses on the ideal profile of the leader. The last section of the paper critically discusses various types of leadership and more specifically modern approaches to the concept and practices of leadership.

An organization constitute of a diverse group of individuals, working together towards a specified common goal. A robust organizational framework is based upon specified values, believes and positive culture accompanied by effective leaders and managers that are expected to understand their roles and responsibilities towards both the employees and the management of the organization. Culture is recognized as "the glue" that binds a group of people together (Martin and Meyerson, 1988). Therefore, organizational culture entails intelligent and great leaders who value and believe in nurturing employees and appreciate their active participation in the progression of the company (Balain & Sparrow 2009). With that said, management is also one of the crucial organisational activities that is necessary to ensure the coordination of individual efforts as well as the organization's resources and activities. Lastly, leadership in itself is a vital bond that connects effective management and splendid organizational culture. However, for a long time, there has been a disconnect and inconsistency on what entails leadership and management. We identify with scholars who questioned the overlying issues regarding the significant concepts of leadership and management (Schedlitzki & Edwards,2014). It is therefore paramount to understand how leadership and management play critical roles in shaping up contemporary organizations, fundamentally appreciating the applicability that arises with the various leadership styles and management theories while apprehending their link to organization culture.

International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development

Prof. Dr. Satya Subrahmanyam

This research article was motivated by the premise that no corporate grows further without effective corporate leaders. The purpose of this theoretical debate is to examine the wider context of corporate leadership theories and its effectiveness towards improving corporate leadership in the corporate world. Evolution of corporate leadership theories is a comprehensive study of leadership trends over the years and in various contexts and theoretical foundations. This research article presents the history of dominant corporate leadership theories and research, beginning with Great Man thesis and Trait theory to Decision process theory to various leadership characteristics. This article also offers a convenient way to utilize theoretical knowledge to the practical corporate situation.

Public Administration Review

Montgomery Van Wart

RELATED PAPERS

Journal of Life Sciences

salima bennadja

Journal of Zoology

Traditional Chinese Medicine

Przegląd Socjologii Jakościowej

Jakub Ryszard Stempień

Joachim Lipski, PhD

Primeiros Estudos - Revista de Graduação em Ciências Sociais

Patrick Silva

Lourenço Soares Ribeiro

Jojada Verrips

Pablo Marinangeli

Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition

Mahboobeh Zare

Ciencia e Ingeniería Neogranadina

Helbert Eduardo Espitia Cuchango

Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation

Vedran Kovacic

Annals of Plastic Surgery

Gia Nguyen Nguyen

Natural Computing Series

Paola Bonizzoni

Remi Castioni

Magdalena Szkwarek

Lecture Notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering

Elizabeth Furtado

RSC Advances

Satyam singh

Journal Industrial Servicess

lintang dyah

Nikmatus Sa'adah

osuocha kelechi

hjjhgj kjghtrg

IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters

Asad Shahid

Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology

azmeraw bekele

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

6 Common Leadership Styles — and How to Decide Which to Use When

• Rebecca Knight

Being a great leader means recognizing that different circumstances call for different approaches.

Research suggests that the most effective leaders adapt their style to different circumstances — be it a change in setting, a shift in organizational dynamics, or a turn in the business cycle. But what if you feel like you’re not equipped to take on a new and different leadership style — let alone more than one? In this article, the author outlines the six leadership styles Daniel Goleman first introduced in his 2000 HBR article, “Leadership That Gets Results,” and explains when to use each one. The good news is that personality is not destiny. Even if you’re naturally introverted or you tend to be driven by data and analysis rather than emotion, you can still learn how to adapt different leadership styles to organize, motivate, and direct your team.

Much has been written about common leadership styles and how to identify the right style for you, whether it’s transactional or transformational, bureaucratic or laissez-faire. But according to Daniel Goleman, a psychologist best known for his work on emotional intelligence, “Being a great leader means recognizing that different circumstances may call for different approaches.”

• RK Rebecca Knight is a journalist who writes about all things related to the changing nature of careers and the workplace. Her essays and reported stories have been featured in The Boston Globe, Business Insider, The New York Times, BBC, and The Christian Science Monitor. She was shortlisted as a Reuters Institute Fellow at Oxford University in 2023. Earlier in her career, she spent a decade as an editor and reporter at the Financial Times in New York, London, and Boston.

Partner Center

More From Forbes

Mastering executive presence: the critical leadership competence for today's business landscape.

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

Jon Michail is Founder & Group CEO of Image Group International & best-selling author of Life Branding. Follow him on LinkedIn & Twitter.

In the modern business environment, having an executive presence is not merely a bonus requirement for leaders. Executive presence plays an important role in instilling confidence, earning respect and assisting organizations toward success. As a top executive or leader today, you’ll be faced with unique challenges and obstacles where possessing an executive presence will make all the difference. It shouldn’t come as a surprise that to be considered for senior roles, the existence or lack of executive presence is a major deciding factor.

However, there’s been a massive shift in what executive presence means today and what it used to mean back in the day. This is why discussing and understanding the meaning and significance of executive presence in this modern time is important.

The Evolution Of Executive Presence

Executive presence has always been regarded as an important attribute. Still, in the past, it was mostly about dressing and looking superior, radiating confidence and giving firm handshakes. This is no longer the case today; having an executive presence now encompasses a whole lot more, especially as the workplace and professional culture evolve.

Coqual conducted research that sheds more light on this new reality. According to this research, aside from having the traditional strong physical presence, executive presence is a combination of different attributes, which include gravitas and exceptional communication skills. Remarkably, it should be noted that the most significant factor of all is no longer the commanding physical presence, but gravitas, which was found to have a 67% influence in determining how effective people perceive a leader to be.

Netflix s Best New Show Arrives With A Perfect 100 Critic Score

Ufc 300 results bonus winners after historic event, meet the country about to have three solar eclipses in three years, the impact and elements of executive presence.

Just from the term “executive presence," it’s easy to see that any leader with this trait will stand out from other leaders. Possessing this attribute goes beyond the skills or professional experience one has as a leader. It’s all about sending the right signals, and more often than not, that can determine how successful a person becomes in their professional career.

The impact of executive presence is also recognized by professionals, as evidenced in a Gartner CIO survey, where it was ranked as the second most important trait for leaders who make a difference. It’s already clear that having an executive presence is nonnegotiable if leaders want to go far professionally, but what exactly are the traits to nurture? And more importantly, why are these traits crucial?

Gravitas As The Core

As already mentioned, gravitas is the most important attribute for anyone who can be said to possess executive presence. Gravitas simply means exuding confidence, self-assurance and decisiveness when under pressure. With this trait, such leaders are often found to be reliable and competent in difficult times.

Jeff Bezos, CEO of Amazon, showed his understanding of this when he was quoted saying, “If you're not stubborn, you'll give up on experiments too soon. And if you're not flexible, you'll pound your head against the wall, and you won't see a different solution to a problem you're trying to solve." This quote encapsulates the importance of confidence and resilience to stick to a vision as well as the emotional intelligence to be flexible, which are the essence of gravitas. Striking a balance here can very well make all the difference if leaders are to achieve success and remain relevant in a constantly changing professional environment.

Communication: Taking Command And Articulating Vision

Another important attribute to cultivate is the ability to communicate efficiently. Communication does not stop at the verbal aspect; it includes non-verbal aspects like the ability to read an audience and take control. Without communication, it’s almost impossible for anyone else to genuinely buy into your vision , not to mention work toward the end goal.

A brilliant example of someone who understands the power of genuine communication is Oprah Winfrey. She understands that a leader can only build relationships and motivate their team with the right kind of communication. In Oprah’s own words , “Great communication begins with connection. What makes us different from one another is so much less important than what makes us alike—we all long for acceptance and significance. When we recognize those needs in ourselves, we can better understand them in others, and that's when we can set aside our judgments and just hear."

Blending Appearance With Values

Your image influences first impressions, and first impressions matter a lot more than many people think. If image did not matter, the president of the United States would present onstage in shorts and T-shirts, looking very relaxed but lacking gravitas. The way you appear as a leader still does and always will have a significant impact. In fact, this importance is especially pronounced if you’re yet to make a name for yourself or make an impact as a leader.

Your appearance should be in line with the personal and organizational values you wish to portray. When you need to meet stakeholders, a good "presentation" is important and should be in line with or exceed their expectations. Authentic presence is not about copying colleagues, it’s about presenting "brand you"—a comfortable, confident and impactful leader. Remember, your look "speaks" before you open your mouth.

Cultivating Executive Presence In The Digital Age

As we live in a digitally driven society, technology is a major part of our existence, influencing our interactions with others. Thus, the savvy leader also understands the importance of leveraging social media to augment their visibility while engaging stakeholders. However, to be successful, it should be done with authenticity, so your values and beliefs are accurately reflected in your online presence. When executed correctly, not only can leaders significantly improve their executive presence, but they can also build trust, loyalty and meaningful relationships with their audience.

Consider executive presence as the “magnetic” cover of a book. A magnetic presence opens doors like nothing else, and a smart leader knows that it takes a “total package” to succeed!

Forbes Coaches Council is an invitation-only community for leading business and career coaches. Do I qualify?

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

Filter by Keywords

People Management

Entp leadership: how to make the most of your traits.

Sudarshan Somanathan

Head of Content

April 15, 2024

Do you crave intellectual stimulation, thrive in a dynamic environment, and see the world as a playground for creative problem-solving? 

You might be an ENTP leader known for infectious enthusiasm, innovative spirit, and the ability to challenge the status quo. ENTPs lead with a vibrant energy, captivating others with their vision. 

But how do you know for sure if you are an ENTP? And what are the best practices for typical ENTP leaders to succeed in their roles? 

We’ll answer these questions and more. 

Understanding ENTP Leadership

1. unique insight and vision, 2. relational capacities, 3. creative problem-solving, 1. balancing intuition with implementation, 2. managing impatience, 3. managing conflict constructively, 1. balance criticism with constructive feedback, 2. pair innovation with empathy and support, 3. shift the focus from competition to sharing a vision, complement entp leadership with the right strategies and tools, common faqs.

The ENTP leader, also known as the ‘Debater’ has a dynamic style of leading. Before we go into the unique leadership qualities associated with the ENTP personality, let’s look at what the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) says about them.

The MBTI, a personality assessment tool, identifies 16 personality types based on the differences in four key traits:

• Introversion (I) or extraversion (E)
• Intuition (N) or sensing (S)
• Thinking (T) or feeling (F), and
• Judging (J) or perceiving (P)

ENTP leaders tend to display a blend of extroversion, intuition, thinking, and perceiving traits. That means ENTP personalities:

• Gain energy from social interaction and enjoy brainstorming and debating ideas with others (Extroverted)
• Focus on possibilities and future outcomes , drawing on their quick wit and creative thinking (Intuitive)
• Make decisions based on logic , analysis, and potential effectiveness (Thinking)
• Prefer flexibility and adapt to changing situations , readily embracing new ideas (Perceiving)

ENTP qualities hold significant potential in leadership roles. Here’s how:

ENTPs and leadership

As an ENTP, you possess a natural charisma and enthusiasm that can inspire and motivate others. Your quick-witted nature and mental agility help you generate innovative solutions, creating a dynamic and stimulating work environment.

Your ability to think on your feet and adapt to changing circumstances allows you to navigate complex situations effectively. You pursue knowledge, challenge conventional dogmas, and encourage diverse perspectives. As a people manager, you often create a space for open communication, collaboration, and creativity.

However, it’s important to acknowledge that ENTPs sometimes struggle with follow-through or maintaining structure, which can be crucial for sustained success. You must also be careful about throwing too many ideas at your team in one go. Additionally, your love of debate and challenge occasionally makes you seem insensitive or overly critical.

By understanding how ENTPs operate as leaders, you can tailor your leadership and management style to leverage your strengths, refine your communication methods, and ensure your team thrives under your leadership.

Harnessing the Strengths of ENTP Leaders

ENTP leaders possess unique strengths that make them exceptional leaders. Let’s explore how you can use these strengths to improve your leadership skills and lead more effectively.

ENTPs can ‘see the future’ by identifying potential issues and opportunities before they arise. Their intuitive nature and big-picture thinking enable them to anticipate future trends and proactively develop strategies to avoid pitfalls or capitalize on opportunities.

Exceptional ENTP leaders are often visionaries who can inspire others with their original and innovative ideas. They’re not afraid to challenge the status quo and explore new possibilities.

ENTPs are also adept at finding connections and patterns among seemingly unrelated information. They can use their analytical and logical skills to solve complex problems and create novel solutions.

Despite their preference for logic, ENTPs can be surprisingly adept at reading people. Their strong communication skills and genuine curiosity allow them to build rapport with diverse individuals and understand their needs and motivations. 

This ability allows them to bring out the best in their team members, creating a collaborative and supportive environment.

One of the most significant strengths of ENTPs is their ability to think outside the box and generate creative solutions to complex problems. 

They challenge the status quo, brainstorm unconventional approaches, and encourage their teams to do the same. This promotes innovation and empowers team members to contribute their unique perspectives.

Overcoming Leadership Challenges as an ENTP

As an ENTP manager, you have many strengths that can help you create and lead innovative and successful projects. However, you may also encounter some challenges that can hinder your performance or satisfaction.

Challenge: You may excel at generating ideas, but following through on implementation can sometimes be difficult.

