“I like his idea and I hate yours”

“I like his idea and I hate yours”

The influence of leader-orientation and leader-member exchange on whether a

leader will use or ignore an innovative idea brought up by a subordinate.

Abstract

Introduction

In today’s complex, dynamic, and highly competitive environment, organizations need to innovate continuously to survive and prosper (Bledow, Frese, Anderson, Erez, & Farr, 2009). Research has revealed that innovative ideas not only influence a company’s productivity and profitability, but it also keeps organizations ahead of their competition (Geroski, Machin and Van Reenen, 1993; Hu, Ou, Chiou & Lin, 2012). Most of the widely used definitions of innovation focus on novelty and newness such as introduction of a new product or a qualitative change in an existing product, process innovation new to an industry or development of new sources of supply for raw material (Goswami & Mathew, 2005). Research showed that leaders have important influence over the innovativeness of their company (Goswami & Mathew, 2005; Mumford, Scott, Gaddis, & Strange, 2002; Shalley & Gilson, 2004). That is, leaders may influence employee innovativeness in hierarchical work settings through their power to recognize and devote attention and resources to innovative ideas, or to withhold support (Amabile, Schatzel, Moneta & Kramer, 2004; Graen & Cashman, 1975). As such, leaders fulfill key positions in managing subordinate innovation.

First, the orientation of the leader can have an impact on whether leaders will use or ignore innovative ideas brought up by subordinates (Bass & Stogdill, 1990; Hersey & Blanchard, 1974). Two different orientations are investigated. Specifically, task-oriented leaders, also called initiating structure (Yammarino, Dionne, Chun & Dansereau, 2005), are mainly concerned to complete a job as best as possible (Ray, 1973). Relation-orientated leaders, also called consideration ( Lambert, Tepper, Carr, Holt & Barelka, 2012), are mainly concerned about people and maintaining harmonious relationships with others (Ray, 1973; Fiedler, 1978).

Furthermore, on the work floor interaction between a leader and follower is very common and thereby a relationship develops between them. The quality of this relationship, called LMX (Gerstner & Day, 1997), is considered to have an influence on whether the leader will use or ignore an innovative idea brought up by his subordinate (Wilson, Sin & Conlon, 2010; Hu, et al., 2012).

This paper will look at how these two variables, leader-orientation and the quality of the LMX relationship, influences whether leader use or ignore innovative ideas brought up by subordinates. Knowing how task- and relation-orientation of a leader and LMX between a leader and a subordinate influences a leader’s acceptance of innovative ideas will make a start of closing a gap in the literature on leadership behaviors. In practice the findings will make people be able to predict how a leader will behave when knowing the leader’s orientation and the quality of the LMX. Knowing which leader characteristics will have a positive influence on leader’s acceptance of innovative ideas will on his turn facilitate organizational change and help to keep the organization ahead (McEntire & Greene-Shortridge, 2011; Hu et al., 2012). Thereby, the outcomes of this paper will help facilitate organizational innovation and survival.

Theory

Some leaders within a company use most of the innovative ideas of their subordinates while other leaders tend to ignore these ideas. Bass and Stogdill (1990) and Hersey and Blanchard (1974) have found indications that the orientation of the leader, task-orientation or relation-orientation, can have influence on a leader’s behavior, meaning it can also have an effect on a leader’s acceptance behavior of other’s innovative idea.

accepting or ignoring it. Furthermore, supportive leaders may also be more likely to pay attention to ideas of subordinates in general in order to show their support and respect towards the subordinate. According to previous research relation-oriented leaders interact facilitative and supportive (Bowers & Seashore, 1966). They open channels of communication, and delegate tasks in order to give subordinates opportunities to use their potential (Hersey & Blanchard, 1974). Putting this together, leaders with a relation-orientation may, when subordinates bring up innovative ideas, be more likely to accept and look at the potential benefits of implementing these ideas.

Hypothesis 1: A positive relationship exists between a relation-orientated leader and this leader using the innovative idea brought up by a subordinate.

