The Influence of Leadership Style on Perceived Autonomy during the Implementation of Agile Management

The Influence of Leadership Style on

Perceived Autonomy during the

Implementation of Agile Management

Master Thesis

Odette Wiggers

S2245191

Supervisor: I. Maris – de Bresser Co-assessor: M.L. Hage

Word count excluding references and appendices: 13.629

MSc. Change Management Faculty of Business and Economics

Abstract

Organizations need to transform into agile organizations in order to stay innovative and maintain a competitive advantage. However, senior management and business schools have largely ignored agile management. Furthermore, one of the key elements in agile management is working in self-organized teams. Employees need to develop autonomy during the implementation phase of agile management in order for it to be successful. In addition, enabling autonomy proposes a big challenge for leaders. The literature on leadership style and autonomy states that transformational leadership is positively related to autonomy. However, there is no literature on the influence of leadership style on the development of autonomy during the implementation of agile management. Therefore, this study analysed how leadership styles and behaviours of leaders influence the development of employees’ perceived autonomy during the implementation of agile management. A case study approach was used to examine this phenomenon in depth. ING the Netherlands, one the largest Dutch banks, was selected as the case. Data was collected through conduction of twelve semi-structured interviews with both leaders and employees. The results identified several behaviours of leaders that stimulated the development of autonomy. In addition, it showed that intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration stimulate the development of autonomy during the implementation of agile management. Finally, results showed that active management by exception limited the development of autonomy during this period.

Table of Content

1. Introduction 4

2. Literature Review 6

2.1 Transformations Into Agile Organizations 6

2.2 Implementation of Innovation 7 2.3 Leadership Style 10 2.4 Employee Autonomy 11 2.5 Conceptual Model 12 3. Methodology 13 3.1 Research Design 13 3.2 Case Description 14 3.3 Data Collection 15 3.3.1 Interviews 15 3.3.2 Observations 16 3.3.3 Archival sources 16 3.4 Data Analysis 17 3.4.1 Open coding 17 3.4.2 Axial coding 17 3.4.3 Selective coding 17

3.5 Research Quality Criteria 18

3.5.1 Controllability 18

3.5.2 Reliability 18

3.5.3 Validity 18

4. Results 19

4.1 The Implementation of Agile Management at ING 19

4.2 Autonomy 20

4.2.1 Perceived autonomy of squad 20

4.2.2 Behaviours of chapter lead 21

4.2.3 Behaviours of tribe lead 22

4.3 Leadership 23

4.3.1 Transformational leadership style 23

4.3.2 Transactional leadership style 24

4.4 Additional Findings 25

5. Discussion 26

5.1 Literature Confrontation 27

5.2 Theoretical Contributions and Practical Implications 29 5.3 Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research 30

6. Conclusion 30

7. References 32

8. Appendices 37

8.1 Appendix A: Overview of Interviewees 37

8.2 Appendix B: Interview Guides 38

1. Introduction

Contemporary organizations need to be innovative in order to maintain a competitive advantage (Krause, Gebert & Kearney, 2007). The ability to innovate effectively is considered as a strategic resource (Gopalakrishnan & Damanpour, 1997), while innovation capability is seen as the most important determinant of firm performance (Mone, McKinley, & Barker, 1998). One recent trend in organizational innovation is transforming into an agile organization. Well-known examples of multinationals that successfully transformed themselves towards being agile are Spotify, Netflix and Google. These multinationals adopted a new organizational structure, in order to maintain their competitive advantage. This new structure is called agile management.

Originating from software development, agile provides a more flexible approach compared to traditional waterfall models. Specifically, it is an umbrella term for several methods, from which Scrum and Lean Development are probably the most famous (Dyba & Dingsøyr 2008). However, the use of agile methods is not limited to software environments (Conforto et al, 2014; Denning, 2015; Denning, 2016). Agile management expands beyond software development teams (Denning, 2016). Agile is a horizontal ideology of enablement, instead of the predominant vertical ideology of control. This ideology is a good fit for business environments that require continuous innovation (Denning, 2015). Some organizations have already successfully transformed and are currently using agile management. They reported more rapid implementation of innovation, greater responsiveness to real customer needs, improved customer satisfaction and higher staff engagement (Denning, 2016). However, the case studies of organizations that successfully transformed to agile management are limited. The only literature available on this issue is the story of Spotify (Kniberg & Ivarsson, 2012). Furthermore, Denning (2013) states that senior management and business schools have largely ignored agile. However, it is important to study agile, because organizations need to transform into agile organizations in order to stay innovative and maintain a competitive advantage (Krause et al., 2007). Therefore, this study aims to fill in this research gap, by studying agile management.

One of the key elements of agile management is working in self-organized teams (Denning, 2015). Denning (2016) states that agile management proposes a big challenge for leaders in coordinating masses of self-organizing teams. Leaders have to set direction while interacting with and adjusting to unexpected developments in the marketplace and also enabling autonomy for those doing the work, which requires leadership of high order (Denning, 2016). Transformational leadership is positively associated with employees’ perceived autonomy (Avolio & Bass, 1995; Bass, 1998; Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Ozaralli, 2003). However, research lacks focus in the field of the influence of leadership on employees’ perceived autonomy in agile management. As mentioned before, it is important to study agile management, because organizations need to innovate and transform into agile organizations in order to maintain a competitive advantage (Krause et al., 2007). Furthermore, especially in agile management, it is challenging for leaders to enable autonomy (Denning, 2016). Therefore, this study aims to fill in this research gap by identifying how leadership style and behaviours of leaders influence the development of employees’ autonomy in the context of organizational transformation to agile management.

production process technology, a new structure or administrative system, or a new plan or program pertaining to organizational members.” Furthermore, Denning (2013) states that agile is a promising management innovation with wide application. Managerial innovations are new organizational structures, administrative systems, management practices, processes, and techniques that could create value for the organization (Damanpour & Aravind, 2011). Therefore, agile management is an innovation.

