The Relationship Between Leadership Styles And Innovation- Case Study Using Sem

Berbaoui Kamel ,
Mokaddem Abdeljalil ,
Bensalam Abdelhakim

Abstract

The main objective of this study is to determine the relationship between leadership styles and innovation. For the employees of the National Electricity and Gas Distribution Company. The study included 104 questionnaires collected from the employees of the National Electricity and Gas Distribution Company in BECHAR. Data were analyzed using SPSS and AMOS. Which is used in modeling structural equations (SEM). After the questionnaires were adopted, the following conclusions were reached: There is no statistically significant relationship between autocratic style and innovation, there is statistically significant relationship between democratic style and innovation, there is statistically significant between relationship The Laissez-faire leadership style and innovation The study also concluded with a set of recommendations the most important of them: Instilling in individuals a sense of belonging to create and develop innovation and creativity, promoting democratic style and Laissez-faire leadership style because of their positive results on innovation, Holding seminars and workshops discussing leadership styles, and what is attributed to each style of advantages and disadvantages.

Keywords: Leadership stylesautocratic styledemocratic stylelaissez-faire leadership styleinnovation

Introduction

The accelerating trend of globalization and the changing technology have many companies positively promote innovation or individual creativity (Wu & Lin, 2018). It is worth mentioning that there are various factors in employees’ innovation or creativity, and leadership might be the most influential factor in employee creativity, In particular, leadership's role in promoting innovation has been the subject of study over the past decade. Leadership is one of the popular subjects that are currently receiving attention in terms of research, theory, and practice, There are many strong indications that leadership is important for managing innovation (Denti & Hemlin, 2012). Somech (2006) believes that “it is corporate leaders who promote or prevent innovation management in the organization” (p. 135). The failure of innovation projects is probably due to ineffective leadership skills (Łukowski, 2017, p. 106), Through this paper we try to clarify the relationship between leadership styles and innovation.

Hypotheses of Research:

H1: There is a significant relationship between the Autocratic leadership style and innovation in the National Gas Electricity Distribution Company.

H2: There is a significant relationship between the democratic leadership style and innovation in the National Gas Electricity Distribution Company.

H3: There is a significant relationship between the Laissez-faire leadership style and innovation in the National Gas Electricity Distribution Company.

Literature Review

The Concept Of Leadership

According to Rost (1993), there are approximately 220 definitions of leadership concept, Wart (2003) argues that there are limitations to conducting scientific leadership research because it is difficult to find appropriate definitions of managerial leadership. So creating a deforming leadership framework is a difficult task. In order to develop an understanding of the concept of leadership, we offer some definitions of leadership below:

According to Bass and Stogdill (1990), “in order to achieve organizational goals, leadership works to influence the attitudes and behaviors of individuals and the interaction within groups among themselves” (p. 21). Leadership is a process in which an individual influences a group of people in order to achieve a common goal (Northouse, 2018). Chemers (1997) defines leadership as “A process of social influence through which a person has the ability to help and support other people to reach a specific goal” (p. 3). The leadership style that leaders use to interact with their subordinates consists of a set of different characteristics, characteristics, and behaviors (p. 6). Wu and Lin (2018) defined leadership as the capability to affect a team achieving the objectives. Such an influential capability was perceived by people or teams.

According to Jackson and Parry (2011), leadership is the process of leaders using their skills and knowledge of a group of employees, to guide them in the direction that relates to the goals and objectives of the organization, Lee and Chuang (2009) believe that a superior leader meets secondary requirements in the process of achieving organizational goals, and not only inspires the potential of subordinates to enhance efficiency.

