Leadership styles and characteristics that are beneficial for creating emergence in organizations

(1)

Leadership styles and characteristics that are beneficial

for creating emergence in organizations

By

Sjoerd Norden

28

th

of February 2014

Master Thesis Strategic Innovation Management Supervisor: Jo van Engelen

Second Supervisor: Thijs Broekhuizen University of Groningen

(2)

- 2 -

Abstract

The complex problems which nowadays arise within the world might be overcome by emerging organizations. Where earlier models focussed on top-down creation of organizational improvements, the Stairway to Heaven model, which was recently developed, provides organisations with a tool in order to become emerging by using a strategic intent via a narrative approach. The strategic intent as well as the narrative creation is realised by an Imagineering process, during which leadership

influences might occur. The developer of the model questions whether leadership has a critical role during the process. The focus of this research is on leadership and provides recommendations on which styles of leadership would be most effective in the realisation of the first stage of the model. An ethnographic approach was chosen with observational data and survey among 14 participants during three meetings. Results indicate that transformational leadership characteristics have a positive influence on the creation of strategic intent and narrative.

(3)

- 3 -

Acknowledgements

There are a few people I would like to thank, since they were always there to help and contribute to my thesis.

First and foremost, I would like to thank my supervisor Jo van Engelen and my research group

members Jantien, Jos and Bianca. They have always been supportive during my research and quick to respond to my emails. They supported me in a generative, realistic and positive way during the meetings we had. This kept me optimistic about my thesis project.

Secondly, I want to thank the people of the Fenix who were always very cooperative and were willing to give their assistance in completing the data collection as well as the Stairway to Heaven process. Thirdly, I would like to thank my parents and sister as well as Koen, Dirk, Marten, Tom, Robert and Lisa. They were always ready to give me feedback, help me out with argumentation and ideas or were ready to provide off-topic entertainment.

(4)

- 4 -

1. Introduction

Senior lecturer Diane Nijs described in her PhD the ever changing and dynamic world we live in nowadays. Since the modern world is built up in a linear way, business will need a change to overcome the dynamic and complex problems we are facing at this point. Earlier models (Dalton, Hage and Aiken 1970, Lawrence and Greiner 1970, Mintzberg 1976) focussed on top-down creation of organizational improvements. The legitimacy to develop a future strategic intent is a process of socially acceptance (Pfeffer 1977, van de Ven 1980, Weick 1977). Several studies have shown that it becomes more difficult to mobilise people in order to innovate and change (Pfeffer 1977, van de Ven 1980, Weick 1977). Nijs came up with a new model called the Stairway to Heaven. In order to create organisational emergence, which focuses on organizational improvement, the model aims to realise a strategic intent by using a narrative approach during the emergent status. The theory is built upon the idea that in complex problems, everyone is connected to everything else. Linear top down solutions, which can be made based on great expertise, will no longer be a solution to solve our problems. Complex problems ask for more subtle, complex approaches which involve stakeholders to contribute creatively and collectively (Nijs 2013). The model of Nijs has not yet been researched empirically, this thesis will make a start with studying the model.

The Stairway to Heaven model is implemented by eight steps. The steps of the Stairway should be taken in order to realise a successful strategic intent. The first part of the model is concerned with narrative/strategic design, mind-shift, role and action. In these stages, a generative dialogue has to be started in order to create the awareness, interaction and commitment to fulfil the process with success.

Leadership roles during change have been widely researched in current literature, however the influence of leadership in this new complex, dynamic model has not yet been researched or proved. Several studies have already shown that the impact of leadership roles within the organization during a process of change might be influential to the success of such change (Avolio, Zhu, Koh and Bhata 2004, Battilana and Casciaro 2012, Brown and Cregan 2008, Carter, Armenakis, Field and Mossholder 2013, De Poel, Stoker and van der Zee 2012, Herold, Fedor, Caldwell and Liu 2008, Kezar 2013, Lundy and Morin 2013, Morrison and Vaioleti 2011, Oreg and Berson 2011, Paulsen, Callan, Ayoko and Saunders 2012, Santhidran, Chandran and Borromeo 2013, Shanker and Sayeed 2012, Vuckevic, Kwantes and Neal 2013).