Addressing this challenge:

• Utilize project management templates and detailed project plans with clear deadlines and action steps
• Collaborate with individuals who excel at execution to bridge the gap between ideation and implementation
• Break down long-term goals into smaller, achievable milestones to maintain focus and motivation

ClickUp can be of great help here. Use ClickUp Goals to break down tasks based on priorities and different timeframes (daily, weekly, and so on). 

ClickUp Goals can help you stay focused, motivated, and adaptable in your role. It can also help you leverage your strengths, such as creativity, innovation, and persuasion, and overcome challenges, such as losing interest in tasks or neglecting details.

Use ClickUp’s Custom Views and choose from a variety of views, including List view, Kanban board view, and Calendar view, that best suit your work style and preferences. 

ClickUp offers over 15+ customizable views, allowing you to tailor the interface to your unique leadership preferences.

Challenge: You often become frustrated and impatient with slow decision-making or lack of progress

• Understanding your decision-making style and adopting ways to be more decisive  
• Actively listening and acknowledging diverse viewpoints before you make decisions
• Focusing on celebrating small wins to maintain team morale and motivation
• Seeking guidance from your mentors or resources such as leadership books and online learning platforms

ClickUp can ensure open communication and collaboration within your team to tackle this challenge. Utilize ClickUp’s Chat View for quick questions and discussions to brainstorm and visually engage team members in decision-making processes.

By establishing open communication channels, you can leverage your relational strengths to build trust, encourage participation, and create a positive team environment.

Adopt a transparent leadership approach so your team can look up to you for your honesty, openness to feedback, and clarity in communication. 

You can also employ ClickUp Whiteboards to brainstorm creative solutions with your team. Encourage everyone to contribute ideas visually, sparking creative solutions and encouraging team buy-in for chosen approaches.

Challenge: You enjoy intellectual debate, but your directness can sometimes lead to conflict. 

You can become a more effective conflict manager by

• Approaching disagreements with an open mind and a willingness to find common ground
• Focusing on the issue at hand rather than personal attacks
• Utilizing humor and a lighthearted approach to disarm tension and encourage constructive dialog

You can also use a tool like ClickUp’s Project Management platform to keep things objective and transparent to avoid conflicts. It provides tools and features that suit your personality and work style .

Break down complex challenges into smaller, manageable tasks using ClickUp Tasks . Set clear deadlines and priorities for each task, visually track progress, and encourage creative solutions from your team members. This helps keep everyone on the same page.

This approach also helps you organize your problem-solving process, leverage your team’s diverse perspectives, and ensure everyone works toward a common goal.

As an ENTP leader, you can use ClickUp Tasks to:

• Assign and reassign tasks to team members based on their skills and availability
• Add and edit task details, such as descriptions, attachments, dependencies, and custom fields
• Filter and sort tasks by various criteria, such as status, priority, due date, or assignee
• Comment and chat with team members on their tasks and get instant notifications
• Update and track task progress and completion using statuses, time tracking, and sprints
• Automate and streamline task workflows using triggers, actions, and integrations

ENTP Leadership Techniques

Your quick wit and boundless curiosity make you a natural catalyst for success. As an ENTP, you display a remarkable ability to think outside the box. That, coupled with your vibrant energy, makes you an innovative leader, constantly seeking avenues for growth and improvement.

The following three strategies will help you refine your leadership skills and enable you to leverage your strengths fully.

ENTPs excel at identifying flaws and proposing solutions. While this is a great strength, constant criticism can demotivate team members. Here’s how to strike a balance:

• Focus on the ‘why’ behind the criticism and explain how it can improve the overall outcome, encouraging a sense of shared purpose
• Offer specific and actionable suggestions instead of just pointing out problems; guide how to address them
• Frame feedback as a conversation, creating an open dialogue where both parties can discuss the issue and arrive at a solution collaboratively

You may thrive on change and new ideas. However, not everyone on your team can keep up with the same enthusiasm. To encourage innovation while considering your team, follow these steps:

• Acknowledge different comfort levels with change. Some team members may need time to adjust
• Provide resources and support such as training, workshops, or dedicated brainstorming sessions to help everyone get on board with new ideas
• Celebrate small wins along the way to keep the morale high, demonstrating the positive impact of innovation

It’s great to be task-oriented and competitive, but keeping your team motivated is equally essential. Here’s how:

• Craft a compelling vision that communicates the need to go beyond just completing tasks. This vision should connect with your team’s values and aspirations
• Give your team ownership over achieving the vision. This cultivates a sense of purpose and motivation

By mastering these techniques, ENTP leaders can create a dynamic and empowering environment where their team thrives on innovation while feeling valued and supported. Remember, a successful leader inspires not just action but also a sense of shared purpose and collective accomplishment.

Recap: Leadership strategy for the ENTP Leader

• Temper criticism with constructive feedback, actionable ideas, and open communication
• Push for innovation but consider other perspectives, provide resources and support, and keep morale high
• Motivate your team; share a vision and give them autonomy

Understanding your personality type through tools like the MBTI can be a valuable asset in your leadership journey. By recognizing your strengths and potential weaknesses as an ENTP leader, you can:

• Leverage your unique insights, relational skills, and creative problem-solving capabilities to inspire and motivate your team
• Develop strategies to overcome challenges, such as focusing on implementation, managing impatience, and mitigating overly critical tendencies
• Identify which tools work best for you to stay organized and communicate effectively within your team

Embracing flexibility, ensuring open communication, and utilizing the right tools enable you to maximize your leadership potential and inspire your team to achieve great things. 

To deal with the challenges that come your way, consider using ClickUp. Its project management and collaboration features will help you lead your team to success.

Sign up for ClickUp today and leverage its customizable features to enhance your leadership skills!

1. Can ENTPs be good leaders?

Yes, ENTPs possess numerous qualities that make them strong leaders, including creativity, intellectual curiosity, and excellent communication skills. However, they must be aware of their potential challenges and work to overcome them.

2. Is ENTP a leader or follower?

ENTPs are natural leaders driven to innovate and challenge the status quo. While they are comfortable taking initiative and driving change, they value diverse perspectives and can effectively collaborate.

3. Which MBTI makes the best leader?

There isn’t a single ‘best’ MBTI type for leadership. Each type brings unique strengths and weaknesses to the table. The most effective leaders are those who understand their preferences and leverage them to create a positive and productive work environment for their team.

Questions? Comments? Visit our Help Center for support.

Receive the latest WriteClick Newsletter updates.

Thanks for subscribing to our blog!

Please enter a valid email

• Free training & 24-hour support
• Serious about security & privacy
• 99.99% uptime the last 12 months

True leaders correct their mistakes - some advice for Erie County officials

Changing decisions when you get impactful information is not only laudable but also an essential attribute of a good leader. It takes tremendous fortitude to acknowledge a need for a course change, but doing so is not only beneficial to oneself but also to those around you, whether they are your fellow workers in a business setting or your local community as an elected official or leader of an organization.

In every facet of life, we are faced with decisions, and inevitably, we will make mistakes. However, it is the mark of true leadership to recognize those missteps and take action to rectify them. Admitting there is a better way can be incredibly empowering. It allows you to move forward with a clear conscience and a renewed sense of purpose. By admitting fault, leaders demonstrate humility and integrity, traits that garner respect and trust from their peers and constituents alike. 

Moreover, revisiting decisions opens the door to growth and improvement. According to the Harvard Business Review, "…being accessible, answering questions, admitting mistakes, and saying you're sorry aren't liabilities. They are exactly the tools you can use to build your credibility and authority to lead." When leaders acknowledge their missteps, they set an example for their team members to do the same, fostering a culture of accountability and learning.

Additionally, admitting when you are wrong can lead to better decisionmaking in the future. As Forbes notes, "The key is to acknowledge when you make a mistake, learn from it, and move on — to understand that failure and mistakes are opportunities for learning, feedback, and even creativity." Leaders who are open to feedback and willing to admit when they have made a miscalculation are better equipped to navigate complex challenges and make sound judgments.

More: Focus on cooperation, trust and equal justice to strengthen Erie's police-community ties

Furthermore, acknowledging mistakes can strengthen relationships and build trust. Leaders who reconsider their options are seen as more trustworthy and authentic by their followers. When leaders are honest about their shortcomings, it fosters an environment of transparency, which can strengthen bonds and promote collaboration.

In conclusion, admitting that when you receive new information and change a path or vote, it is not only a laudable trait but also a crucial aspect of effective leadership. By acknowledging a new or better option, leaders demonstrate humility, foster growth and improvement, make better decisions, and build trust and rapport with their team members. As leaders, it is essential to embrace the opportunity for self-reflection and growth that comes from a course correction, ultimately leading to stronger, more resilient organizations and communities.

Art Leopold, a longtime justice activist, is a resident of Millcreek Township .

All your favorite teams and sources in one place

Your Teams. All Sources.

© 2024 BVM Sports. Best Version Media, LLC.

Unveiling Poulin’s Exceptional Leadership: Impact, Qualities, and Influence

Canadian hockey player Poulin's exceptional leadership qualities set her apart.

• Poulin is a two-time Olympic gold medalist.
• She has led the Canadian women's national team to multiple victories.

No significant counterarguments or complexities have been reported.

• Poulin continues to inspire and lead her team on and off the ice.
• Her impact extends beyond her on-ice performance, shaping the team's culture.

Expect Poulin to maintain her influential leadership role in Canadian women's hockey.

Poulin's outstanding leadership and impact are integral to the Canadian women's national hockey team's success and culture.

The summary of the linked article was generated with the assistance of artificial intelligence technology from OpenAI

www.sportsnet.ca • Sportsnet Video

Think your team or athlete is better? Show us, submit your story, photo or video

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.

OK Privacy policy

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

NPR defends its journalism after senior editor says it has lost the public's trust

David Folkenflik

NPR is defending its journalism and integrity after a senior editor wrote an essay accusing it of losing the public's trust. Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images hide caption

NPR is defending its journalism and integrity after a senior editor wrote an essay accusing it of losing the public's trust.

NPR's top news executive defended its journalism and its commitment to reflecting a diverse array of views on Tuesday after a senior NPR editor wrote a broad critique of how the network has covered some of the most important stories of the age.

"An open-minded spirit no longer exists within NPR, and now, predictably, we don't have an audience that reflects America," writes Uri Berliner.

A strategic emphasis on diversity and inclusion on the basis of race, ethnicity and sexual orientation, promoted by NPR's former CEO, John Lansing, has fed "the absence of viewpoint diversity," Berliner writes.

NPR's chief news executive, Edith Chapin, wrote in a memo to staff Tuesday afternoon that she and the news leadership team strongly reject Berliner's assessment.

"We're proud to stand behind the exceptional work that our desks and shows do to cover a wide range of challenging stories," she wrote. "We believe that inclusion — among our staff, with our sourcing, and in our overall coverage — is critical to telling the nuanced stories of this country and our world."

NPR names tech executive Katherine Maher to lead in turbulent era

She added, "None of our work is above scrutiny or critique. We must have vigorous discussions in the newsroom about how we serve the public as a whole."

A spokesperson for NPR said Chapin, who also serves as the network's chief content officer, would have no further comment.

Praised by NPR's critics

Berliner is a senior editor on NPR's Business Desk. (Disclosure: I, too, am part of the Business Desk, and Berliner has edited many of my past stories. He did not see any version of this article or participate in its preparation before it was posted publicly.)

Berliner's essay , titled "I've Been at NPR for 25 years. Here's How We Lost America's Trust," was published by The Free Press, a website that has welcomed journalists who have concluded that mainstream news outlets have become reflexively liberal.

Berliner writes that as a Subaru-driving, Sarah Lawrence College graduate who "was raised by a lesbian peace activist mother ," he fits the mold of a loyal NPR fan.

Yet Berliner says NPR's news coverage has fallen short on some of the most controversial stories of recent years, from the question of whether former President Donald Trump colluded with Russia in the 2016 election, to the origins of the virus that causes COVID-19, to the significance and provenance of emails leaked from a laptop owned by Hunter Biden weeks before the 2020 election. In addition, he blasted NPR's coverage of the Israel-Hamas conflict.

On each of these stories, Berliner asserts, NPR has suffered from groupthink due to too little diversity of viewpoints in the newsroom.

The essay ricocheted Tuesday around conservative media , with some labeling Berliner a whistleblower . Others picked it up on social media, including Elon Musk, who has lambasted NPR for leaving his social media site, X. (Musk emailed another NPR reporter a link to Berliner's article with a gibe that the reporter was a "quisling" — a World War II reference to someone who collaborates with the enemy.)

When asked for further comment late Tuesday, Berliner declined, saying the essay spoke for itself.

The arguments he raises — and counters — have percolated across U.S. newsrooms in recent years. The #MeToo sexual harassment scandals of 2016 and 2017 forced newsrooms to listen to and heed more junior colleagues. The social justice movement prompted by the killing of George Floyd in 2020 inspired a reckoning in many places. Newsroom leaders often appeared to stand on shaky ground.

Leaders at many newsrooms, including top editors at The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times , lost their jobs. Legendary Washington Post Executive Editor Martin Baron wrote in his memoir that he feared his bonds with the staff were "frayed beyond repair," especially over the degree of self-expression his journalists expected to exert on social media, before he decided to step down in early 2021.

Since then, Baron and others — including leaders of some of these newsrooms — have suggested that the pendulum has swung too far.

Author Interviews

Legendary editor marty baron describes his 'collision of power' with trump and bezos.

New York Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger warned last year against journalists embracing a stance of what he calls "one-side-ism": "where journalists are demonstrating that they're on the side of the righteous."

"I really think that that can create blind spots and echo chambers," he said.