Task-orientation reflects the extent to which a person is concerned about completing a job, solving problems, working persistently and doing the best job possible (Ray, 1973). Task-oriented behaviors are used to improve or maintain internal efficiency and coordination in a team or organization (Yukl, 2012). As leaders with a task-orientation are likely to

organize and define roles of subordinates (Hersey & Blanchard, 1974), they may not like subordinates who voice creative ideas as this may deviate from the current ways of doing things. The standard role of a subordinate is to listen to the leader on what should be done and how it should be done. By mentioning an innovative idea the subordinate does not stick to his/her defined role. Indeed, research shows that task-oriented people are intolerant to

deviating behaviors and that they are more related to authoritarianism (Ray, 1973). Also, they may not like these innovative ideas because they can possibly change standard work

things should be done and tries to change standard work procedures. Task-oriented leader may therefore be likely to ignore these ideas as this type of leader likes his subordinates to follow standard procedures (Yukl, 2012; Ray, 1973). This means that leaders with a task-orientation are predicted to be less open to innovative idea’s brought up by subordinates. Hypothesis 2: A negative relationship exists between a task-orientated leader and him using an innovative idea from a subordinate.

Leader-member exchange and using innovative ideas

Differences in the amount of innovative ideas used by leaders can, as mentioned before, be attributed to leader characteristics such as the leader orientation (Bass & Stogdill, 1990; Hersey & Blanchard, 1974). However this is not the only factor of influence. Through interactions on the work floor between a leader and a subordinate a relationship develops between them over time. This interaction process between a leader and a subordinate and the exchange relationship that develops over time is called the leader-member exchange

relationship (LMX) (Gerstner & Day, 1997; Sears & Hackett, 2011; Yousaf, Sanders, Torka & Ardts, 2011; Dansereau, Graen & Haga, 1975; Yukl, 2012; Ferris, Liden, Munyon, Summers, Basik & Buckley, 2009). The quality of this LMX may have an influence on whether leaders will use or ignore innovative ideas brought up by their subordinates (Wilson et al., 2010; Hu, et al., 2012).

The exchange relationship between a leader and each subordinate is formed on personal compatibility and subordinate competence and dependability (Yukl, 2012). The quality of the relationship is determined by characteristics such as mutual trust, respect,

When looking at acceptance of innovative ideas brought up by subordinates, the credibility of the information source is a key determinant of the perceived value placed on the information itself (Ilgen, Fisher, & Taylor, 1979). Because leaders and subordinates with a high level of LMX will have higher levels of mutual trust and respect, leaders will deem high quality LMX subordinates as more credible information sources than low-quality subordinates (Wilson et al., 2010) and as having more ability and competence (Dockery & Steiner, 1990; Yukl, 2012). Also, trust advances employees collaboration (Goh, 2002) which means that high LMX relationships, which have high trust, will enhance collaboration between leaders and subordinates. The leaders can feel like, by collaborating, they helped with creating the ideas and will be more likely to accept ideas which they have had a part in. In high-quality exchange relationships, leaders influence and support their followers beyond what is generally expected and specified in formal job descriptions, and followers engage in more autonomous and responsible activities. In contrast, low-quality exchange relationships are limited to exchanges as described in the employment contract. Leaders provide these followers only with what they need to perform, and followers only fulfil their prescribed job (Zacher, Rosing, Henning & Frese, 2011). Lastly, high LMX relationships are characterized by high levels of trust. The subordinate has trust in the leader, the expertise of the leader and has trust in the fact the leader will seriously consider the innovative idea. And the other way around, the leader will have trust in the expertise of the subordinate and will put more effort in trying to discover the opportunities of the idea in order to maintain the good relationship between the leader and the subordinate.

Therefore, leaders will be more likely to accept an look at the benefits from

implementing the ideas from high LMX subordinates than from the subordinates which they

Hypothesis 3: LMX will have a positive effect on leaders using an innovative idea brought up by their subordinate.