Nijs expects leadership to play a less relevant factor in an emergence approach compared to conventional change approaches. The importance of leadership is described as “we agree with the fact that a leader can play a pivotal role in moving the system to a more complex level of functioning, but we dare to question whether a leader is sufficient or even whether a leader is a necessity to do so. In our opinion a dialogical mechanism, integrated in the identity of the system, can have at least the same effect as a leader can have” (Nijs 2013). With this argumentation, Nijs does not deny that there is space for leadership, it only questions whether it is necessary.

(6)

- 6 -

leadership styles are during the initial stage of the Stairway to Heaven model in which the strategic intent and narrative are developed.

The roles of leadership together with the characteristics of effective leadership (Covey 1998, Limbare 2012, Reddin 1970, Quinn, Faerman, Thompson and McGrath 1994) will be used in order to come up with useful recommendations for the model. To conduct this explorative research, a literature review will be done as well as a practical case study in order to give further insight in leadership roles to the model. Therefore, the main question of this research will be:

How do leadership styles influence the creation of the narrative and strategic intent when using the Stairway to Heaven process?

The practical application of the model will be used to illustrate the theoretical insights for the

different kinds of leadership styles in the developed model. The implementation will take place in the Dutch healthcare industry. This industry has recently been confronted with new legislation from the government. A report which tries to show where innovation emerges or could emerge in the future was published after this (Idenburg 2012). Within this industry, a practical case will be worked out in order to see whether the model and its potential expansion can be beneficial. This practical

application will be conducted by meetings, observations and questionnaires in order to reveal which leadership styles are there and what effect they have on the Stairway to Heaven process.

Chapter two will describe the Stairway to Heaven model in more detail and will focus on the initial stage of the model. Furthermore, different theories about leadership styles will be explained. These theories will be used to formulate propositions. Chapter three describes the methodology that was used during the case study in order to test the propositions. Chapter four gives insight in the

(7)

- 7 -

2. Background

2.1 Stairway to Heaven model

The Stairway to Heaven model tries to evoke the emergence of complex problem solving. Instead of clear cut top-down linear solutions (Dalton 1970, Hage 1970, Mintzberg 1976), a more

interconnected approach is needed. In order to create solutions for these problems, Nijs argues that the involvement of stakeholders will gain creative and collective solutions. This more joined-up approach, will allow the stakeholders involved to adapt ideas and directions which are beneficial to all stakeholders. The involvement of a more complex, working together, joined up competency will be needed by the managers of today and tomorrow. Strategizing by common design, the Stairway to Heaven study presents and evaluates the design approach of Imagineering. Imagineering (Weick 2006, Wentzel 2006) is a design approach that tries to evoke an effect of ‘rippling through and emerging into something big’ by liberating the imagination and the collective creativity in an

envisioned direction. This is done in such a way that it becomes an engine in sustainable change and value innovation (Weick 2006, Wentzel 2006).

The Stairway to Heaven model tries to accomplish transformative change (Dunne and Dougherty 2012). This change is implemented by small but well-designed interventions in the micro processes. Transformative change exists of the management of words (language) instead of people.

Transformative organizing tries to create a context in which change supports creativity and

innovation; and creativity and innovation drives change (Dunne 2012, Nijs 2013: 24). Transformative change tries to transform the dialogue instead of the people involved in the dialogue. As Nijs states, “Social constructionism suggests that changes in the way people talk to each other creates changes in the way people act” (Ferdig and Ludema 2005, Gergen 1994, Nijs 2013:103, Shotter 1993). Arguments strongly influence the outcome of innovation (Peters 2012). In communication lies the key for transformative change. Social constructionism furthermore states that the qualities of the conversation we embody, determines the ways in which we jointly create the realities to which we aspire (Ferdig and Ludema 2005, Gergen 1994, Shotter 1993,). Therefore, changing the qualities of the conversation, including who talks to whom, when, where, why and about what, and in what way, can create change which can be effectuated in a sustainable way (Nijs 2013: 103).

The study of Nijs defines business logic as “the deep structure of value creation”. The change of this logic is defined as: “the process of transforming the deep structure of value creation in a way that a majority of individuals in an organization changes behaviour making it possible for the collective to function in a more complex environment” (Nijs 2013:94). Business models on the other hand are the more operational way of creating value. The Stairway to Heaven model tries to reach organizational emergence by starting an organizational change towards emergence.

(8)

- 8 -

Figure 1. Differences between earlier models and Stairway to Heaven model.

