Entrepreneurs, Culture, and Entrepreneurial CultureM

Entrepreneurs, Culture, and Entrepreneurial Culture
Marlene E. Weaver, MBA
School of Business
Hello,
I would like to talk to you today about entrepreneurs, culture,
and entrepreneurial culture with regard to strategic
management.
We have all heard these words before, but have we thought
about them in reference to organizations and businesses?
1
Topics for discussion
Introduction
What is an entrepreneur?
What is organizational culture?
What is entrepreneurial culture?

Why is it important to know the difference?
In this brief presentation we will review the formal definitions
of these words and then we will relate those definitions to an
organization.
We will review the definition of an entrepreneur, the definition
of organizational culture and the definition of entrepreneurial
culture and discuss the differences between them.
2
Introduction
Entrepreneur
- Culture
Entrepreneurship
Entrepreneurial culture
3
Our course material has many references to entrepreneurs,
entrepreneurship, and entrepreneurial culture.

It is important that we understand their different meanings
before we read the material for the week. Once you get past the
spelling, the rest is easy!
What is an entrepreneur?
The Webster (1988) dictionary describes an entrepreneur as “a
person who organizes and manages a business undertaking,
assuming the risk for the sake of profit” (p.454).
How do we describe an entrepreneur?
- an inventor of a business
- a risk taker
When we think about the formal dictionary definition of an
entrepreneur, “a person who organizes and manages a business,
assuming risk for the sake of profit” we think about the man
down the street who just invested his life savings in to a dog
training business.
He had an idea for a business venture and set it up hoping to be
successful.
4
Other thoughts about entrepreneurs
Inventions are important
Entrepreneurs are important
New ideas

New stores
New services
Inventors like Thomas Edison had an idea and created it. There
are also many inventions that fail for some of the same reasons
that businesses fail. There is lack of money and focus.
Entrepreneurs are no different. There is a new idea for
business, for a product, for a store, or a service and then the
entrepreneur makes it happen.
5
Culture
The Webster (1988) dictionary describes culture as “the ideas,
customs, skills, arts, etc. of a people or group, that are
transferred, communicated, or passed along (p. 337).
Western culture
Eastern culture
Religious culture
Organizational culture
Culture is formally described in the dictionary as “the ideas,
customs, skills, art of a group, that are transferred,

communicated, or passed along”.
We have cultures based on our location, our heritage, our
religion, our schools, and our business.
6
Organizational Culture
- Dess, Lumpkin and Eisner (2010) describe organizational
culture as “ a system of shared values and beliefs that shape a
company’s people, organizational structures, and control
systems to produce behavioral norms” (p. 317).
Formal culture
Informal culture
Entrepreneurial culture
Organizations come in all shapes and sizes and are also located
throughout the world. The culture of the people obviously have
an influence on the overall culture of the organization, but for
now, we will focus on a typical U.S. organization.
Some have formal culture, some have informal cultures and
some have entrepreneurial cultures. And some have a
combination!
7
Formal Organizational Culture
- Dress code
- Strict hours (9 – 5)
- Meeting rules

- Lunch hour rules
- Timeclocks
A typical formal organizational culture will require a certain
dress, typically a white shirt and tie for men and dress slacks or
suit for women. There could be definitive hours of work for
everyone and formal meetings with meeting rules. Everyone
would have a set lunch period and there could be strict
timekeeping rules.
8
Informal Organizational Culture
- Relaxed dress code
- Flex hours
- Open lunch periods
- Informal meetings
- No time clocks
Some organizations prefer a more informal atmosphere. They
are allowed to wear jeans, sweatshirts, and open toed shoes.

They show up when they want and take lunch when they want as
long as they work for eight hours in a day. Their meetings are
more informal and often have no rules. The entire atmosphere
is very social oriented and easy.
9
Entrepreneurial Culture
Dess, Lumpkin and Eisner (2010) describe an
entrepreneurial culture as one where “the search for venture
opportunities permeates every part of the organization” (p.
440).
- everyone feels the spirit
- no idea is a bad idea
- innovation begins at all levels
Entrepreneurial culture can either be formal or informal. The
key to this is that the organization realizes that they have
talented and gifted employees who all know the ins and outs of
the business either technically or administratively. They
welcome anyone’s ideas and have a system to reward innovative
suggestions.
10
Entrepreneurial Culture
Can be formal or informal
New ideas for improvement are welcomed
Level does not matter

Size does not matter
Age does not matter
In any business who envelopes a true entrepreneurial culture, it
doesn’t matter who the suggestion comes from – everything is
important and the leadership ensures that the employees at all
levels know this. A balance between rewards, culture, and
organizational boundaries create an entrepreneurial culture.
11
Summary
Remember that some of the best innovations in recent years
have developed in a garage by somewhat uneducated people.
In many businesses, new ideas for change and new ideas for
saving money are what keep them competitive.
Welcome all ideas!
Thank you for your time. Keep in mind that we all have our
own cultures, backgrounds, experiences, and ideas. Sometimes
when two people have an idea and they talk about it, it then

becomes something bigger and better.
12
Questions or Comments?
13
Key terms
collaboration p. 469
direction p. 471
forcefield analysis p. 475
leadership 466
organisational ambidexterity
p. 487
participation p. 469

situational leadership p. 468
turnaround strategy p. 484
14
LEADING STRATEGIC
CHANGE
Learning outcomes
After reading this chapter you should be able to:
● Identify and assess different styles of leading strategic
change.
● Analyse how organisational context might affect the
design of
strategic change.
● Undertake a forcefield analysis to identify forces
blocking and
facilitating change.
● Assess the value of different levers for strategic change.
● Identify types of required strategic change.
● Identify the approaches, pitfalls and problems of leading
different types of strategic change.
Strategic
Position

Strategic
Choices Strategy
in Action
Evaluating
Processes Organising
Changing Practice
M14_JOHN2552_10_SE_C14.indd
464M14_JOHN2552_10_SE_C14.indd 464 10/16/13 10:55
AM10/16/13 10:55 AM
Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
3.
P
ea
rs
on
.
Al
l
ri
gh
ts

r
es
er
ve
d.
M
ay
n
ot
b
e
re
pr
od
uc
ed
i
n
an
y
fo
rm
w
it
ho
ut
p
er
mi
ss
io
n
fr
om
t

he
p
ub
li
sh
er
,
ex
ce
pt
f
ai
r
us
es
p
er
mi
tt
ed
u
nd
er
U
.S
.
or
a
pp
li
ca
bl
e
co
py

ri
gh
t
la
w.
EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed
on 12/18/2018 12:26 PM via AMERICAN PUBLIC UNIV
SYSTEM
AN: 1418653 ; Johnson, Gerry.; Exploring Strategy Text &
Cases
Account: s7348467
INTRODUCTION 465
14.1 INTRODUCTION
The global insurance business, Aviva, had been
underperforming for years when Mark Wilson was appointed as
Chief Executive in November 2012. Following the departure of
the previous Chief Executive (see Illustration 11.1 ) there
had been a review of the company’s
strategy which concluded that it needed to focus more on
business segments in which it could
succeed and make higher returns. Mark Wilson’s priority was to
implement that strategy and
make the strategic changes necessary to improve performance.
Managing strategy is not
just about making strategic decisions; it is about leading
strategic change, which is the focus
of this chapter.
The theme of strategic change runs through much of this part of
the text. Chapter 11 posed