Innovation can be either seen as an outcome or as a process. The literature on the view of innovation as a process is currently under developed. However, the role of innovation as a process is necessary for a successful exploitation of an idea (Crossan & Apaydin, 2010). Therefore, this thesis aims to fill in this research gap by focusing on innovation as a process, specifically the transformation into an agile organization. Furthermore, organizational innovation consists of many phases. Previous studies examining organizational innovation have focused predominantly on the adoption phase (Drury & Farhoomand, 1999). However, the adoption phase is only the beginning of the innovation process (Sawang & Unsworth, 2011). Therefore, what is missing in these studies is the focus on the implementation phase. Despite the fact that the implementation phase often proposes the biggest challenge in the organizational innovation process, there are few studies that analyse the implementation of organizational innovation (De Dreu, 2006; Krause et al., 2007; Sawang & Unsworth, 2011). Attention needs to be drawn to the challenge and importance of effective innovation implementation (Klein & Knight, 2005). The innovation process can only be considered as successful when the innovation is accepted and implemented by organizational members and the organization perceives benefits or improvements as a result (Bhattacherjee, 1998). Moreover, the implementation phase is the transition between the decision to adopt the innovation and the full use of the innovation (Klein & Sorra, 1996). Especially for agile management, employees need to develop autonomy during this period. Otherwise, the implementation of agile management could not be successful, since one key element of agile management is working in self-organized teams (Denning, 2015). Therefore, it is interesting to examine the influence of leadership on the development of employees’ autonomy during the implementation phase of agile management.

The aim of this study is to gain insight into the influence of leadership style and behaviours of leaders on the development of employees’ autonomy during the implementation of agile management.

In line with the above reasoning, the following research question is proposed:

“How do leadership style and behaviours of leaders influence the development of employees’ perceived autonomy during the implementation of agile management?”

Furthermore, this study is important for managers for several reasons. It aims to gain insight into the influence of leadership on the development of autonomy of employees during the implementation of agile management. Particularly, these results can be used to create awareness among managers about their leadership style and behaviours that either stimulate the development of perceived autonomy of employees or limit it.

In order to answer the research questions, this thesis is structured as follows. The literature review elaborates on current research regarding the main constructs of this thesis and defines them. In addition, it provides a conceptual model that serves as a guiding theory throughout this thesis. The methodology sets out the research design, gives a case description and discusses the quality criteria of this research. Next, data collection and analysis are elaborated, which are used for the results section. Finally, the discussion elaborates on conclusions, managerial implications, limitations, and future directions for research.

2. Literature Review

Agile is “an umbrella term for a set of management practices – including Scrum, Kanban, and Lean – which enable offering requirements and solutions to evolve through collaboration between self-organizing, cross-functional teams. It promotes adaptive planning, evolutionary development, early delivery and continuous improvement, and it institutionalizes rapid and flexible response to customer input” (Denning, 2016: p. 11). Software development practitioners described this set of methods and practices in the Agile Manifesto of 2001 (Dyba & Dingsøyr, 2008). The main elements of agile are: 1) work is done by self-organizing teams, networks, and ecosystems that mobilize the full talents of those doing the work, 2) work is focused directly on meeting customers’ needs and interaction with the customer is central, 3) a “lens” focuses attention on the customers’ needs (in Scrum, for instance, this lens is a person and he is known as the product owner), and 4) work proceeds in an iterative fashion and progress toward fulfilling the needs of the customers is assessed at every stage (Denning, 2015).

our understanding of how organizations transform into agile organizations. In this thesis, this transformation is conceptualised as a process of innovation implementation, which is discussed next.

2.2 Implementation of Innovation

As mentioned in the introduction, organizational innovation consists of many phases. Most of the literature focuses on the adoption phase of organizational innovation (Drury & Farhoomand, 1999). However, the implementation phase might be more important to study. The adoption phase is just the beginning of the innovation process, related to decision making to implement the innovation (Sawang & Unsworth, 2011) and most challenges arise in the implementation phase (Krause et al., 2007). Only when the innovation is being implemented effectively and the organization is experiencing benefits from it, the innovation can be deemed successful (Bhattacherjee, 1998). Therefore, this study focuses particularly on the implementation phase of organizational innovation.

Innovation implementation is “the transit period in which individuals ideally become increasingly skilful, consistent, and committed in their use of an innovation. Implementation is the critical gateway between the decision of adopting the innovation and the routine use of the innovation.” (Klein & Sorra, 1996, p. 1057). In agile management, during this period employees need to develop their autonomy, otherwise the implementation of agile management would not be successful. Therefore, it is interesting to examine how leadership styles influence the development of employees’ autonomy during the implementation phase.

Several models have been proposed that describe the organizational innovation implementation process. Klein and Sorra (1996) identify determinants and consequences of implementation effectiveness. Implementation effectiveness refers to “the consistency and quality of targeted organizational member’s use of a specific innovation” (Klein & Sorra, 1996, p. 1058). Figure 1 depicts their conceptual model.

According to Klein and Sorra (1996), the first key construct that determines implementation effectiveness is the organization’s climate for implementation. This refers to “targeted employees' shared summary perceptions of the extent to which their use of a specific innovation is rewarded, supported, and expected within their organization” (Klein & Sorra, 1996, p. 1060). A strong climate for implementation ensures employee skills in innovation use, provides incentives for innovation use and disincentives for innovation disuse, and removes obstacles to innovation use. When accounting for these three factors, an organization’s implementation climate can foster innovation use (Klein & Sorra, 1996). Furthermore, they propose that the stronger the climate for implementation in an organization, the greater will be the employee’s use of the innovation, provided that employees are committed to innovation use. Thus, an organization’s implementation policies and practices should be conceptualized and evaluated as a comprehensive, interdependent whole that together determines the strength of the organization’s climate for implementation (Klein & Sorra, 1996).

Figure 2. Predictors of Implementation Effectiveness (innovation use) and Innovation Effectiveness

(benefits of innovation implementation). MRPTOO = a pseudonym for a manufacturing resource-planning package (Klein et al., 2001).

Klein et al. (2001) found that financial resource availability was positively related to implementation policies and practices. Managerial support for innovation implementation was not related to implementation policies and practices. However, they propose that the influence of managers should not be underestimated since management support for innovation implementation was positively related to implementation climate. Finally, implementation policies and practices and implementation climate were positively related to implementation effectiveness.

Several researchers (Alexander et al., 2006; Helfrich et al., 2007; Holahan et al., 2004; Link & Naveh, 2006; Marler et al., 2006; Naveh & Marcus, 2004; Weiner et al., 2007) have applied or modified specific aspects of the final model of Klein et al. (2001). However, none of them tested empirically the full original model. Therefore, Sawang and Unsworth (2011) focused their study on re-examining the model of implementation effectiveness. They were able to replicate most of the hypothesized relationships, and even the ‘missing’ relationships that were hypothesized but not found by Klein et al. (2001).