Internal arguments at The Times over the strength of its reporting on accusations that Hamas engaged in sexual assaults as part of a strategy for its Oct. 7 attack on Israel erupted publicly . The paper conducted an investigation to determine the source of a leak over a planned episode of the paper's podcast The Daily on the subject, which months later has not been released. The newsroom guild accused the paper of "targeted interrogation" of journalists of Middle Eastern descent.

Heated pushback in NPR's newsroom

Given Berliner's account of private conversations, several NPR journalists question whether they can now trust him with unguarded assessments about stories in real time. Others express frustration that he had not sought out comment in advance of publication. Berliner acknowledged to me that for this story, he did not seek NPR's approval to publish the piece, nor did he give the network advance notice.

Some of Berliner's NPR colleagues are responding heatedly. Fernando Alfonso, a senior supervising editor for digital news, wrote that he wholeheartedly rejected Berliner's critique of the coverage of the Israel-Hamas conflict, for which NPR's journalists, like their peers, periodically put themselves at risk.

Alfonso also took issue with Berliner's concern over the focus on diversity at NPR.

"As a person of color who has often worked in newsrooms with little to no people who look like me, the efforts NPR has made to diversify its workforce and its sources are unique and appropriate given the news industry's long-standing lack of diversity," Alfonso says. "These efforts should be celebrated and not denigrated as Uri has done."

After this story was first published, Berliner contested Alfonso's characterization, saying his criticism of NPR is about the lack of diversity of viewpoints, not its diversity itself.

"I never criticized NPR's priority of achieving a more diverse workforce in terms of race, ethnicity and sexual orientation. I have not 'denigrated' NPR's newsroom diversity goals," Berliner said. "That's wrong."

Questions of diversity

Under former CEO John Lansing, NPR made increasing diversity, both of its staff and its audience, its "North Star" mission. Berliner says in the essay that NPR failed to consider broader diversity of viewpoint, noting, "In D.C., where NPR is headquartered and many of us live, I found 87 registered Democrats working in editorial positions and zero Republicans."

Berliner cited audience estimates that suggested a concurrent falloff in listening by Republicans. (The number of people listening to NPR broadcasts and terrestrial radio broadly has declined since the start of the pandemic.)

Former NPR vice president for news and ombudsman Jeffrey Dvorkin tweeted , "I know Uri. He's not wrong."

Others questioned Berliner's logic. "This probably gets causality somewhat backward," tweeted Semafor Washington editor Jordan Weissmann . "I'd guess that a lot of NPR listeners who voted for [Mitt] Romney have changed how they identify politically."

Similarly, Nieman Lab founder Joshua Benton suggested the rise of Trump alienated many NPR-appreciating Republicans from the GOP.

In recent years, NPR has greatly enhanced the percentage of people of color in its workforce and its executive ranks. Four out of 10 staffers are people of color; nearly half of NPR's leadership team identifies as Black, Asian or Latino.

"The philosophy is: Do you want to serve all of America and make sure it sounds like all of America, or not?" Lansing, who stepped down last month, says in response to Berliner's piece. "I'd welcome the argument against that."

"On radio, we were really lagging in our representation of an audience that makes us look like what America looks like today," Lansing says. The U.S. looks and sounds a lot different than it did in 1971, when NPR's first show was broadcast, Lansing says.

A network spokesperson says new NPR CEO Katherine Maher supports Chapin and her response to Berliner's critique.

The spokesperson says that Maher "believes that it's a healthy thing for a public service newsroom to engage in rigorous consideration of the needs of our audiences, including where we serve our mission well and where we can serve it better."

Disclosure: This story was reported and written by NPR Media Correspondent David Folkenflik and edited by Deputy Business Editor Emily Kopp and Managing Editor Gerry Holmes. Under NPR's protocol for reporting on itself, no NPR corporate official or news executive reviewed this story before it was posted publicly.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Psychol

The role of leadership in collective creativity and innovation: Examining academic research and development environments

Zijian huang.

1 School of Economics, Yunnan University, Kunming, China

Stavros Sindakis

2 School of Social Sciences, Hellenic Open University, Patras, Greece

3 National Research Base of Intelligent Manufacturing Service, Chongqing Technology and Business University, Chongqing, China

Sakshi Aggarwal

4 Institute of Strategy, Entrepreneurship and Education for Growth (iSEEG), Paphos, Cyprus

Ludivine Thomas

5 Business and Law University of Roehampton London, Roehampton, United Kingdom

Associated Data

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Introduction

Leadership is pragmatically linked to innovation adoption and implementation at a team level, as managers oversee the strategic decisions and policymaking, control resources, and moderate the scanning and searching of the environment. The paper attempts to provide new concepts and examines theoretical and practical implications to better understand how the leadership role is executed in an R&D environment to foster team creativity and innovation.

A quantitative analysis was plausible over qualitative research mainly because the survey was conducted using a single technique, employing a questionnaire that was selected after checking the principal component analysis (PCA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).

The findings show that the production of ideas positively impacts leadership, leading to growth and competitive advantage for the organization. Also, the PMEG (people, means, effects, goals) framework will positively impact leadership as leaders focus on those factorsthat influence an individual’s attitudes, behaviors, and interactions between groups.

The paper highlights the involvement of R&D organizations and groups in developing innovative products, services, technologies, and processes that further positively impact a team. This study is the first to highlight the role of the PMEG framework with the factors that influence an individual’s attitudes, behaviors, and interactions between groups. The study’s main contribution is to explore creativity as a potential mediator for leadership–organizational innovation.

Research and development depend significantly on creative minds that will be able to fashion tomorrow’s innovations. Barsh et al. (2008) explored that innovation is predicted to become one of the primary drivers of growth in the coming years. Previous research (e.g., Amabile, 2012 ; Kesting et al., 2015 ; Yi et al., 2017 ) has shown that the majority of innovative ideas (about 80%) are implemented by employees, who are a vital source of innovation. Innovative employee ideas give firms the ability to achieve their objectives and grow. For instance, Shafique et al. (2019) investigated the patterns of connections between a transformational leadership style and organizational-level innovation via individual-level creativity. In a different study, Shafique et al. (2019) used a multi-level model to examine the impact of authentic leadership on team creativity via individual-level creativity.

Further, Amabile and Pratt (2016) cited a model of organizational innovation incorporating individual creativity. This model reveals the concepts of organizational innovation and individual creativity. Moreover, the corporate environment impacts individual creativity, while individual creativity reinforces organizational innovation. In addition to building up a favorable climate for creativity, leaders’ roles are to ensure their subordinates remain actively involved in their work and try to generate innovative products, techniques, and methods to remain competitive ( Shalley and Gilson, 2004 ). This holds true for scientists in an R&D environment, who are particularly interested in motives such as intellectual challenges or autonomy ( Sauermann and Cohen, 2010 ). Therefore, Rosso (2014) claims that the componential model of creativity influences organizational creativity, which suggests that motivation is the drive to engage in exciting and essential creative outputs.

The componential theory of creativity emphasized by Amabile (1988) through the mediational model proposes that a leader’s behavior influences subordinate perceptions of leader support that, in turn, influence creativity and is the aspect that is the most directly influenced by the supervisor ( Amabile et al., 2004 ). Further work revealed that interactions between leaders and subordinates could influence “perception, feelings and performance” and can, over time, positively inspire creativity by fostering subordinates’ intrinsic motivation ( Amabile et al., 2004 ; Amabile, 2012 ). The study also revealed that leaders who did keep team members informed about stressful issues recognized exemplary performance in public or reacted to problems in work with understanding and helped correlated positively with apparent support. They, however, pointed to the need for additional studies to further examine these characteristics and, of interest, the relationship between creativity, innovation, and leadership style. Thus far, the authors suggest the need to explore these characteristics further to gain further insights into the roles they play, for example, in the R&D environment. The present study will thus attempt to determine the leader’s characteristics that enhance subordinates’ motivation towards creativity and environment in the academic and R&D-based environment.

Theoretical background

Leadership outline.

Although the concept of leadership is versatile, the person guiding the leadership role is named the “leader,” while the group guides are called the “followers,” although the same person can perform both functions simultaneously ( Yukl, 2002 ; Gosling et al., 2009 ; Middlehurst et al., 2009 ; Griffith et al., 2018 ; Pelletier et al., 2019 ). Leaders can inspire followers to pursue collective values and aspirations as well as sacrifice egocentric needs and goals. These theories also reveal that leaders can invoke and regulate emotions – rather than rely on rational processes – to motivate other individuals ( Moss and Ritossa, 2007 , p. 433). In the light of Kesting et al. (2015) , leadership means an expression of behavior that influences an individual’s attitudes and behaviors and interaction between groups (see Figure 1 below) for the motive of achieving goals. Therefore, there are four generic dimensions of leadership, i.e., people, means, effects, and goals (PMEG). People mean effects goals framework is not used by any researcher. Furthermore, Winston and Patterson (2006) also added that during the leading process, the leader allows the followers to be innovative and even self-directed within the scope of individual-follower assignments and allows the followers to learn from their own as well as others’ successes, mistakes, and failures along the process of completing the organization’s objectives.

The role of a leader in R&D environments.

The PMEG framework ( Figure 1 ) highlights two central concepts considering the generic dimensions influencing business and the examined leadership theories in an R&D environment. Leadership means an expression of a particular behavior ( Kesting et al., 2015 ) but considering this framework; we do not know how the PMEG framework will impact leadership in an R&D environment. However, a knowledge gap exists regarding how and to what extent the PMEG framework will impact leadership in an R&D environment ( Fachrunnisa et al., 2019 ; Andrej et al., 2022 ). Correspondingly, Chemers (1997 , p.1) defines leadership as “a process of social influence in which one person can enlist the aid and support of others in the accomplishment of a common task.” The occurrence of four generic dimensions in leadership ( Kesting et al., 2015 , p. 23) are implied as follows:

People – Leadership is a supra-individual concept that requires a logical distinction (which can be explicit or implicit, temporary or persistent) between leaders and followers, but without it, leadership is pointless. For instance, ethical leaders are likely to be people-oriented. Human rights, personality, capabilities, and learning, are likely to be promoted by ethical leaders who give their staff members a chance to learn the skills and information required for their jobs and put them in the appropriate positions. Additionally, they inspire followers to focus their skills in the appropriate direction for improved work performance. As a result, employees have the information, abilities, and motivation to act creatively and are then expected to do so in the workplace, fostering creativity ( Kremer et al., 2019 ; Shafique et al., 2019 ).

Means – The nature of leadership is that leaders lead and carry out certain activities to direct or influence followers. The review will show that these means can include very heterogeneous activities like coaching, empowering, or even servicing, and there is no leadership without such activities. For example, the importance of employee effort in achieving company goals is highlighted by leaders with high ethical and moral standards; it has been observed. Employees are motivated by cognitive mechanisms to pay more attention to the worth of their job, which encourages them to generate and use original ideas to discover new ways to achieve organizational goals ( Shafique et al., 2019 ; Khan et al., 2020 ; Lee et al., 2020 ).

Effects – The outcome of leading is to cause a reaction in the followers, i.e., to make them follow. The analysis will show that the effects can include heterogeneous reactions, like increased enthusiasm or commitment, the rational optimization of rewards, implicit convictions, etc. Without any result, leadership efforts go nowhere. It is noted in Shafique et al.’s (2019) study that employees are more likely to participate in knowledge development and dissemination in companies where ethical leaders create policies to facilitate knowledge sharing and foster a cooperative environment. The creation of such an atmosphere makes it easier for employees to connect and communicate, and it helps them build relationships of cooperation and trust with their colleagues and leader(s). Therefore, to sustain communication and promote cooperation, employees invest their time in knowledge creation, which increases the number of new ideas they bring to their workplace ( Akbari et al., 2020 ; Khan et al., 2020 ).

Goals – Leadership is ultimately associated with specific goals. These goals can be broad visions of promising future states, but they can also be firm targets. In either case, leadership points towards a path. In the context of this paper and considering the above arguments, we claim our first hypothesis below, which is linked to RQ1:

H1 : The PMEG framework will have a positive impact on leadership as leaders focus on those factors that influence an individual’s attitudes, behaviors, and interactions between groups.

Additionally, it builds followers’ performance, transforms personal values, and moves them toward high aspirations ( Paulsen et al., 2013 ; Kremer et al., 2019 ; Shafique et al., 2019 ).

Role and skills of the leader

One of the prominent roles leaders can play is to create an environment that will support the engagement of their subordinates and other people involved with tasks (effective teamwork; Amabile et al., 2004 ; Konradt, 2014 ; Mailhot et al., 2016 ). Leadership also includes encouraging followers and fostering auspicious conditions to carry out the work ( Yukl, 2002 ; Bolden et al., 2009 ). Concepts of shared leadership ( Konradt, 2014 , p. 290) argue that leadership should not be conceptualized as a centralized downward process of influence on subordinates that is carried out by an appointed leader. Another prominent role of leaders is to create structures that will enhance creative activities to thrive and support creative endeavors ( Anderson and West, 1998 ; Bain et al., 2001 ). More so, team leaders play a significant role in ensuring that projects, processes, and managing of resources are successful through efficient and flexible leadership (Magellan Horth and Vehar, 2015 ; Andrej et al., 2022 ). In that regard, it was revealed that a good leader not only challenges but also inspires work creativity ( Sauermann and Cohen, 2010 ). Therefore, the technical skills of a leader not only impact the skillfulness of this individual, but it is an asset for a company towards promoting creativity and innovative performance of subordinates.