The Stairway to Heaven, which is also called Imagineering discursive process, is divided into eight steps. Each of these steps needs to be taken in order to let the Imagineering process be a success. Nevertheless, the space and line between the steps, also between two following steps, might not be clear during the process. The eight steps will now be shortly explained and illustrated (Figure 2). Step 1: Narrative/strategic design. This step focusses on the redesign of the business conception. During this process, three relevance criteria will cause an opportunity tension. These criteria are: relevance, relational and narrative translation. In this step, the first and eighth steps will be connected. The narrative that is chosen needs to be coupled with the strategic intent (which is formulated before the narrative) in such a way that it will meet the needs of all the steps in between. Step 2: Mind-shift. In this step, the focus lies on the process of starting a generative dialogue. As Nijs describes “stakeholders, as well employers as customers as other stakeholders are inspired by the shift of the organization from a shareholder inspired-orientation to a relevance orientation and they start to question and dialogue about the meaning of the shift”. This step will lead to a new strategic intent or innovation horizon.

Step 3: Rethinking role. As the title of this step already reveals, the new horizon will invite

stakeholders to think about their role in the collective movement that has been chosen in the second step.

Step 4: New action by re-combination. This step is a direct implication of the former, it suggests that involved stakeholders actively act to the new role or role that they assigned themselves within the collective movement. Key point in this step is to align their preferences with the strategic relevance. Step 5: Positive feedback. Feedback is necessary in order to show stakeholders whether or not their actions and contributions to the new movement is beneficial. The positive feedback mechanism will make stakeholders more eager to move or create steps in the strategic direction.

Step 6: Collective action. This stage asks for stabilization initiatives, since the Imagineering process has now got the whole organization and stakeholders rolling in a new direction. Individuals will start to reflect more and more on their possible role and contributions to the movement. They will try to find possibilities to combine the new movement to their concrete situations. Nijs argues that this step includes “developing basic principles, values and criteria for participation” (Nijs 2013:161). This can help to stabilize the movement on the desired quality level.

Model Stairway to Heaven (Nijs 2013) Earlier models (Mintzberg 1976, Dalton 1970, Hage 1970)

Aim Creating an emerging

organization

Change the organization

Focus Use Imagineering to create new future, narrative motivates people to change

Change the past and people

How to achieve Generative Dialogue in which narrative is used to realise strategic intent

(9)

- 9 -

Step 7: Emerging organization. The collective setting has now reached the status of an emerging organization due to the individual changes. This status enables the organization to function in a complex and open context. Since the organization is now dynamically creating value for society, the involved stakeholders are starting to think how co-creation with the organization will make

themselves more relevant.

Step 8: Strategic intent. This step is eventually defined by Nijs as “The field of value creation in which the organization can be relevant for society at large in a way that no other organization is able to do so”. In this stage, the strategic intent which is defined in the beginning of the process is realised.

Figure 2. The Imagineering discursive process of Organizational Emergence – “The Stairway to Heaven” Source: Nijs 2013:160

*

Focus of this study.

The focus of this study will be on the first stage of the model, the narrative and strategic design. Therefore, this stage will be explained in further detail. The stage tries to evoke collective creativity. The intention of the stage is to put the organization in an evolutionary more wanted direction. The purpose is not to change the past but envisioning the future by building on the collective creativity. During this stage, the strategic intent is formulated by using Imagineering (Weick 2006, Wentzel 2006). Imagineering tries to create an evolutionary more wanted direction by using collective creativity in order to envision the future (Nijs 2013). The Imagineering process is divided into three steps: inspiration, ideation and implementation (Nijs 2013). The inspiration phase is characterized by analysis and brooding, it tries to find the most relevant places to co-create value. Once the

(10)

- 10 -

(Pfeffer 1977, van de Ven 1980, Weick 1977), especially individual leadership styles (Covey 1998, Limbare 2012, Quinn 1994, Reddin 1970).

Covey (1998), a renowned management analyst, describes seven characteristics of effective

leadership. He developed these characteristics during years of experience of talking to managers and finding out what they did and how they worked, what their problems were and how they resolved them. The characteristics he came up with are built upon these experiences, Covey called them: being proactive, start with the end result formulated, start at the beginning, think in terms of win-win, try to understand before you want to be understood, work synergetic and keep everyone sharp. In three of his steps, think in terms of win-win, try to understand before you want to be understood and work synergetic, Covey explained his most important message. What he tried to point out is that a common third way of thinking needs to be created in order to create a common goal. This common goal is also the most important part of the first stage of the Stairway to Heaven process. Therefore, the description of leadership characteristics of Covey could be beneficial to show what is needed to employ effective leadership characteristics during the first stage of the Stairway model.

