TEAM INNOVATION THROUGH THE USE OF IT: THE INFLUENCE OF TRANSFORMATIONAL IT LEADERSHIP & IT SELF-LEADERSHIP.
H.E. SIETSMA
Rijksuniversiteit Groningen
Faculty of Economics and Business
2 Table of Contents 1. Introduction 3 2. Literature Review 7 2.1 Transformational IT leadership 7 2.2 Team innovation 9 2.3 IT self-leadership 9 3. Method 15 3.1 Data collection 15 3.2 Measurement 16 3.3 Data analysis 17 4. Results 20
4.1 Regression analysis & hypotheses 20
4.2 Mediating analysis 22
5. Conclusions & implications 24
3 Abstract
Although companies invest heavily in IT projects, frequently IT is not used to its fullest potential. The question addressed in this research which components of transformational IT leadership leaders have to possess so they can stimulate individuals to improve the efficiency or effectiveness of IT use by self-motivation and self-direction, and using IT in a way that improves team innovation. This behaviour exhibited by individuals, based on the concept of self-leadership, is defined as IT self-leadership. According to this, the research model investigates if transformational IT leadership influence team innovation and if this is this mediated by IT self-leadership. Results of 130 different teams in companies from different industries confirm that, if leaders show transformational IT leadership, this has a positive influence on IT self-leadership, which contributes to a more efficient and effective use of IT by individuals. Although the mediating role of IT leadership was not supported, IT self-leadership showed a positive influence on team innovation, which indicates that if individuals can improve their own use of IT, the whole team will be more innovative.
1. Introduction
“It is better to lead from behind and to put others in front, especially when you celebrate victory when nice things occur. You take the front line when there is danger. Then people will appreciate your leadership” – Nelson Mandela.
In a fast changing world, the competency of companies to be innovative is seen as a great competitive advantage (Lertpachin et al., 2013) and the relationship between innovation and transformational leadership is a major theme in current research (Broener et al., 2008). Given the increasingly turbulent environments, heightened competition, and unpredictable technological change, managers realize that they should encourage their employees to be creative and innovative (Shalley & Gilson, 2004). Studies have shown that managers can rely on employee self-leadership rather than on external leadership (Manz & Sims, 1996) and that the utilization of general self-leadership behaviours may influence self-efficacy perceptions, which subsequently affect performance (Zhang & Bartol,2010).
The upward trend of reliance on teams as the organizational hotbeds of innovation
makes the need more pressing to understand the motivator of innovation in teams (Chen et al., 2010). Innovation is a key factor in organizations’ ability to create a sustainable competitive advantage (Kim et al., 1999). Since organizations often rely on teamwork for innovation (Dumaine, 1994; Ilgen et al., 2005), it is a notable shortcoming that there is only a small amount of research dealing with team innovation (Anderson & West, 1998; Boerner et al., 2008; Kurtzberg & Amabile 2001; West, 2002). Therefore there is a need to research and understand the motivators of innovation in teamwork (Chen et al., 2010).
4 team innovation (Boerner et al., 2008). Although the relationship with innovation is a major theme in conceptual analyses of transformational leadership (Bass, 1985; Bass & Riggio, 2006); Thichy & Devanna, 1986) empirical studies examining the relationship between transformational leadership and team innovation are scarce (Jung, 2001). The present study aims to further investigate this relationship.
With the emergence of Information Technologies (IT), the question is raised in this research how teams can be more innovative through these emerging technologies. Organizations are becoming increasingly dependent on IT to enhance their market services and sharpen their competitiveness in order to survive and excel in the global market (Wang et al., 2011). While organizations acknowledge this fact and invest heavily in IT, the tremendous investments do not always give the expected returns (Jasperson et al., 2005). Part of this can be attributed to the fact that IT is not always fully utilized by employees (Hsieh & Wang, 2007). Users can apply complex IT in a simple and superficial way, sticking to work procedures and requirements as prescribed by managers. Alternatively, they can use complex IT at a higher level by utilising the technology in creative ways that go beyond routine use (Carlson & Zmud, 1999; Chin & Marcolin, 2001). Research has shown that employees can show innovative behaviour with IT by which the user is applying IT in novel ways to support his or her task performance and therefore make better use of IT (Wang et al., 2011). While this innovative behaviour has been proven effective
on individual level, the effects on teamwork have not been researched yet (Wang, 2011). Because it is often the case that an innovation is subsequently developed by a team (West & Anderson, 1998) the point of departure for the analysis is the influence of innovative behaviour with IT on team innovation. This is behaviour will not only improve the efficiency and effectiveness of own work, but also will improve tasks on group level (Hauschildt & Konradt, 2012). This is in contrast with the work of Wang (2011), which shows that the innovative behaviour with IT will influence innovation on individual level (Wang, 2011). If one can lead oneself toward performance of naturally motivating tasks as well as managing oneself to do work that must be done to improve own and group tasks, this is defined as self-leadership (Manz, 1986). If someone shows this behaviour in the area of IT, by using, redesigning, or recombining IT in novel ways to improve own and group work, this is defined here as IT self-leadership. Some individuals are comfortable using IT the way they are used to, but others invest their time into learning about IT and stimulate themselves to use IT in different ways.
5 on external leadership (Manz & Sims, 1996). In this this analysis this important role of self-leadership is examined (Manz & Sims, 1996) and it is investigated how the manager as leader can influence IT self-leadership and team innovativeness. Because we want to know how leaders can stimulate IT self-leadership, this research focuses on transformational IT leadership, which in turn focuses on the transformational components of leadership in the field of IT. The main research problem addressed is if transformational leadership influences team innovativeness and if IT self-leadership has a mediating role in this relationship. The mediating role is expected because, when a leader is able to provide strong supervisor support, an individual is encouraged and empowered and can therefore be more innovative and creative, which influences both individuals and teams (DiLiello & Houghton, 2006). When an individual is already encouraged and empowered because of IT self-leadership, strong supervisor support might not have an influence anymore and an input-mediator-output model explains this influence (Andressen, 2012).
This research is of interest to businesses because of the opportunities it might present to make teams more effective or efficient through the use of IT. If it is clear for managers how their leadership style (i.e. transformational IT leadership) can improve the efficiency or activity of their team members or if they can even stimulate team members to use IT in the way it improves group work, team innovativeness can be influenced in a positive way.