Figure 3. Enhanced Model of Innovation Implementation Effectiveness (Sawang & Unsworth, 2011).

The abovementioned studies show the evolvement of innovation implementation literature. However, these studies are quantitative and have an organizational level of analysis, including regarding the discussion of management support. Therefore, this study is qualitative and has an individual level of analysis. There are few qualitative studies on innovation implementation (e.g., Nord & Tucker, 1987; Nutt, 1986; Repenning & Sterman, 2002;). For instance, Repenning and Sterman (2002) found that the more managers push employees to maintain or improve immediate task performance, the less time and energy employees can devote to the implementation of innovation that offers long-term, and potentially more enduring performance gains. In addition, Nutt (1986) found that managers’ most common strategies in guiding innovation implementation are “persuasion” and “edict” – both of which involve little or no user input in the decision regarding adoption and implementation. Although these studies focused on the role of managers in the implementation process of innovation, they did not focus on the implementation of agile management. It is important to focus on the implementation of agile management because organizations need to transform into agile organizations in order to be innovative and maintain a competitive advantage (Krause et al., 2007). Therefore, this study focuses on the implementation of agile management. Furthermore, these studies did not focus on the influence of leadership on the development of employee autonomy during the implementation phase. Since innovation implementation is the transit period in which individuals ideally become increasingly skilful, consistent, and committed in their use of an innovation (Klein & Sorra, 1996), individuals need to become autonomous in this period in order to make the implementation of agile management successful. Therefore, this study examines how leaders influence the development of this autonomy during the implementation phase of agile management.

In line with this, the following section defines transformational and transactional leadership styles and identifies associated behaviours.

2.3 Leadership Style

on Burns’s (1978) conceptualization. He made several modifications (Judge & Piccolo, 2004). Bass (1985) disagreed with Burns (1978) that transformational and transactional leadership represent opposite ends of a single continuum. Bass (1985) argued that successful leaders are both transformational and transactional (Judge & Piccolo, 2014). Furthermore, Bass (1985) focused on behaviours of the two leadership styles (Judge & Piccolo, 2014).

Transformational leadership occurs when leaders broaden and elevate the interests of their employees, when they generate awareness and acceptance of the purposes and mission of the group, and when they stir their employees to look beyond their own self-interest for the good of the group (Bass, 1990). Transformational leadership refers to the leader moving the follower beyond immediate self-interests through 1) idealized influence, 2) inspirational motivation, 3) intellectual stimulation, or 4) individualized consideration (Bass, 1999). Idealized influence is displayed when the leader sets an example to be followed, and shows determination and confidence (Bass, 1999; Judge & Piccolo, 2004). Inspirational motivation is displayed when the leader articulates a vision that is appealing and inspiring to followers. Furthermore, they challenge followers with high standards, communicate optimism about future goal attainment, and provide meaning for the task at hand (Bass, 1999; Judge & Piccolo, 2004). Intellectual stimulation is displayed when the leader helps followers to become more innovative and creative. Furthermore, he challenges assumptions, takes risks, and solicits followers’ ideas (Bass, 1999; Judge & Piccolo, 2004). Individualized consideration is displayed when leaders pay attention to the developmental needs of followers and support and coach them (Bass, 1999; Judge & Piccolo, 2004).

In contrast, transactional leadership is based on transactions between managers and employees (Bass, 1990). Transactional leadership may take on three forms: 1) contingent reward, 2) active management-by-exception, and 3) passive management-by-exception (Bass, 1999). With contingent reward the leader clarifies for the follower through direction or participation what the follower needs to do to be rewarded for the effort. Active management-by-exception occurs when the leader monitors the follower’s performance and takes corrective action if the follower fails to meet standards. Conversely, passive leadership occurs when the leader practices passive management-by-exception by waiting for problem to arise before taking corrective action (Bass, 1999). The full range of leadership, as measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ), implies that every leader displays a frequency of both transformational and transactional factors (Bass, 1999).

2.4 Employee Autonomy

The abovementioned literature shows that transformational leaders can influence employees’ perceived autonomy (Avolio & Bass, 1995; Bass, 1998; Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Ozaralli, 2003). However, these studies focus on perceived autonomy in general. So, what is missing in these studies is the examination of perceived autonomy in agile management. This is important because one of the key elements of agile management is working in self-organized teams (Denning, 2015) and therefore employees must develop autonomy during the implementation of agile management. Otherwise, the implementation would not be successful. In addition, especially in agile management enabling autonomy proposes a challenge for leaders (Denning, 2016). Therefore, this study aims to fill in this gap by focusing on how leadership style behaviours influence the development of employees’ perceived autonomy during the implementation of agile management.

2.5 Conceptual Model

This study focuses on the implementation of agile management. The literature on agile management is currently underdeveloped (Denning, 2013). However, it is important to study agile management, since this type of innovation is becoming more important for organizations in order to survive and maintain a competitive advantage (Krause et al., 2007). The only success story of agile management is that of Spotify (Kniberg & Ivarson, 2012). However, this story does not focus on the influence of leadership style on the development of autonomy of employees. A key concept of agile is working in self-organized teams (Denning, 2013). During the implementation of agile management, employees need to develop autonomy, otherwise, the implementation of agile management could not be successful. In addition, it proposes a challenge for leaders, because they have to enable autonomy while interacting with and adjusting to unanticipated developments in the environment (Denning, 2016). Therefore, this study focuses on the influence of leadership style on the perceived autonomy of employees during the implementation of agile management.

The literature on leadership implies that every leader displays a frequency of both transformational and transactional factors (Bass, 1999). However, transformational leadership is positively associated with employees’ perceived autonomy (e.g., Avolio & Bass, 1995; Bass, 1998; Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Ozaralli, 2003) and transactional leadership is not. Although these studies focus on the influence of leadership on autonomy, they lack focus on agile management. Therefore, this study will focus on the influence of leadership style on autonomy during the implementation of agile management. Since leadership style cannot be determined beforehand, both transformational and transactional leadership style and other behaviours of leaders will be focused on.

Figure 4. Conceptual model effect of leadership on employee autonomy.

3. Methodology

This section gives an overview of the research design this study used in order to answer the research question. In addition, it provides a detailed case description and elaborates on why this particular case was used for this study. Furthermore, the collection and analysis of data are discussed. Finally, this section focused on the quality criteria of this research.