As a leader, having the necessary skill set to lead a supportive working environment are stepping-stones in initiating a creative environment for the subordinates. Yukl (2002) recognized that three primary skill sets are essential for leaders. First, technical skills include knowledge about methods, processes, and equipment for carrying out particular activities in the given unit. Second, cognitive or conceptual skills comprise the general analytical ability, logical thinking, proficiency in concept formation, and conceptualization of complex and ambiguous relationships. They include, for example, good judgment, intuition, or creativity. Finally, interpersonal skills like empathy, tact, and diplomacy are essential to follow human behavior and interpersonal processes and thus influence others ( Yukl, 2002 ; Khan et al., 2020 ). Hackman and Hackman (2002) also proposed that both displays of “diagnostic skills” and “execution skills” from the leader are decisive. While “diagnostic skills” helps leaders to distinguish important events happening to the team/organization from noises, “execution skills” are needed for effective team leadership.

Leadership in the research and development (R&D) environment

R&D organizations and groups are dynamically involved in developing innovative products, services, technologies, and processes that may foster superior performance at lower costs. Moreover, focusing on the above leads to coherent ideas and methods that foster technological information in the R&D environment ( Gupta and Singh, 2015 ; Du et al., 2020 ; Rêgo et al., 2022 ). Therefore, the production of ideas ( Figure 1 ) for organizational products and services is one of the critical growth production drivers, i.e., employee creativity. It has been stated that creativity is a vital component of innovation. The central idea of social cognitive theory is self-efficacy. Bandura (1997) emphasized that strong self-efficacy in individuals is a prerequisite for creativity and the discovery of new knowledge. The most important component affecting conduct is self-efficacy. A particular form of self-efficacy called creative self-efficacy pertains to people’s beliefs that they can engage in creative action ( Cai et al., 2019 ).

Additionally, Zheng et al. (2010) define R&D teams as groups focused on creating original innovations and expanding existing ones in their field of interest. These teams are composed of highly educated and creative members ( Berson and Linton, 2005 ; Bagheri and Harrison, 2020 ). However, Gupta and Singh (2015) further proclaim that the key factors that sustain R&D professionals in creative behavior imply enhancing organizational competitiveness. Due to the unique and uncertain process of innovation, R&D must manage different work units where the work is routine. Furthermore, R&D leaders are more professional than organizational professionals and usually select technical expertise for leadership skills. In Gumusluoglu et al.’s (2017) view, R&D leaders should facilitate innovation behaviors through different recognitions, such as team innovative behavior (generation and implementation of new ideas) through team identification and cross-team innovative action (exchange of resources, coordination with other teams to facilitate and implement innovations) through building department identification ( Gilbert and Basran, 2019 ; Du et al., 2020 ).

Empowering leadership (EL), examined by Amundsen and Martinsen (2015) , mentions EL as behaviors that share power with subordinates and lead others. This approach promotes self-leadership (the process of controlling their behavior and influence, leading themselves through a specific set of cognitive and behavioral strategies) among employees. By and large, R&D environments offer a unique challenge to leadership ( Bryman and Lilley, 2009 ; Basran et al., 2019 ; Du et al., 2020 ; Ackaradejruangsri et al., 2022 ). In addition to building up a favorable climate for creativity, leaders’ roles are also to ensure their subordinates remain actively involved in their work and try to generate innovative products, techniques, and methods as means to remain competitive ( Shalley and Gilson, 2004 ; Xenikou, 2017 ; Wang et al., 2019 ). According to Gupta and Singh (2015) , an R&D leader’s behavior makes things work and avoids wasting time, labor, and capital. These R&D professionals constitute unique leadership challenges essential to foster team creativity. Most studies testing leadership’s impact on employee creativity have found the two-factor behavioral conceptualizations of leadership (e.g., initiating structure and task-oriented). However, only a limited number of studies have been conducted focusing on R&D organizations and contexts compared to the flood of studies on leadership in general ( Elkins and Keller, 2003 ; Xenikou, 2017 ; Tong, 2020 ).

Interestingly, teams in the R&D environment are typically cross-functional, bringing together a combination of scientists, technicians, engineers, and specialists ( Denison et al., 1996 ). Also, Lisak et al. (2016) support that R&D leaders foster the team’s innovation goals and motivate a team to adapt to understanding within teams, which will positively affect an organization. In this regard, the managerial practices that have been recognized to foster this type of climate include autonomy of subordinates, personal recognition, development of group cohesion, and resource maintenance.

Different types of leadership applied in R&D

Over the past 30 years, research has shown the crucial role leaders play not only in their subordinates’ motivation and efficacy but also in their creativity and innovation performances. For example, Tierney et al. (1999) demonstrated that creativity and inventions increased when leaders and followers pursued productive exchange relationships. Interestingly, Michalko (2001) showed that creativity was more likely to occur when leaders avoid letting their judgment emerge when a follower speaks. Various leadership theories have been described, including authoritative, coaching, and democratic ( Goleman, 2000 ; Al Harbi et al., 2019 ; Perpék et al., 2021 ). However, only a few have tested in R&D environments. Additionally, Yunlu and Murphy (2012) explore that during the recession, R&D generally decreases, but the researchers find support for R&D growth, which positively correlates with overall economic growth.

Early work from Pelz (1963) on scientists from 20 research laboratories based in the United States has shown that interactions with a given group’s leader can positively influence creativity, and this was particularly prominent in junior scientists. Further work also emphasized that the supervisory style employed by the leaders toward creativity was positively related to performance ( Mednick and Mednick, 1967 ; Xenikou, 2017 ; Tong, 2020 ). Research has also shown that leaders play a significant role in exploiting the outcomes of R&D projects by triggering cooperation among teammates and communicating and sharing the body of knowledge and skills ( Gillespie and Mann, 2004 ; Carayannis et al., 2021 ; Perpék et al., 2021 ) efficiently. It has been proposed that the most influential leadership theories are the transformational and the transactional leadership theories ( Bass, 1985 ), which are related to innovation performance both at the individual and the team levels and when whole organizations are the unit of measurement.

The concept of transactional leadership was first introduced and discussed with transformational leadership by MacGregor Bums (1980) . There have been discussions about the two leadership styles, but as Kesting et al. (2015) clarify, transactional leadership does not focus on change as transformational leadership does ( Moss and Ritossa, 2007 ; Lin et al., 2020 ; Ali et al., 2021 ). Particularly transactional leadership focuses on the exchanges between followers and leaders, as shown in Figure 1 above ( McCleskey, 2014 ). Additionally, transformational leadership about innovation and change is the most researched leadership style ( Bolden et al., 2009 ; Kesting et al., 2015 ; Oeij et al., 2017 ; Alghamdi, 2018 ). Paulsen et al. (2013) claim that transformational leadership focuses on the specific role of a leader in promoting organizational and personal change to assist employees in exceptional performance. Also, it empowers the team members and moves them by providing them with idealized charisma and inspirational motivation. Additionally, it builds followers’ performance, transforms personal values, and moves them toward high aspirations. However, there is no description of how can/whether transformational leadership can aspire to the shortcomings of charismatic leadership ( Figure 1 ). Similarly, in a prolonged study, Chaubey et al. (2019) found that transformative leadership encourages staff innovation. To lead for creativity, one must inspire followers to come up with creative ideas. As a result, leadership is a crucial requirement for creative outcomes. The creativity of organizational employees is positively impacted by transformational leadership ( Al Harbi et al., 2019 ).

Leadership can enhance a follower’s sustainability, facilitating an employee’s performance and creativity; for this, the leader-member exchange (LMX) theory was introduced ( Smothers et al., 2012 ; Oeij et al., 2017 ; Alghamdi, 2018 ). It focuses on the unique work relationship between leaders and their subordinates (as shown in Figure 1 ) rather than on variables such as traits or behaviors. LMX theory is the quality of exchanges that develop between leaders and followers to conduct creativity ( Smothers et al., 2012 ; Qu et al., 2017 ; Martin et al., 2018 ; Soleas, 2020 ). Another essential theory was introduced in management, which relates to the ability to excel at explorative and exploitative organizational strategies known as Amberdexidery ( Raisch and Birkinshaw, 2008 ; Xenikou, 2017 ; Tong, 2020 ). Keller and Weibler (2015) support that exploration (comprises activities) and exploitation (captures activities) are the two organizational patterns of ambidextrous pursuit that are essential for the superior performance of a firm. Further, Zacher and Rosing (2015) have used the term primarily to mention exploration and exploitation activities ( Figure 1 ). Concerning such activities, Sinha (2016) confirm Zacher and Rosing’s argument by supporting that the ability of these existing resources and activities create platforms for future growth through experimentation and innovation, which further focus on organizational performance in both the long and short-term.

Factors influencing creativity and innovation

Research and development depend significantly on creative minds that will be able to fashion tomorrow’s innovations. Gumusluoglu et al. (2017) examine that if organizations want to foster creativity and innovative behavior, it is particularly essential to enhance leadership through the coordination of their collective actions as well as expertise. Leadership that stimulates innovation has been a subject of research, and the mechanisms for its connection with the innovation process include creativity and implementation of creative ideas ( Černe et al., 2013 , p. 64; Ackaradejruangsri et al., 2022 ). Creativity is essential in the production of ideas by employees, as well as critical to the leader trying to enhance work settings. Among several factors, the output of creativity is highly influential in the supportive behaviors of leaders ( Li et al., 2018 ; Bagheri and Harrison, 2020 ; Soleas, 2020 ).

Additionally, Rosso (2014) states that creativity is defined as the solutions to produce valuable ideas in an organizational setting as a critical implementation of ideas. Hence, creativity is an analytical source for competitive advantage and innovative products and technologies. Furthermore, Ghosh (2015) supports that creativity is a composite but still constructed in several ways. Creativity is an ingredient for innovation (see Figure 2 ) that implies the successful implementation of ideas. Hon and Lui (2016) confirm Ghosh’s argument by supporting that creativity leads individuals to contribute their skills, ability, and willingness to work. Thus, Ghosh (2015) claims that creative ideas provide a base for innovation and its implementations.

Dynamics between creativity, innovation and change in R&D settings.

Correspondingly, Kesting et al. (2015) state innovation as a multistage process that transforms ideas into products and services that further successfully compete in the market. Therefore, creativity is necessary but not essential for some conditions. Thus, change is needed, and innovation does not occur without change (see Figure 2 ; Jiang et al., 2017 ; Ali et al., 2021 ). Moreover, it is presumed that innovation consists of a variety of activities. One approach to structure this distinction’s complexity is the various innovation phases, such as implementation and ideation or the difference between commercialization and development. Creativity is just an element of the ideation or development stage related to innovation. Conversely, Lisak et al. (2016) support that the information perspective on team creativity is examined by leaders’ positive effects on team innovation.

Personal traits affecting creativity and innovation

Both creativity and innovation have now become critical positive factors of organizational performance ( Arad et al., 1997 ; Drazin et al., 1999 ; McMahon and Ford, 2013 ; Yi et al., 2017 ). Several core personality traits such as broad interests, independence of judgment or a strong sense, skills like problem-solving or engaging in divergent thinking ( Amabile, 1988 ; Mumford et al., 1997 ; Vincent et al., 2002 ), as well as experience in a field ( Weisberg, 1999 ), influence creativity at the individual level, have been identified as potentially triggering creativity and innovation. The interview-based study by Amabile (1988) showed that some qualities that promote creativity, including persistence, curiosity or intellectual honesty, strong self-motivation, unique talents, attraction to challenges, and expertise in a particular field, positively encourage creativity. Additionally, the same study showed that specific qualities of the environment play a role in creativity. For example, the factors detected as the most important by the scientists interviewed were decision freedom, project management, sufficient resources, and encouragement, with 74, 65, 52, and 47%, respectively. Further, general organizational performance has also been associated with creativity and innovation in corporations ( Irwin et al., 1998 ; Capron, 1999 ; Bagheri and Harrison, 2020 ).

Creativity and innovation in the R&D environment

Creative thinking and development of innovations such as new methods of analysis are of utmost importance to develop the liability of the service research laboratory and thus build up the client base of the laboratory. Also, the development of new methods offers the potential for scientists to continue publishing in high-standard peer-reviewed journals and give them chances to progress in their career path. Although publishing in scientific journals might not be the most important motive of scientists working in service-based laboratories, this still provides a stable motivational ground. Recent work by Roach and Sauermann (2010) revealed that incentives influence the decision to work in academia or the industry. The authors collected 472 responses to their questionnaire from Ph.D. students based in North Carolina (US). They showed that scientists motivated by the freedom to choose their research projects, the ability to publish, and the aspiration to perform necessary research tend to pursue careers in academia. At the same time, the industry attracts those motivated with a competitive salary, access to equipment, and the possibility to carry out applied research. In the light of Shalley and Gilson (2004) , innovations also offer the possibility for service-based laboratories to remain competitive; for this, managers or leaders need to ensure their employees are actively involved in their work.

The ability to innovate is hampered by external and internal organizational constraints, which are significant organizational factors in long-term competitive positions. An organization can achieve long-term success if and only if it consistently maintains new products and services to satisfy the needs of its clients. A company must acknowledge the importance of creativity and innovation, both of which are crucial elements of the same process, in order to be successful. Having ideas does not mean they have to be put into action; rather, an individual’s excitement for networking and doing so leads to execution. Individuals or groups can produce creativity, independent of their functional specialties or hierarchical levels within the organization ( Hughes et al., 2018 ; Chaubey et al., 2019 ; Shafi et al., 2020 ).