questions about the feasibility of strategies; could changes of
strategy work in practice?
Chapter 12 provided different explanations of how
strategies develop. Chapter 13 addressed
issues to do with organising to deliver strategies. However,
central to strategic change are the
leadership tasks of convincing people of the new strategy and
enabling and ensuring that what
they do delivers the strategy. While this leadership role is most
often associated with chief
executives it may, in fact, occur at different levels in
organisations: other senior managers and
middle managers too may take leadership roles in change.
Figure 14.1 provides a structure for the chapter. The
chapter opens ( section 14.2 ) by
explaining different roles of leaders of strategic change , the
different styles of change leadership and
how these might be suited to different circumstances. Section
14.3 then reviews important
issues that need to be considered in diagnosing the context
leaders face when embarking on
strategic change and, again, how their styles of change need to
align with that context.
Section 14.4 then considers what change leaders might do to
effect strategic change, fi rst by
identifying forces blocking or facilitating change , then by
considering the levers for change they
might use. Section 14.6 draws all this together by considering
what overall lessons can be
drawn about leading different types of strategic change
programmes and the common reasons
for the failure of strategic change programmes .
In doing this the chapter builds on three key premises:

● Strategy matters . What has been written in Parts I
and II of the text should be seen as
essential in identifying the need for and direction of strategic
change. So it is important to
be clear about:
● Why strategic change is needed (discussed in Chapters 2
to 5 ).
● The bases of the strategy in terms of strategic purpose,
perhaps encapsulated in a
statement of vision or mission ( section 4.2 ) and bases of
competitive advantage
( Chapter 6 ).
● What the strategy is in terms of strategy directions and
methods ( Chapters 7 to 10 ).
● Context matters . The approach taken to managing
strategic change needs to be context-
dependent . There is, therefore, no ‘one right way’ of leading
strategic change. Managers need
to consider how to balance different approaches according to
the circumstances they face.
● Inertia and resistance to change are likely. A major
problem in leading change is the
tendency of people to hold on to existing ways of doing things .
Much of Chapter 5 and
the discussion of the experience lens in the Commentary at the
end of Part I explain
why this is so.
465M14_JOHN2552_10_SE_C14.indd 465 10/16/13 10:55
AM10/16/13 10:55 AM

Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
3.
P
ea
rs
on
.
Al
l
ri
gh
ts
r
es
er
ve
d.
M
ay
n
ot
b
e
re
pr
od

uc
ed
i
n
an
y
fo
rm
w
it
ho
ut
p
er
mi
ss
io
n
fr
om
t
he
p
ub
li
sh
er
,
ex
ce
pt
f
ai
r
us
es

p
er
mi
tt
ed
u
nd
er
U
.S
.
or
a
pp
li
ca
bl
e
co
py
ri
gh
t
la
w.
SYSTEM
Cases
Account: s7348467

466 CHAPTER 14 LEADING STRATEGIC CHANGE
14.2 LEADERSHIP AND STRATEGIC CHANGE
Leadership is the process of infl uencing an organisation (or
group within an organisation) in
its efforts towards achieving an aim or goal. 1 Without
effective leadership the risk is that people
in an organisation are unclear about its purpose or lack
motivation to deliver the strategy to
achieve it. Harvard’s John Kotter argues that ‘good
management’ is about bringing order and
consistency to operational aspects of organisations, such as
quality and profi tability of prod-
ucts and services. Leadership, ‘by contrast is about coping with
change’. 2 Strategic change is
therefore central to leadership.
14.2.1 Strategic leadership roles
While leading strategic change is often associated with top
management, and chief executives
in particular, in fact it involves managers at different levels in
an organisation.
Figure 14.1 Key elements in leading strategic change
466M14_JOHN2552_10_SE_C14.indd 466 10/16/13 10:55
AM10/16/13 10:55 AM
Co
py
ri
gh
t

©
2
01
3.
P
ea
rs
on
.
Al
l
ri
gh
ts
r
es
er
ve
d.
M
ay
n
ot
b
e
re
pr
od
uc
ed
i
n
an
y

fo
rm
w
it
ho
ut
p
er
mi
ss
io
n
fr
om
t
he
p
ub
li
sh
er
,
ex
ce
pt
f
ai
r
us
es
p
er
mi
tt
ed
u

nd
er
U
.S
.
or
a
pp
li
ca
bl
e
co
py
ri
gh
t
la
w.
SYSTEM
Cases
Account: s7348467
LEADERSHIP AND STRATEGIC CHANGE 467
Top managers
There are three key roles that are argued to be especially
signifi cant for top management, espe-
cially a CEO, in leading strategic change:

● Envisioning future strategy . 3 Effective strategic
leaders at the top of an organisation need to
ensure there exists a clear and compelling vision of the future
and communicate clearly a
strategy to achieve it both internally and to external
stakeholders. In the absence of their
doing so, those who attempt to lead change elsewhere in an
organisation, for example middle
managers, are likely to construct such a vision themselves. This
may be well intentioned but
can lead to confusion. This is an issue picked up in the Key
Debate at the end of the chapter.
● Aligning the organisation to deliver that strategy. This
involves ensuring that people in the
organisation are committed to the strategy, motivated to make
the changes needed and
empowered to deliver those changes. In doing so, there is a need
for leaders to build and
foster relationships of trust and respect across the organisation.
It can, however, also be
necessary to change the management of the organisation to
ensure such commitment,
which is a reason that top teams often change as a precursor to
or during strategic change.
● Embodying change . A strategic leader will be seen by
others, not least those within the organ-
isation, but also other stakeholders and outside observers, as
intimately associated with a
future strategy and a strategic change programme. A strategic
leader is, then, symbolically
highly signifi cant in the change process and needs to be a role
model for future strategy (see
section 14.4.5 below on symbolic levers for change).