Leadership Styles

Autocratic Style

Autocratic leadership style is mission-oriented, more persuasive and efficiently manipulated to deliver a clear vision and vision of strategic goals (Clark et al., 2008). Followers of autocratic leaders are bore their time, awaiting the inevitable failure of this leadership and removing the next leader (Bass & Stogdill, 1990). The leader believes that humans are evil, weak, unwilling to work, unable to self-determination, and have limited causes. Therefore they must be directed, pushed and forced to work (Akor, 2014). The autocratic leaders are characterized by making vital decisions themselves (Dyczkowska & Dyczkowski, 2018). The autocratic leadership does not inculcate the learning mindset, which is necessary in proactive situations in order to motivate employees According to the experiences of Probst and Raisch (2005), autocratic leadership can make leaders have so much power that they can resort to negative impacts on an organization's performance. To enforce this, it will be implemented whether or not the minimum management agrees. Autocratic leadership also contributes to a low level of job satisfaction and confidence in the organization, because it limits the capabilities of other members to excel and discourages employee participation (Dalluay & Jalagat, 2016).

Democratic Style

Democratic leaders often embrace a very collaborative, participatory and collaborative decision-making environment (Trinidad & Normore, 2005). In a democratic leadership style, employees are an important part of the decision-making process, so they are collaborative and participatory. The Democratic manager informs his staff of everything that affects their work and shares decision-making and problem-solving responsibilities (Khan et al., 2015). The Democratic Leader strives to be a regular member of the group spirit while doing a little work (Lippitt, 1960). Anderson (1959) defined the Democratic Leader “as the person who participates with other members in decision-making. He stressed that democratic leadership in most situations is related to the higher meaning. He denied the claim that democratic leadership is associated with low productivity and high morale and unlike autocratic leadership” (p. 204).

In democratic leadership, participation is an important and ideal feature of this leadership style. Therefore, participation is of a friendly, beneficial and encouraging nature (Choi, 2007). Collective and leadership participation in policy making is important in the style of democratic leadership. Access to organizational decisions of critical importance is related to the extent of strong communication between individuals and their consultation. Each member of the organization must be aware of the importance of being in the decision-making process, this is one of the most important duties of a democratic leader (Dolly & Nonyelum, 2018).

Laissez-Faire Leadership Style

According to the definition Luthans and Youssef (2007), laissez-faire style as “Abdicates responsibilities avoids making decision. In the authors viewpoint of the Laissez-Faire Leadership Style do not want their interference in decision making process. They usually allow their subordinates to have the power to make personal decisions about work. They are free to do work in their own way and they are also responsible for their decision. Normally Leaders avoids to making decision and they give subordinates complete freedom in the decision-making process, and they do not participate in working units (Chaudhry & Javed, 2012).

It maybe manifested in a lack of presence and/or being avoidant of intervention Laissez-faire leadership in lower perceived leader effectiveness (Wong & Giessner, 2018). Laissez-faire leaders They do nothing and this omission could have negative consequences for the institutions (VonBergen, 2012). Laissez-faire leaders who hide reinforcement (for example,), whether Intentional or unintentional, It may lead to negative impacts and consequences on the organization This finding is supported by research by Hinkin and Schriesheim (2008). An organization that does not have much staff in the long-term, this style does not suit them. In addition, it is not suitable for environments that need guidance, quick reactions and praise (Al Rahbi et al., 2017).

The Concept Of Innovation

According to Twiss, innovation - is a combination of science, technology, management, and economics, because it aims to achieve novelty and proceeds from the emergence of an idea to the goal of marketing it in the form of a product that can be exchanged and consumed (Twiss & Goodridge, 1989). According to Covin and Miller (2014), it is the ability of a business enterprise to be up to date with a new idea, new technologies and improved creative processes to provide products. There is growing evidence from the literature that innovation plays a vital role in shaping corporate growth and competitiveness (Forsman & Temel, 2011)

There are different perspectives on the definition of innovation that analysis can be used to know. Innovation according to West and Farr (1990). It is the introduction and intentional application within a role, group, or organization of ideas, processes, products, or procedures, that are new to the business unit. Adopting concerned, designed to bring great benefit to the individual, group, organization and society. OECD (2005) defined innovation as “Implement a new or significantly improved product, marketing or business style, or a new organizational style within business practices, workplace organization or external relations” (p. 16). while Woodman et al., (1993) defined creativity as “It is a process of creating or presenting a new idea or a new and useful procedure or process “(p. 295). There is a broad definition by Baregheh et al. (2009), “innovation aims to advance, compete, differentiate and position in the market, so organizations, through a multi-stage process, transform ideas into improved products, services, or processes” (p. 1325).