Think in terms of win-win. A closer look at the paradigms of human interaction showed Covey that there are six paradigms; win-win, win-lose, lose-win, lose-lose, win and nor a winner nor a loser. When creating a state of common interests and common advantages, the win-win situation is the most likely one to aim for. Furthermore, once a win-win situation is created, people are willing to create opportunities for themselves as well as for others. If this situation is created or is used to make people aware and direct them to this situation, everybody is willing to cooperate for the end goal. This avoids a situation of rivalry in which egoism and eagerness to win are the main sentiments. The win-win situation creates a third way, resulting in the generative dialogue, in which the common interests are involved. Therefore, this might be one of the most important steps to be made by managers in order to be an effective leader in the Stairway to Heaven model.

Try to understand before you want to be understood. This step and characteristic is all about personality and communication. One of the most important things to do as a manager is empathic listening. Try to understand what the opposite party is trying to say before giving a diagnose about the problem. An important factor in being an effective leader, according to Covey, is to understand this mechanism of human interaction. Once you understand what someone else is telling you, this person will also be more eager to listen to you. It also interacts with the step of win-win situations. Once there is a mutual understanding between two individuals it influences their way of acting which ensures generative dialogue.

(11)

- 11 - Figure 3. Lessons from Covey for creating a shared interest.

2.2 Leadership styles

In stage one, narrative and strategic design (Nijs 2013), the process focuses on social acceptance via communication. Within communication, the mutual acceptance and reaction of people is assured by the individual leadership style (Covey 1998, Limbare 2012, Quinn 1994, Reddin 1970). Leadership literature (Avolio 2004, Battilana 2012, Brown 2008, Carter 2013, De Poel 2012, Herold 2008, Kezar 2013, Lundy 2013, Morrison 2011, Oreg 2011, Paulsen 2013, Santhidran 2013, Shanker 2012, Vuckevic 2013) provides us with insights in the role of leadership during change processes. Some studies argue that it is reasonable to assume that, since there is enough evidence that leadership characteristics affect organizational performance, they will also have impact on change processes (Burke 2002). Furthermore, leadership characteristics are found to be important in keeping people satisfied and stimulate people to achieve desired work outcomes (De Dreu and West 2001, De Poel 2012). With regard to change and future goals, leadership characteristics are important to guide people towards this change and goals (Amabile, Schnitzel, Moneta and Kramer 2004, Covey 1989). Since these processes are based on social acceptance, the influence of leadership characteristics of the participants will always be present in the mutual communication (Pfeffer 1977, van de Ven 1980, Weick 1977).

2.2.1 Transactional vs. Transformational leadership styles

Within the research of leadership styles, there are two paths, the transactional (Bass 1990, Burns 1978, Kamisan and King 2013, Kuhnert and Lewis 1987, Yukl 1989) and transformational style (Avolio 2004, De Poel, 2012, Bass 1975, Bass 2006, Podsakoff, Mackenzie and Bommer 1996). Transactional leadership can be typified as leadership style which uses reward and punishment systems based on their power. This power is used to manipulate employees and other stakeholders in exchange of something of value (Bass 1990, Burns 1978, Kamisan 2013, Kuhnert 1987, Yukl 1989). This value might be provided in the sense of rewards or threats of punishment. These will be given for

accomplishing the objectives (rewards) or given for bad performances (punishments). Transactional

(12)

- 12 -

leadership styles are based on bureaucratic authority and legitimacy within the organisation (Tracey and Hinkin 1994). As Kamisan described in his comparing study, transactional leadership style “works best in several assumptions namely; the highly structural organisation, employees are motivated by rewards, high tendency for guidance and monitoring among the followers” (Kamisan 2013).

Transformational leadership styles can be characterized as a style which enables people to transform or change their followers´ beliefs and attitudes in such a way that they are willing to do more and perform better than they might reasonably be expected to (Avolio 2004, Bass 1975, Bass 2006, De Poel 2012, Podsakoff 1996). Transformational leadership is also called participative leadership. This is defined as leadership which focuses on the stimulation of employees and other stakeholders to participate in decision making. It is shown to be effective in stimulating positive work outcomes for employees (Kahai, Sosik and Avolio 1997, Somech 2003, Spreitzer 2007, Stoker, Looise, Fisscher and De Jong 2001).