Middle managers
A top-down approach to managing strategy and strategic
change sees middle managers as
implementers of top management strategic plans. Here their role
is to ensure that resources
are allocated and controlled appropriately and to monitor the
performance and behaviour of
staff. However, middle managers have multiple roles in relation
to the management of strategy
(see section 15.2.3 ). 4 In the context of managing strategic
change there are four roles to
emphasise:
● Advisers to more senior management on requirements
for change within an organisation.
This is because they are often the closest to indications of
market or technological changes
that might signal the need for change. They are also well placed
to be able to identify likely
blockages to change. Middle managers may also provide a
useful variety of experience and
views that can stimulate thinking on strategy. 5
● ‘ Sense making ’ of strategy. Top management may set a
strategic direction, but how it is
explained and made sense of in specifi c contexts (e.g. a region
of a multinational or a func-
tional department) may, intentionally or not, be left to middle
managers. If misinterpreta-
tion of that intended strategy is to be avoided, it is therefore
vital that middle managers
understand and feel an ownership of it. They are therefore a
crucial relevance bridge between
top management and members of the organisation at lower
levels. 6

● Reinterpretation and adjustment of strategic responses
as events unfold (e.g. in terms of rela-
tionships with customers, suppliers, the workforce and so on);
this is a vital role for which
middle managers are uniquely qualifi ed because they are in
day-to-day contact with such
aspects of the organisation and its environment.
● Local leadership of change : middle managers therefore
have the roles of aligning and embody-
ing change, as do top management, but at a local level.
467M14_JOHN2552_10_SE_C14.indd 467 10/16/13 10:55
AM10/16/13 10:55 AM
Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
3.
P
ea
rs
on
.
Al
l
ri
gh

ts
r
es
er
ve
d.
M
ay
n
ot
b
e
re
pr
od
uc
ed
i
n
an
y
fo
rm
w
it
ho
ut
p
er
mi
ss
io
n
fr
om

t
he
p
ub
li
sh
er
,
ex
ce
pt
f
ai
r
us
es
p
er
mi
tt
ed
u
nd
er
U
.S
.
or
a
pp
li
ca
bl
e
co

py
ri
gh
t
la
w.
SYSTEM
Cases
Account: s7348467
The Key Debate at the end of the chapter takes this into
account and considers strategic
change in relation to a top-down perspective, but also in
relation to roles played by middle
managers and to a more ‘bottom-up’ view of change.
14.2.2 Leadership styles
Leaders are often categorised in two ways:
● Transformational (or charismatic ) leaders , whose
emphasis is on building a vision for the organ-
isation, an organisational identity around collective values and
beliefs to support that vision and
energising people to achieve it. There is evidence that suggests
that this approach to leader-
ship has benefi cial impact on people’s motivation and job
performance 7 and wider business
performance when the people who work for them see the

organisation facing uncertainty. 8
● Transactional leaders , who focus more on ‘hard’ levers
of change such as designing systems
and controlling the organisation’s activities. The emphasis here,
then, is more likely to be
on changes of structures, setting targets to be achieved, fi
nancial incentives, careful project
management and the monitoring of organisational and
individual performance.
One view would be that these styles are a matter of personal
attributes. If so then what matters
is that in situations of change, people with appropriate styles to
the context of that change are
appointed to lead it. Another view is that successful strategic
leaders adjust their leadership
style to the context they face . 9 This has become known as ‘
situational leadership ’. Here this is
explained, fi rst by reviewing styles of strategic leadership more
specifi cally, then by considering
how these may need to differ by context.
Table 14.1 summarises four styles of leading strategic
change: 10
Style Description Advantages Disadvantages
Persuasion Gain support for change by
generating understanding
and commitment through
e.g. small-group briefings
and delegation of
responsibility for change.
Develops support for

change and a wide base
of understanding.
Time consuming.
Fact-based argument and
logic may not convince others
of need for change.
Or may gain notional support
without active change.
Collaboration Widespread involvement
of employees on decisions
about both what and how
to change.
Spreads not only support
but ownership of change
by increasing levels of
involvement.
Time consuming.
Little control over decisions
made.
Participation Change leaders retain
overall coordination and
authority but delegate
elements of the change
process.
Spreads ownership and
support of change, but
within a controlled
framework.
Easier to shape decisions.

Can be perceived as
manipulation.
Direction Change leaders make most
decisions about what to
change and how. Use of
authority to direct change.
Less time consuming.
Provides a clear change
direction and focus.
Potentially less support and
commitment, so changes may
be resisted.
Source : Adapted from J. Balogun and V. Hope Hailey,
Exploring strategic change , 3rd edn, Prentice Hall, 2008.
Table 14.1 Styles of leading change
468M14_JOHN2552_10_SE_C14.indd 468 10/16/13 10:55
AM10/16/13 10:55 AM
Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
3.
P
ea

rs
on
.
Al
l
ri
gh
ts
r
es
er
ve
d.
M
ay
n
ot
b
e
re
pr
od
uc
ed
i
n
an
y
fo
rm
w
it
ho
ut

p
er
mi
ss
io
n
fr
om
t
he
p
ub
li
sh
er
,
ex
ce
pt
f
ai
r
us
es
p
er
mi
tt
ed
u
nd
er
U
.S
.
or

a
pp
li
ca
bl
e
co
py
ri
gh
t
la
w.
SYSTEM
Cases
Account: s7348467
LEADERSHIP AND STRATEGIC CHANGE 469
● Persuasion of the need for and means of strategic
change. Four phases of this style of change
leadership have been advocated: 11
● Convince employees that change is imperative and why the
new direction is the right
one. Again this emphasises the necessity for clarity of future
vision and strategy.
● Since change is likely to be interpreted differently

throughout the organisation, frame the
changes in ways relevant to the different groups and functions
that have to enact the
change and gather feedback on how this is understood and
communicated within
those groups.
● Ensure ongoing communication of the progress of change.
● Reinforce behavioural guidelines in line with the change
and reward the achievement of
change goals.
However, there are problems here. The assumption that
reasoned argument in a top-down
fashion will overcome perhaps years of embedded assumptions
about what ‘really matters’
may be optimistic. There may be apparent acceptance of change
without its actually being
delivered. Such an approach to change can also take a long time
and be costly, for example
in terms of training and management time.
● Collaboration 12 in the change process is the
involvement of those affected by strategic
change in setting the change agenda ; for example, in the
identifi cation of strategic issues,
the strategic decision-making process, the setting of priorities,
the planning of strategic
change or the drawing up of action plans. Such involvement can
foster a more positive
attitude to change. People may also see the constraints the
organisation faces as less sig-
nifi cant and feel increased ownership of, and commitment to, a
decision or change process.
It may therefore be a way of building readiness and capability

for change. However, there
are potential problems here too. People may come up with
change solutions that are not in
line with, or do not achieve the expectations of, top
management or key stakeholders. For
example, there is the risk that solutions will be limited to those
in line with the existing cul-
ture or that the agenda for change will be negotiated and may
therefore be a compromise.
A strategic change leader who takes this approach may,
therefore, need to retain the ability
to intervene in the process, though this runs the risk of
demotivating employees who have
been involved in the change process.
● Participation retains the coordination of and authority
over processes of change by a stra-
tegic leader who delegates elements of the change process
while retaining overall respon-
sibility for that change, monitoring its progress and ensuring it
occurs. Particular stages of
change, such as ideas generation, data collection, detailed
planning, the development of
rationales for change or the identifi cation of critical success
factors, may be delegated to
project teams or task forces. Such teams may not take full
responsibility for the change pro-
cess, but become involved in it and see their work building
towards it. An advantage is that
it involves members of the organisation, not only in originating
ideas, but also in the partial
implementation of solutions, helping build commitment to the
change. For example, it has
been shown that transformational leaders can effectively
motivate employees by facilitating
their interaction with benefi ciaries (e.g. customers) as a way of