Creativity and innovation capacity are necessary/essential elements in a knowledge-based economy. Furthermore, it is a primary competitive advantage source as well as a key to high productivity ( Figure 2 ). Likewise, Wang et al. (2015) claim that the organizational climate has proven to be the best factor that exploits employees’ innovation. Comparatively, Hon and Lui (2016) support that organizational leadership has devoted attention to innovation models and creativity. Further, Wang et al. (2015) support Hon’s argument by confirming that innovative behavior refers to the promotion, generation, and realization of the latest and new ideas within a workgroup or organization. Therefore, the individual’s innovation success depends on an employee’s relationship with the organization that provides information, resources, support, and inspiration that helps innovators to promote and develop new ideas.

Influence of leadership on creativity and innovation

Innovative achievements can only happen when team members bring about ideas and efforts. Also, Vogel and Fischler-Strasak (2014) stated that innovation is essential for the sustainable growth of large enterprises as they are misdesigned for innovation. However, in most organizations’ cultures, innovation is not impossible but challenging. Thus, to stay competitive, every organization should nurture innovation appropriately and particularly (see Figure 2 ). Likewise, Dunne et al. (2016) claim that innovation is particularly essential for small firms resulting in the efficient production of their products and services. Further, some precursor of innovation includes information, marketing capabilities, and communication technologies.

As organizations encounter rapid changes in technology and economic forces, employee creativity is regarded as the potential resource for an organization’s survival (generation of ideas for products, services, and practices in the workplace). Among these factors, leadership plays a vital role in employee creativity to facilitate an organization’s goals ( Yi et al., 2017 ). Organizational factors also restrain the creativity of individuals working together. Moreover, organizational creativity has investigated various factors taking into consideration the employee surrounding, employee rewards, job characteristics, and organizational goal setting, which leads to creative outcomes ( McMahon and Ford, 2013 ; Felix et al., 2019 ). According to Noor (2013) , the relationship between leadership practices and innovative work behavior is shown. The purpose of organizational innovation is affected by individual attributes like resistance to change and leadership.

Additionally, leadership can influence innovative behavior; this is agreed upon by most researchers. However, giving a reward to the employees was related to innovativeness, but this does not correlate with innovativeness. Correspondingly, stimulating new ideas and solutions by enhancing ideas and goals for work are the two essential processes for leadership and innovation. The importance of leadership and integration for innovation is comprehensive and targeted, which attain team innovation to promote creativity ( Noor, 2013 ; Hughes et al., 2018 ; Jiang and Chen, 2018 ). Furthermore, Yuan and Woodman (2010) have also found that innovation might be enhanced when leaders expect high performance and then recognize the work done. It is the role of managers to create an environment that fosters creativity. Additionally, Jaiswal and Dhar (2016) state that leaders play an essential role in determining employees’ creativity. For instance, a leader’s behavior is critical because it determines the creativity among individuals in the work environment. Therefore, employee creativity is fostered through a distinct leadership style, i.e., transformational leadership.

Despite no difference, creativity and innovation are studied separately with little or no amalgamation. There is a default as team innovation, and creative endeavors are essential for an organization to thrive. But despite the role of leaders, those energetic team innovation and creativity, no research simultaneously influences both outcomes. Now the motive is to foster both team innovation and employee creativity simultaneously. For this, the role of servant leadership on employee creativity is examined. Therefore, a holistic approach, i.e., servant leadership, encompasses a leader’s emotional, rational, and moral dimensions that further enhance followers’ growth and capabilities. Servant leadership shares some similarities with transformational leadership, but these behaviors are motivated more by organizational goals than followers’ performance and development, as a transformational leader does ( Yoshida et al., 2014 ; Lin et al., 2020 ). It has thus suggested that leadership styles that offer team members an active role in the leader-follower work relationship would be more suited to R&D settings.

The conceptual framework ( Figure 2 below) highlights another concept, exploring one more research gap, i.e., how and to what extent the production of ideas in an organization leads to growth, fostering team innovation and creativity. As mentioned in the literature above, organizations encounter rapid changes in technology and the economy; employee creativity is regarded as the potential resource for an organization’s survival (generation of ideas for products, services, and practices in a workplace). Among these factors, leadership plays a vital role in employee creativity to facilitate an organization’s goals ( Yi et al., 2017 ; Amah and Oyetuunde, 2020 ). Correspondingly, stimulating new ideas and solutions by enhancing ideas and goals for work are the two essential processes for leadership and innovation. The importance of leadership and integration for innovation is comprehensive and targeted, which attain team innovation to promote creativity ( Noor, 2013 ; Jiang and Chen, 2018 ). Further, these arguments lead to the second hypothesis below, which is linked to RQ2:

H2 : Production of ideas will impact positively on leadership, leading to growth and competitive advantage of the organization.

Thus, the outcome of the conceptual framework developed is improved sustainable growth and enhanced employee relationship within the organization, further leading to the organization’s competitive advantage.

Research methodology

Overview of the research approach.

A quantitative analysis was plausible over qualitative research mainly because the survey was conducted using a single technique, employing a questionnaire ( Bryman, 2006 ). Quantitative researchers attempt to study the phenomena of their interest, i.e., standardized surveys and other quantitative measuring devices are often used to carefully measure what is observed between different groups, companies, countries, or organizations, which is best understood through the survey approach ( Amah and Oyetuunde, 2020 ). Further, the cross-sectional survey helps the researchers analyze the relationship between the variables described in the previous sections. Quantitative research is appropriate for this study because questionnaire items are selected after checking the principal component analysis (PCA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA; Chevallier et al., 2016 ). Further, Eikebrokk and Olsen (2005) support that quantitative research methods are essential for hypotheses testing as the dependent variable is measured with reflective indicators of each four dimensions of success, such as efficiency, novelty, lock-in, and complementarities. Each dimension’s success is necessary because it is constructed as the average item score. Moreover, Rahman (2016) supports that this method uses statistics data analysis, helping researchers understand several principles and elements of the data while utilizing measurable data to originate facts and uncover patterns in research.

Demographics and professional data were assessed in terms of ratios of total participants and included analysis of participants based on gender, age, nationalities, and continent representation. Further, gender representation was assessed by participants based on educational level, professional experience, professional role, and professional entities. Data distribution was statistically evaluated using standard statistical parameters such as calculating data mean, standard deviation, minimum, median, and maximum values. The six-point Likert scale was grouped into three categories, “the negative feeling,” which included the “not at all” (represented by 1) and “to almost no extent” (represented by 2) responses, “the neutral feeling,” composed of the answers “to a slight extent” (represented by 3) and “to a moderate extent” (represented by 4) and “the positive feeling” category, that correlated to “a great extent” (represented by 5) and “to a very great extent” (represented by 6) responses. These three groups allowed for a direct comparison against qualitative data analysis ( Amabile et al., 2004 ). Finally, correlations among the different variables (questions/statements in the survey) were calculated to assess relatedness between statements. The correlation coefficient measures the linear relationship between two variables, always between −1 and +1. A correlation of +1 denotes that the two variables under consideration are perfectly related in a linear mode, while a −1 means the variables are perfectly related in a linear negative sense, and 0 denotes no linear relatedness between variables ( Felix et al., 2019 ). All calculations were carried out using Excel (Microsoft Office).

A representative subset of the participants is chosen to complete the cross-sectional survey. The subset includes a vast majority of the participants (86.2%) who worked in an academic environment, only 10.8% worked in the industry, and 3% were employed in independent entities. About 20% of participants were between 21 and 30 years old, of which 69% were females, 19% percent were aged between 41 and 50 years, and about 67% were males. Demographically, 24 nationalities were represented in the survey, with Zimbabwean (19.7%), German (12.1%), British (10.6%), and French (9.1%) nationalities being the most represented. Noteworthy, six continents, namely Africa, Australia, Asia, Europe, America, and North America, were represented, giving a global perspective and a global scale of the way people from different nationalities and different continents perceive leadership and its role in creativity and innovation.

Regarding the education level, most participants (75%) obtained a Ph.D. as their highest qualification, and 20% had a Master’s degree. The remaining participants (about 5%) had an Undergraduate degree. Most participants had 1–5 years (37.5%) of professional experience, followed by 11–15 years (26.6%). Only 3% were juniors and had less than 1 year in professional environments. Further, when connecting the professional experience to the professional role, the results indicate that many participants were experienced staff (35.8%).

Demographically, participants from the academic research environment were randomly recruited to participate in this study, which was designed to gather views on the role of leadership, including team leadership, to promote creativity and innovation in academic scientific environments. The survey was developed with a total of 64 participants affiliated with the scientific community completing the survey. The large proportion of females in the student category correlates with the observation that most women in the study reached 1–5 years of experience. The results presented here suggest that professionals in academia must obtain PhDs to enter middle-range or high-range managerial positions. This agrees with the current data where more males holding PhDs had senior administrative positions than females.

Data collection method

The survey was powered using Google forms, an online application, for simple accessibility, ensuring confidentiality and anonymity, and obtaining a high enough response rate for quantitative data analysis. This survey formed the basis of the quantitative-based data analysis allowing inferring statements. The number of participants needed to be large enough to ensure the accuracy of conclusions and limit bias ( Easterby-Smith et al., 2012 ). This survey intended to “generalize from a sample to a population” ( Babbie, 1990 ). Participants in the study were personally invited in participate in the survey via email. The invitation included an explanation of the study, and that confidentiality was guaranteed, the aim of the study as well as the link to the survey. Participation in the survey was completely voluntary and anonymous. Hence, it is not all invited participants responded to the survey. Only filled questionnaires were taken into consideration. Data from every question and every participant was converted to a table in Excel (Microsoft Office) using the “View Responses” tool on Google Forms and limited errors in data file transcription.

Analysis of findings

Personal work perception of individual participants.

In the following section of the survey, participants were invited to give their sentiments about eight statements describing their perceptions at work ( Table 1 ). Here, participants had to choose from a six-point Likert scale to answer qualitatively about their feelings. For this set of questions, the maximum measure selected was “to a very great extent” designated by value 6, while the minimum ranges from “not at all” (1) to “to a slight extent” (3). Table 1 shows that respondents rated “individual characteristics necessary for creativity and innovation” as the most important factor (mean: 5), followed by “position in which creativity and innovation thinking are necessary” (mean: 4.83) and “you like your working environment” (mean: 4.78). On the other hand, the least two important factors where “you find your work rewarding” (mean: 4.25) and “you feel that you have support from your team and colleagues” (mean: 4.33).

Summary of statistics indicating the mean, standard deviation, minimum, median, and maximum values of the participants’ responses.

Besides, the six measures were grouped into three categories. The first category corresponds to negative feelings and comprises “not at all” (1) and “to almost no extent” (2) responses. The second group depicts neutral sentiments and contains the answers “to a slight extent” (3) and “to a moderate extent” (4). At the same time, the third section integrates positive feelings with “to a great extent” (5) and “to a very great extent” (6). Responses showed that most respondents were neutral or positive about their work. 58% of the participants were motivated to go to work (s8), and about 67% liked their working environment (s9). A large proportion found their job rewarding (s10), but the ratio of neutral feelings was greater (48.4%) than the positive responses (43.8%). 56.3% of the participants found their work challenging (s11) and received relative support from their colleagues (s14; 43.8% positive and 50% neutral). Interestingly, 71.9% responded positively about the necessity for creativity in their current positions (s12), and 78.1% feel they have the characteristics for creativity and innovation (s15). None of the respondents felt pessimistic about their capacity for creativity and innovation. Of all participants, 68.8% thought they had the necessary tools to perform well at work.

The analysis of the participants’ work perception revealed that although they felt they had the personal capacity and motivation for creativity and innovation and the tools to succeed, there was generally low support from colleagues. This can be caused by high competitiveness within the academic sector and a limited drive for collaboration ( Carson et al., 2013 ). This aspect has, however, been shown to be critical to encouraging creativity in previous studies ( Payne, 1990 ; Amabile et al., 1996 ). This suggests that the lack of formal teamwork may hinder exposure to novel ideas, reduce commitment to projects and, in turn, reduce individuals’ motivation over time. It may also minimize creative thinking ( Abra, 1994 ; Cagliano et al., 2000 ) suggested that this requires acquiring and utilizing expertise and collaborative efforts. Thus, academic leaders must focus on developing teamwork, collaboration, and team spirit to benefit creativity and innovation in their teams.

Effect of a leader’s behavior and management style on subordinates

On assessing the manager’s leadership style, 15 statements were asked for an assessment, similar to the above section. Data analysis revealed that the minimum mean was given to the statement about “opportunities for rewards,” with a mean value of 2.78. On the other hand, participants rated the statement on “communication and interaction” the highest, with a mean value of 4.63 ( Table 1 ).

Statements in this section were derived from the Managerial Practices Survey (MPS) and the categories defined by Yukl (2002) , except “Managing conflicts” and “Team-building” which were split into two separate categories. In the present study, the four categories that raised the most positive feelings were “Informing” (64.1%), “Planning and organizing” (50%), “Supporting” (46.9%), and “Clarifying roles and objectives” (45.3%; Table 2 ). In the study by Amabile et al. (2004) , the categories of “Monitoring,” “Consulting,” “Supporting,” and “Recognizing” were found to be positively correlated to leader support. Of these, only the category of “Supporting” was associated with a positive feeling in the present study. The other three categories, namely “Monitoring,” “Consulting,” and “Recognizing,” were found to bring neutral feelings at 50, 40.6, and 43.8%, respectively, as the most common consensus among the participants.

Categories of an individual’s feelings and perspectives about work.