Transformational leadership is expected to make stakeholders’ commitment to a particular change initiative much stronger (Herald 2008). Furthermore, people who exhibit transformational behavior appeal to followers’ and stakeholders’ sense of values and are able to get them to see a higher vision and to encourage them to exert themselves in the service of achieving that vision (Burns 1978). In order to come up with recommendations about leadership styles that are beneficial for the first stage of the Stairway to Heaven model, different leadership style classifications will be described. After the classifications, the described styles will be subdivided into transformational and

transactional leadership styles.

2.2.2 Classifications by Quinn and Reddin

2.2.2.1 Classifications by Quinn

Quinn (1994) described eight styles of leadership roles which are needed within organizations. These leadership styles are called: Facilitator, Mentor, Innovator, Broker, Producer, Director, Coordinator and Monitory. The roles are divided on two axes, inter-extern and flexible-structured (Figure 4). These two axes’ are used in order to create a natural dominant leadership characterization of people. The theory aims to show a natural tendency of people’s behaviour and uses eight possible leadership characterizations. The eight leadership roles will be explained in more detail.

Facilitator

The Facilitator is characterized as a person that facilitates cooperation. This person is eager to create teamwork. The purpose of this type of person is to create and sustain harmony by constantly

monitoring for conflicts. The strength of this person lies in the ability to use methods of conflict forecasting as well as the usage of participation structures. Relationship management is important for these people.

Mentor

(13)

- 13 - Innovator

Innovators are people who have a constant inspiration to find and discover new ways for the organisation to work. They are creative, have a strong intuition and can work in circumstances with high uncertainty. People, who are characterised as innovator, put trust in their experience and gut feeling. They are aware of the restricting effects of fear for new developments and eager to take and create time to really understand these new developments.

Broker

The Broker tries to build an external position. These people try to use their network and rhetoric mind-set in order to create capacity and contacts that can strengthen the ambitions of the firm. People with the characteristics of the Broker will put a lot of effort in the realisation of networks but will not interfere with individual members. As a consequence, they have a more facilitating role in creating new circumstances.

Producer

The Producer is driven by his or her own goals and tries to motivate people in order to complete these goals. These people are strongly task oriented. Producers are characterized by a high sense of responsibility and high productivity. They focus on their own internal motivation and try to adjust the motives of other people towards their goals.

Director

The Director is described as a typical leader. These people can create clear expectations from others and know how to realise these quickly. Furthermore, they solve problems in a strict and concise way. People who are characterized as a Director work very structured and formulate their goals and tasks clearly and effective. A task oriented focus in complex situations is also ascribed to these people. Coordinator

Coordinators are the people who look after the structure of the system. These people are reliable and work in a task oriented way. They act by the rules and try to keep things on track as was decided. Furthermore, they will use the formal instruments of the organization in order to conduct their tasks. Monitory

(14)

- 14 -

Figure 4. Roles of Quinn divided over two axes flexibility – structure and intern-extern. 2.2.2.2 Classifications by Reddin

Reddin (1967) used two fundamental personality variables to formulate his leadership styles: task orientation and relationship orientation. Task orientation has been defined as: (1) concern for production (Blake & Mouton), (2) Structure oriented (Carron) and (3) Initiation (Lewin, Lippitt and White). Characterizations of the relationship oriented variable are: (1) concern for people (Blake & Mouton), (2) consideration oriented (Carron) and (3) guidance (Lewin, Lippitt & White). (Reddin, 1967). Reddin described the four more integrated and relationship oriented leadership styles as more effective and the more separated and task oriented leadership styles as less effective. The four relationship oriented styles are: Bureaucrat, Developer, Benevolent Autocrat and Executive. The four task oriented styles are: Deserter, Missionary, Autocrat and Compromiser. These styles will now shortly be discussed in more detail.

Deserter

The Deserter is described as an uninvolved and passive leadership style. The Deserter is a person who often displays a lack of interest in both tasks and relationships. Therefore, this style is believed to be ineffective due to the lack of interest and negative effect on morale.

Missionary

(15)

- 15 - Autocrat

This leadership style is characterised by direct orders to associates and the leader usually assigns all decision making and controls to him or herself. Therefore, this leader has no concern for

relationships and has little confidence in others. Compromiser

This leadership style tries to minimize immediate pressures and problems. This type of leader attempts to keep those people around that avoid confrontation and express the least amount of negative criticism.