showing how a strategic
vision has meaning to those benefi ciaries. 13 It may also be
that the retention of the agenda
and means of change by the strategic leader reduces the
possibility of a negotiated compro-
mise and means that more radical change can be achieved. The
potential problem is that
employees may see this approach as manipulation and
consequently become disenchanted
and demotivated.
469M14_JOHN2552_10_SE_C14.indd 469 10/16/13 10:55
AM10/16/13 10:55 AM
Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
3.
P
ea
rs
on
.
Al
l
ri
gh
ts
r

es
er
ve
d.
M
ay
n
ot
b
e
re
pr
od
uc
ed
i
n
an
y
fo
rm
w
it
ho
ut
p
er
mi
ss
io
n
fr
om
t
he

p
ub
li
sh
er
,
ex
ce
pt
f
ai
r
us
es
p
er
mi
tt
ed
u
nd
er
U
.S
.
or
a
pp
li
ca
bl
e
co
py
ri

gh
t
la
w.
SYSTEM
Cases
Account: s7348467
ILLUSTRATION 14.1
Styles of leading change
Successful top executives highlight lessons for leading change.
Vision is central
‘Good business leaders create a vision, articulate the
vision, passionately own the vision, and relentlessly
drive it to completion.’
Jack Welch, Chairman and CEO of
General Electric 1981–2001
Don’t noodle

Terry Lundgren, CEO of Macy’s and Bloomingdales
departmental stores:
‘I have always been a pretty good listener, and I am
quick to admit that I do not have all the answers. So I
am going to listen. But shortly after I listen, the second
piece is to pull the trigger. I have all the input, and
here is what we are going to do. People need closure on
a decision. If you listen and then noodle on it, people
get confused, and that’s not effective leadership’. 1
Coach but don’t coddle
Allan G. Laffley, Chairman, President and CEO of Procter
& Gamble till 2010:
‘My approach to leadership is to raise aspiration and
then achieve great execution . . . communicate priorities
clearly, simply and frequently . . . to a large degree our
division leaders must define their own future. I play
the role of coach; but coaching doesn’t mean coddling.
I expect our managers to make choices . . . to help

managers make these strategic choices leaders must
sometimes challenge deeply held assumptions . . .
Being a role model is vital . . . I know that I must be
ready for moments of truth that alert the organisation
to my commitment.’ 2
Clarity from the top and learning by doing
Carlos Ghosn led successful change following his
appointment as CEO of Nissan and Renault. In a speech
at INSEAD Business School early in the change pro-
gramme (September 2002), Ghosn said:
‘If people don’t know the priority, don’t under stand
the strategy, don’t know where they are going, don’t
know what is the critical objective, you are heading
for trouble. Confusion is the first sign of trouble. It’s
(the leader’s) duty to clarify the environment, to make
sure there is maximum light in the company . . . The
biggest challenge is self confidence . . . (I had) to
help Nissan people believe they could do a great job
in this industry.’ 3

Developing antennae in the public sector
In 2010 Canadian Moya Greene took over as CEO of the
Royal Mail, the UK’s publically owned postal service
which faced major decline in revenue from its traditional
focus on letter mail and union opposition to privatisation.
By 2012 there were signs that this decline had been
halted and relationships with the unions much improved.
She highlighted a key lesson from leading change in the
public sector:
‘My public sector experience helped me understand
how easily sound policies can be derailed by small
symbolic things. It may not matter that the policy
change you are advocating is the product of fantastic
analytics or years of brilliant stakeholder manage-
ment; the tiniest spark can become a flash fire –
something that takes hold and transforms perceptions.
If you work in the public sector, you learn the value of
developing antennae for popular perceptions and

keeping them finely tuned.’ 4
Sources
1 . Interview by Matthew Boyle, in Fortune , 12 December
2005,
vol. 152, no. 12, pp. 126–7 .
2 . Leadership Excellence , November 2006, vol. 23, no. 11,
pp. 9–10 .
3 . Reported in ‘Redesigning Nissan (A): Carlos Ghosn takes
charge’,
K. Hughes, J.-L. Barsoux and J-F Manzoni, INSEAD, 2003.
4 . ‘Leading in the 21st Century: an interview with Moya
Greene’,
McKinsey & Co., September 2012.
Questions
1 How would you describe the styles of leadership
illustrated here in terms of those explained in
section 14.2.1 ?
2 Compare the different accounts. Are there
commonalities and what are the differences?
3 Only some stakeholders are specifically mentioned

in the examples. Does this mean that the style
should be the same towards all stakeholders of
the organisation? If not, how would they differ?
470M14_JOHN2552_10_SE_C14.indd 470 10/16/13 10:55
AM10/16/13 10:55 AM
Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
3.
P
ea
rs
on
.
Al
l
ri
gh
ts
r
es
er
ve
d.
M

ay
n
ot
b
e
re
pr
od
uc
ed
i
n
an
y
fo
rm
w
it
ho
ut
p
er
mi
ss
io
n
fr
om
t
he
p
ub
li
sh
er

,
ex
ce
pt
f
ai
r
us
es
p
er
mi
tt
ed
u
nd
er
U
.S
.
or
a
pp
li
ca
bl
e
co
py
ri
gh
t
la
w.

SYSTEM
Cases
Account: s7348467
DIAGNOSING THE CHANGE CONTEXT 471
● Direction involves the use of personal authority to
establish clarity on both future strategy
and how change will occur . It is top-down management of
strategic change where change
‘solutions’ and the means of change are ‘sold’ to others who are
tasked with implementing
them. The need here is for both clarity of strategic vision and
the specifi cs of a change
programme in terms of critical success factors and priorities.
The approach may be needed
if there is a need for fast change or control over the change
agenda (e.g. to meet the expecta-
tions of dominant external stakeholders). The danger is that i t
can result in explicit resist-
ance to change or people going along with the rhetoric of
change while passively resisting
it. It is also worth noting that even where top management
people see themselves adopting
participative styles, their subordinates may perceive this as
directive and, indeed, may
welcome such direction if they see major change is needed. In
its most extreme form direc-
tion may take the form of coercion, the imposition of future
strategy by the explicit use
of power, but this is unlikely to be successful unless, for

example, the organisation is facing
a crisis.
It is important to point out that change leadership styles are not
mutually exclusive. For
example, change may be initiated with clear direction
accompanied by the ‘hard levers’ of
change associated with transactional leadership but be followed
through with more the
collaborative or participatory approaches more associated with
transformational leadership.
Moreover different styles may be needed in different parts of an
organisation facing different
circumstances or at different times as situations change. In
short, required change leadership
styles are likely to need to differ according to context.
Illustration 14.1 provides examples of
different strategic leadership styles.
14.3 DIAGNOSING THE CHANGE CONTEXT
Leading change in a small entrepreneurial business, where a
motivated team is driving
change, is different from trying to do so in a major corporation,
or a long-established public-
sector organisation, with long established routines and systems
and perhaps a great deal of
resistance to change. If it is to be effective, the approach to
leading change will be different
depending on the organisational context in which it occurs. 14
It is therefore useful to consider the
appropriateness of different styles of leading change to different
contexts.
Julia Balogun and Veronica Hope Hailey’s ‘change
kaleidoscope’ (summarised in Figure 14.2 ),