Leaders with a relation-orientation pay much attention to creating and maintaining

good relationships with subordinates which makes them pay much attention to mutual trust

and respect (Ray, 1973; Fiedler, 1978; Yukl, 2012). So, when having a high LMX

relationships, relation-oriented leaders are motivated to maintain this positive relationship.

One way to maintain this positive relationship is by showing trust in the subordinate and by

seriously listen to the input of the subordinate. This means that a leader will probably listen

more seriously and put more effort in discovering the possibilities of innovative ideas brought

up by high LMX subordinates compared to those brought up by subordinates which with they

have a low LMX relationship. Thereby, a relation-oriented leader will be more likely to

accept the innovative idea of the high LMX subordinate in order to maintain this good

relationship by showing their trust and respect in the subordinate and his/her innovative ideas.

As already mentioned before, task-oriented leaders dislike deviant subordinate

behavior and are therefore not likely to accept innovative ideas of subordinates. Task-oriented leaders want to perform their job as good as possible (Ray, 1973). They will not use ideas in order to maintain a positive LMX (Yukl, 2012; Ray, 1973) but will only be interested in innovative ideas which enhance organizational performance. Lambert et al. (2012) mention that task-orientation refers to leadership behavior that involves clarifying task responsibilities and letting subordinates know what is expected of them. So, even though the exchange relationship is very positive (or negative) task-oriented leaders may not like deviance of subordinates. They will not try to maintain or build a positive relationship with subordinates by using their innovative idea and thereby showing trust and support. Therefore, I predict that task-oriented leaders are not very likely to use ideas from subordinates, irrespective of the quality of the LMX relationship.

Hypothesis 5: LMX will have no effect on the negative relationship between a leader with task-orientation and the leader using the innovate idea of their subordinate.

Figure 1: The predicted relationships

Method Sample and Procedure

percent males and 60 females. Of this total sample the age varied between 16 and 67 years(M = 30.47, SD = 12.46) and working experience of the participants ranged from less than one year up to 45 years (M = 12.94, SD = 10.75).

During the survey the participants were first informed about the topic of the research and about how to respond to the presented questions. Next, the participants were presented a scenario in which they were told to be the manager of a company. Information about the company and its products was given and next it described the relationship of the manager (the participant) and one of its subordinates called Robin. After reading this scenario they were asked to answer ten questions about what they would do with the idea of their subordinate Robin. At the end of the survey participants were asked to fill in personal information such as age, gender and their working experience.

Measures

LMX manipulation check. As a manipulation check four statements were presented

about the scenario and the relationship with Robin in order to see if there was a significant difference in LMX between the high and low LMX groups. (“I like Robin”, “The relationship Robin and I have is good in my eyes”, “I can trust Robin” and “Robin and I respect each other”). These were measured on a 5-points scale ranging from 1, “totally disagree” to 5, “totally agree”. Cronbach’s Alpha of these items was .94.

Relation-orientation was measured using ten statements such as “I am friendly and

approachable” and “I treat all group members as my equal” (See Appendix 1 of an overview of all ten statements) which were taken from the leader behavior description questionnaire from the College of Business. The responses were measured on a 5-points scale ranging from 1, “never” to 5, “always”. Cronbach’s Alpha for these ten items was .64.

Task-orientation was measured by ten questions such as “I decide what shall be done

for an overview of all ten statements) adapted from the leader behavior description

questionnaire published by The College of Business of The Ohio State University (1962). The answers were measured on a 5-point scale ranging from 1, “never” to 5, “always”. Cronbach’s Alpha for these ten items was .71.

Use of the innovative idea was measured by using ten questions such as “I would

definitely do something with Robin’s idea” and “Robin’s idea inspires me” (See Appendix 3 for an overview of all questions) measuring interest in the idea, emotions when knowing about the idea and intentions to do something with the idea to figure out the opportunities of it. The responses were measured on a 5-points scale ranging from 1, “totally disagree” to 5, “totally agree”. Crohnbach’s Alpha for these ten items was .87.

Control variables were used to control for the possibility that sociodemograpic

differences in the predictor and outcome variables might lead to spurious relationships. Age of the leader (in years) and gender of the leader (1, “Male”, 2, “Female”) were entered into the analyses as covariates.