3.1 Research Design

experiences of both employees and leaders to answer the research question. Therefore, a qualitative approach was beneficial for this study. In addition, the research question of this study is a “how” question and therefore, a case study seemed the appropriate research method for this study (Yin, 2009). A case study seeks to describe a phenomenon in depth (Merriam, 2002). Since this case study was used to describe an intervention or phenomenon and the real-life context in which it occurred, it is a descriptive case study (Yin, 2009). Furthermore, this is a single-case study, which analysed the influence of leadership style and behaviours on the development of perceived autonomy of employees during the implementation of agile management.

3.2 Case Description

ING the Netherlands was selected as the case for this research. Guido Swinkels, an employee of ING who is in the personal network of the researcher, was approached in order to gain access to ING. ING is one of the largest Dutch banks with over 8 million customers and almost 12500 employees in the Netherlands. They have two headquarters, in Amsterdam and Leeuwarden. In the summer of 2015, they adopted ‘The ING Way of Working’, and are now largely working in line with agile methodology. Their inspiration came from large companies like Google, Netflix, and Spotify. ING is the first Dutch bank that has embraced this way of working. They have chosen for the agile method because of 3 main reasons, 1) they are more efficient and more flexible, 2) they can innovate faster with shorter time to market, and 3) they are a more attractive employer, their employees have much more freedom and responsibility than in a traditional company approach (ING, 2017). Since ING adopted agile management as a new organizational structure, the organization is a useful and interesting case for this research. Although ING adopted agile management almost two years ago, the implementation phase is ongoing. The agile model is built to evolve with the organization, which for instance results in the creation of new functions or roles that initially were not in the agile model. In addition, ING is preparing the collaboration with Belgium in which they want to roll out the agile model as well. Because the implementation is ongoing, the transition between the decision to adopt the innovation and the full use of the innovation is still there. Therefore, it is relevant to study how leadership influences the development of autonomy during this implementation phase at ING.

Figure 5. A graphic display of the agile management structure at ING (ING, 2015).

As mentioned before, product owners are not hierarchical leaders of the squad. Chapter leads are hierarchical leaders of squad members, including product owners. However, product owners also have a functional line with the tribe lead. The chapter leads themselves report to the tribe lead, and this is a hierarchical line.

3.3 Data Collection

In case study research, multiple data collection methods are combined (Eisenhardt, 1989; Merriam, 2002). Therefore, this study used interviews, observations, and archival sources for its data collection. This “triangulation” of multiple data collection methods improves the accuracy and validity of the findings of this study (Eisenhardt, 1989; Merriam, 2002; Yin, 2009).

3.3.1 Interviews

One of the most important sources of case study evidence is the interview (Yin, 2009). Therefore, this study conducted interviews to collect its data. Twelve employees from ING with different functions and backgrounds were interviewed. Since ING has 12500 employees, it was difficult for the researcher to select the interviewees on her own. Therefore, Guido Swinkels selected all interviewees and facilitated the contact between the participants and the researcher. Table 1 lists an overview of the functions and the number of participants. Among the participants were seven males and five females.

Function Number of participants

Customer Journey Expert 3

Communication Expert 1

Chapter Lead 2

Manager 1

Tribe Lead 1

Agile coach 1

Table 1. List of functions and number of participants.

Appendix A gives an overview of participations’ gender, function and associated abbreviation. Relevant topics were addressed in the interviews, such as: leadership style, stimulating or limiting autonomy and perceived autonomy of employees. In order to find out what sort of leadership style managers had questions like, ‘to what extent did your leader consider your personal needs?’ and ‘to what extent did your manager emphasise a collective sense of mission and values?’ were asked. In order to know more about stimulation or limiting autonomy, questions like, ‘to what extent do you stimulate autonomy?’ and ‘when do you interfere with work activities of your employees?’ were asked. To measure if employees feel autonomous, questions like, ‘what is the difference between your feelings of autonomy now and before the reorganisation?’ were asked. The interviews lasted approximately one hour and were held in boardrooms at the headquarters of ING. Complete confidentiality was guaranteed to all participants, in order to make sure they could talk freely. All interviews were recorded and transcribed. The interviews followed a semi-structured interview guide. Four different interview guides were used, each for every functional level of interviewees: the tribe lead, the chapter lead, the product owner, and the customer journey expert. All interview guides can be found in appendix B.

3.3.2 Observations

The organization allowed the researcher to observe several work activities related to the agile model like, 1) the marketplace, on which new subjects are divided among the squads, 2) the backlog, 3) the scrum board, 3) the sprint planning and 4) the quarterly planning. This created the opportunity to get a better understanding of daily (agile) work activities of employees. The researcher observed for about two hours and took notes while doing this. The focus during the observations was especially on the content of agile work activities, in order to get a better understanding of these. Furthermore, the focus was on responsibilities and roles of different (hierarchical) functions. Finally, the researcher focused on autonomy of employees and influence or interference of leaders during these work activities.

3.3.3 Archival sources

model at ING, for instance of the hierarchical structure, and it helped with preparing the interviews. Finally, the careers website of ING was consulted in order to get a better understanding of the agile way of working at ING, the so-called ‘ING Way of Working’, and several testimonials of employees at ING were read as preparation for the interviews.

3.4 Data Analysis

This study used a Grounded Theory approach (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), which consists of two central elements: theory and procedures (Mortelmans, 2009). The first assumption is that theory is built on empirical material. The second assumption is that data collection is cyclical and data analysis has a cyclic structure. This means that analyses are constantly being compared to the data and as a result initial coding and analyses are constantly being adapted (Mortelmans, 2009). The data analysis started with transcribing the interviews. After transcribing, memos were written and the coding took place. This was an iterative process, which implies that codes were refined after each round of data collection. This study used three levels of coding: open coding, axial coding, and selective coding. The software program ATLAS.ti was used for the coding.

3.4.1 Open coding

Open coding is “the analytical process through which concepts are identified and their properties and dimensions are discovered” (Strauss & Corbin, 1990: p. 101). Separate parts of the interview that are relevant for answering the research question are being isolated (Mortelmans, 2009). The transcripts were read several times and important phenomena were identified and categorized. Both inductive and deductive codes were used. Inductive codes emerged out of the data, like ‘Interference of tribe lead with content of work’, and ‘Autonomy experienced by the product owner’. Deductive codes emerged out of literature and were types of transformational and transactional leadership, like ‘Intellectual stimulation’, ‘Individualized consideration’, and ‘Contingent reward’. Types of leadership style were the only deductive codes, all other codes were inductive codes.