A theoretical contribution will be made to the literature streams of leadership, information systems and team innovation. The influence of the use of IT on innovation on individual level has been researched, but to understand the inter-relationship between the use of IT and innovation it is also important to examine this on other levels (Wang et al., 2012). Because the focus of study is team level, a gap in literature will be addressed. Another important gap addressed in this study is the effect of transformational IT leadership on team innovation. The concepts of transformational leadership and team innovation have been extensively researched, but there are only a few empirical studies of the relationship between transformational leadership and team innovation. Moreover, these studies yielded contradictory results (Boerner et al., 2008). Because of this, another gap in literature will be further explored. Therefore, we address the following research question:
Does transformational IT leadership influence team innovation and is this mediated by IT self-leadership?
6 insights in the effects of their behaviour on the use of IT by team members. Finally, it will contribute to the studies of team innovativeness, but the new angle is the relationship between IT
7
2. Literature review
Transformational IT leadership and IT self-leadership are concepts that are not commonly used. Therefore it is important to define these concepts precisely. In the following section the literature written in the area of transformational IT leadership, IT self-leadership and team innovation is being reviewed and analysed to expose the elements of terms. Also the hypotheses and conceptual model are proposed.
2.1 Transformational IT leadership
The concept of transformational IT leadership is based on the concept of transformational leadership. Research in the area of transformational leadership arose from research in transactional leadership (i.e. founded on an exchange process in which the leader provides rewards in return for the subordinate’s effort (Burns, 1979). After that, the focus of leadership research shifted to the identification and examination of those behaviours exhibited by the leader that make followers more aware of the importance and values of task outcomes, activate their higher-order needs, and induce them to transcend self-interests for the sake of the organization (Bass, 1985; Yukl, 1989a, 1989b). After decades of research in the area of transformational leadership, a lot of approaches were established. While each of these approaches differ somewhat in the specific behaviours they associate with transformational leadership, all of them share the common perspective that effective leaders transform or change the basic values, beliefs, and attitudes of followers so that they are willing to perform beyond the minimum levels specified by the organization (Podsakoff, 1990). Here, transformational leadership is defined according to Bass (1985, 1999) as a process of inspiring
subordinates to share and pursue the leader’s vision and of motivating others to move beyond their own self-interests and work for the aims of the team (Bass, 1999). Transformational leaders exhibit charismatic behaviours, arouse inspirational motivation, provide intellectual stimulation, and treat followers with individualized consideration. These behaviours transform their followers helping them to reach their full potential and generate the highest levels of performance (Dvir et al., 2002).
8 are working with IT. Considering the dearth of empirical research on IT leadership, it made sense to test the applicability of a generic leadership model, such as transformational leadership in an IT environment (Thite, 2000). Because of this the choice is made to investigate if transformational leadership is indeed being executed in the area of IT.
The definition transformational IT leadership proposed here is a process of inspiring subordinates to share and pursue the leader’s vision concerning IT and motivating other to move beyond their own self-interests in IT and work for the aims of the team by the use
of IT (Bass, 1985, 1999). As a multidimensional construct, there are different dimensions that define transformational leadership. According to the six dimensions of Podsakoff et al. (1990) transformational leadership is defined: Articulating a vision, proving an appropriate model, fostering acceptance at group goals, high performance expectations, individualized support, and intellectual stimulation (table 1). Because the focus in this research lies on transformational IT leadership, the dimensions are adjusted to the field of IT and therefore the definitions are altered to the subject of our research (table 1).
Table 1. Dimensions of transformational (IT) leadership (Podsakoff et al., 1990: 112) Dimension Transformational Leadership Transformational IT Leadership Articulating a
vision
Behaviour on the part of the leader aimed at identifying new opportunities for his or her unit/division/company, and developing, articulating, and inspiring others with his or her vision of the future.
Behaviour on the part of the leader aimed at identifying new IT opportunities for his or her unit/division/company, and developing, articulating, and inspiring others with his or her vision of the future in the field of IT.
Proving an appropriate model
Behaviour on the part of the leader sets an example for employees to follow that is consistent with the values the leader espouses.
How a leader behaves with IT sets an example for employees to follow that is consistent with the values in the area of IT that the leader espouses.
Fostering acceptance at group goals
Behaviour on the part of the leader aimed at promoting cooperation among employees and getting them to work together toward a common goal.
Behaviour on the part of the leader aimed at promoting cooperation through the use of IT among employees and getting them to work together toward a common goal with the help of IT.
High performance expectations
The leader’s expectations for excellence, quality, and/or high performance on the part of followers.
The leader’s expectations for excellence, quality, and/or high performance in the use of IT on the part of followers.
Providing individualized support
Behaviour on the part of the leader that shows that he/she respects followers and is concerned about their personal feelings and needs.
This definition remains unchanged because this dimension has to be approached in general and cannot be limited to the field of IT.
Intellectual stimulation
Behaviour on the part of the leader that challenges followers to re-examine some of their assumptions about their work and rethink how it can be performed.
9 2.2 Team innovation
The concept of innovation has been well researched (Hulsheger et al., 2009). Innovation is described “the intentional introduction and application within a role, group or organization of ideas, processes, products or procedures, new to the relevant unit of adoption, designed to significantly benefit the individual, the group, organization or wider society” (West & Farr, 1990). Creativity, or “the production of novel and useful ideas” (Amabile, 1988), is an aspect of innovation, but innovation also includes the implementation of creative ideas. Although the concept of innovation has been well researched (Hulsheger et al., 2009), there is only a small amount of research in the area of team innovation (Anderson & West, 1998; Boerner et al., 2008; Kurtzberg & Amabile 2001; West, 2002). In this study, the focus lies on the ability of a team to be innovative. Team innovation thus can be operationalized as the combination of the quantity and quality of ideas that are developed and implemented (Boerner, 2008). Relating this stream of research to transformational leadership theory may help to explain how and when transformational leadership impacts team innovation (Boerner, 2008).
In keeping with seminal conceptualizations of transformational leadership theory, empirical research has shown that transformational leaders lead more innovative teams (Keller, 1992, 2006). Transformational leaders do not settle for current states but articulate an appealing and challenging future vision (Boerner, 2008). Transformational leaders also display unconventional and creative
behaviour and serve as role models for innovation (Howell & Higgins, 1990). Transformational leadership is proposed to highlight the necessity of change and to promote creativity (Avolio, 1994; Bass & Riggio, 2006; Conger & Kanungo, 199). Therefore, transformational leadership should be especially suited to foster team innovation (Boerner, 2008) and is it likely that the relationship between transformational leadership and team innovation is a positive one. As explained before, the focus in this research lies on a specific area (IT) in which transformational leadership can occur. Because research has shown that transformational leadership in IT projects lead to technical innovations and technical change (Tithe, 2000) and that innovation success is positively related to the existence of favorable management attitudes toward the innovation (Zmud, 1984), it is supposed that the relationship between transformational IT leadership and team innovation is a positive one. Therefore the following hypothesis is addressed:
H1: Transformational IT leadership is positively related to team innovation
2.3 IT self-leadership
10 their own efficiency or effectiveness. The use of self-leadership strategies facilitates a perception of control and responsibility, which positively affects performance outcomes (Manz, 1992). There are three factors that encapsulate the heart of the classic self-leadership strategy dimensions: Behaviour-focused strategies, natural reward strategies, and
constructive thought strategies defined (Houghton et al., 2012; Neck & Houghton, 2006). Because the focus in this research lies on IT self-leadership, the dimensions are adjusted to the field of IT and therefore the definitions are altered to the subject of our research (table 2).