1 Negative feeling combines answers ‘not at all’ and ‘to almost no extent’; 2 Neutral feeling combines answers ‘to a slight extent’ and ‘to a moderate extent’; 3 Positive feeling combines answers ‘to a great extent’ and ‘to a very great extent’.

On the other hand, Amabile et al.’s (2004) study revealed that the category of “Roles and objectives,” “Problem solving,” and “Monitoring” were negative forms of support. However, in the present study, none of these categories raised high negative ratios. The negative impact for “Roles and objectives” was observed in 9.4%, “Problem solving” in 12.5%, and “Monitoring” in 9.4% of the participants. Solving problems is critical in R&D environments and scoring a low negative ratio signals that leadership in this sector does confront complex, ill-defined problems, although, in this study, the category does not seem to critically depend on support. Team leadership has been posited as critical to diagnose and solve problems that keep the team from realizing their full potential ( Zaccaro et al., 2001 ). It has been pointed out that influential team leaders must know how to solve problems accurately, intervene effectively ( Shea and Guzzo, 1987 ), and use the team’s combined expertise to analyze problems to design effective solutions ( Hiller et al., 2006 ). The three categories that showed the most important negative feelings were “Consulting,” “Delegating,” and “Rewarding” with 21.9, 21.9, and 43.8% of the total participants.

Interestingly, the category “Consultation” was detected as one of the positive forms of behavior. The discrepancies between the study of Amabile et al. (2004) and the present study are probably due to the different setups of the two studies and the focus on R&D-based participants in the present study. In the study, data were collected through an online survey, while the study by Amabile et al. (2004) was derived from a quantitative analysis of daily diaries. Additionally, the pool of participants was a much wider participant group in the study of Amabile et al. (2004 ; i.e., 238 employees) against 64 in the present study. However, the results suggest that academic environments might have very particular managerial practices.

The observation of the categories of “Informing,” “Planning and organizing,” “Supporting,” and “Clarifying roles and objectives” as the four most positive managerial practices suggest that managers in R&D environments can organize and communicate to their subordinates effectively in addition to providing leadership support and planning. These categories show that the leaders provide resources and take action to secure them using planning, organizing, and supporting subordinates ( Shea and Guzzo, 1987 ). As the authors argued, providing adequate resources is beneficial as they facilitate the completion of tasks and show support to the team. It has also been proposed that providing resources can motivate teams because it communicates that the work is valued and appreciated and facilitates work efficiency ( Morgeson et al., 2010 ).

However, the most negative categories, “Consultation” and “Delegation,” suggest a risk of reduced team involvement in important tasks as subordinates are given low opportunities to evolve and limited empowering prospects. This may impact motivation in the long run, and thus overtime workers will become less actively involved and motivated in their work, although Shalley and Gilson (2004) stated that this was an essential role of leaders. Finally, the fact that “Rewards” was the most negatively rated practice suggests that leaders need to use this practice, especially recognition and other informal methods, to trigger their subordinate’s motivation, as indicated by Sankar et al. (1991) . This fact is supported by a study of 26 project teams in different industry sectors, namely chemical, technology, and consumer products, in which rewarding team members upon achievement of goals was observed as one of the critical behaviors of a leader that has a positive impact on facilitating team creativity and ultimately innovation ( Amabile et al., 2004 ).

Support to nurture creativity and innovative spirit provided to an individual and the team

The last set of nine statements relates to creativity and innovation. In this set, responses ranged from “not at all” (1) to “a very great extent” (6; Table 1 ). Table 1 shows that the lowest mean (3.88) relates to the ability of the manager to prepare for change and integrate new ideas and information, which could be because tenured scientists, those that generally have managerial positions, are holding onto their roles in their 60s and beyond. This might negatively impact innovation as several new ideas might be rejected. On the other hand, the question regarding “the level of autonomy offered” recorded the highest mean with a value of 4.56, although the delegation level was rated low. This suggests that subordinates might be left working autonomously on projects rather than working on tasks to help their managers, which could further empower them.

For this section, all statements except those relating to “team adaptation to change and idea integration” and “nurturing of openness and opportunities” recorded between 50 and 67% of positive feelings. The maximum negative emotion was recorded for a question relating to “nurturing of openness and opportunities” with 20.3%, which is in correlation with the relatively low positive feeling expressed for “Developing and mentoring” (statement 25; 40.6%) and “Networking” (statement 28; 35.9%). Taken together, this suggests that managers might hinder the possibility of their collaborators learning more and possibly evolving to new horizons. Besides, it has been shown that leadership actions directed towards coaching, developing, and mentoring the team promote team progressivity and effectiveness ( Hackman and Wageman, 2005 ), positively impacting creativity and innovation. Findings from the training and development functions of four team leaders across 14 teams in a Swedish manufacturing plant showed that the team leaders were proactively in the team’s task and engaged in developing team members’ knowledge, skills, and team spirit. Further, the role of a leader in mentoring, training, and development was positively related to team innovation and creativity ( Dackert et al., 2004 ). This study indicates that even though the academic environment provides the opportunity for scholars to nurture their talent, this opportunity is inadequate without support, mentoring, and developing leadership functions.

To gain insights into the effects of the behavioral traits of leaders display on team creativity and innovation within the R&D environment, we need a better understanding of the team’s views on leadership styles and motivational support to enable creativity and innovation in the academic environment. In the R&D environment, particularly the academic, cross-functional teams are observed more regularly and, when properly managed, can positively affect team creativity and innovation. By providing empirical evidence on the views on leadership styles and functions of team members of academic-based teams in the R&D environment, this research provides a richer insight into how teams and their subordinates can be engaged and motivated to nurture and thus possibly promote creative thinking and hence innovativeness. Therefore, a questionnaire was used to explore these relationships and target the R&D environment, particularly the academic environment, to gain insights into how leadership influences motivation, creativity, and innovation.

Demographics data outcome

A total of 86% of the participants in this study were employed in the academic sector, setting a good ground for the study, as the aim of the study was to look at the R&D environment and preferably academia. The study observes that a Ph.D. level is necessary for academia to reach higher positions, such as middle and higher-range manager positions. However, gender inequality was noticed as fewer females were in senior professional positions. This is in agreement with previous studies ( Shen, 2013 ), which showed that women do not have equal chances to reach high-profile positions. However, the correlation analysis revealed that the gender itself played a limited influence on the outcome of the results.

The present study reveals that the participants were motivated by their work and liked their working environment. Over 70% of the participants were positive about the necessity for creativity and having the characteristics of innovation and creativity. Most importantly, none of the participants rated negatively about this later statement. It is intriguing to note that the participants have the necessary tools to perform their respective work but felt there was limited support among colleagues, depicting limited teamwork. The lack of teamwork was further emphasized in the correlation analysis that revealed that managers in academia tend to focus on individual performance and contribution. This can translate to high competitiveness in the academic environment that hinders the drive for collaboration, effective teamwork ( Carson et al. 2018 ), cognitive flexibility, problem-solving, and creativity ( Gagné and Deci, 2005 ). Previous studies have proposed that inadequacy in teamwork might impair commitments to projects and reduce exposure to novel ideas. Thus, this may reduce motivation and creative thinking ( Abra, 1994 ; Cagliano et al., 2000 ). Therefore, academic leaders must focus on developing teamwork, collaborative work, and team spirit to benefit creativity and innovation. The present study also suggests that managers in an academic environment should focus on reducing the influence of group conflicts as a means to enhance creativity and innovative thinking. Furthermore, in a knowledge-based economy, creativity and innovation capacity are essential elements. Therefore, the individual’s innovation success depends on an employee’s relationship with the organization that provides information, resources, support, and inspiration that helps innovators to promote and develop new ideas.

Effect of the leader’s behavior and management style on subordinates

Of the Managerial Practices Categories, “Informing,” “Planning and Organizing,” “Supporting,” and “Clarifying roles and objectives” showed a positive relationship with leadership in the R&D environment. This observation suggests that leaders in R&D environments provide subordinates with a clear plan and organization and that they can communicate effectively and efficiently. The root of success in a team is fostered through leadership that provides adequate support and planning and is likely to be beneficial and facilitate the completion of tasks in addition to creative and innovative thinking. Appreciation of the working environment is also expected to trigger motivation and inspiration. It is, therefore, essential for managers to work on improving the work environment as a way to foster extrinsic motivation of their subordinates, notably when this fosters the feeling of autonomy and competence in their subordinates, as described in the cognitive evaluation theory ( Ryan, 1982 ).

Results showed that managers in academic environment offer autonomy to their subordinates, which can provide intrinsic motivation and drive performance, notably creativity and innovation ( Gagné and Deci, 2005 ). This positively offers self-management and the opportunity for the subordinates to rely more on their resources and become more resilient and adaptable. However, this also means they must be proactive and autodidact, skills not developed by everyone, especially young professionals or students. Thus, managers must focus on adapting their managerial styles to subordinates, notably by developing emotional intelligence ( Moss et al., 2006 ).

Leadership functions involving consulting, delegation, and rewarding had negative feedback in this study. These three negatively rated practices suggest a limitation in celebrating success in R&D compared to other industrial environments, as previously reported ( Amabile et al., 2004 ). Additionally, the analysis of statements 31–39 revealed that leaders in academic environments have a limited ability to embrace change and integrate new ideas, possibly because higher manager positions are obtained by highly experienced and, thus, aging leaders. Overall, this is likely to have a negative impact on innovation and creativity. Taken together, it appears that leaders in academia allow their subordinates to work autonomously rather than delegating and empowering them, limiting the subordinates’ opportunities to evolve to new horizons and higher positions. Interestingly, this might reinforce the high competitiveness observed in academia and described in the analysis of the demographic data. Dackert et al. (2004) stated that mentoring was positively related to team innovation and creativity. This, in turn, suggests that leaders should emphasize developing support and mentoring. Worth noting is that leaders in academic environments seem to offer little rewards, indicating the limited opportunities they provide to their subordinates.

Conclusion and recommendations

The present research intended to answer two research questions with the aim of determining if the leader’s behaviors influence subordinate creativity and innovation in academic R&D environments. On the contrary, the relationship between the production of ideas and the leadership role in fostering team innovation and creativity is examined. The first research question that the study disclosed was to what extent the “PMEG framework” impacts leadership in an R&D environment. In this regard, the positive effect is that group interactions lead to fostering team creativity and innovation. It thus appears that “people” influence logical variance between followers and leaders, “means” carry activities to influence followers, “effects” include certain heterogeneous reactions to followers, and finally, “goals” are essential for directing innovation. Thus, these four dimensions allow a systematic framework for making leadership easier and positively impact leadership (explained in the above sections) that influences an individual’s attitudes and behaviors and interaction between groups.

The second research question that the study intended to answer was to understand the production of ideas in an organization as well as the relationship between the creation of ideas and leadership roles. Therefore, the results show that the relationship between them can be positive, as reflected in the literature that managers of the academic R&D environment can improve to foster their subordinates’ motivation to trigger creative thinking and innovation. Thus, every organization should nurture innovation appropriately and particularly to stay competitive. Finally, it reveals that innovation does not take place without change. We have put the above hypotheses for testing, and the results are discussed in our study. The survey’s findings revealed that managers display behaviors that influence creativity and innovation, some in a positive way, which can enhance creativity and innovation, but also some that can negatively impact creativity and innovation. The positive behaviors included providing adequate support, planning, organization, and communicating effectively and efficiently. The survey also revealed that managers in the academic R&D environment focus on reducing the influence of group conflicts. On the other hand, the survey’s data also showed that managers tend to focus on individual performance and contribution.

The findings also had applications for managers hoping to foster creativity among their employees. First, managers should utilize transformational leadership primarily to develop a person’s creative instinct. Additionally, managers have the potential to be transformative leaders. High-caliber managers should have the appropriate training to serve as role models for their staff. Second, management should hire leaders who provide each employee the specific attention they need, in addition to training technocrats. Such an event encourages staff creativity and increases employee motivation. Thirdly, managers or supervisors need to accurately translate their ideals into concrete objectives so that staff members can work to achieve the targets. Additionally, transformational leaders should provide their team members the freedom to experiment with new concepts, look for intellectually stimulating challenges, and foster their creativity.

Along with making a significant contribution, the study has limitations that must be taken into account while explaining its results. By conducting a cross-regional and cross-cultural study, researchers could better understand how ethical leadership impacts employee and corporate outcomes. Further investigation is needed on the moral conduct of managers in service-related industries, such as hospitals, where nurses and doctors may influence their staff members’ behavior to foster creativity or innovation. This study also demonstrates that for innovation to be implemented in firms, executives must be inspired to welcome employee ideas.

Ideas for future research

Although the present study offers theoretical knowledge and insights about the processes that can trigger and impair creativity and innovation in academic R&D environments. Notably, it would be insightful to conduct a survey focusing on subordinates only to differentiate data gathered between subordinates and managers. In the present study, the entire data set was analyzed rather than separated according to the position held among participants. A follow-up analysis based on semi-structured interviews would also allow for deepening the knowledge and help understand better the meaning of answers gathered in the survey. For example, interviews could bring a better understanding of the feelings behind the development of autonomy, role clarity, and the work environment in academic environments and help to understand the intricate roles of these towards creativity and innovation. The data collected from interviews would, however, need to be analyzed using a qualitative method. However, Rahman (2016) states that there are certain disadvantages to the quantitative research approach. Firstly, using this research method requires us to be prepared financially. Also, as we need an enormous number of respondents, we need cash for questionnaire printing, transportation fees, etc. Secondly, positivism cannot address how social reality is retained and shaped or how people interpret their actions. Thirdly, this research method requires a larger sample of people, leading to more statistical accuracy.