3.4.2 Axial coding

Axial coding is “the process of relating categories to their subcategories termed “axial” because coding occurs around the axis of a category, linking categories at the level of properties and dimensions” (Strauss & Corbin, 1990: p. 123). Axial coding combines separate codes into one overarching code. Concepts are defined and elaborated on the basis of open codes (Mortelmans, 2009). There are four core themes in which 8 overarching codes, including several sub codes, were categorized. The four core themes are: 1) The Implementation of Agile management at ING, 2) Autonomy, 3) Leadership, and 4) Additional findings. For instance, the core theme ‘Autonomy’ includes the overarching code ‘Behaviours of chapter lead’, which includes sub codes like, ‘Interference of chapter lead with content of work’ and ‘Consequences of interference by the chapter lead’. The complete codebook can be found in appendix C.

3.4.3 Selective coding

the implementation of agile management. Furthermore, the relationship between leadership and the development of autonomy were examined. Firstly, the experiences of autonomy were identified. Secondly, behaviours of leaders were identified and it was examined how they stimulate the development of autonomy. Thirdly, leadership styles were identified and the relationship between leadership styles and the development of autonomy was examined. Finally, the relationships were compared to the existing literature on leadership style, autonomy, the implementation of innovation and agile management. Chapter four and five discuss the outcomes of the pattern matching, explanation building and logic models.

3.5 Research Quality Criteria 3.5.1 Controllability

Controllability is a prerequisite for the evaluation of validity and reliability (van Aken et al., 2012). This study was described in such a way that somebody else is able to replicate it. In order to meet the requirement of controllability, memos about the research activities were written. These memos and other materials that document the research process are additional means for the evaluation of this research (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Additionally to a detailed description of research methods, controllability also requires that results are presented as precisely as possible (Swanborn, 1996). The interview guides are presented in appendix B and the codebook in appendix C.

3.5.2 Reliability

There are four types of reliability: researcher, instrument, respondent, and circumstances reliability. Firstly, researcher reliability refers to the independence of the study and the researcher who conducts it (van Aken et al., 2012). Standardization is used in this research to increase researcher reliability. Standardization is the development and use of explicit procedures for data collection, analysis and interpretation (van Aken et al., 2012). Data was collected through semi-structured interviews, a case-study protocol and a case-case-study database was developed, which guided the execution of the case case-study (Yin, 1994). By doing so, less personal characteristics of the researcher influence the results. Secondly, instrument reliability refers to the independence of results and instruments used to obtain them (van Aken et al., 2012). This study used triangulation: the combination of multiple sources of evidence (Yin, 2009). This increases the instrument reliability of this study. Thirdly, respondent reliability refers to the independency of research results and respondents included in the study (van Aken et al., 2012). All of the roles, departments, and groups that are involved in the problem area of this study were represented among the respondents, in order to increase respondent reliability. Finally, circumstances reliability refers to differences between the circumstances under which a measurement can be executed (van Aken et al., 2012). Interviews in this study were conducted on different moments in time, in order to increase circumstances reliability.

3.5.3 Validity

transcription (Yin, 2009). Finally, multiple data collections are used, which also increases construct validity (Merriam, 2002; Yin, 2009). Secondly, internal validity concerns conclusions about the relationship between phenomena. A study is internally valid when conclusions about relationships are justified and complete (van Aken et al., 2012). This study used pattern matching, explanation building, and logic models in order to increase the internal validity (Yin, 2009). In addition, any rival explanations were addressed (Yin, 2009). Thirdly, external validity refers to generalizability of results and conclusions to other people, organizations, countries, and situations (van Aken et al., 2012). Although generalizability is difficult to assess in single-case studies, theory was used in this study in order to increase it (Yin, 2009). Results and conclusions of this study were compared to existing literature in order to increase the generalizability.

4. Results

This section firstly describes the implementation of agile management at ING. Secondly, it sets out findings regarding the development of autonomy of employees during the implementation of agile management. Thirdly, it provides findings regarding the influence of leadership styles on the development of autonomy during this period. Finally, additional findings are discussed.

4.1 The Implementation of Agile Management at ING

In the summer of 2015, ING implemented the new agile management structure. The implementation consisted of several phases. According to TL1, the board invented the model “in isolation”. It was not yet detailed and only the main features of the model were set out. During the first phase, tribe leads were selected. The tribe leads developed the model further and determined which squads and chapters, which chapter leads, and which capabilities were needed. After this, in the second phase, chapter leads were selected. The tribe leads determined how the tribes should be arranged together with the chapter leads.

During the third phase, customer journey experts were selected. Chapter leads conducted interviews with employees and tested them on knowledge, experience and capabilities. Next, the squads were formed. The chapter leads came together and started to sort out who should be placed where, which they call “calibrate.” After this, all employees were consulted on the outcomes of the placement process.

Finally, in the fourth phase, the actual working according to the new agile model started. This started on June 15, with an official “kick-off.” After this kick-off, all employees started working in squads, chapters and tribes. In addition, several interviewees [CJE1, PO1, PO2, and CL2] mentioned that the headquarters of ING was transformed, in order to match the environment with the new structure and facilitate the “culture change”. Traditional boardrooms were replaced with new “agile working

spaces”. These spaces have walls of glass and are filled with relaxing chairs. In addition, employees

are no longer able to reserve these rooms, to facilitate a “meeting free culture.” Furthermore, common areas in the office were filled with several games, such as a pool table and coffee areas with baristas.

CL1 and CL2 describe that after the kick-off “you just start working.” They had long meetings with other chapter leads to discuss the progress and issues that came up during this period. CL1 states

“there were a lot of unexpected events.” CL2 adds it was mostly “organizing” and “arranging”

during this period and at one point they had to “let it go” in order to let employees “take care on their

during this period. They focused on “personal development” and had to resolve issues with employees that “should not have been placed” or were placed but “did not find what they were

looking for.” On the other hand, there were employees that “started growing all of a sudden” and

were “promoted.”