Dimension Contains Self-leadership IT self-leadership
Behaviour Awareness & Volition
Self-goal
setting Develop and adopt specific goals in order to energize and direct necessary performance related behaviours.
Develop and adopt specific goals for the use of IT in order to energize and direct necessary performance behaviours with IT.
Self-observation
Allows for the examination of one’s own behaviours for the purpose of identifying behaviours to be changed, enhanced, or eliminated.
Allows for the examination of one’s own behaviours in the use of IT for the purpose of identifying behaviours with use of IT to be changed, enhanced, or eliminated.
Task
Motivation Visualizing successful performance
Constructive mental imagery of successful performance prior to the actual performance
Constructive mental imagery of successful performing an IT related task prior to the actual performance Self-reward Praising oneself for a job well
done, mentally or with something tangible.
Praising oneself for a successful performing an IT related task, mentally or with something tangible.
Constructive
Cognition Evaluating beliefs and assumptions
The process of identifying and altering distorted beliefs and engage in more rational and effective cognitive processes.
The process of identifying and altering distorted beliefs one has about IT and engage in more rational and effective cognitive processes.
Self-talk What we covertly tell ourselves in
case of problems and difficulties. What we covertly tell ourselves about problems and difficulties with IT use.
11 The concept of IT self-leadership is based on the dimensions of self-leadership, but the concept also interfaces with the research in the area of the concept innovate with IT (IwIT). IwIT is defined as applying IT in novel ways to support a user’s own task performance, a high-level usage behaviour that surpasses routine and simple ways of use (Wang et al., 2011) and has a resemblance with our definition of IT self-leadership. The research in IwIT states that this behaviour occurs during the post-acceptance stage when users have passed their initial use decisions and become more knowledgeable about the implemented IT (Boudreau & Seligman, 2005; Saga & Zmud, 1994) and IwIT is therefore viewed as a continued usage behaviour that is innovative in nature (Wang et al., 2011).
Although our definition of IT self-leadership shows a resemblance with IwIT, the concept of IT self-leadership differs from this concept in two ways. First, in line with self-leadership literature (Hauschildt & Konrad, 2012; Houghton et al., 2012; Neck & Houghton, 2006), it is argued here that one can improve his/her own efficiency or effectiveness of IT use by self-motivation and self-direction, but is also using IT in a way that it improves group work. Hauschildt & Konradt (2012) suggest that higher levels of self-leadership lead to increased efforts towards the team. Therefore, in contrast with existing research (Agarwal, 2000; Agarwal & Karahanna, 2000; Lewis et al., 2003; Wang et al, 2011) the definition of IT self-leadership proposed, indicates improving
in efficiency or effectiveness on group level and individual level, instead of the focus on individual level.
12 explore”, greater potential exists for them to discover new and innovative ways of exploiting IT (Agarwal, 2004). Therefore it is argued that not only in the post-acceptance stage users partake in innovative use, but likely also in the stages before.
IT self-leadership is defined here as the improving of efficiency or effectiveness of IT use by self-motivation and self-direction, and using IT in a way that it improves group work. Empirical self-leadership research suggests that individuals who utilize self-leadership strategies are more likely to improve their individual creativity and ability to innovate and, by extension improve creativity and innovation on other levels (e.g. team, organizational), than a person who does not use self-leadership strategies (Neck & Manz, 1996). Self-leadership is an important organizational tool for building a climate that encourages creative and innovative problem solving (DiLiello & Houghton, 2006). Because of this it is supposed that self-leadership has a positive influence on team innovation. As outlined before, IwIT has a positive influence on individual innovativeness; users can innovate using technologies by applying IT in novel ways to support their own task performance, a high-level usage behaviour that surpasses routine and simple ways of use (Wang et al., 2011) Above is explained why it is argued here that this behaviour will not only influence innovation on individual level, but also on team level. When combining the seemingly positive effects of self-leadership on team innovation with the researched effects of innovative IT use on team innovation, it appears logical to suppose that IT self-leadership has a
positive influence on group or teamwork and innovation, so the following hypothesis is proposed:
H2: IT self-leadership is positively related to team innovation.
Transformational leadership (Bass, 1985) seems to be an adequate instrument for fostering employees’ self-leadership by encouraging them to think independently, develop their own ideas, and critically question their results (Andressen et al., 2012). A primary goal of transformational leadership is the encouragement of self-management (Avolio & Gibbons, 1988). By playing the part of a role model and encouraging subordinates to create new, constructive thought patterns, as well as to develop new ideas and think independently (Bass & Avolio, 1990), a transformational leader can positively influence individuals’ self-leadership (Andressen et al., 2012). Bass & Avolio (1990) argue that transformational leadership facilitates followers’ abilities to think independently and creatively. Transformational leaders do more things that will empower followers and make them less dependent on the leader (Yukl, 2013). Empirical evidence of the relationship between transformational leadership and self-leadership supports consideration of transformational leadership as an input factor for self-leadership (Andressen, 2012). This leads to the assumption that transformational leadership will positively affect self-leadership.
13 employees’ IT use increases (Afshari et al., 2009). If a leader wants an employees’ behaviour towards IT to be innovative, and go beyond expectations, a leader needs to show a transformational leadership style (Li & Hsieh, 2007). Transformational leaders can drive employees to be intrinsically motivated towards the use of IT and be more efficient and effective through the use of IT (Li & Hsieh, 2007). It is, therefore, reasonable to expect that transformational IT leadership will impact IT self-leadership, as well as transformational leadership influences self-leadership. This leads to the following hypothesis:
H3: Transformational IT leadership is positively related to IT self-leadership
According to the hypotheses the conceptual model is showed in figure 1. Overall, the conceptual model proposes that the variables of transformational leadership, and therefore transformational leadership, have a positive influence on team innovation and that IT self-leadership has a positive mediating role. The research is conducted in 44 firms and therefore in different industries and countries (Germany and the Netherlands). Team innovation may differ strongly per industry and country. That is why the control variable type of industry is used and why we control for 7 different industries (Appendix II) and for different countries in the analysis.