Materials And Methods

Research Method And Conceptual Model Of Study

This study was applied in terms of objective and is descriptive in terms of data collection method. Data were collected by questionnaire through the survey method. The sample size was estimated using the Cochrane formula to 135 members of the National Electricity and Gas Distribution Company BECHAR. The number of questionnaires distributed is 135, and 117 questionnaires were retrieved. After screening, 104 questionnaires were valid for statistical analysis. All elements were measured using a five-point Likert scale: strongly agree: (5 degrees), agree (4 degrees), neutral (3 degrees), disagree (2 degrees), strongly disagree (one score). Exploratory factor analysis was used to delineate elements, which hinder confirmatory factor analysis (having Factor loading less than 0.50). No element has been scrapped. Because all Factors loading are greater than 0.50 (see table 2 ). This study also adopted the Structural Equation Model (SEM) to analyze data and test hypotheses through a program AMOS V.21. The Figure 01 illustrates the conceptual model of the study and consists of three leadership styles (Autocratic Style, Democratic Style, Laissez-Faire Leadership Style) and innovation.

Figure 1: The Conceptual Framework of the Research
The Conceptual Framework of the Research
See Full Size >

Demographic Characteristics of the Sample

Table 1 -
See Full Size >

From Table (1) it is clear that the majority of respondents are the sex of males by 84.2%, while the percentage of females is 15.8%. The majority within the age group between 31-40 years is 49.5%, followed by the age group between 41-50 years with 34.7% and then 8.4% for the group for more than 51 years and 7.4% for the age group less than 30 years. The respondents have a university education level of 64.2%, the remaining percentage of secondary education level is lower by 24.2% and graduate studies by 11.6%, while the maximum percentage of professional experience is 61.1% with 6 to 15 years of experience, and 7.4% as the lowest percentage and they are experienced from 16 to 20 years.

Reliability And Validity

Table 2 -
See Full Size >

Internal Reliability

The value of Cronbach Alpha is greater than 0.60. The internal reliability was achieved the

required level (Refer Table 2 ).

Construct Reliability

For all constructs, the CR value is greater than 0.60. The composite reliability was achieved the required level (Refer Table 2 ).

Average Variance Extracted

The value of AVE for all constructs are greater than 0.50. The required level was achieved. (Refer Table 2 ) All items in a measurement model are statistically significant. Other than that, the value of AVE for all construct is greater than 0.50. The Convergent Validity was achieved the required level.

Table 3 -
See Full Size >

The bold diagonal values in the Table 03 are the square root of the AVE for the constructed. While the rest of the other values are the correlation between the respective constructs. The discriminant validity is achieved when the diagonal value in bold is higher than the values in its row and column. This condition is fulfilled if when looking at the Table 03 , therefore the discriminant validity was achieved.

Evaluating Model Fit

Table 4 -
See Full Size >

According to table 4 , general indexes of testing the structural equation model of the research show the appropriateness of the model’s goodness of fit. This goodness can be resulted from the fact that X2/df is less than 3, RSMEA is less than 0.08 and nearer to zero, and also because the indexes of CFI, TLI are nearer to 1; therefore, the proposed model has been confirmed and table 5 possesses all standards.

Hypotheses testing

Table 5 -
See Full Size >

The first hypothesis: There is a significant relationship between the Autocratic leadership style and innovation in the National Gas Electricity Distribution Company.

As shown in table (5), since observed value is equal to P-value and 0.100 is more than Sig level 0.05 and T v a l u e < 1.96 , so there is no relationship between the Autocratic leadership style and innovation in the National Gas Electricity Distribution Company with 95% confidence.

The second hypothesis: There is a significant relationship between the democratic leadership style and innovation in the National Gas Electricity Distribution Company.

As it is obvious in table (5), since observed value is equal to P-value and 0.000 is less than Sig level 0.05 T v a l u e ≥1.96, so there is a relationship between The democratic leadership style and innovation in the National Gas Electricity Distribution Company with 95% confidence.