Although the agile model is implemented at ING almost two years ago, it is still evolving. Several interviewees [CJE3, PO2, CL1, and CL2] mentioned that formations and structures changed. For instance, CL1 explains they “reshuffled completely” when the IT department reorganized as well and joined the tribes in March 2016. Furthermore, new roles have been created in the model, such as

“product area lead”, “central product owner”, and “chief product owner”, in order to fill up blanks

in the agile model. According to PO2 they tried to makes these roles “fit within the model” and “try

to make it work.” Moreover, chapter leads are now assigning “batches” to customer journey experts

that have “certain skills.” Finally, ING is going to merge with their office in Belgium where the agile model will be rolled-out as well.

Therefore, the implementation of the agile model at ING is ongoing. This makes it interesting to examine the influence of leadership style and behaviours on the development of employee autonomy during this implementation. Accordingly, the following section sets out findings regarding autonomy of employees.

4.2 Autonomy

After the reorganisation a lot has changed for squad members in terms of autonomy. Therefore, the following section first sets out how different squad members experience autonomy in general, not necessarily stimulated by a leader.

4.2.1 Perceived autonomy of squad

Several interviewees [PO1, PO2, CJE1, CJE3, and AC1] explained that the main difference in experiencing autonomy currently compared to before the reorganisation has to do with the former structure at ING. For instance, CJE1 states in the old structure there were different departments “online marketing, marketing, product management and data analyses” and currently “you are

together in one team with all of them.” Employees feel more autonomous, because they can make

decisions within their team and they can execute assignments themselves, without outsourcing it to other departments.

However, the importance of the project is influencing the experience of autonomy. Employees [CJE3, PO1] state they “experience less autonomy” and “get stuck” when projects are executed on a

“strategic level” and are “more important”. Although the agile model intends for squads to be fully

autonomous, in reality it turns out that colleagues of higher levels still control when projects are more important.

Moreover, data showed other factors influenced perceived autonomy of squad members as well. Although every interviewee experiences more autonomy, there are some differences in the amount of autonomy they experience compared to others on the same hierarchical level.

they are “purely on IT” there is “less autonomy” and “more control from higher levels.” This view was shared by CE1.

In addition, seniority has an influence on the experience of autonomy. More senior employees talk about “I experience a lot more autonomy” and “I can just execute things”. In contrast, less senior employees talk about experiencing autonomy “as a team” and “we take joint decision for everything

we do”. Therefore, senior employees experience personal autonomy, while less senior employees

experience team autonomy.

Finally, the role of the employee has an influence on perceived autonomy. According to the intended model, product owners are not hierarchical leaders of the squad. Product owner is “a role and not a

function” and product owners give “functional leadership” to the squad. Product owners [PO1, PO2,

PO3, AC1] emphasize actively they are not the leader of the squad and “try not to be the leader all

the time” by delegating roles to other squad members. However, they are still being perceived as one.

For instance, AC1 states some of his squad members perceived him “as a manager” and acted accordingly by asking questions like “can I go to the dentist this afternoon?” Several interviewees confirmed this [CJE1, CJE2, PO1, PO2, PO3].

Furthermore, product owners receive “more information” than other squad members because they have a “political role” in which they have to “manage stakeholders” and “interact directly with the

tribe lead”. Moreover, product owners feel as if they have “more influence” than other squad

members, which makes it their “own decision” that they have to “sell to the team”. Several interviewees [PO1, PO2, PO3, AC1] confirmed this. As a consequence, product owners [PO1, PO2, PO3, AC1] state they have “more autonomy regarding certain choices” or autonomy on a “different

level”. Therefore, product owners are being perceived as a leader because of their role and

responsibilities, which in turn leads to more experienced autonomy compared to other squad members.

The following two sections set out how behaviours of leaders influence the development of autonomy of employees during the implementation of agile management.

4.2.2 Behaviours of chapter lead

AC1 states, that according to the intended agile model, the chapter lead is responsible for “mastery”, the tribe lead for “purpose” and the agile coach for “autonomy.” He explains that chapter leads are not managers any more, but they have to make sure “that people behave in their best way possible,

both in terms of behaviours and skills.” CL1 describes that “autonomy is the responsibility of the squad” and that she makes sure “that people develop themselves.”

However, by doing this chapter leads do stimulate the development of autonomy during the implementation of agile management in several ways. Firstly, they do this by not interfering with the content of work activities. AC1, CL1 and CL2 explain that, as a chapter lead you let employees “work

on the purpose of his squad” and “help develop them.” Moreover, you “do not interfere with what that person is doing.” By not interfering, the employee has the freedom to decide what he is going to

do and how he is going to do it.

However, sometimes chapter leads do interfere with the content of work activities. Although the agile model did not intends for this to happen, for instance PO1 states that chapter leads “like to interfere

autonomy according to several employees [PO1, PO2, and PO3]. For instance, PO3 explains that “it

does not have a negative influence” and he does not “feel less empowered.”

However, it could be that it does not limit autonomy for more senior employees, since only product owners stated this. As mentioned before, product owners already feel more autonomous. In fact, some employees [PO2, PO3] even stated that the chapter lead should interfere more. PO3 explains that he would still feel autonomous when the chapter lead “has more knowledge on the content and interfere

more” and he “might be helped even better.” PO2 adds that he could always “overrule” the chapter

lead.

Thirdly, chapter leads stimulate the development of autonomy during the development of agile management by passing requests through to the right people, instead of resolving it themselves. Chapter leads often receive requests that other employees should receive, for instance the product owner. AC1 explain that chapter leads must say “I am not the right person to ask this” and that it is something “for the product owner or submarket place.” Several employees share this view [CL1 and CL2].

According to AC1 and PO2, one explanation for this is the fact that “people know you because you

are a former manager.” Because these people have a lot of knowledge, colleagues tend to ask things

to the chapter lead. The level of seniority of employees making the requests has an influence on this. CL1 and CL2 explain that they have “a senior team” and therefore “most will not do that.” In contrast, CL1 explains that someone new just joined in his team and he noticed that someone “tends

to do that in the beginning.”

However, sometimes chapter leads “take on their former management role themselves”, according to PO3. PO1 explains that chapter leads sometimes pick up “tribe exceeding projects.” Several interviewees shared this view [PO2, CL1, CL2, TL1]. He believes they do this because chapter leads are “more experienced people” and that is has to do with “trust in someone’s capabilities.” In line with this, TL1 states that she sometimes involve chapter leads in certain projects, out of “seniority” and that it depends on whether the “content of the job fits the capabilities.”