LMX manipulation. To manipulate the LMX relationship a scenario was presented to

the participants (based on: Schriesheim, Castro & Cogliser, 1999; Yukl, 2012; Ferris, et al., 2009, Sijbom, Janssen & Van Yperen, 2010). The participants were asked to place themselves within the role as manager (leader). The scenarios gave some information about the company and its products and next it described the relationship of the participant as manager and a subordinate called Robin. One group received the high LMX scenario stating “You like Robin and like working with this subordinate. There is mutual trust between the two of you and you respect and help each other”. The other group got the low LMX scenario containing the sentences “You do not like Robin that much and you do not like working with this

Results Manipulation checks

Of all participants, 67 got to see the low LMX scenario and 69 were manipulated into a high LMX relationship with their subordinate Robin. The difference between the low LMX condition scenario (M = 2.48, SD = 0.70) and the high LMX condition scenario (M = 4.31, SD = 0.70) was tested using a t-test and turned out to be significant (t (131) = -15.05, p < .001). This means that the people reading the high LMX scenario indeed mentioned their

relationship to be of significant higher quality than the people reading the low LMX scenario. Thereby, the manipulation was successful.

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

Table 1 shows the correlations between the four variables of the model depicted in Figure 1 together with the demographic variables age and gender. A significant correlation is found between LMX and leaders accepting the idea (r = .48, p < .001). Also task-orientation and relation-orientation correlate significantly with each other (r = .27, p < .001).

Table 1

Means, standard deviation, and correlations (N = 136)

Hypothesis Testing

To test whether there was a significant relationship between task-orientation and accepting the idea a hierarchical regression analysis was conducted. All of the inserted

variables, except the dependent variable, were standardized before conducting the hierarchical regression analysis. The results of the analysis are shown in Table 2. The first hypothesis stated a positive relationship exists between relation-orientation and leaders accepting an innovative idea brought up by a subordinate. Table 2 shows a marginal significant positive relationship is found between the two variables (β = .07, p < .10). This confirms the first hypothesis. The second hypothesis predicted a negative relationship would exist between task-orientation and leaders using the idea. Although the results of the regression shown in Table 2 state a slight negative relationship (β = -.05, n.s.) between task-orientation and a leader accepting the idea, no significant relationship is found. This means there is no support for the second hypothesis. The third hypothesis stated a direct positive relationship exists between LMX and leaders accepting the idea. The results in Table 2 confirm hypothesis 3 (β = .22, p < .001). So the higher the quality of the relationship between a leader and a

subordinate the more likely the leader will be to accept ideas from this subordinate.

acceptance of an innovative idea of a subordinate. The results of the regression analysis shown in table 2 indicate no significant moderator effect is found (β = .02, n.s.).

Table 2 Regression analysisa

Accepting the idea 1 2 3 1. Age .09* .06 .07† Gender .07 .04 .05 2. Task-orientation (TO) -.05 -.03 Relation-orientation (RO) .07† .08* LMX .22*** .22*** 3. TO x LMX .02 RO x LMX .07† Adjusted R² .04† .26*** .22*** R² change .04† .28*** .02*** *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001; †p < .10 a

2,6 2,7 2,8 2,9 3 3,1 3,2 3,3 3,4 3,5

Low relation-orientation High relation-orientation

D ep en d en t var iab le Low LMX High LMX

Figure 2: Interaction effect between relation-orientation, LMX and leaders accepting the idea

Discussion

The aim of this study was to discover how leader-orientation and the quality of the leader-member exchange (LMX) relationship influence whether leaders use or ignore

perceived quality of the idea and one leader can then see potential in an idea while the other thinks very negatively about the possibilities of the same idea. Then other personal

characteristics of the leader such as previous experience and risk-taking behavior can

influence whether the leader will accept or ignore innovative ideas brought up by subordinates. Next, the results of the analysis present that the higher the quality of the relationship between a leader and a subordinate the more likely the leader will be to accept ideas from this

subordinate.