Bureaucrat

This leadership style is interested in the rules and procedures of doing their jobs. They want to maintain and control situations by their conscientious enforcements. Due to this strategy, this leader can mask his interests by simply following the rules.

Developer

This leadership style assumes that individual members of a group are contributors to the goals of the organization. They reach this commitment by letting them take part in the decision making process. These leaders try to create a work atmosphere which is conducive to maximizing individual

satisfaction and motivation. Benevolent Autocrat

This leadership style is aware of what is necessary from other people and situations. These persons know how to get things in a way without causing resentment. Benevolent autocrats create an environment which minimizes aggression towards their leadership and which maximize obedience to their commands.

Executive

Persons with this leadership characteristic are good motivators who set high standards, treat

everyone differently and prefer team management. This leader sees his job as effectively maximizing the effort of others in relationship to the short and long term tasks. Since everyone is different and every individual has different expectations, these leaders recognize that, in order to receive high standards on production and performance, everyone needs a different approach.

2.2.2.3 Subdivision leadership classification

The classification by Quinn can be divided into transformational and transactional leadership styles (Quinn 1994). The Facilitator, Mentor, Innovator and Broker, are more transformational (relation oriented) leadership styles. The Producer, Coordinator, Monitory and Director are more transactional (task oriented) leadership styles. (Figure 5)

The classification by Reddin can also be divided into transformational and transactional leadership styles (Reddin 1976). The Developer, Executive, Bureaucrat and Benevolent Autocrat are

(16)

- 16 - Figure 5. Subdivision leadership classification

2.3 Summary of theory

This study focusses on the question: How do leadership styles influence the creation of the narrative and strategic intent when using the Stairway to Heaven model?

The essence of the approach is to make everyone aware that a common goal (strategic intent) needs to be realised. Leadership styles can be separated into transactional and transformational. Since transformational leadership styles focus on the stimulation of other people (such as employees, stakeholders, colleagues, etc.) by searching for diversity in harmony, work synergetic and try to compromise, the theory suggest that these leadership styles are more beneficial to the first stage of the Stairway to Heaven.

Transactional leadership styles are based on manipulation, reward and punishments systems and bureaucratic authority. This leadership works best in highly structural organisations with a high tendency for guidance and monitoring among followers. These circumstances are tried to be avoided by the Stairway to Heaven model. The Stairway model tries to open-up the mind of all participants during the creation of the strategic intent and narrative. Therefore, transactional leadership styles might be less effective for the Stairway model.

These insights result in the formulation of two propositions for the first stage of the Stairway to Heaven model:

P1: Leadership styles which are more flexible, relationship and transformational oriented, will have an effective influence during the creation of the narrative and strategic intent.

P2: Leadership styles which are more structured, task and transactional oriented, will have a less effective influence during the creation of the narrative and strategic intent.

Leadership style Quinn Reddin

Transformational

Relation oriented

(17)

- 17 -

3. Methodology

3.1 Case

The practical application of this thesis will take place in the Dutch healthcare industry. This industry has recently been confronted with new legislation from the government. Based on these changes, a report which shows where innovation emerges or could emerge in the future was published

(Idenburg 2012). Within this industry, a practical case will be worked out in order to illustrate which leadership styles can be effective for the Stairway to Heaven model. This practical application will be conducted by three meetings in order to illustrate the different leadership styles. During the first stage of the Stairway to Heaven model, the focus of the case study will give special attention to the presence of leadership styles and the possible effective roles on the creation of the strategic intent and narrative. The used methodology addressed the propositions, formulated in the literature summary, in practice.

3.2 Data Collection & Measurement

During the case study, three meetings were arranged with the healthcare facility. During these meetings, the first stage of the Stairway to Heaven model was implemented. 14 participants took part during this implementation. These participants were asked to fill in a questionnaire which would provide us with a leadership characterization by Quinn (Appendix 1). Furthermore, observations were made during the meetings in order to find out which behaviour was shown by the respondents during the process. Since both quantitative (14 questionnaires) and exploratory data (observations) were collected, an ethnographic approach was chosen for this study. Within ethnographic research, definitions and meanings are defined at the case site (Hammersley 1990). Ethnographic social research is characterized by five qualities:

- Behaviour is studied under everyday conditions.

- Data is gathered from multiple sources, but observations are the primary data collection method.

- Data is collected in a raw form and relatively unspecified beforehand.

- The focus is often on a single setting or group which provides a relatively small scale of the research.