14 As shown in figure 1, IT self-leadership has a mediating role in the conceptual model. Success in teams can be described by such an input– mediator– output (IMO) model (Ilgen et al., 2005; Mathieu et al., 2008). These models provide an opportunity to explain the influence of leadership as an input factor on outcomes in a comprehensive model (Andressen, 2012). Several scholars have considered different mediating processes that explain the relationship between certain input factors with team effectiveness (Ilgen et al., 2005; Mathieu et al., 2008). Therefore the last hypothesis is addressed:
H4: IT self-leadership acts as a mediator between transformational IT leadership and team innovation The mediating relationship of IT self-leadership is expected because literature suggests that individual creativity relies heavily on the effectiveness of the supervision provided to the workforce (Bass & Avolio, 1994). Supervisors looking to support and encourage innovation and
15 3. Method
In this section the method of our research is described. First, the process of the data collection is described. Secondly, this chapter describes how our constructs are measured. At last, the analysis is presented and the factor analysis of the constructs is described.
3.1 Data collection and sample collection
For this study the data were collected in several companies using Internet surveys. The sampling frame consisted of companies that had more than 50 employees and that used IT tools on daily basis. Because the focus of the analysis lies on team level, only one individual per team filled in the survey. Participating teams represented a variety of industries (figure 2; a detailed description can be found in appendix II). These teams are operating in the following industries: Financial services; legal services; public services; production; health care services; energy services and other services. In total, the survey was sent out to 100 companies, which resulted in a response rate of 44% with regard to number of firms. Companies that participated were located in Germany and the Netherlands. A large percentage (figure 2: 42%) of the participants worked for a bank in the Netherlands. Supervisors of different teams of this bank were approached personally and by email, and asked to choose one employee in their team to fill in the survey. After one week a reminder was send to all supervisors. All teams participating are active in different departments on different locations. The other companies (58% of the data) were approached by email. This resulted in a total of 130 participating teams. On average, 3,38 teams per company participated. The sample accounted for
58% male and 42% female participants with an average age of 35. To ensure equivalence of data collection, standardized procedures and survey formatting were employed across all organizations. The only difference was language (Dutch, English and German).
Figure 2. Data collection in several industries (also see appendix II).
Like said before, a large percentage (figure 2: 42% or 55 teams) of our data came from a bank in the Netherlands. Data was collected in different teams from the mortgage (36 teams) & daily services departments (19 teams). In these teams, IT is used constantly. Most of the teams answer questions of customers by phone. In order to help customers different programs are used on a personal computer. Most of the systems are used for documenting and research purposes. In the other companies (figure 2: 58% or 75 teams), IT is also used on daily basis. IT in this case entailed every IT
16 that a team works with (from a business smartphone to a personal computer)
3.2 Measurement
The constructs and accompanying scale items are listed in appendix III. The scales were chosen based on their fit, size and journals they were used in. Size was taken into consideration, as a very long survey is likely to negatively impact the response rate (Burchell & Marsh, 1992). The scales were adapted to the field of IT. According to Harkness (2008) adjusting a survey is valid when the adjusted questionnaire improves conceptual coverage. Questionnaires may be tailored to specific industries or areas (Willemack et al., More information about the three scales is provided below.
Dependent variable. The concept of transformational leadership is well defined by literature, but transformational IT leadership items are not available. Therefore we used the transformational leadership behaviour inventory (TLI) of Podsakoff et al. (1990) and adjusted this questionnaire to the concept of transformational IT leadership (Appendix I). In this process the underlying dimensions of transformational leadership remained the same but questions were specified to the area of IT. Questions were asked based on a 7-point likert-scale.
Mediating variable. The concept of IT leadership is not defined by literature at all, but self-leadership is quite distinguished. Therefore the 9-item scale abbreviated self-leadership questionnaire (ASLQ) of Houghton et al. (2012) was used but
adjusted to the concept of IT self-leadership (Appendix I). Questions were asked based on a 7-point likert-scale. Furthermore, the underlying dimensions of self-leadership remained the same but the questions were specified in the area of IT.
Independent variable. Criteria used to assess innovation vary with respect to measurement method. A lot of studies use self-ratings of innovation (Axtell et al., 2000; Caldwell & O’Reilly, 2003; Clegg et al., 2002; Ohly et al., 2006), peer ratings (Amabile et al., 2002), and ratings by subject matter experts (Shalley & Perry, 2001). Other studies rely on objective criteria to assess innovation at work, counting the number of contributions to a suggestion system or the number of patents or new products (Cardinal, 2001; Frese et al., 1999; Pirola & Mann, 2004). In this study team innovation will be assessed using a 22-item scale based on Axtell et al. (2000) and on West and Anderson (1996). These surveys will be combined (Broener et al., 2008) and adjusted to a 7-point scale, ranging from 1 (e.g. no new ideas are implemented) to 7 (e.g. many new ideas implemented). Because we control for type of firm, 6 dummy variables were created out of 7 different industries (D1-D6). These dummy variables were used in every regression analysis containing the independent variable. Because we collected data from Germany and the Netherlands, we controlled for country (L1-L2) to see whether this showed significant differences.
17 adjusted to the area of IT, a pre-test was conducted after adjustment. For the pre-test, we used the method of respondent debriefing. Respondent debriefing involves incorporating follow-up questions in a field test interview to gain a better understanding of how respondents interpret questions asked of them (DeMaio et al., 2014). Based on the pre-test small adjustments and clarifications were made, but the overall interpretation of the questions by respondents was as intended.
3.3 Analysis
First, a principal factor analysis was conducted and the variables were tested for reliability with a Cronbach’s Alpha of ≥ 0,70. Then, a multiple regression analysis was performed. To test for mediation, the four following regression equations were tested: first, regressing the dependent variable on the independent variable; second, regressing the mediator on the independent variable; third, regressing the dependent variable on the mediator; and fourth, regressing the dependent variable on both the independent variable and on the mediator. Separate coefficients for each equation were estimated and tested (Baron & Kenny, 1986). The factor analysis is presented below. The regression and mediating analysis will be shown under results.
Factor analysis. To determine the dimensional structure of our measure of transformational IT leadership, we conducted a PCA using Varimax rotation. The PCA was run on a 22-item questionnaire that measured transformational IT leadership on 130 respondents.