provides a framework by which to identify contextual features
to take into account in designing
change programmes. Here are some examples of the contextual
features shown in Figure 14.2
and how some might require different styles of leading change:
● The time available for change could differ dramatically.
A business may face immediate
decline in turnover or profi ts from rapid changes in its markets.
This is a quite different
context for change compared with a business where the
management may see the need for
change as years away and have time to plan it carefully.
Persuasion or collaboration may
be most appropriate where incremental change is possible, but
where change has to happen
fast, timing may demand a more directive style.
● The scope of change might differ in terms of either the
breadth of change across an organisa-
tion or the depth of culture change required. For example, the
scope of change required in a
global business with multiple brands and perhaps a long cultural
heritage is likely to mean
that the contribution of people throughout the organisation to a
change programme will
471M14_JOHN2552_10_SE_C14.indd 471 10/16/13 10:56
AM10/16/13 10:56 AM
Co
py
ri
gh
t

nd
er
U
.S
.
or
a
pp
li
ca
bl
e
co
py
ri
gh
t
la
w.
SYSTEM
Cases
Account: s7348467
be necessary. In a successful small business where the breadth
and depth of change will be
much less, a more directive style may be possible.

● Preservation of some aspects of an organisation may be
needed: in particular capabilities on
which changes need to be based. Suppose, for example, that a
computer software business
needs to become more formally organised because of its
successful growth. This could upset
technical experts who have been used to a great deal of
independence and ready access to
senior management. Preserving their expertise and motivation
could be vitally important,
so involving them through collaboration or participation may
well be important.
● A diversity of experience, views and opinions within an
organisation may help the change
process, but will require the involvement of people in that
process. However, if an organisa-
tion has followed a strategy for many decades, such continuity
may have led to a very
homogeneous way of seeing the world, which could hamper
change. So means of challeng-
ing taken-for-granted assumptions and routines will be needed.
● Capacity for change in terms of available resources will
also be signifi cant: change can be
costly, not only in fi nancial terms, but also in terms of
management time. It is likely to
be the responsibility of top management (or perhaps owners) to
provide such resources.
● Who has the power to effect change? Often it is assumed
that the chief executive has
such power, but in the face of resistance from below, or perhaps
resistance from external
stakeholders, this may not be the case. It may also be that the
chief executive supposes that

Figure 14.2 The change kaleidoscope
Source : Adapted from J. Balogun and V. Hope Hailey,
Exploring Strategic Change , 3rd edn, Prentice Hall, 2008.
472M14_JOHN2552_10_SE_C14.indd 472 10/16/13 10:56
AM10/16/13 10:56 AM
Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
3.
P
ea
rs
on
.
Al
l
ri
gh
ts
r
es
er
ve
d.
M

SYSTEM
Cases
Account: s7348467
DIAGNOSING THE CHANGE CONTEXT 473
others in the organisation have the power to effect change when
they do not, or do not see
themselves as having it. In organisations with hierarchical
power structures a directive style
may be common and it may be diffi cult to break away from it,
not least because people
expect it. On the other hand, in ‘ fl atter ’ power structures, a
more networked or learning
organisation described elsewhere in this text (see section
12.3.1 ), it is likely that collabora-
tion and participation will be common, indeed desirable.
● Is there a capability of managing change in the
organisation? There may be managers who
have experience of leading change in the past, or a workforce
that has seen the benefi ts of
past changes, while people in another organisation may have
little experience of change.
● What is the readiness for change? Is there a felt need for
change across the organisation,
widespread resistance, or pockets or levels of resistance in some
parts of the organisation
and readiness in others? Again different styles of leading
change may be required in these

different circumstances.
Illustration 14.2 gives an example of the contextual issues
faced in trying to manage
change in the UK Ministry of Defence (MOD).
Research on leadership has shown that leadership styles need to
differ according, in par-
ticular, to the ability and willingness of employees to change.
Bearing in mind these two con-
textual features, Figure 14.3 suggests that, where there is
high readiness but low capability for
change, then persuasion , involving education, training and
coaching, may be appropriate.
Where both readiness and capability are high, then
collaboration may be possible and top
management may be able to delegate much of the change
agenda. Where capability is high but
readiness is low, involving people in the change process while
retaining overall central control
( participation ) may make sense. Where there is both low
readiness and capability for change
direction may be the most appropriate style if change is urgent
or, it time is available to build
capability and readiness, participation may be appropriate.
This consideration of context also raises an important
overarching question: is one-off
change possible or does it need to occur in stages? For
example, in a study of attempts to manage
change in hospitals 15 it was found that their governance and
organisational structures pre-
vented any clear authority to manage change. This, combined
with the resource constraints
Figure 14.3 Styles of change leadership according to

organisational capability and readiness
473M14_JOHN2552_10_SE_C14.indd 473 10/16/13 10:56
AM10/16/13 10:56 AM
Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
01
3.
P
ea
rs
on
.
Al
l
ri
gh
ts
r
es
er
ve
d.
M
ay
n
ot

b
e
re
pr
od
uc
ed
i
n
an
y
fo
rm
w
it
ho
ut
p
er
mi
ss
io
n
fr
om
t
he
p
ub
li
sh
er
,
ex
ce
pt

f
ai
r
us
es
p
er
mi
tt
ed
u
nd
er
U
.S
.
or
a
pp
li
ca
bl
e
co
py
ri
gh
t
la
w.
SYSTEM

Cases
Account: s7348467
Vol. 23, No. 1/2015
„Management and Business Administration. Central Europe”
Vol. 23, No. 1/2015: p. 69–78, ISSN 2084-3356; e-ISSN 2300-
858X
DOI: 10.7206/mba.ce.2084-3356.134
Relationship Between Leadership Styles
and Organizational Creativity
Katarzyna Bratnicka1
Primary submission: 19.02.14. Final acceptance: 14.08.14
Abstract
Purpose: Empirical research on entrepreneurship in
organizations has brought disparate and often
contradictory evidence related to the impact of leadership on
creativity in organizations. The pur-
pose of this paper is to explore and discuss the impact of
different leadership styles on creativity,
with the view to formulating an integrated conceptual model
that links creative novelty and crea-
tive practicality with leadership.
Methodology: The author applied the methodology of meta-
theoretical review. In accordance with
the principles of theoretical bricolage, a new conceptual model

was built on the basis of the mul-
tidimensional creativity theory and the leadership theory. In her
analysis, the author took into
account leadership styles that have already been subject to
research; each of them was mapped in
the two-dimensional space of organizational creativity.
Findings: In order to fully understand the reasons for
differences in organizational creativity, the
drivers of divergences in the space of creative novelty and
creative practicality need to be clarified.
Greater knowledge about the impact of leadership styles on the
structure and configuration of
organizational creativity is necessary. In this paper, the author
provides a theoretical framework
that illustrates manners in which leadership influences
organizational creativity. The model clar-
ifies the role that leadership plays in shaping a unique
configuration of organizational creativity,
and consequently in ensuring the necessary internal adaptation
of an organization.
Originality: The value of this research lies in the situational
interpretation of various leadership
styles in the context of their impact on organizational creativity.
The analysis goes beyond the
conventional discussion about leadership and creativity, focused
on establishing whether a given
leadership style proves beneficial or not for organizational
creativity. The paper identifies particu-
lar effects that several key leadership styles have on
organizational creativity; they are depicted in
a new theoretical framework.
Keywords: organizational creativity, leadership styles,
conceptual framework