- The analysis of data involves interpretation of meanings and functions of human actions and mainly takes the form of verbal descriptions and explanations. Quantification and statistical analysis of this behaviour are playing a subordinate role.

This case study meets all five qualities. The results were used to provide explanations for the influence of leadership styles during the process.

The questionnaire which was used (Quinn), can be filled in by many native Dutch speaking professionals in a relative short time span. Due to the fact that the participants of the process wanted to contribute anonymously, the questionnaires were registered with letters. The questionnaires were filled in and collected before the observations. After finishing the

questionnaires, the results were worked out graphically and used to analyse the process. The results of the questionnaire were not shared with the participants. Therefore, the behaviour of the

(18)

- 18 -

(19)

- 19 -

4. Case

4.1 Case background

The facility that will be used for the research is called “the Fenix”, located in the city of Zwolle. The Fenix started in 2010 and contains several healthcare facilities or services. Within this centre, general practitioners, a pharmacy, a dietician, physiotherapists, speech therapists, podiatry,

hapto-therapists, skin and oedema therapists and psychologists are located in order to optimize the healthcare facilities of clients. Since the beginning of this century, healthcare facilities in the

Netherlands were generally separated according to their purpose. The initiative of the Fenix made it possible to put more facilities or services into one building, leading to further integration of clients’ data and the possibility for different therapists to share useful insights more easily. The aim of the participants in the centre is to provide good, high quality healthcare as an essential contribution to a healthy and safe society.

4.2 Case motive & process

Since this research project had to be done in a restricted time span, the application of the whole Stairway process would take too much time. Therefore, this case study focuses on the first stage of the model, the development of the strategic intent and the creation of a narrative. In order to implement this stage, the healthcare organization was contacted in order to take stock in which areas of innovation within the facility the Stairway model could be used. During the first meeting, the focus was on finding areas in which the model could be implemented. The psychologists and general practitioners who are working at the Fenix where asked to fill in the questionnaire of Quinn.

The first meeting had as result that a concrete question from the department of psychology in cooperation with the department of general practitioners and POH + GGZ1 was chosen to be subject of this case study. This subject had to do with new legislation for the Dutch healthcare industry. Both departments are cooperating to implement the consequences of this new policy with respect to the GGZ. They will come up with ‘’care indications’’ (zorgindicaties) for so called “care intensity

packages” (zorgzwaartepaketten). These packages will be used in both the healthcare facility as well as in the region where the facility is located. The application of the new legislation is appointed by the health care insurances in a top-down setting. The group of psychologists, general practitioners and POH + GGZ employees would like to implement this by using a generative dialogue in the form of the Stairway to Heaven model.

In their report “Bestuurlijk akkoord GGZ 2013-2014” (Bakker and Jansen 2013), Bakker and Jansen noted that the GGZ contributes to a healthy, resilient and safe society. It is important that within the GGZ, a balanced, varied supply of healthcare is provided in order to treat people with mental and psychological diseases. The intention and goal of policy should always aim for coherent healthcare which provide people who suffer from mental and psychological diseases with fast and effective treatments. The Dutch system provides three pillars through which this can be provided: HA + POH2,

1

POH + GGZ: Praktijk Ondersteundende Hulpverlening voor de Geestelijke GezondheidsZorg). It is the Dutch term for the support of general practitioners (POH) with respect to mental and psychological care (GGZ).

2

(20)

- 20 -

GBGGZ 3 and GGGZ4. In order to guarantee the quality and financial feasibility within the new legislation of the GGZ system, a change in patient flows from GGGZ toward GBGGZ and HA + POH is expected. The HA + POH is characterized by a strict policy in which mental and psychological diseases and disorders are recognized and treated in an accurate way. If necessary, people can be referred to the GBGGZ and GGGZ. Within the HA + POH, medicalization needs to be avoided as much as possible and professionals need to be aware about the fact that patients do not need to be curatively treated unnecessarily. In order to make the system stronger, the GBGGZ is reinforced with a uniform cost system based on “care intensity packages” which are coupled with the healthcare needs of the patient.

New rules related with sending people through the system of GGZ by general practitioners causes a shift in treatment processes. The so called “care intensity packages” are divided in four packages at this moment:

1. GBGGZ short (BK)5, this product is meant for people with light mental or psychological symptoms and diseases, scaled with low risk, a single image of possible low complexity and continuing or persistent complaints.

2. GBGGZ medium (BM)6, this product is meant for patients with average mental or

psychological symptoms and diseases with low to average risk, a single image of possible low complexity.