PCA revealed six components of transformational IT leadership. The choice was made to suppress small coefficients with an absolute value <0.50. According to Hair et al. (1998) this is viable when 120 or more data points are available. The interpretation of the data was consistent with the components named in the literature review that the questionnaire was designed to measure, with strong loadings of individualized support items (TLIN) on component 1, intellectual stimulation items (TLIS) on component 2, high performance expectations (TLPE) on component 3, fostering group goals items (TLFG) on component 4, articulating a vision (TLAV) on component 5, and providing an appropriate model (TLAM) on component 6 (table 6). The PCA revealed that some items did correspond with the components, therefore these were left out (Appendix III shows the remaining items). Component loadings and communalities of the rotated solution are presented in table 4. Scale reliability was tested by Cronbach’s Alpha. This showed that items had a high level of internal consistency (table 5).
18 items showed that it was best to leave them out (Appendix III), so we conducted the PCA without these items. Component loadings and communalities of the rotated solution are presented in table 4. Cronbach’s alpha showed a high level of internal consistency (table 5).
The third PCA was run on a 22-item questionnaire about team innovation. PCA only revealed 1 component, inconsistent with the two components addressed earlier (creation & implementation). Because of the PCA, team innovation is conceptualized as one factor, which is consistent with the work of Boerner et al. (2008).
Small coefficients with an absolute value <0.5 were suppressed (Hair et al., 1998). The rotated component matrix is showed in table 3. The scale had a high level of internal consistency, as determined by a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.946 (table 5). At last, the total PCA of the independent variables showed that the independent variables all load highly on 9 different components (3 for IT self-leadership and 6 for transformational IT leadership) (table 4).
19
Components Transformational IT
Leadership PCA
1. Articulating a vision2. Proving an appropriate model 3. Fostering acceptance at group goals 4. High performance expectations 5. Providing individualized support 6. Intellectual stimulation
Table 6. Final components after PCA
Components IT Self-Leadership
PCA
1. Behaviour Awareness & Volition 2. Task Motivation
3. Constructive Cognition
20 4. Results
In this section, the results of the analyses are presented in the order in which the analysis was conducted. To test the hypotheses, a multiple regression analysis was performed. After this, a mediating analysis is conducted to check for mediation. A schematic overview of these analyses is presented in appendix VIII.
4.1 Regression analysis & hypothesis testing In order to determine whether our hypothesis can be accepted or rejected, a regression analysis is conducted. Based on these results we will perform a mediation analysis. In every regression analysis with the dependent variable, we controlled for the variable “type of industry” (D1-6) and “type of country” (L1-L2).
Transformational IT leadership & team innovation. The first hypothesis states that transformational IT leadership has a positive influence on team innovation. It is determined in the factor analysis that transformational IT leadership contains 6 components. A regression analysis is conducted for each of these 6 components. First of all, appendix IV indicates the component intellectual stimulation (TLIS) is positively related to team innovation (TI) with p<0.05 and B 0.175*. Therefore the relationship is significant. The component articulating a vision (TLAV) has a significant relationship with team innovation (TI) with p<0.01 and B 0.236**. Therefore the relationship is significant. High performance expectations (TLPE) shows no significance to team innovation with p >0.05 and B 0.073. Therefore there is no significant relationship. Also the component fostering group goals (TLFG) shows no significant relation with team innovation p >0.05 and B 0.098. Thus, Therefore there is no
significant relationship. Individualized support does not show a significant relationship with team innovation with p >0.05 and B 0.043. At last, providing an appropriate model shows a significant relationship with team innovation with p <0.01 and B 0.228**. In general we can say that hypothesis 1 can be partially accepted and that the components intellectual stimulation, articulating a vision and providing an appropriate model are related to team innovation. Because the other components do not show a significant relationship with team innovation, we cannot determine if the components of IT self-leadership have a mediating relationship. Therefore we will only perform a mediating analysis for the components that are significantly related to team innovation.
21 At last, a significant relationship can be found between the component constructive cognition (SLCC) and team innovation with p<0.01 and B 0.195**. Therefore, because all components relate significant to team innovation, we can fully accept hypotheses 2.
Transformational IT leadership & IT self-leadership. Because transformational IT leadership contains 6 components and IT self-leadership has 3 components, 18 regression analyses had to be conducted (appendix VI). Because of the many outcomes the results are shown in table 8. In general we can say that transformational IT leadership overall has a positive relationship with IT self-leadership. The results show that hypothesis 3 can be partially accepted. Specifically, intellectual stimulation (TLIS) shows a fully significant relationship with all components of IT self-leadership. Articulating a vision (TLAV) is not significant with constructive cognition and is
22
Table 8. Regression analysis transformational IT leadership & IT self-leadership. ** p < 0.01 * p <0.05
4.2 Mediating analysis
To determine whether IT self-leadership has a mediating relationship, the output from the regression analysis in the previous paragraph is used. In every mediating analysis, we controlled for the variable “type of industry” (D1-6) and “country”(L1-2). Another regression analysis will be conducted according to the method of Baron & Kenny (1986). According to this method, the B value and significance is compared of the independent variable before and after including the possible mediating variables. If the B value of transformational IT leadership drops when the mediating variable is included and if transformational leadership is no longer significant, there is a full mediating relationship (Baron & Kenny, 1986). If the B value drops from a certain significant level to a lower significant level, there can be a partial mediating relationship. To determine whether there is a partial mediating relationship, we
will execute the test of Sobel. A Sobel test is a method to test for a mediation effect. The regression analysis is conducted for three components of transformational IT leadership; intellectual stimulation (TLIS), articulating a vision (TLAV) and providing an appropriate model (TLAM). Since the other components show no significant relationship with team innovation, a mediating relationship is not possible.
Behaviour volition & awareness. The first possible mediating variable tested is behaviour volition & awareness (SLBA). As described in table 8 (the full analysis is documented in appendix VII), the Sobel test explains that none of the relationships are significant and therefore the component behaviour volition & awareness is not a mediator.