JEL: D23, L26
1 University of Economics in Katowice
Correspondence address: University of Economics in Katowice,
1 Maja 50 St., 40-287 Katowice, e-mail: [email protected]
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/23/17 6:55 PM
DOI: 10.7206/mba.ce.2084-3356.134
70 MBA.CE
Vol. 23, No. 1/2015
Katarzyna Bratnicka
Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to organize and provide a synthesis
of research findings
pertaining to the impact of leadership style on creativity in
organizations. A recent
qualitative study carried out among 29 leaders resulted in
identifying three key dimen-
sions of leadership: “... origins and determinants of visions;
forms of influence and
manners in which leaders influence their supporters and
associates; attributes that
enable leaders to impact the situation” (Kozminski, 2013, p.
81). The discussion out-
lined in this paper pertains to the second aspect. We shall focus
in particular on
multiple forms of leadership influence aimed at stimulating

creativity in organizations.
Over the past 30 years, much effort has been made to analyse
the differences and
similarities of different leadership styles. Many studies were
devoted to transactional
and transformational leadership, or to charismatic leadership,
and recently attention
has been shifted to authentic, servant and responsible leadership
(Carter and Greer,
2013). Research findings have expanded and improved our
understanding of the impact
that leadership style has on the results obtained by the members
of an organization
and by teams. In particular, we have extended our knowledge on
how leadership can
be conducive to or hinder creative behaviour. The aim of this
paper is to establish in
particular how different leadership styles affect creativity in
organizations. Although
classic leadership styles (e.g. task-oriented and people-oriented)
remain fundamental
concepts, this study focuses on leadership styles that are of
interest to contemporary
researchers.
The remaining part of the study is divided into three sections.
The first outlines the
results of academic research on the impact of leadership on
creativity and builds up on
the earlier review (Bratnicka, 2011). The second presents
a conceptual framework cap-
turing the current state of knowledge about interacting
leadership styles, mediators and
moderators. The entire system is based on the Cartesian system
of two variables: crea-

tive innovation and creative usability. The last part comprises
an outline of potential
further research directions.
Overview of key studies pertaining to the role of leadership
in stimulating creativity
Puccio, Mance and Murdoch (2011) describe leadership as
a factor that inspires changes,
while creativity is understood as a process leading towards
change. Involvement into
creative thinking and stimulating other people’s creativity are
the inalienable hallmarks
Unauthenticated
Vol. 23, No. 1/2015 DOI: 10.7206/mba.ce.2084-3356.134
MBA.CE 71Relationship Between Leadership Styles and
Organizational Creativity
of leadership that leads to organizational transformation.
Creative leaders stimulate
the creativity of their subordinates, use their imagination in
order to provide their staff
with new directions of development and build an organizational
culture that is con-
ducive to creativity. Against this background, the issue of
transformational leadership
is revealed.
Shin and Zhou (2003) undertook research aimed at establishing
links between the

creativity of an individual employee and transformational
leadership. It transpires
that transformational leadership has a positive impact on the
creativity of an indi-
vidual, whereas conservation – individual value favouring
correctness and harmony
of human relations and of relations between a person and
a group – reinforces this
relationship. Intrinsic motivation plays a double role. It
conciliates transformational
leadership with individual creativity. Furthermore, it fulfils the
same function with
respect to the moderated relationship between transformational
leadership, conserva-
tion and individual creativity.
According to Gong, Huang and Farha (2009), the positive
relationship between learn-
ing orientation and creativity, and between transformational
leadership and creativity,
are mediated by the sense of self-efficacy. In addition,
a positive impact of learning
orientation on the creativity of an employee increases over time
similarly to the positive
impact of transformational leadership.
Effective leaders can supplement behaviour typical of
with transactional leadership, which is a combination of
exchange based on contingent
rewards and of management by exception (Judge and Piccolo,
2004). Qu, Janssen and
Shi (2010) took this into account in their research: they
observed that management
by exception adversely affects the creativity of employees. This
relationship was

strengthened by an intervening variable, namely identification
with the leader. The
interacting trio comprising transactional leadership,
identification with the leader
and a climate conducive to innovation has a significant impact
on the creativity of an
employee (Wang and Rode, 2010). In particular, from the point
of view of employees
who identify with the leader, the relationship between
and creativity is stronger in a highly innovative climate.
Transformational leadership adversely affects creativity because
of the subordinates’
dependence on the leader that it this style generates (Kollman,
Stöckmann, Krell and
Buchwald, 2011). Only the empowerment of subordinates
reduces their dependence
on the leader and transforms the dependence’s negative impact
on creativity into a pos-
itive one. Transformational leadership also regulates the impact
of other organizational
Unauthenticated
DOI: 10.7206/mba.ce.2084-3356.134
72 MBA.CE
Vol. 23, No. 1/2015
Katarzyna Bratnicka

factors on creativity (Shin, Kim, Lee and Bian, 2012).
Therefore, the relationship
between the cognitive diversity of the team – the perceived
differences in thinking
styles, knowledge, skills, values and beliefs of individual
members of the team – and
the creativity of a given team member (as measured by self-
assessment and evaluation
by the direct supervisor) is controlled by creative self-efficacy.
A significant positive relationship has been observed between
the supervisor’s focus on
promotion and the creativity of employees (Wu, McMullen,
Neubert and Yi, 2008).
Mesdaghinia, Atwater and Keller (2010) point out as follows:
(1) management by exception
is negatively related to the effectiveness of creative tasks, (2)
positively affects efficiency in the implementation of creative
tasks, (3) a laissez-faire
style adversely affects the effectiveness of creative tasks. High
quality of leader – sub-
ordinate relationships (LMX) has a positive impact on
individual creativity (Akinlade,
Liden and El-Akremi, 2011). Creative self-efficacy is the
intervening variable in the
observed dependence.
One cannot overestimate the role of trust in one’s superior as
a source of personal
creativity. It is inspired by both the superior’s fairness (treating
subordinates with
respect and dignity) and equitable sharing of information (with
honesty, providing
thorough explanations). Trust in one’s superior means that the
subordinate believes that

the superior’s actions will advance their interests, or at least
that the superior will not
act against them. Trust forms the basis for high quality
exchange relationships between
superiors and subordinates (high level of LMX). This translates
into sharing informa-
tion and knowledge (as one of the forms of creative behaviour)
and, finally, into an
enhanced creativity of the employee (Khazanchi and Masterson,
2011).
Wang and Cheng (2010) confirmed the positive impact of
benevolent leadership on
employees’ creativity. This relationship is reinforced by a high
level of identification
and autonomy at work, combined with performing a creative
role (employees perceiv-
ing their creativity a as a central part of “who they are”). In
addition, low level of
identification with a creative role and autonomy at work erases
the discussed relation-
ship. Research findings obtained by Zhang and Bartol (2010)
lead to the conclusion
that empowering leadership has a positive impact on
psychological empowerment,
whereas empowering leadership’s impact is impossible unless
subordinates experience
psychological empowerment.
Change-oriented attitude is key to stimulating creativity by the
leader – such is the main
conclusion of the study conducted by Hemlin and Olson (2011).
An important comple-
ment to change-oriented attitude is leadership behaviour typical
of the integrative style.