The outcomes of the regression analysis show that relation-oriented leaders will accept even more innovative ideas brought up by subordinates when the exchange relationship between them is good in comparison to when the relationship is bad.Lastly, as predicted, no interaction effect was found between task-orientation and LMX on leaders accepting an innovative idea. This implies task-oriented leaders do not base their decision whether to accept or ignore the idea on the quality of the LMX relationship they have with the particular subordinate bringing up the innovative idea. A possible explanation can be that task-oriented leaders simply only select those ideas they think will make job performance increase. Thereby they may only look at characteristics of the idea such as perceived success and amount of changes to be made or they look at characteristics of the subordinates such as performance, perceived intelligence or success of previous ideas brought up by this person.

Scholars have conducted a great deal of research on detecting and understanding leadership attributes and behaviors as determinants of, or facilitative conditions for,

subordinates’ willingness to generate innovative ideas (George & Zhou, 2007; Shalley et al., 2004; Shalley & Gilson, 2004) but little attention has been directed yet towards how leaders react to and manage innovative ideas voiced by subordinates.The results of this research state that relation-orientation and LMX are influential variables on a leader’ decision whether to use or ignore an idea brought up by a subordinate.

LMX has been found to have a positive effect on leaders’ acceptance of innovative ideas. This result enriches the knowledge about LMX and the outcomes of LMX. However, because LMX is now known to have an influence on acceptance behaviors of leaders the question arises if it would also have an influence on other behaviors of leaders and on

behaviors of subordinates such as (job) satisfaction, commitment, turnover, unethical behavior and individual, team and organizational performance.

This research has divided leader orientation into task-orientation and relation-orientation. The results show there is indeed a difference between these two orientations looking at their effect on a leader’s acceptance behavior. Thereby, this research proves it is necessary to make this separation between task-orientation and relation-orientation to be able to predict a leader’s behavior more accurately. One should take notice of this difference when conducting further research on the relationship between leader orientation and other outcomes such as performance, unethical behaviour, commitment and (job) satisfaction of leaders. Practical implications

organization ahead (McEntire & Greene-Shortridge, 2011; Hu et al., 2012). Thereby, the results of this paper will help facilitate organizational innovation and survival. Organizations which are dependent on innovativeness can use this knowledge in two ways in order to increase usage of innovative ideas by leader. First they can select leaders on basis of their relation-orientation scores. Leaders scoring high on relation-orientation seem to be more likely to accept and look at the potential value of the innovative ideas from their subordinates than leaders scoring low on relation-orientation. Secondly, organizations can make an effort in order to increase relation-orientation. This can be done by creating more pro-social norms whereby leaders get encouraged to invest time in getting to know their subordinates and to have more respect for and trust in their subordinates. Leaders will probably act more relation-oriented and thereby accept instead of ignore more innovative ideas.

Furthermore, the result of this research enriches the knowledge about the effects of LMX on leader behavior. We know that when the LMX relationship is of high quality

compared to low quality leaders are more likely to accept instead of ignore an innovative idea of a subordinate. In practice this means organizations should stimulate leaders to develop high quality LMX relationships with their subordinates. This can possibly be facilitated by

encouraging leaders to invest time in getting to know their subordinates by giving them time to do so by creating socials norms and giving rewards for social behaviors on the workfloor. LMX can possibly also be enhanced by arranging social group activities for leaders and subordinates in order to bond with each other.

Limitations and future research

Despite the fact that the sample size of this study is sufficient, a few participants have never been in a leading position which might influence their response in comparison to the other respondents which are familiar with being in a leading role. Leaving those participants out of the sample did not lead to large changes in the results. Still there could be some differences in responses between these two groups due to lack of imagination of seeing themselves within the given situations. Simplified, these people might have troubles placing themselves in the role of a leader which could possibly lead to responding the way they think they should respond or they give answers they expect a real leader would give. To be sure not to have these types of responding errors for future research optimally would be to exclusively use people who are or have even been in leading roles. Also, the time spend being a leader may have an influence on how well the participants are able to place themselves into the given scenario. This can influence the responses and thereby the results. Participants with much experience on being a leader may have less difficulty placing themselves into the given situation compared to less experienced leaders and thereby they may respond differently within the same situation.