Task motivation. For task motivation all of the relationships are partially or fully mediating. Intellectual stimulation (TLIS) has a full mediating relationship because the B value drops in such a way
Transformational IT Leadership
IT self-Leadership β value
Intellectual stimulation (TLIS)
Behaviour awareness & volition (SLBA) .307**
Task motivation (SLTM) .425**
Constructive cognition (SLCC) .243*
Articulating a vision (TLAV)
Behaviour awareness & volition (SLBA) .145**
Task motivation (SLTM) .267**
Constructive cognition (SLCC) .192 High performance
expectations (TLPE)
Behaviour awareness & volition (SLBA) .317**
Task motivation (SLTM) .331**
Constructive cognition (SLCC) .083 Fostering group goals
(TLFG)
Behaviour awareness & volition (SLBA) .337**
Task motivation (SLTM) .327**
Constructive cognition (SLCC) .125 Individualized Support
(TLIN)
Behaviour awareness & volition (SLBA) .276*
Task motivation (SLTM) .111
Constructive cognition (SLCC) -.092 Providing an appropriate
model (TLAM)
Behaviour awareness & volition (SLBA) .399**
Task motivation (SLTM) .315**
23 that intellectual stimulation is not significant anymore (appendix VII). Articulating a vision (TLAV) and providing an appropriate model (TLAM) are partial mediators because the B value drops, but the relationship is still significant. The sobel test determines a partial relationship. Therefore we can say that task motivation serves as a partial mediator for the components presented of transformational IT leadership.
Constructive cognition. The component constructive cognitions (SLCC) does not show a mediating relation. For intellectual stimulation (TLIS) and providing an appropriate model (TLAM) there is no significant relation, and since articulating a vision (TLAV) did not show a significant relationship with constructive cognition (SLCC) to
begin with, the sobel test could not be conducted. Therefore there is no mediating relationship for constructive cognition (SLCC).
In general, there only seems to be a significant mediating relationship between task motivation (SLTM) and the 3 components of transformational IT leadership. Because in the analysis only three components of transformational IT leadership are used, we do not have enough evidence to state that there is a significant mediating relationship between task motivation and transformational IT leadership. Thus, the overall analysis demonstrates that IT self-leadership is not a mediator in this conceptual model and hypothesis 4 can be rejected.
Mediating variable Independent variable Sobel test
Behaviour volition & awareness (SLBA)
Intellectual stimulation (TLIS) 0.057 Articulating a vision (TLAV) 0.740 Providing an appropriate model (TLAM) 0.758 Task motivation (SLTM) Intellectual stimulation (TLIS) 0.00**
Articulating a vision (TLAV) 0.015*
Providing an appropriate model (TLAM) 0.004** Constructive cognition
(SLCC)
Intellectual stimulation (TLIS) 0.056 Providing an appropriate model (TLAM) 0.064
24
5. Conclusion & implications
In this section the results from the analysis are discussed and compared. First, the results of the analysis for transformational IT leadership and IT self-leadership are related to team innovation. Then, the influence of transformational IT leadership on IT self-leadership is discussed and at last the mediating analysis is addressed. Further on, the theoretical and practical implications, limitations, and suggestions for further research are discussed.
5.1 Discussion
Transformational IT leadership & team innovation. In previous research it was stated that transformational leaders serve as role models for innovation (Howell & Higgins, 1990) and that this leadership style would be especially suited for team innovation (Boerner, 2008). Transformational leadership in IT projects would lead to technical innovations and technical change (Tithe, 2000). Therefore it was supposed in hypothesis 1 that transformational IT leadership would have a positive influence on team innovation. In the results it becomes clear that a positive relationship was found for 3 of the 6 components of transformational IT leadership that were transformed from the 6 original components of Podsakoff et al. (1990).
The components that have a positive influence on team innovation are intellectual stimulation, articulating a vision and providing an appropriate model. It seems that, if a leader wants to stimulate team innovation in IT related situations, it is important that he/she challenges followers to re-examine their assumptions, that
he/she has a clear vision concerning IT and that a good example in behaviour with IT is set for followers (table 8).
25
Table 8. Components of transformational IT leadership that are positively related to team innovation.
IT self-leadership & team innovation. According to definition of self-leadership of Houghton et al. (2012) we defined IT self-leadership as the improving of efficiency or effectiveness of IT use by self-motivation and self-direction, and using IT in a way that it improves group work. The concept was defined in line with the components of self-leadership (behaviour awareness & volition, task motivation, and constructive thought strategies (Houghton et al., 2012; Neck & Houghton, 2006)). All the components indicated a significant relationship with team innovation, which means that IT self-leadership is indeed positively influencing team innovation.
In the literature review it is stated that IT self-leadership has a resemblance with IwIT (Wang et al., 2011), but that IT self-leadership differs from this concept in two ways. First it was argued that, in contrast with IwIT, IT self-leadership would not only increase efficiency or effectiveness of IT use on individual level, but also on team level (Hauschildt & Konradt (2012). The results show that this is indeed the case. IT self-leadership is
positively related to team innovation, and therefore IT self-leadership influences innovation on team level.
Secondly, it was argued that IT self-leadership may include finding new IT solutions, combining existing IT solutions or exploring existing IT solutions. Therefore we said that behaviour not only occurs during the post-acceptance stage (Ahuja & Thatcher, 2005; Jasperson et al., 2005) but also during other stages. In the questionnaire we asked the participants to think about all IT that they use at work (“when we refer to IT or IT tools we refer to all information technology that you use at work (e.g. social media, to day-to-day systems you use, apps, etc.”) regardless of the acceptance stage of the technology. Because of the positive relationship between IT self-leadership and team innovation it is argued here that not only in the post-acceptance stage users partake in innovative use, but likely also in the stages before.
Overall, we can say that IT self-leadership is indeed an existing phenomenon and that it
Dimension Transformational IT Leadership
Articulating a vision Behaviour on the part of the leader aimed at identifying new IT opportunities for his or her unit/division/company, and developing, articulating, and inspiring others with his or her vision of the future in the field of IT.
Proving an appropriate model How a leader behaves with IT sets an example for employees to follow that is consistent with the values in the area of IT that the leader espouses.
26 improves the effectiveness and innovativeness of a team. Based on the factor analysis we can say that IT self-leadership indeed consists of the 3 components of self-leadership that were rewritten to IT self-leadership (table 2). This indicates that, for a team to be more innovative, it is important for someone to be aware of, and have specific goals for, his/her behaviour towards IT. Also one should motivate oneself for a task by visualizing successful performance and self-reward. At last one should have constructive cognition by evaluating beliefs and assumptions and self-talk.
Transformational IT leadership & IT self-leadership. Like demonstrated in the results, in general, transformational IT leadership has a positive influence on IT self-leadership. This is in line with previous research that transformational leadership is an input factor for self-leadership (Andressen, 2012) and that transformational leaders can drive employees to be intrinsically motivated toward the use of IT and be more efficient and effective through the use of IT (Li & Hsieh, 2007).