4.2.3 Behaviours of tribe lead

There are several ways in which a tribe lead can stimulate the development of autonomy during the implementation of agile management. Firstly, they can do this by facilitating employees in their autonomy. According to PO2 and CJE3 they do this by “taking away independencies” and “giving

responsibility” to employees. In this way, employees are able to act autonomous. TL1 confirms that

she let people take responsibilities but also makes sure that they “deliver ultimately on their purpose

and short term goals.”

Secondly, they can stimulate the development of autonomy during the implementation of agile management by not interfering with the content of work. PO1 explains that tribe leads stimulate autonomy by “not interfering directly with how you organize certain things as a team.” Several employees share this view [CJE3, PO2, AC1]. In line with this, AC1 explains, “the profile that is

However, sometimes tribe leads do interfere with the content of work. CJE3 and PO2 describe that tribe leads sometimes say, “this is how we are going to do it.” TL1 explains that she is “constantly

controlling on output” and she sometimes “narrows it down.” Furthermore, she explains that she “continuously wants to see prove that it is going well” and she needs prove that “the team is equipped to deliver.” However, if it is not going well, se will make “an executive call” and thus interfere. She

adds that it depends on the importance of the project if she gives attention to it, since her “attention is

limited.”

When a tribe lead interferes, employees view this as important. PO2 explains “you have to think twice

to do it” when a tribe lead asks you something. Furthermore, PO3 describes a situation in which he

had to transfer a request of the tribe lead to his squad. Although he could understand the arguments of the tribe lead, the assignment was “not accepted” by his squad members. However, when the tribe lead asked the request directly, the squad agreed, while the story “did not even contain more

information.” In line with this, TL1 explains that when she shared an idea people “walked away with a feeling that they had an assignment”, even though she “told them it was just an idea.” Therefore, it

seems that interference by the tribe lead limits autonomy, because employees feel obligated to live up to the expectations of the tribe lead.

Finally, TL1 explains that there is still a lot of influence of the board of ING. This happens when there are ambitious objectives covering the overall organization that are at “the expense of autonomy of

squads”, because “you almost have to push it through.” She states “there is not always an understanding of what they have created themselves.” She explains that when this happens too often,

people will not be able to make their own choices anymore, because they are “dependent on you.” Therefore, not only the tribe lead limits autonomy, the board of ING also plays a role in this.

To summarize, these sections on autonomy firstly provided an overview of perceived autonomy of squad members. Although the agile model intended for all squads and squad members to be equal and experience the same amount of autonomy, it appeared that in reality there are some factors influencing it. These are, 1) the importance of the project, 2) expertise and background of squad members, 3) seniority of squad members, and 4) the role of squad members, particularly the role of product owner. Secondly, it identified leaders’ behaviours and the influence of these on the development of autonomy during the implementation of agile management. Leaders stimulate the development of autonomy by 1) not interfering with the content of work, 2) giving responsibility, 3) taking away independencies, and 4) passing requests through to the right person.

However, the aim of this study is to gain insight in the influence of leadership styles on the development of employee autonomy. Therefore, the following section sets out types of leadership used by leaders and the influence of these on the development of employees’ autonomy during the implementation of agile management.

4.3 Leadership

4.3.1 Transformational leadership style

Data showed that tribe leads display transformational leadership style, especially intellectual stimulation. Several interviewees [CJE1, CJE3, PO2, and PO3] describe that tribe leads, when displaying intellectual stimulation, challenge them by asking questions, like “did you think about

In addition, chapter leads display intellectual stimulation when challenging their employees. CJE3, PO3 and CL1 explain the chapter lead is “challenging” and “asking questions” in order to make sure that “you will find the solution yourself.”

Moreover, intellectual stimulation seems to have an influence on the development of autonomy. By challenging employees and asking questions leaders make employees feel responsible for their work activities. Furthermore, employees make their own decisions instead of this being told by leaders what to do. Therefore, intellectual stimulation stimulates the development of employees’ perceived autonomy during the implementation of agile management.

Furthermore, chapter leads display individualized consideration when focusing on the development and personal needs of employees. Several interviewees [CJE3, PO3, AC1, CL1 and CL2] described that the chapter lead has a “coaching role” and “focuses on personal development.”

Finally, individualized consideration seems to have an influence on the development of autonomy. By focusing on personal development leaders strengthen their employees. In this way, they are facilitating in autonomy, because they make sure that employees are able to function at their best and thus able to work autonomous. Therefore, individualized consideration stimulates the development of employees’ perceived autonomy during the implementation of agile management.

4.3.2 Transactional leadership style

Tribe leads display transactional leadership style, especially contingent reward and active management by exception. According to PO3 and TL1, the tribe lead focuses on “objectives that you

must achieve” when displaying contingent reward. Furthermore, TL1 and PO1 describe that tribe

leads display active management by exception when they “continuously want to see prove that it is

going well” and “interfere when it is not going well.” They are searching for deviations in order to

prevent it from going wrong. However, when it goes wrong, they interfere and take corrective actions. Moreover, contingent reward does not seem to influence the development of autonomy. Focusing on objectives does not stimulate autonomy, because it sets an ultimate goal and therefore guides work activities towards a pre-determined direction. However, it does not limit autonomy, because employees formulate the objectives and the route towards it themselves in agile management. Therefore, contingent reward does not influence the development of autonomy during the implementation of agile management.

4.4 Additional Findings

A subject that came up during the interviews was the role of chapter lead. CL1 states the role of chapter lead is “under pressure.” According to AC1 chapter leads “struggle the most with the

transition.” In line with this, CL1 explains that chapter leads that are former managers “think their roles is too slender.” AC1 confirms that chapter leads “do not have an influence on what happens anymore.” As a consequence, several chapter leads have left and it is hard to “fill up those functions”,

according to CL1.

Furthermore, this influences the evaluation and judgement of employees. Several employees [CJE1, CJE2, and PO3] explain that judgement by their chapter lead “does not feel right”, feels “artificial”, or even “unfair.”

An explanation for this experience is the level of knowledge on the content of work activities of the chapter lead. CJE1 and CJE2 explain that they see their chapter lead “very little” and he is “not

knowledgeable about performances or content of your work activities.” PO3 adds that the chapter

lead “collects feedback from people around you” and that this will always “contain a certain amount

of subjectivity.” In contrast, PO2 and CJE3 state that their chapter lead is “knowledgeable about the content” and therefore “always is aware of what is going on and able to assess your work.”