Another limitation of this study is that the reliability of the relation-orientation measures was 0.64 which is below the advised level of 0.7 meaning the relation-orientation measure I got from combining the ten questions was relatively low on reliability. This is not problematic as it is an advised level but this should be taken into account when looking at the results of this study. Further research should, when trying to replicate the results of this study, improve reliability of the relation-orientation measures of their sample. A possible

Lastly no relationship was found between task-oriented leadership and accepting an innovative idea of a subordinate. Thereby, the question on what characteristics task-oriented leaders base their decisions on whether to accept or ignore an innovative idea of a subordinate remains. Possibly they will base their decision on certain characteristics of the idea or the subordinate such as perceived intelligence and earlier performance of the subordinate or on the expected change the idea will initiate. Future research should look at these and other variables in order to make companies be able to predict how task-oriented leaders will react to innovative ideas and where they base their decision whether to use or ignore an idea on. Having this knowledge will certainly be beneficial to companies since innovation within companies is proven to have positive effects on an organization’s survival and prosper (Bledow et al., 2009).

Conclusion

References

Amabile T., M., Schatzel E., A., Moneta G., B., & Kramer S., J. (2004). Leader behaviors and the work environment for creativity: Perceived leader support. Leadership Quarterly, 15 (1).

Bhal K. T., and Dadhich, A. (2011). Impact of ethical leadership and leader–member exchange on whistle blowing: The moderating impact of the moral intensity of the issue. Journal of Business Ethics, 103, 485–496.

Bass, B. M., and Stogdill, R. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill's handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications. Free press.

Bledow, R., Frese, M., Anderson, N., Erez, M., & Farr, J. (2009). A Dialectic Perspective on Innovation: Conflicting Demands, Multiple Pathways, and Ambidexterity. Industrial & Organizational Psychology, 2 (3), 305-337.

Bowers, D. G., and Seashore, S. E. (1966). Predicting organizational effectiveness with a four-factor theory of leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly, 11, 238-263. Carlo, J. L., Lyytinen K., and Rose, G. M. (2012). A knowledge-based model of radical

innovation in small software firms. MIS Quarterly, 36 (3), 865-A10.

Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297-334.

Dansereau, F., Grean, G., and Haga, W. J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations . A longitudinal investigation of the role making process. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 13 (1), p. 46-78.

Dockery, T. M., and Steiner, D. D. (1990). The role of the initial interaction in leader-member

exchange. Group and Organization Studies, 15, 395–413.

(2009). Relationships at work: toward a multidimensional conceptualization of dyadic work relationships. Journal of Management, 35 (6), 1379-1403.

Fiedler, F. E. (1978). The contingency model and the dynamics of the leadership process. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 11, 59-112.

George, J. M., & Zhou, J. (2007). Dual tuning in a supportive context: Joint contributions of positive mood, negative mood, and supervisory behaviors to employee creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 50 (3), 605-622.

Geroski, P., Machin, S., and Van Reenen, J. (1993). The profitability of innovating firms. RAND Journal of Economics, 24, 198–211.

Gerstner, C. R., and Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 827–844. Goh, S. (2002). Managing effective knowledge transfer: An integrative framework and some

practice implications. Journal of Knowledge Management, 6, 23-30.

Goswami, S., & Mathew, M. (2005). Definition of innovation revisited: An empirical study on Indian information technology industry. International Journal of Innovation Management, 9 (3), 371-383.

Hersey, P., and Blanchard, K. H. (1974). So you want to know your leadership style? Training and development journal, 22-37.

Hu, M. M., Ou, T., Chiou, H., and Lin, L. (2012). Effects of social exchange and trust on knowledge sharing and service innovation. Social behavior and personality, 40 (5), 783-800.