The third hypothesis: There is a significant relationship between the Laissez-faire leadership style and innovation in the National Gas Electricity Distribution Company

As it is shown it table (5), since observed value is equal to P-value and 0.036 is less than Sig level 0.05, and T v a l u e ≥1.96, so there is a relationship The Laissez-faire leadership style and innovation in the National Gas Electricity Distribution Company with 95% confidence.

Conclusion

Through statistical analysis of field research data, the following conclusions can be drawn:

there is no relationship between the Autocratic leadership styleand innovation in the National Gas Electricity Distribution Company.

there is a relationship between The democratic leadership style and innovation in the National Gas Electricity Distribution Company.

there is a relationship The Laissez-faire leadership styleand innovationin the National Gas Electricity Distribution Company.

Based on the results of the research we can give some of the following recommendations:

Promoting democratic style and Laissez-faire leadership style because of their positive results on innovation.

The development of a sense of belonging is essential in the development of innovation and creativity.

Holding seminars and workshops discussing leadership styles, and what is attributed to each style of advantages and disadvantages.

Creation of a department for innovation and creativity that is interested in the creators and innovators, and benefit from them and help them.

To simplify the rules and procedures of the work procedures, and to move away from the centralization and strictness in the implementation of the issues, this would give employees a margin. It is freedom for employees to show their innovations on the ground.