Transformational IT leadership has a strong positive influence on behaviour awareness & volition, and on task motivation. However, the relationship between transformational IT leadership and constructive cognition is positive, but weak. This could indicate that, in case of transformational IT leadership, constructive cognition is less present then the other components.
Overall, because of these results, it seems that when a leader inspires subordinates to share and pursue a vision concerning IT, and motivates other to move beyond their own self-interests in IT
and work for the aims of the team, an individual improves his/her efficiency or effectiveness of IT use, and uses IT in a way that it improves group work.
IT self-leadership as mediator. Based on the results of the mediation analysis, a significant mediating relationship for IT self-leadership was not found. Although all hypotheses tested indicate a partial or full relation between variables, a mediating relation cannot be found. This indicates that the direct causal relationship between transformational IT leadership and team innovation is not influenced by IT self-leadership because the analysis was not significant. Therefore, IT self-leadership does not play an important role in governing the relationship between those two variables. One explanation could be that, since only 3 components of transformational IT leadership indicated a significant relationship with team innovation, only part of the mediating analysis could be executed. Because of previous research an input–mediator– output (IMO) model (Ilgen et al., 2005; Mathieu et al., 2008) seemed in place. Unfortunately results for this model were not significant.
self-27 leadership, and between IT self-leadership and team innovation. If individuals use existing technologies more innovatively and work with IT in such a way that they exhibit components of self-leadership, the team will be more innovative. Leaders can exhibit certain behaviour towards IT that will stimulate followers to use IT in a way that it improves individual, and group work. Like Nelson Mandela said: “Sometimes it is better to lead from behind and put others in front …”. If leaders are indeed successful in making their employees “self-leaders” in the area of IT, teams would possibly more innovative.
5.2 Theoretical implications
This research contributes to the literature streams of leadership, innovation systems and team innovation. In this research two relatively new phenomenons have been conceptualized and researched. First of all it contributes to the literature field about transformational IT leadership and team innovation. Although the concept of transformational leadership has been extensively researched, there is no literature that addresses this concept in the context of IT. Thite (2000) suggested testing a generic leadership model, such as transformational leadership in an IT setting. In this research, we studied the concept of transformational IT leadership, and therefore this study contributes to leadership theory. Although the concept of transformational IT leadership has not been extensively researched yet, literature stated that managers who show certain leadership behaviours can improve IT projects (Andreu & Ciborra,1996)
and that superior leadership skills lead to an IT enabled advantage (Dehning & Stratopoulos, 2003). In the results it is showed that indeed certain leadership skills in IT setting can improve the use of IT and team innovation. Thus, this research further investigated the role of leadership in IT setting on team innovation.
Also, this is the first research that addresses innovative use of IT by an individual in relation to innovation on team level. In contradiction to Wang (2011) who proposes that innovative behaviour with IT only effects innovation on individual level, this study demonstrates that IT self-leadership has a positive influence on team innovation, and therefore group level.
28 5.3 Practical implications
Given the risen importance of IT in organizations, it is useful for leaders if their leadership style will influence the innovative and efficient use of new and existing IT tools. If managers are aware of this, IT could easier be used to its fullest potential and bring higher return on investment. This study presents that transformational IT leadership that will influence such efficient and effective behaviour with IT of individuals. Managers should try to develop these components in their leadership style, so individuals are motivated to use IT in different ways. This is especially important for managers of teams that use IT on a daily basis. These team leaders should have a vision for IT use and articulate this vision clearly, they should set a good example and work with IT in the way that they want their team members to work with IT, and they should challenge their followers and trigger them to rethink their assumptions about existing IT. In this way, IT self-leadership and team innovation will be enhanced. Moreover, the results show that IT self-leadership influences team innovation in a positive manner. If innovation is important for an organization and work is mostly done in teams, managers can choose to select new individuals who are intrinsically motivated to explore new and existing IT solutions.
5.4 Limitations
29 5.4 Future research
Further research could investigate if IT self-leadership has a moderating effect instead of a mediating effect. Since a mediating effect was not found, a possibility could be that IT self-leadership is a moderator instead of a mediator. Another suggestion for further research is to narrow the focus to two variables in the conceptual model
30 References
Afshari, M., Abu Bakar, K., Luan, W.S., Abu Samah, B., and Fooi, F.S. (2009). Technology and School Leadership. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 18 (2), 235-248
Agarwal, R. (2000). Individual acceptance of information technologies. Framing the domains of IT management: projecting the future … through the past. Cincinnati, OH: Pinanflex Educational Resources, 85-104
Agarwal, R. & Karahanna, E. (2000). Time flies when you’re having fun: cognitive absorption and beliefs about information technology usage. MIS Quarterly, 24 665-695
Ahuja, M.K. & Tatcher, J.B. (2005). Moving beyond intentions and toward the theory of trying: effects of work environment and gender on post-adoption information technologies. MIS Quarterly, 29, 427-459 Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in
Organizational Behaviour, 10, 123–167
Anderson, N.R. & West, A.M. Measuring climate for worp group innovation: development and validation of the team climate inventory. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 19, 235-258
Andressen, P., Konradt, U. & Neck, C.P. (2012). The relation between self-leadership and transformational leadership: Competing models anda the moderating role of virtuality. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 19 (68), 66-82
Andreu, R., Ciborra, C., 1996. Organisational learning and core capabilities development: the role of IT. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 5 (2), 111–127
Avolio, B.J. (1994). Total quality and leadership. In B.M. Bass & B.J. Avolio (Eds.), Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership (121-145). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (2004). Multifactor leadership questionnaire. Manual and sampler set (3rd ed.). Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden
Avolio, B. J., & Gibbons, T. C. (1988). Developing transformational leaders: A lifespan approach. Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in organizational effectiveness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 276-308
Baron, R.M. & Kenny, D.A., (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 51 (6), 1173-1182
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectation. New York, NY: Free Press Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8, 9-32
31
Bass, B.M. & Riggio, R.E. (2006). Transformational leadership. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Bloom, N.L. (1996). Select the right IS project manager for success. Personnel Journal. 6 (9)