Ilgen, D. R., Fisher, D. C., and Taylor, M. S. (1979). Consequences of individual feedback on behavior in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 349–371.

not gone: An examination of fit between leader consideration and initiating structure needed and received. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(5), 913-930.

McEntire, L. E., and Greene-Shortridge, T. M. (2011). Recruiting and selecting leaders for innovation: How to find the right leader. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 13 (3), 266-278.

Mumford, M. D., Scott, G. M., Gaddis, B., and Strange, J. M. (2002). Leading creative people: Orchestrating expertise and relationships. Leadership Quarterly, 13, 705-750. Pandey, J. (1976). Effects of leadership style, personality characteristics and method of leader

selection on members' and leader's behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 6 (4), 475-489.

Ray, J. J. (2012). Task orientation and interaction orientation scales. Personnel Psychology, 26 (1), 61-73.

Schriesheim, C. A., Castro, S. L., and Cogliser, C. C. (1999). Leader-member exchange (LMX) research: A comprehensive review of theory, measurement, and data-analytic practices. Leadership Quarterly, 10 (1), p. 63-113.

Sears, G. J., and Hackett R. D. (2011). The influence of role definition and affect in LMX: A process perspective on the personality - LMX relationship. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology. 84 (3), 544-564.

Shalley, C. E. and Gilson, L. L. (2004). What leaders need to know: A review of social and contextual factors that can foster or hinder creativity. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 33-53. Shalley, C. E., Zhou J., & Oldham G. R. (2004). The Effects of Personal and Contextual

Characteristics on Creativity: Where Should We Go from Here? Journal of Management, 30 (6), 933–958.

their reactions to subordinates’ creative input. Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings, 1 - 6.

Terhanian, G., & Bremer, J. (2012). A smarter way to select respondents for surveys? International Journal of Market Research, 54 (6), 751-780.

Wayne, S. J., & Ferris, G. R. (1990). Influence tactics, affect, and exchange quality in supervisor-subordinate interactions: A laboratory experiment and field study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 487-499.

Wilson, K. S., Sin, H. P, and Conlon, D. E. (2010). What about the leader in leader-member exchange? The impact of resource exchanges and substitutability on the leader. Academy of Management Review, 35 (3), 358-372.

Yammarino, F. J., Dionne, S. D., Chun, J. U., and Dansereau, F. (2005). Leadership and levels of analysis: a state-of-the-science review. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 879-919.

Yousaf, A., Sanders, K., Torka, N., Ardts, J. (2011). Having two bosses: considering the relationships between LMX, satisfaction with HR practices, and organizational commitment. International Journal of Human Resource Management. 22 (15), 3109-3126.

Yukl, G. (2012). Leadership in Organizations (8th Edition). New York: Pearson.

Appendices Appendix 1

Survey statements measuring relation-orientation

1. I am friendly and approachable

2. I do little things to make it pleasant to be a member of the group

3. I put suggestions made by the group into operation

4. I treat all group members as my equal

5. I give advance notice of changes

6. I keep to myself *

7. I look out for the personal welfare of group members

8. I am willing to make changes

9. I refuse to explain my actions.*

10. I act without consulting the group.*

*reversed scaling (A=5, E=1)

Appendix 2

Survey statements measuring task-orientation

2. I encourage the use of uniform procedures

3. I try out my ideas in the group

4. I make my attitudes clear to the group

5. I decide what shall be done and how it shall be done

6. I schedule the work to be done

7. I assign group members to particular tasks

8. I make sure that my part in the group is understood by group members

9. I maintain definite standards of performance

10. I ask that group members follow standard rules and regulations

Appendix 3

Statements measuring acceptance of the idea.

1. I would definitely do something with Robin’s idea.

2. I would like to know the fine details of Robin’s idea.

3. Robin’s idea excites me.

4. Robin’s idea is interesting for me.

5. I would like to obtain more information about the details of Robin’s idea.

7. I will study Robin’s idea to understand it more.

8. I will discuss the idea with my own supervisor/manager.

9. I would like to know more about Robin’s idea.