References

  1. Akor, P. (2014). Influence of Autocratic Leadership Style on the Job Performance of Academic Librarians in Benue State. Journal Of Educational And Social Research, 4(7), 148.
  2. Al Rahbi, D., Khalid, K., & Khan, M. (2017). The effects of leadership styles on team motivation. Academy of Strategic Management Journal, 16(2), 1-14. https://doi.org/ 1939-6104-16-2-113.
  3. Anderson, R. C. (1959). Learning in discussions: A resume of the authoritarian-democratic studies. Harvard Educational Review, 29, 201-212.
  4. Baregheh, A., Rowley, J., & Sambrook, S. (2009). Towards a multidisciplinary definition of innovation. Management Decision, 47(8), 1323-1339.
  5. Bass, B. M., & Stogdill, R. M. (1990). 3rd.ed. Bass & Stogdill's handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications. Simon and Schuster.
  6. Chaudhry, A. Q., & Javed, H. (2012). Impact of Transactional and Laissez Faire Leadership Style on Motivation. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(7), 258-264.
  7. Chemers, M. M. (1997). An integrative theory of leadership. Lawrence Elrbaum Associates. Inc., Publishers, Mahwah.
  8. Choi, S. (2007). Democratic leadership: The lessons of exemplary models for democratic governance. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 2(3), 243-262.
  9. Clark, R., Hartline, M., & Jones, K. (2008). The Effects of Leadership Style on Hotel Employees' Commitment to Service Quality. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 50(2), 209-231.
  10. Covin, J., & Miller, D. (2014). International Entrepreneurial Orientation: Conceptual Considerations, Research Themes, Measurement Issues, and Future Research Directions. Entrepreneurship Theory And Practice, 38(1), 11-44.
  11. Dalluay, V. S., & Jalagat, R. C. (2016). Impacts of Leadership Style Effectiveness of Managers and Department Heads to Employees’ Job Satisfaction and Performance on Selected Small-Scale Businesses in Cavite. Philippines. International Journal of Recent Advances in Organizational Behaviour and Decision Sciences (IJRAOB), 2(2), 734-751.
  12. Denti, L., & Hemlin, S. (2012). Leadership And Innovation In Organizations: A Systematic Review Of Factors That Mediate Or Moderate The Relationship. International Journal Of Innovation Management, 16(03), 1240007.
  13. Dolly, K. C., & Nonyelum, O. P. (2018). Impact Of Autocratic Leadership Style On Job Performance Of Subordinates In Academic Libraries In Port Harcourt, Rivers State, Nigeria. International Journal of Research -Granthaalayah, 6(10), 232-239.
  14. Dyczkowska, J., & Dyczkowski, T. (2018). Democratic or Autocratic Leadership Style? Participative Management and its Links to rewarding Strategies and Job Satisfaction in SMEs. Athens Journal Of Business & Economics, 4(2), 193-218.
  15. Forsman, H., & Temel, S. (2011). Innovation and business performance in small enterprises: an enterprise-level analysis. International Journal Of Innovation Management, 15(03), 641-665.
  16. Hinkin, T., & Schriesheim, C. (2008). An examination of "nonleadership": From laissez-faire leadership to leader reward omission and punishment omission. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1234-1248.
  17. Jackson, B., & Parry, K. (2011). A very short fairly interesting and reasonably cheap book about studying leadership. Sage Publications.
  18. Khan, M. S., Khan, I., Qureshi, Q. A., Ismail, H. M., Rauf, H., Latif, A., & Tahir, M. (2015). The styles of leadership: A critical review. Public Policy and Administration Research, 5(3), 87-92.
  19. Lee, H. C., & Chuang, T. H. (2009). The impact of leadership styles on job stress and turnover intention: Taiwan insurance industry as an example. Effects of Leadership Style on Organizational Performance: A Survey of Selected Small Scale Enterprises in Ikosi-Ketu Council Development Area of Lagos State, Nigeria. Australian Journal of Business and Management Research, 1(7), 100-111.
  20. Lippitt, R. (1960). Autocracy and democracy: An experimental inquiry. Harper.
  21. Łukowski, W. (2017). The impact of leadership styles on innovation management. Marketing of Scientific and Research Organizations, 24(2), 105-136.
  22. Luthans, F., & Youssef, C. (2007). Emerging Positive Organizational Behavior. Journal Of Management, 33(3), 321-349.
  23. Northouse, P. G. (2018). Leadership: theory and practice. Sage Publications.
  24. OECD. (2005). Oslo Manual: Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data, Third edit. ed. In: OECD, Paris.
  25. Probst, G., & Raisch, S. (2005). Organizational crisis: The logic of failure. Academy Of Management Perspectives, 19(1), 90-105.
  26. Rost, J. C. (1993). Leadership for the twenty-first century: Greenwood Publishing Group.
  27. Somech, A. (2006). The effects of leadership style and team process on performance and innovation in functionally heterogeneous teams. Journal of management, 32(1), 132-157.
  28. Trinidad, C., & Normore, A. (2005). Leadership and gender: a dangerous liaison?. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26(7), 574-590.
  29. Twiss, B. C., & Goodridge, M. (1989). Managing technology for competitive advantage: integrating technological and organisational development: from strategy to action: Trans-Atlantic Pubns.
  30. VonBergen, C. W. (2012). Not Seizing Opportunities: The Effects of Laissez-Faire Leadership. Administrative Issues Journal, 2(3), 20.
  31. Wart, M. (2003). Public-Sector Leadership Theory: An Assessment. Public Administration Review, 63(2), 214-228.
  32. West, M. A., & Farr, J. L. (1990). Innovation at work. Wiley.
  33. Wong, S. I., & Giessner, S. R. (2018). The thin line between empowering and laissez-faire leadership: An expectancy-match perspective. Journal of Management, 44(2), 757-783.
  34. Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of management review, 18(2), 293-321.
  35. Wu, J., & Lin, Y. (2018). Interaction between the Different Leadership Styles on Innovative Behavior based on Organizational Culture in Ecological Industry: Empirical Research from China. Ekoloji, 27(106), 643-649.

Copyright information

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

About this article

Publication Date

13 February 2021

Article Doi

https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2021.02.3

eBook ISBN

978-1-80296-100-3

Publisher

European Publisher

Volume

101

Print ISBN (optional)

-

Edition Number

1st Edition

Pages

1-224

Subjects

National interest, national identity, national security, national consciousness, social relations, public relation, public organizations, linguocultural identity, linguistics

Cite this article as:

Kamel, B., Abdeljalil, M., & Abdelhakim, B. (2021). The Relationship Between Leadership Styles And Innovation- Case Study Using Sem. In C. Zehir, A. Kutlu, & T. Karaboğa (Eds.), Leadership, Innovation, Media and Communication, vol 101. European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences (pp. 27-36). European Publisher. https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2021.02.3

Copy citation text