On the other hand, Rahman (2016) claims that this research method overlooks the respondents’ experience because when collecting data, there seems to be an indirect connection between the researchers and the respondents. Lastly, it proclaims another limitation of this research method is that it is inclined to take a screenshot of a phenomenon, measure variables at a specific moment in time, and disregard whether the photograph looks unusually disarranged. It has been reported that integrating quantitative and qualitative data analysis multiplies the potential and likelihood of unanticipated outcomes, meaning that the outcome gives new understandings and new insights ( Bryman, 2006 ). Besides, a perception of a multidisciplinary approach can be tested to validate whether leaders in academia promote trans-disciplinary research and the influence this has on creativity and innovation as well as on the expansion of collaborative work. Finally, the authors have also highlighted that few academic contributions have explored the role of leadership in an R&D environment. In this perspective, more research needs to be carried out on the dynamics of the R&D environment to foster team innovation and creativity.

Data availability statement

Ethics statement.

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by University of Roehampton Online. The ethics committee waived the requirement of written informed consent for participation.

Author contributions

SS contributed to conception and design of the study. SA organized the database. LT and ZH performed the statistical analysis. ZH, SS, LT, and SA contributed to writing the first draft of the manuscript. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

• Abra J. (1994). Collaboration in creative work: an initiative for investigation . Creat. Res. J. 7 , 1–20. doi: 10.1080/10400419409534505 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ackaradejruangsri P., Mumi A., Rattanapituk S., Pakhunwanich P. (2022). Exploring the determinants of young inclusive leadership in Thailand: research taxonomy and theoretical framework . J. Knowl. Econ. , 1–28. doi: 10.1007/s13132-022-01017-7 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Akbari M., Bagheri A., Imani S., Asadnezhad M. (2020). Does entrepreneurial leadership encourage innovation work behavior? The mediating role of creative self-efficacy and support for innovation . Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 24 , 1–22. doi: 10.1108/EJIM-10-2019-0283 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Al Harbi J. A., Alarifi S., Mosbah A. (2019). Transformation leadership and creativity: effects of employees pyschological empowerment and intrinsic motivation . Pers. Rev. 48 , 1082–1099. doi: 10.1108/PR-11-2017-0354 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Alghamdi F. (2018). Ambidextrous leadership, ambidextrous employee, and the interaction between ambidextrous leadership and employee innovative performance . J. Innov. Entrep. 7 , 1–14. doi: 10.1186/s13731-018-0081-8 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ali H., Chuanmin S., Ahmed M., Mahmood A., Khayyam M., Tikhomirova A. (2021). Transformational leadership and project success: serial mediation of team-building and teamwork . Front. Psychol. 12 :689311. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.689311, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Amabile T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations . Res. Organ. Behav. 10 , 123–167. [ Google Scholar ]
• Amabile T.M., (2012). Componential theory of creativity [Harvard Business School working paper no. 12–096]. Encyclopedia of management theory . Cambridge, MA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Amabile T. M., Conti R., Coon H., Lazenby J., Herron M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity . Acad. Manag. J. 39 , 1154–1184. doi: 10.2307/256995 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Amabile T. M., Pratt M. G. (2016). The dynamic componential model of creativity and innovation in organizations: making progress, making meaning . Res. Organ. Behav. 36 , 157–183. doi: 10.1016/j.riob.2016.10.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Amabile T. M., Schatzel E. A., Moneta G. B., Kramer S. J. (2004). Leader behaviors and the work environment for creativity: perceived leader support . Leadersh. Q. 15 , 5–32. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.12.003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Amah O. E., Oyetuunde K. (2020). The effect of servant leadership on employee turnover in SMEs in Nigeria: the role of career growth potential and employee voice . J. Small Bus. Enterp. Dev. 27 , 885–904. doi: 10.1108/JSBED-01-2019-0009 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Amundsen S., Martinsen Ø. L. (2015). Linking empowering leadership to job satisfaction, work effort, and creativity: the role of self-leadership and psychological empowerment . J. Leadersh. Org. Stud. 22 , 304–323. doi: 10.1177/1548051814565819 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Anderson N. R., West M. A. (1998). Measuring climate for work group innovation: development and validation of the team climate inventory . J. Organ. Behav. 19 , 235–258. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199805)19:3<235::AID-JOB837>3.0.CO;2-C [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Andrej N., Breznik K., Natek S. (2022). Managing knowledge to improve performance: the impact of leadership style and knowledge management on organizational performance with moderation effects via PLS-SEM . J. Knowl. Econ. , 1–30. doi: 10.1007/s13132-022-00957-4 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Arad S., Hanson M. A., Schneider R. J. (1997). A framework for the study of relationships between organizational characteristics and organizational innovation . J. Creat. Behav. 31 , 42–58. doi: 10.1002/j.2162-6057.1997.tb00780.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Babbie E., (1990). Survey research methods . Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bagheri A., Harrison C. (2020). Entrepreneurial leadership measurement: a multi-dimensional construct . J. Small Bus. Enterp. Dev. 27 , 659–679. doi: 10.1108/JSBED-01-2019-0027 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bain P. G., Mann L., Pirola-Merlo A. (2001). The innovation imperative: the relationships between team climate, innovation, and performance in research and development teams . Small Group Res. 32 , 55–73. doi: 10.1177/104649640103200103 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bandura A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control . New York: Macmillan. [ Google Scholar ]
• Barsh J., Capozzi M. M., Davidson J. (2008). Leadership and innovation . McKinsey Q. 1 :36. [ Google Scholar ]
• Basran J., Pires C., Matos M., McEwan K., Gilbert P. (2019). Styles of leadership, fears of compassion, and competing to avoid inferiority . Front. Psychol. 9 :2460. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02460, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bass B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations . Springfield, Ohio: Collier Macmillan. [ Google Scholar ]
• Berson Y., Linton J. D. (2005). An examination of the relationships between leadership style, quality, and employee satisfaction in R&D versus administrative environments . R&D Manag. 35 , 51–60. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9310.2005.00371.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bolden R., Petrov G., Gosling J., Bryman A. (2009). Leadership in higher education: facts, fictions and futures—introduction to the special issue . Leadership 5 , 291–298. doi: 10.1177/1742715009337761 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bryman A. (2006). Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: how is it done? Qual. Res. 6 , 97–113. doi: 10.1177/1468794106058877 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bryman A., Lilley S. (2009). Leadership researchers on leadership in higher education . Leadership 5 , 331–346. doi: 10.1177/1742715009337764 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cagliano R., Chiesa V., Manzini R. (2000). Differences and similarities in managing technological collaborations in research, development and manufacturing: a case study . J. Eng. Technol. Manag. 17 , 193–224. doi: 10.1016/S0923-4748(00)00021-7 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cai W., Lysova E. I., Khapova S. N., Bossink B. A. (2019). Does entrepreneurial leadership foster creativity among employees and teams? The mediating role of creative efficacy beliefs . J. Bus. Psychol. 34 , 203–217. doi: 10.1007/s10869-018-9536-y [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Capron L. (1999). The long-term performance of horizontal acquisitions . Strateg. Manag. J. 20 , 987–1018. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199911)20:11<987::AID-SMJ61>3.0.CO;2-B [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carayannis E. G., Draper J., Bhaneja B. (2021). Towards fusion energy in the industry 5.0 and society 5.0 context: call for a global commission for urgent action on fusion energy . J. Knowl. Econ. 12 , 1891–1904. doi: 10.1007/s13132-020-00695-5 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carson L., Bartneck C., Voges K. (2013). Over-competitiveness in academia: a literature review . Disrupt. Sci. Technol. 1 , 183–190. doi: 10.1089/dst.2013.0013 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carson O. M., Laird E. A., Reid B. B, Deeny P. G., McGarvey H. E. (2018). Enhancing teamwork using a creativity-focused learning intervention for undergraduate nursing students-a pilot study . Nurse Educ. Pract. 30 , 20–26. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Černe M., Jaklič M., Škerlavaj M. (2013). Authentic leadership, creativity, and innovation: a multi-level perspective . Leadership 9 , 63–85. doi: 10.1177/1742715012455130 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chaubey A., Sahoo C. K., Khatri N. (2019). Relationship of transformational leadership with employee creativity and organizational innovation: a study of mediating and moderating influences . J. Strateg. Manag. 12 , 61–82. doi: 10.1108/JSMA-07-2018-0075 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chemers M. (1997). An integrative theory of leadership . London: Psychology Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chevallier C., Laarraf Z., Lacam J. S., Miloudi A., Salvetat D. (2016). Competitive intelligence, knowledge management and coopetition: the case of European high-technology firms . Bus. Process. Manag. J. 22 , 1192–1211. doi: 10.1108/BPMJ-11-2015-0161 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dackert I., Lööv L. Å., Mårtensson M. (2004). Leadership and climate for innovation in teams . Econ. Ind. Democr. 25 , 301–318. doi: 10.1177/0143831X04042488 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Denison D. R., Hart S. L., Kahn J. A. (1996). From chimneys to cross-functional teams: developing and validating a diagnostic model . Acad. Manag. J. 39 , 1005–1023. doi: 10.2307/256721 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Drazin R., Glynn M. A., Kazanjian R. K. (1999). Multi-level theorizing about creativity in organizations: a sensemaking perspective . Acad. Manag. Rev. 24 , 286–307. doi: 10.2307/259083 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Du J., Li N. N., Luo Y. J. (2020). Authoritarian leadership in organizational change and employees’ active reactions: have-to and willing-to perspectives . Front. Psychol. 10 :3076. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.03076, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dunne T. C., Aaron J. R., McDowell W. C., Urban D. J., Geho P. R. (2016). The impact of leadership on small business innovativeness . J. Bus. Res. 69 , 4876–4881. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.046 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Easterby-Smith M., Thorpe R., Jackson P. R. (2012). Management research . Thousand Oaks, California: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Eikebrokk T.R., Olsen D.H., (2005). “Co-opetition and e-business success in SMEs: an empirical investigation of European SMEs.” in Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences . pp. 162a–162a. IEEE.
• Elkins T., Keller R. T. (2003). Leadership in research and development organizations: a literature review and conceptual framework . Leadersh. Q. 14 , 587–606. doi: 10.1016/S1048-9843(03)00053-5 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fachrunnisa O., Siswanti Y., Qadri E., Mustofa Z., Harjito D. A. (2019). Empowering leadership and individual readiness to change: the role of people dimension and work method . J. Knowl. Econ. 10 , 1515–1535. doi: 10.1007/s13132-019-00618-z [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Felix C., Aparicio S., Urbano D. (2019). Leadership as a driver of entrepreneurship: an international exploratory study . J. Small Bus. Enterp. Dev. 26 , 397–420. doi: 10.1108/JSBED-03-2018-0106 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gagné M., Deci E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation . J. Organ. Behav. 26 , 331–362. doi: 10.1002/job.322 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ghosh K. (2015). Developing organizational creativity and innovation: toward a model of self-leadership, employee creativity, creativity climate and workplace innovative orientation . Manag. Res. Rev. 38 , 1126–1148. doi: 10.1108/MRR-01-2014-0017 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gilbert P., Basran J. (2019). The evolution of prosocial and antisocial competitive behavior and the emergence of prosocial and antisocial leadership styles . Front. Psychol. 10 :610. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00610, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gillespie N. A., Mann L. (2004). Transformational leadership and shared values: the building blocks of trust . J. Manag. Psychol. 19 , 588–607. doi: 10.1108/02683940410551507 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Goleman D., (2000). Leadership That Gets Results. [online] Harvard Business Review.
• Gosling J., Bolden R., Petrov G. (2009). Distributed leadership in higher education: what does it accomplish? Leadership 5 , 299–310. doi: 10.1177/1742715009337762 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Griffith J. A., Gibson C., Medeiros K., MacDougall A., Hardy J., III, Mumford M. D. (2018). Are you thinking what I’m thinking?: the influence of leader style, distance, and leader–follower mental model congruence on creative performance . J. Leadersh. Org. Stud. 25 , 153–170. doi: 10.1177/1548051817750537 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gumusluoglu L., Karakitapoğlu-Aygün Z., Scandura T. A. (2017). A multi-level examination of benevolent leadership and innovative behavior in R&D contexts: a social identity approach . J. Leadersh. Org. Stud. 24 , 479–493. doi: 10.1177/1548051817705810 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gupta V., Singh S. (2015). Leadership and creative performance behaviors in R&D laboratories: examining the mediating role of justice perceptions . J. Leadersh. Org. Stud. 22 , 21–36. doi: 10.1177/1548051813517002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hackman J. R., Hackman R. J. (2002). Leading teams: Setting the stage for great performances . Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hackman J. R., Wageman R. (2005). A theory of team coaching . Acad. Manag. Rev. 30 , 269–287. doi: 10.5465/amr.2005.16387885 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hiller N. J., Day D. V., Vance R. J. (2006). Collective enactment of leadership roles and team effectiveness: a field study . Leadersh. Q. 17 , 387–397. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.04.004 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hon A. H., Lui S. S. (2016). Employee creativity and innovation in organizations: review, integration, and future directions for hospitality research . Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 28 , 862–885. doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-09-2014-0454 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Horth D.M., Vehar J., (2015). Innovation: How leadership makes the difference. White Paper Report, Center for Creative Leadership.