Unauthenticated
Vol. 23, No. 1/2015 DOI: 10.7206/mba.ce.2084-3356.134
After having analysed the empirical data of one hundred forty-
two ICT employees and
two hundred and sixty direct sale employees, it has been
established that there is
a positive relationship between management style and the
creativity of subordinates
(Nieckarz, 2009).
An integrated model aggregating identification with the leader
and social climate
conducive to creativity has recently been constructed (Yoshida,
Hirst, Sendjaya, Cooper,
Bingyi and Xu, 2011). It has been established that team
creativity increases if the leader
acts in favour of the team’s interests (servant leadership) and
helps his/her subordinates
develop. Subordinates’ social identification with the leader
intermediates in this relation-
ship. The role of mediation is strengthened in a climate that is
conducive to creativity
and innovation.
Sijborn, Janssen and VanYperen (2011) observed that
proficiency-oriented leaders are
more prone to adopt their subordinates’ ideas than efficiency-
oriented leaders. Mac-

Mahon and Ford (2011) have developed and operationalized the
concept of heuristic
transfer in leadership, that is the transfer by the leader of
experience-based mental
tools used to identify, explore and solve problems – general
practice-based principles
that subordinates can use when they perform tasks assigned to
them. Leadership
heuristic transfer is positively related to employee creativity.
These researchers have
also found that the superior’s focus on promotion positively
affects employee creativity,
and that this positive impact takes place via developmental
feedback.
Finally, Houghton and DiLiello (2010) have noticed that
perceived organizational support
for creativity has a positive impact on individual creativity and
that this relationship
is supported by participation in the professional development of
management staff.
Choi, Anderson and Veillette (2009) have proven the inhibiting
impact of aversive
leadership, based on coercion, intimidation and punishment.
Leadership and creativity in organizations
– a comprehensive approach
Various empirical studies presented in this paper have been
summarized in Table 1,
which highlights the distinguishing features of leadership
relevant to employee crea-
tivity, as well as intervening variables that regulate the
relationship between leadership
and creativity. Structural representation includes only those
items whose important

role has been confirmed in previous empirical studies. For
reasons of simplicity, it has
been assumed that effectiveness in the implementation of
creative tasks is synonymous
Unauthenticated
DOI: 10.7206/mba.ce.2084-3356.134
74 MBA.CE
Vol. 23, No. 1/2015
Katarzyna Bratnicka
with an employee’s creativity. Although it does not have
a dynamic character (feedback
between the analysed variables has not been taken into
account), it reflects the com-
plexity of the leadership – creativity relationship.
Table 1. Leadership and employee creativity: style, mediators
and moderators
Leadership styles Intervening variables Control variables
Transformative leadership
Transactional leadership
Management by exception
Leader’s focus on promotion
Laissez-faire
Structure initiation
Benevolent leadership

Quality of exchange between
supervisors and subordinates
Empowering leadership
Integrative leadership
Change-oriented attitude
Servant leadership
Leader’s motivation to achieve
(proficiency versus efficiency)
Leader’s heuristic transfer
Organizational support
Intrinsic motivation
Sense of self-efficacy
Dependence on the leader
Developmental feedback
Employee’s focus on promotion
Organizational distance
between leaders and their
subordinates
Sense of creative self-efficacy
Involvement in the creative
process
Sharing information
Empowerment of subordinates
Social identification with the
leader
Personal conservation
(protection)
Social identification with the
leader
Identification with the team
Employees’ focus on prevention
Innovative climate
Empowerment of subordinates
Autonomy of work

Distance of authority
Identification with the creative
organizational role
Communication style used
by subordinates in contacts
with the leader
Improving mature leadership
Improving youth leadership
Creative abilities
of subordinates
Close supervision
Encouraging creativity
by the leader
Source: own study.
The main driving force for an employee comprises sixteen
elements: (1) transformational
leadership, (2) transactional leadership, (3) management by
exception, (4) leader’s focus
on promotion, (5) laissez-faire style, (6) structure initiation, (7)
benevolent leadership,
(8) the quality of exchange between superiors and subordinates,
(9) empowering leadership,
(10) integrative style, (11) change-oriented attitude, (12)
servant leadership, (13) leader’s
motivation to achieve, (14) leader heuristic transfer, (15)
organizational support (16)
unfavourable leadership. Furthermore, empirical studies
indicate the existence of
a number of intervening variables. At least eleven of them play
a crucial role in the proc-
ess, namely: (1) intrinsic motivation, (2) sense of self-efficacy,
(3) dependence on the
leader, (4) developmental feedback, (5) employee’s focus on
promotion, (6) organizational

Unauthenticated
Vol. 23, No. 1/2015 DOI: 10.7206/mba.ce.2084-3356.134
distance between the leader and his/her subordinates, (7) sense
of creative self-efficacy,
(8) involvement in the creative process, (9) empowerment of
subordinates, (10) social
identification with the leader, (11) sharing of information. We
must not forget about
fourteen factors that limit the impact of leadership on creativity
(control variables),
such as: (1) individual conservation (protection), (2)
identification with the team,
(3) employee’s focus on prevention, (4) innovative climate, (5)
autonomy at work, (6) dis-
tance of authority, (7) identification with the creative
organizational role, (8) commu-
nication style used by subordinates in relation to the leader, (9)
improving mature
leadership, (10) improving youth leadership, (11) creative talent
of subordinates,
(12) close supervision, (13) encouraging creativity by the
leader, (14) social identification
with the leader. Furthermore, the empowerment of subordinates
and identification
with the leader appear in this context in a double capacity –
both as intervening vari-
ables and control variables. Together they create an

organizational configuration of
thirty-seven elements. Although the list is not exhaustive and
further studies are likely
to reveal new indicators, the large range of variables evidences
the complexity of inter-
relations between leadership and individual creativity in
organizations. In this situation,
a frame structure is necessary for organizing the research
findings on the impact of
leadership on creativity in organizations.
Managerial leadership and organizational creativity
– a conceptual framework
The starting point for constructing a support structure
explaining the relationship
between leadership and creativity consists in assuming that
organizational creativity
is two-dimensional. Organizational creativity is thus understood
as the generation of
new and useful ideas (Bratnicka, 2013). In other words, it is
a formative construct con-
sisting of two complementary dimensions: creative innovations
and creative usability.
These two dimensions of organizational creativity become
reference points for each
leadership style, as illustrated in Figure 1. For reasons of
simplicity, the figure includes
only the most important leadership styles. The relationships
outlined indicate the
existence of links between different leadership styles and
configurations of organiza-
tional creativity. These relationships have been inferred from
empirical evidence,
which remains extremely limited. Although we begin to

understand how leadership
style can affect different dimensions of organizational
creativity, further research in this
area is necessary.
Unauthenticated
DOI: 10.7206/mba.ce.2084-3356.134
76 MBA.CE
Vol. 23, No. 1/2015
Katarzyna Bratnicka
Figure 1. Leadership and organisational creativity
Source: own study.
Conclusion
Studies conducted thus far have been purely theoretical.
Relationships between lead-
ership styles and organizational creativity should be subject to
empirical tests. At the
same time, it is worth noting that different dimensions of
leadership styles may overlap.
It would therefore be advisable to reflect on a broader
metacategory (Yukl, 2012), which
would include all components of leadership that has an impact
on creativity. In this
context, it seems reasonable to introduce a new construct,
namely creative leadership