Therefore, when chapter leads are less knowledgeable regarding the content and more distant of the squads, employees perceive them as unable to judge them properly. However, the model intended this for the role of chapter lead.

CL1 confirms that she received questions from employees like “you should come and visit me,

otherwise you will not see me.” However, she states, “I convinced them to trust me.” In contrast, PO3

and CL2 explain, “that is hard to judge someone’s performance based on indirect feedback.” Furthermore, CL2 has an additional responsibility in which he acts as a road manager of a certain project. In this function he is “involved with the content of certain work activities.” He states that he

“likes being a road manager” because it gives him the opportunity “to see and test whether what I hear is also what I observe.”

Furthermore, several interviewees [AC1, CL2] mentioned that the reward model of ING is

“traditional” because chapter leads have to judge employees on “targets”, while at the same time

they are “stimulating people to collaborate in a team”. Therefore, according to AC1 it is contradicting that they use “individual judgement.” CL2 adds that ING should work towards a different model in which people are “coaching continuously”, instead of “checking targets.” The reward model did not transform when agile management was implemented at ING. Therefore, this could influence the role of chapter lead and explain why there are some difficulties with this role. To summarize, this section discussed that the role of chapter lead is under pressure and employees perceive judgement of the chapter lead as unfair. In addition, it explained that the reward model of ING does not match with the new agile structure, which could be an explanation for the issues with the role of chapter lead.

5. Discussion

“How do leadership style and behaviours of leaders influence the development of employees’ perceived autonomy during the implementation of agile management?”

First of all, this study analysed perceived autonomy of squad members. All interviewees experience more autonomy compared to before the reorganisation. However, results showed differences in the autonomy employee’s experience. Firstly, the importance of the project has an influence on it. Secondly, background and expertise have an influence on the amount of experienced autonomy. Thirdly, seniority of employees has an influence on perceived autonomy. Finally, the role of the employee has an influence of experienced autonomy, particularly the role of product owner.

Furthermore, this study analysed behaviours of leaders that stimulate the development of autonomy during the implementation of agile management. Firstly, they stimulate the development of autonomy by not interfering with the content of work. However, when they do interfere with the content of work, it does not necessarily limit the development of autonomy. Especially more senior employees, like product owners, do not experience less autonomy when the chapter lead interferes. However, when the tribe lead interferes it does limit the development of autonomy. Secondly, they stimulate autonomy by passing requests through to the right people, instead of resolving it themselves. Finally, they stimulate autonomy by facilitating in autonomy. They do so by taking away independencies and giving responsibility to employees.

Moreover, this study analysed how leadership styles influence the development of employees’ perceived autonomy during the implementation of agile management. Results showed that leaders display both transformational and transactional leadership styles during this phase. Both tribe leads and chapter leads displayed intellectual stimulation. In addition, chapter leads displayed individualized consideration and tribe leads displayed contingent reward and active management by exception. Intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration both stimulate the development of employees’ perceived autonomy during the implementation of agile management. However, contingent reward had no influence on the development of autonomy during this period. Finally, active management by exception limits the development of autonomy during the implementation of agile management.

Figure 6. New conceptual model effect of leadership on employee autonomy.

5.1 Literature Confrontation

This study analysed the influence of leadership on the development of employee autonomy during the implementation of agile management. Therefore, this section starts with comparing the findings to the literature on implementation of innovation.

Klein et al. (2001) proposed a model of organizational implementation of innovation, which included managerial support for innovation implementation as an antecedent of innovation implementation effectiveness. However, the implementation of agile management requires more than just support from managers. Managers should be actively involved during the implementation, in order to stimulate the development of autonomy of employees. Otherwise, the implementation of agile management could not be successful. In addition, Sawang and Unsworth (2011) build upon the model of Klein et al. (2001) and propose that human resources availability is positively and significantly related to implementation effectiveness. Having skilful and talented personnel is likely to lead to a more successful implementation of innovation. In line with this, during the implementation of agile management employees must develop the ‘skill’ autonomy in order to make the implementation successful. However, the model of Sawang and Unsworth (2011) does not conclude anything on the role of leaders in the development of such skills. This study shows that leaders have a role in the development of autonomy of employees during the implementation phase.

leads and chapter leads both displayed transformational leadership style and only the tribe leads displayed transactional leadership style. This makes sense, since chapter leads are no longer managers in the agile model. Instead, they are coaches that are responsible for the development of their employees. Therefore, they do not have to focus on objectives or have to search for deviations, like the tribe lead is doing.

Moreover, this study showed that several types of transformational leadership style stimulated autonomy of employees during the implementation of agile management. This is in line with the theory of Ozaralli (2003), who found a positive effect of transformational leadership on empowerment. Transformational leaders provide mentoring and coaching, which helps their followers to develop self-confidence (Avolio & Bass, 1995). Therefore, employees feel more confident which facilitates their autonomy.

Particularly, the results of this study showed that intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration stimulated the development of autonomy. Leaders with the trait intellectual stimulation stimulate and encourage creativity in their follower, they challenge assumptions, take risks, and solicit followers’ ideas (Bass, 1999; Judge & Piccolo, 2004). Since followers are stimulated to be creative and assumptions are being challenged, employees are forced to think for themselves and are able to make their own decisions, instead of being controlled by their leaders. This is in line with the literature on empowerment, which states that autonomous decision-making is considered an important dimension of empowerment (Petter et al., 2002; Spreitzer, 1995; Thomas & Velthuis, 1990).

Furthermore, individualized consideration is a trait in which leaders pay attention to the developmental needs of followers and coach their development (Bass, 1999; Judge & Piccolo, 2004). Leaders strengthen their employees and by doing this, they can facilitate autonomy. This in line with the theory of Spreitzer (1995) who stated that self-determination reflects autonomy in the initiation and continuation of work behaviours and processes. When leaders develop the needs of their employees, it enables them to initiate their work behaviours and processes. Furthermore, when leaders coach the development of employees, it enables them to continue their work behaviours and processes.

In addition, this study showed that active management by exception limited the development of autonomy during the implementation of agile management. Several researchers (e.g., Avolio & Bass, 1995; Bass, 1998; Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Ozaralli, 2003) found a positive relationship between transformational leadership style and autonomy. However, they did not focus on the relationship between transactional leadership style and autonomy. Therefore, this study builds further on the findings of those researchers and extends it with the relationship between transactional leadership style and the development of autonomy.