Boudreau, M.C. & Seligman, L. (2005). Qualitly of use of a complex technology: a learning based-model. Journal of Organizational and End Use Computing, 17, 1-22
Broener, S., Eisenbeiss, S.A. & van Knippenberg, D. (2008). Transformational leadership and team innovation: Integrating team climate principles. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93 (6) 1438-1446 Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Carlson, J.R. & Zmud, R.W. (1999). Channel expansion theory and the experiential nature of media richness perceptions. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 153– 170
Chen, G., Campbell-Bush, E. M., Jiing-Lih F., Zhiming Wu, X.W., 2010. Teams as Innovative Systems: Multilevel Motivational Antecedents of Innovation in R&D Teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98 (6), 1026
Chin, W. and Marcolin, B.L., 2001. The future of diffusion research. The Data Base for Advances in Information Systems, 32, 8–12
Conger, J.A. & Kanungo, R.N. (1992). Perceived behavioural attributes of charismatic leadership. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 24(1), 86-102
Curral, L.A., Forrester, R.H., Dawson, J.F., & West, M.A. (2001) It’s what you do and the way that you do it: Team task, team size, and innovation-related group processes. European journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10(2), 187-204
Daily, R.C. (1978). The role of team and task characteristics in R&D team collaborative problem solving and productivity. Management Science, 24(15), 1579-1588
Dehning, B. & Stratopoulos, T., 2003. Determinants of a sustainable competitive advantage due to an IT-enabled strategy. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 12 (1), 7–28
DiLiello, T.C. & Houghton, J.D. (2006). Maximizing organizational leadership capacity for the future. Journal of Management Psychology, 21 (4), 319-337
Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B. J., & Shamir, B. (2002). Impact of transformational leadership on follower development and performance: A field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 735-744 Ford, C.M. (1996). A theory of individual creative action in multiple social domains, Academy of Management Review, 21 (4), 1112-1142
Geaney, M.M. (1995). The right skills for the job. Computing Canada. 21 (24)
Hair, J.F., Black, W., Tatham, R.L. & Anderson, T.R. (1998). Multivariate Data Analysis. London: Prenctice Hall
32
Hoffman, B.J., Bynum, B.H., Piccolo, R.F. & Sutton, H.W. (2011). Person-organization value
congruence: How transformational leaders influence work group effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 54 (4), 779-796
Houghton, J.D., Dawley, D., DiLiello, T.C. (2012). The abbreviated self-leadership questionnaire (ASLQ): A more concise measure of self-leadership. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 7 (2), 217- 232
Howell, J.M. & Higgins, C.A. (1990). Champions of technological innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 317-341
Hsieh, J.J. and Wang, W., 2007. Explaining employees’ extended use of complex information systems. European Journal of Information Systems, 16, 216–227
Hulsheger, U.R., Anderson, N. & Salgado, J.F. (2009). Team-level predictors of innovation at work: A comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research. Journal of applied Psychology, 94 (5), 1128-1145
Ilgen, R.D., Hollenbeck, J.R., Johnson, M. & Jundt, D. (2005). Teams in organizations: From input-process-output models to IMOI models. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 517-543
Jasperson, J., Carter, P.E. & Zmud, R.W. (2005). A comprehensive conceptualization of post-adoptive behaviours associated with information technology enabled work systems. MIS Quarterly, 29, 525-557 Jung, D.E. (2001). Transformational and transactional leadership and their effects on creativity groups. Creativity Research Journal, 13 (2), 185-195
Jung, D.I., Chow, C. & Wu, A. (2003). The role of transformational leadership in enhancing
organizational innovation: Hypotheses and some preliminary findings. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 525-544
Keller, R. T. 1992. Transformational leadership and the performance of research and development project groups. Journal of Management, 18, 489–501
Keller, R. T. 2006.Transformational leadership, initiating structure, and substitutes for leadership: A longitudinal study of R&D project team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 202–210 Kim, Y., Min, B., & Cha, J. (1999). The roles of R7D team leaders in Korea: A contingent approach. R&D Management, 18 (2), 153-165
Kurtzberg, T.R. & Amabile, T.M. (2001). From Guilford to creative synergy: Opening the black box of team level creativity. Creative Research Journal, 13 (3-4), 762-773
Lertpachin, C., Wingwon, B., & Noithonglek, T. (2013). The effect of marketing focus, innovation and learning organization on the building of competitive advantages: emperical evidence from ISO 9000 certified companies. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 21(4), 323-221
33
Li, X. & Hsieh, J.P. (2007). Impact of transformational leadership on system exploration in the mandatory organizational context. In: Proceedings of 28th international conference on information systems, Canada, Montreal.
Manz, C.C. (1986). Self-leadership: Toward an expanded theory of self-influence processes in organizations. The Academy of Management Review, 11 (3), 585-600
Manz, C. C. (1992). Mastering self-leadership: Empowering yourself for personal excellence. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice Hall.
Manz, C. C. & Sims, H. (1996). Creating a Company of Heroes, Wiley, New York.
Mathieu, J., Ahearne, M., Jones L. & Rapp, A. (2008). High touch through high tech: The impact of salesperson technology usage on sales performance via mediating mechanisms. Management Science, 54 (4), 671-685
Nambisan, S., Agarwal, R. & Tanniru, M. (1999). Organizational mechanisms for enhancing user innovation in Information Technology. MIS Quarterly, 23, 365-395
Neck, C.P.& Houghton, J.D. (2006). Two decades of self-leadership theory and research: Past
developments, present trends, and future possibilities. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21, 270-295 Neck, C.P. and Manz, C.C. (1996). Thought self-leadership: the impact of mental strategies training on employee cognition, behaviour and affect. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 17, 445-467
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Moorman, R.H. & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviours and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction and organizational citizenship behaviours. Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), 107-142
Saga, V.L. & Zmud, R.W. (1994). The nature and determinants of IT acceptance, routinization, and infusion. Diffusion, transfer and implementation of information technology. Amsterdam, North-Holland: Elsevier. 67-86.
Shalley, C. E., & Gilson, L. L. (2004). What leaders need to know: A review of social and contextual factors that can foster or hinder creativity. Leadership Quarterly, 15: 33–53
Tichy, N.M. & Devanna, M.A. (1986). The transformational leader. Training and Development Journal, 40 (7), 27-32
Thite, M. (2000). Leadership styles in Information Technology projects. International Journal of Project Management, 18, 235-241
Van Aken, J., Berends, H. & van der Bij, H. (2012). Problem solving in Organizations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Wang, W., Li, X., & Hsieh, J.J. (2011). The contingent effect of personal IT innovativeness and IT self-efficacy on innovative use of complex IT. Behaviour & Information Technology, 1(10), 1-16
34
West, M. A., & Farr, J. L. (1990). Innovation at work. Innovation and creativity at work: Psychological and organizational strategies Chichester, United Kingdom: Wiley. 3-13
Yukl, G.A. (1989a). Leadership in organizations (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Yukl, G.A. (1989b). Managerial leadership: A review of theory and research. Yearly Review of Management, 251-289
Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in organizations. Pearson Education Limited, Harlow. 300-320