• Hughes D. J., Lee A., Tian A. W., Newman A., Legood A. (2018). Leadership, creativity, and innovation: a critical review and practical recommendations . Leadersh. Q. 29 , 549–569. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.03.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Irwin J. G., Hoffman J. J., Lamont B. T. (1998). The effect of the acquisition of technological innovations on organizational performance: a resource-based view . J. Eng. Technol. Manag. 15 , 25–54. doi: 10.1016/S0923-4748(97)00028-3 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jaiswal N. K., Dhar R. L. (2016). Fostering employee creativity through transformational leadership: moderating role of creative self-efficacy . Creat. Res. J. 28 , 367–371. doi: 10.1080/10400419.2016.1195631 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jiang Y., Chen C. C. (2018). Integrating knowledge activities for team innovation: effects of transformational leadership . J. Manag. 44 , 1819–1847. doi: 10.1177/0149206316628641 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jiang H., Chen Y., Sun P., Yang J. (2017). The relationship between authoritarian leadership and employees’ deviant workplace behaviors: the mediating effects of psychological contract violation and organizational cynicism . Front. Psychol. 8 :732. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00732, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Keller T., Weibler J. (2015). What it takes and costs to be an ambidextrous manager: linking leadership and cognitive strain to balancing exploration and exploitation . J. Leadersh. Org. Stud. 22 , 54–71. doi: 10.1177/1548051814524598 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kesting P., Ulhøi J. P., Song L. J., Niu H. (2015). The impact of leadership styles on innovation-a review . J. Innov. Manag. 3 , 22–41. doi: 10.24840/2183-0606_003.004_0004 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Khan M. A., Ismail F. B., Hussain A., Alghazali B. (2020). The interplay of leadership styles, innovative work behavior, organizational culture, and organizational citizenship behavior . SAGE Open 10 :215824401989826. doi: 10.1177/2158244019898264 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Konradt U. (2014). Toward a theory of dispersed leadership in teams: model, findings, and directions for future research . Leadership 10 , 289–307. doi: 10.1177/1742715013481374 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kremer H., Villamor I., Aguinis H. (2019). Innovation leadership: best-practice recommendations for promoting employee creativity, voice, and knowledge sharing . Bus. Horiz. 62 , 65–74. doi: 10.1016/j.bushor.2018.08.010 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee A., Legood A., Hughes D., Tian A. W., Newman A., Knight C. (2020). Leadership, creativity and innovation: a meta-analytic review . Eur. J. Work Organ. Psy. 29 , 1–35. doi: 10.1080/1359432X.2019.1661837 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Li R., Wang H., Huang M. (2018). From empowerment to multi-level creativity: the role of employee self-perceived status and feedback-seeking climate . J. Leadersh. Org. Stud. 25 , 430–442. doi: 10.1177/1548051818760998 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lin C. P., Xian J., Li B., Huang H. (2020). Transformational leadership and employees’ thriving at work: the mediating roles of challenge-hindrance stressors . Front. Psychol. 11 :1400. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01400, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lisak A., Erez M., Sui Y., Lee C. (2016). The positive role of global leaders in enhancing multicultural team innovation . J. Int. Bus. Stud. 47 , 655–673. doi: 10.1057/s41267-016-0002-7 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• MacGregor Bums J. (1980). Leadership . London: Harper & Row. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mailhot C., Gagnon S., Langley A., Binette L. F. (2016). Distributing leadership across people and objects in a collaborative research project . Leadership 12 , 53–85. doi: 10.1177/1742715014543578 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Martin R., Thomas G., Legood A., Dello Russo S. (2018). Leader–member exchange (LMX) differentiation and work outcomes: conceptual clarification and critical review . J. Organ. Behav. 39 , 151–168. doi: 10.1002/job.2202 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McCleskey J. A. (2014). Situational, transformational, and transactional leadership and leadership development . J. Bus. Stud. Q. 5 :117. [ Google Scholar ]
• McMahon S. R., Ford C. M. (2013). Heuristic transfer in the relationship between leadership and employee creativity . J. Leadersh. Org. Stud. 20 , 69–83. doi: 10.1177/1548051812465894 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mednick S. A., Mednick M. T. (1967). Remote associates test, college, adult, form 1 and Examiner’s manual, remote associates test . College Adult Forms 2 , 213–214. doi: 10.1002/j.2162-6057.1968.tb00104.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Michalko M., (2001). Cracking creativity , Berkeley, CA, USA: Ten Speed Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Middlehurst R., Goreham H., Woodfield S. (2009). Why research leadership in higher education? Exploring contributions from the UK’s leadership foundation for higher education . Leadership 5 , 311–329. doi: 10.1177/1742715009337763 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Morgeson F. P., DeRue D. S., Karam E. P. (2010). Leadership in teams: a functional approach to understanding leadership structures and processes . J. Manag. 36 , 5–39. doi: 10.1177/0149206309347376 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Moss S. A., Ritossa D. A. (2007). The impact of goal orientation on the association between leadership style and follower performance, creativity and work attitudes . Leadership 3 , 433–456. doi: 10.1177/1742715007082966 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Moss S., Ritossa D., Ngu S. (2006). The effect of follower regulatory focus and extraversion on leadership behavior: the role of emotional intelligence . J. Individ. Differ. 27 , 93–107. doi: 10.1027/1614-0001.27.2.93 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mumford M. D., Baughman W. A., Maher M. A., Costanza D. P., Supinski E. P. (1997). Process-based measures of creative problem-solving skills: IV. Category combination . Creat. Res. J. 10 , 59–71. doi: 10.1207/s15326934crj1001_7 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Noor H. M. (2013). Assessing leadership practices, organizational climate and its effect towards innovative work behaviour in R&D . Int. J. Soc. Sci. Humanity 3 , 129–133. doi: 10.7763/IJSSH.2013.V3.211 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Oeij P. R., Gaspersz J. B., Van Vuuren T., Dhondt S. (2017). Leadership in innovation projects: an illustration of the reflective practitioner and the relation to organizational learning . J. Innov. Entrep. 6 , 1–20. doi: 10.1186/s13731-017-0062-3 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Paulsen N., Callan V. J., Ayoko O., Saunders D. (2013). Transformational leadership and innovation in an R&D organization experiencing major change . J. Organ. Chang. Manag. 26 , 595–610. doi: 10.1108/09534811311328597 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Payne R. (1990). The effectiveness of research teams: A review . New York: John Wiley & Sons. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pelletier K. L., Kottke J. L., Sirotnik B. W. (2019). The toxic triangle in academia: a case analysis of the emergence and manifestation of toxicity in a public university . Leadership 15 , 405–432. doi: 10.1177/1742715018773828 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pelz D. C. (1963). “ Relationships between measures of scientific performance and other variables ” in Scientific creativity: Its recognition and development eds. C. W. Taylor and F. Barron (New York: John Wiley), 302–310.
• Perpék É., Győri Á., Lengyel G. (2021). Preferred leadership style, managerial and entrepreneurial inclination among Hungarian students . J. Innov. Entrep. 10 , 1–19. doi: 10.1186/s13731-021-00174-4 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Qu R., Janssen O., Shi K. (2017). Leader–member exchange and follower creativity: the moderating roles of leader and follower expectations for creativity . Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 28 , 603–626. doi: 10.1080/09585192.2015.1105843 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rahman M. S. (2016). The advantages and disadvantages of using qualitative and quantitative approaches and methods in language “testing and assessment” research: a literature review . J. Educ. Learn. 6 :102. doi: 10.5539/jel.v6n1p102 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Raisch S., Birkinshaw J. (2008). Organizational ambidexterity: antecedents, outcomes, and moderators . J. Manag. 34 , 375–409. doi: 10.1177/0149206308316058 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rêgo B. S., Jayantilal S., Ferreira J. J., Carayannis E. G. (2022). Digital transformation and strategic management: a systematic review of the literature . J. Knowl. Econ. 13 , 3195–3222. doi: 10.1007/s13132-021-00853-3 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Roach M., Sauermann H. (2010). A taste for science? PhD scientists’ academic orientation and self-selection into research careers in industry . Res. Policy 39 , 422–434. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.004 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosso B. D. (2014). Creativity and constraints: exploring the role of constraints in the creative processes of research and development teams . Organ. Stud. 35 , 551–585. doi: 10.1177/0170840613517600 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ryan R. M. (1982). Control and information in the intrapersonal sphere: an extension of cognitive evaluation theory . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 43 , 450–461. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.43.3.450 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sankar C. S., Ledbetter W. N., Snyder C. A., Roberts T. L., McCreary J., Boyles W. R. (1991). Perceptions of reward systems by technologists and managers in information technology companies . IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 38 , 349–358. doi: 10.1109/17.97442 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sauermann H., Cohen W. M. (2010). What makes them tick? Employee motives and firm innovation . Manag. Sci. 56 , 2134–2153. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.1100.1241 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shafi M., Lei Z., Song X., Sarker M. N. I. (2020). The effects of transformational leadership on employee creativity: moderating role of intrinsic motivation . Asia Pac. Manag. Rev. 25 , 166–176. doi: 10.1016/j.apmrv.2019.12.002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shafique I., Ahmad B., Kalyar M. N. (2019). How ethical leadership influences creativity and organizational innovation: examining the underlying mechanisms . Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 23 , 114–133. doi: 10.1108/EJIM-12-2018-0269 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shalley C. E., Gilson L. L. (2004). What leaders need to know: a review of social and contextual factors that can foster or hinder creativity . Leadersh. Q. 15 , 33–53. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.12.004 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shea G. P., Guzzo R. A. (1987). “ Groups as human resources ” in Research in personnel and human resources management . eds. Rowland K. M., Ferris G. R. (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press; ) [ Google Scholar ]
• Shen H. (2013). Mind the gender gap . Nature 495 , 22–24. doi: 10.1038/495022a, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sinha S. (2016). Managing an ambidextrous organization: balancing innovation and efficiency . Strateg. Dir. 32 , 35–37. doi: 10.1108/SD-05-2016-0061 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Smothers J., Absher K., White D. (2012). In the eye of the beholder: a configurational analysis of followers’ conceptualizations of the ideal academic department leader at private universities . Leadership 8 , 397–419. doi: 10.1177/1742715012443254 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Soleas E. K. (2020). Leader strategies for motivating innovation in individuals: a systematic review . J. Innov. Entrep. 9 , 1–28. doi: 10.1186/s13731-020-00120-w [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tierney P., Farmer S. M., Graen G. B. (1999). An examination of leadership and employee creativity: the relevance of traits and relationships . Pers. Psychol. 52 , 591–620. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1999.tb00173.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tong Y. (2020). The influence of entrepreneurial psychological leadership style on organizational learning ability and organizational performance . Front. Psychol. 11 :1679. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01679, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vincent A. S., Decker B. P., Mumford M. D. (2002). Divergent thinking, intelligence, and expertise: a test of alternative models . Creat. Res. J. 14 , 163–178. doi: 10.1207/S15326934CRJ1402_4 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vogel P., Fischler-Strasak U. (2014). “ Fostering sustainable innovation within organizations ” in Sustainable entrepreneurship (Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; ), 191–205. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang X. H., Fang Y., Qureshi I., Janssen O. (2015). Understanding employee innovative behavior: integrating the social network and leader–member exchange perspectives . J. Organ. Behav. 36 , 403–420. doi: 10.1002/job.1994 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang M., Guo T., Ni Y., Shang S., Tang Z. (2019). The effect of spiritual leadership on employee effectiveness: an intrinsic motivation perspective . Front. Psychol. 9 :2627. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02627, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Weisberg R. W. (1999). “ I2 creativity and knowledge: a challenge to theories ” in Handbook of creativity. Vol. 226. ed. R. J. Sternberg (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; ). [ Google Scholar ]
• Winston B. E., Patterson K. (2006). An integrative definition of leadership . Int. J. Leadersh. Stud. 1 , 6–66. [ Google Scholar ]
• Xenikou A. (2017). Transformational leadership, transactional contingent reward, and organizational identification: the mediating effect of perceived innovation and goal culture orientations . Front. Psychol. 8 :1754. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01754, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yi H., Hao P., Yang B., Liu W. (2017). How leaders’ transparent behavior influences employee creativity: the mediating roles of psychological safety and ability to focus attention . J. Leadersh. Org. Stud. 24 , 335–344. doi: 10.1177/1548051816670306 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yoshida D. T., Sendjaya S., Hirst G., Cooper B. (2014). Does servant leadership foster creativity and innovation? A multi-level mediation study of identification and prototypicality . J. Bus. Res. 67 , 1395–1404. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.08.013 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yuan F., Woodman R. W. (2010). Innovative behavior in the workplace: the role of performance and image outcome expectations . Acad. Manag. J. 53 , 323–342. doi: 10.5465/amj.2010.49388995 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yukl G., (2002). Leadership in organizations , Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, USA: Pearson Prentice Hall. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yunlu D. G., Murphy D. D. (2012). R&D intensity and economic recession: investigating the moderating role of CEO characteristics . J. Leadersh. Org. Stud. 19 , 284–293. doi: 10.1177/1548051812442966 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zaccaro S. J., Rittman A. L., Marks M. A. (2001). Team leadership . Leadersh. Q. 12 , 451–483. doi: 10.1016/S1048-9843(01)00093-5 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zacher H., Rosing K. (2015). Ambidextrous leadership and team innovation . Leadersh. Org. Dev. J. 36 , 54–68. doi: 10.1108/LODJ-11-2012-0141 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zheng W., Khoury A. E., Grobmeier C. (2010). How do leadership and context matter in R&D team innovation?–a multiple case study . Hum. Resour. Dev. Int. 13 , 265–283. doi: 10.1080/13678868.2010.483816 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]