(Bratnicka and Laska, 2014). Thus far, all studies have focused
solely on the individual
and team level. No analysis has been conducted with respect to
the entire organization,
which would means referring to strategic leadership (Carter and
Greer, 2013).
References
Akinlade, D., Liden, R.C. and El-Akremi, A. (2011).
Leader-member-exchange and creativity: The
role of creative self-efficacy and power distance. Paper
presented at the annual conference of
the Academy of Management, San Antonio.
Bratnicka, K. (2011). Rola przywództwa w stymulowaniu
twórczości w organizacjach. Organizacja
i Kierowanie, 4: 129–140.
Integrative
leadership
Quality of exchange
(TMX)
Transformative
leadership
Transactional
leadership
HighCreative usability
Laissez-faire
Management
by exception

Low
C
re
at
iv
e
in
no
va
ti
on
H
ig
h
Empowering
leadership
Servant leadership
Lo
w
Unauthenticated

Vol. 23, No. 1/2015 DOI: 10.7206/mba.ce.2084-3356.134
Bratnicka, K. and Laska, K. (2014). Twórcze przywództwo:
Konceptualizacja konstruktu (paper pre-
pared on Letnia Szkoła Zarządzania).
Bratnicka, K. (2013). Understanding the organizational
creativity through the lens of a dynamic
capability framework. In: Managing to make a difference.
Liverpool: British Academy of Man-
agement.
Carter, S.M. and Greer, C.R. (2013). Strategic leadership:
Values, styles, and organizational perform-
ance. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 20: 375–
393, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/15
48051812471724.
Choi, J.N., Anderson, T.A. and Veillette, A. (2009). Contextual
inhibitors of employee creativity
in organizations. The insulating role of creative ability. Group
& Organization Management,
34: 330–357.
Gong, Y., Huang, J.C. and Farh, J.L. (2009). Employee learning
orientation, transformational leader-
ship and employee creativity: The mediating role of employee
creative self-efficacy. Academy
of Management Journal, 52: 765–778,
http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2009.43670890.
Judge, T.A. and Piccolo, R.F. (2004). Transformational and
transactional leadership: A meta – ana-

lytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 89: 755–768, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.755.
Hemlin, S. and Olson, L. (2011). Creativity – stimulating
leadership: A critical incident study of
leaders influence on creativity in research groups. Creativity
and Innovation Management,
20: 49–58, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2010.00585.x.
Houghton, J.D. and Di Liello, T.C. (2010). Leadership
development: The key to unlocking individual
creativity in organizations. Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, 31: 230–245,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437731011039343.
Khazanchi, S. and Masterson, S.S. (2011). Who and what is fair
matters: A multi-foci social exchange
model of creativity. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 32:
86–106, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/
job.682.
Kollmann, T., Stöckmann, C., Krell, P. and Buchwald, S.
(2011). Integrating dependency and empow-
erment into the transformational leadership-creativity
relationship. Paper presented at the annual
conference of the Academy of Management, San Francisco.
Koźmiński, A.K. (2013). Ograniczone przywództwo. Studium
empiryczne. Warszawa: Poltext.
McMahon, S.R. and Ford, C.M. (2011). Heuristic transfer in the
relationship between leadership and
employee creativity. Paper presented at the annual conference
of the Academy of Management,
San Antonio.

Mesdaghinia, S., Atwater, L.E. and Keller, R.T. (2010). How
leadership style affects performance of
distant followers in creative and non-creative tasks? Paper
presented at the annual conference
of the Academy of Management, Montreal.
Nieckarz, Z. (2009). Styl zarządzania a twórcze zachowania
pracowników. In: S. Popek, R.E. Ber-
nacka, C.W. Domański, B. Gawda, D. Turska and A.M.
Zawadzka (eds.), Psychologia twórczości.
Nowe horyzonty. Lublin: UMCS.
Puccio, G.J., Mance, M. and Murdock, M.C. (2011). Creative
leadership. Skills that drive change.
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Qu, R., Janssen, O. and Shi, K. (2010). Transformational
leadership and follower creativity: The
mediating role of follower identification. Paper presented at the
annual conference of the
Academy of Management, Montreal.
Shin, S.J., Kim. T-J., Lee, J-Y. and Bian, L. (2012). Cognitive
team diversity and individual team
member creativity: A cross level interaction. Academy of
Management Journal, 55: 197–212.
Unauthenticated
DOI: 10.7206/mba.ce.2084-3356.134
78 MBA.CE

Vol. 23, No. 1/2015
Katarzyna Bratnicka
Shin, S.J. and Zhou, J. (2003). Transformational leadership:
Conservation, and creativity: Evidence
from Korea. Academy of Management Journal, 46: 703–714.
Sijborn, R.B.L., Janssen, O. and Van Yperen, N.W. (2011).
Leaders’ achievement goals and employee
creativity: How to get new ideas into the mind. Paper presented
at the annual conference of the
Academy of Management, San Antonio.
Wang, A.C. and Cheng, B-S. (2010). When does benevolent
leadership lead to creativity? The mod-
erating role of creative role identity and job autonomy. Journal
of Organizational Behavior,
31: 106–121, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.634.
Wang, P. and Rode, J.C. (2010). Transformational leadership
and follower creativity: The moderating
effects of identification with leader and organizational climate.
Human Relations, 63: 1105–1128.
Wu, C., McMullen, J.S., Nubert, M.J. and Yi, X. (2008). The
influence of leader regulatory focus on
employee creativity. Journal of Business Venturing, 23: 587–
602, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jbusvent.2007.09.005.
Yoshida, D., Hirst, G., Sendjaya, S., Cooper, B., Bingyi, Y. and
Xu, C. (2011). A common recipe for crea-
tivity and innovation: Servant leadership, social identity, and
team climate. Paper presented at

the annual conference of the Academy of Management, San
Antonio.
Yukl, G. (2012). Leadership in organizations. Upper Saddle
River: Prentice-Hall.
Zhang, X. and Bartol, K.M. (2010). Linking empowering
leadership and employee creativity: The
influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation
and creative process engage-
ment. Academy of Management Journal, 53: 107–128,
http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2010.48037118.
Unauthenticated

Entrepreneurs, Culture, and Entrepreneurial CultureM

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Entrepreneurs, Culture, and Entrepreneurial CultureM

Similar to Entrepreneurs, Culture, and Entrepreneurial CultureM (11)

More from cullenrjzsme

More from cullenrjzsme (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Entrepreneurs, Culture, and Entrepreneurial CultureM