3. GBGGZ intense (BI)7, This product is meant for patients with severe mental or psychological symptoms and diseases with low to average risk, a single image of possible low complexity and duration of symptoms and complains.

4. GBGGZ chronic (BC)8, this product is meant for patients with instable or stable chronic mental or psychological symptoms and diseases with low to average risk. These patients are in need of maintenance treatment, care-related prevention and coordination.

With these four packages, the general practitioners, psychologists and patients have to come up with a system in which the patient receives the qualitative optimal treatment.

In order to finance these treatments, the Dutch organization of health insurance companies, CVZ 9 and the Dutch healthcare authority, NZA10 provided a framework of tariffs which will be worked out by the health insurance companies. These insurance companies have formulated tariff supplies with prescriptions which are provided to the health care professionals.

As a consequence, the insurance policies of patients often do not cover the new policies. The packages and products that are needed are often not in the rate coverage of the health care insurance companies. Due to this gap and problem, general practitioners (HA + POH), psychologists

3

GBGGZ: Generalistische Basis Geestelijke Gezondheidszorg. In English: Generalist Basis care for mental or psychological issues.

4_{GGGZ: Gespecialiseerde Geestelijke Gezondheidszorg. In English: Specialized mental or psychological}

healthcare.

5

BK: Behandeling Kort. In English: Short Treatment.

6_{BM: Behandeling Middel. In English: Medium Treatment} 7

BI: Behandeling Intensief. In English: Intensive Treatment

8

BC: Behandeling Chronisch. In English: Chronic Treatment.

9

CVZ: College voor Zorgverzekeringen

(21)

- 21 -

(GBGGZ) and patients are willing to start a process which ensures the patient with high quality affordable health care that will solve their symptoms and diseases.

General Practitioners and psychologists within the Fenix facility have already signed a contract which states that health care for patients within the facility will be guaranteed. During this process, the generative dialogue as described in the Stairway to Heaven model is used. The observations that were made specifically focused on the leadership styles that the professionals showed. The used questionnaire lead to a major leadership style which is based on the eight leadership styles of Quinn (Quinn 1994). These styles were used in order to see whether leadership styles did influence the generative dialogue and decision making process in order to come up with a useful narrative. After this first meeting, the professionals realised that in order to come up with a good narrative, it is also important to involve patients within the dialogue and process.

Due to the health care packages, certain things will change for the patients. As mentioned earlier in this research, the “care intensity packages” and insurance policies do not match at this moment. Therefore, the psychologists and general practitioners and POH decided to ask the patients how they see their role and interest within this health care innovation. This will be done during a stage that is not part of this research.

During the second meeting, psychologists from the region where the Fenix facility is located were asked to fill in the questionnaire which resulted in a leadership style typology by Quinn. Within this meeting, the generative dialogue about finding a way to match the new policy and patient needs was held in order to come up with a strategic intent and narrative.

(22)

- 22 -

5. Case results

This chapter will focus on the outcomes of the case study. The first part of this chapter (5.1) will discuss the results of the Stairway to Heaven model in this case (strategic intent and narrative). The second part of this chapter (5.2) will show the results of the questionnaire data and observational data. The third part of this chapter (5.3) will combine the results of the questionnaire data and observational data which were collected during the formulation of the strategic intent and narrative.

5.1 Strategic intent & Narrative

The strategic intent of the health facility is to provide good, high quality healthcare as essential contribution to a healthy and safe society. During the process of finding the narrative, the starting point of the group was: “Healthcare around the patient, not the patient around healthcare” (Zorg rond de patiënt en niet de patiënt rond de zorg). This quote, nevertheless, would not be sufficient to be used as a narrative since it was too long, did not fulfil the relevance and relational orientation, although it did cover the message of the strategic intent. Since it was not able to create a mind shift or positive feedback, a brainstorm session during the third meeting was organised in order to come up with a narrative that would be successful. The process seemed to be limited by the word “care” (zorg). In Dutch, this word means both to take care as well as to worry. Therefore, the search for a better word in the narrative needed to be done. The eventual narrative that was chosen to work with is called “Your well-being” (Uw Gezondheid).

This narrative can be used in very different situations as well as be combined to create mind shifts and action. For example it could be used in combination with a treatment: “Your health deserves the best care” (Uw gezondheid verdient de beste zorg) or awareness creation: “Your health is the most important possession” (Uw gezondheid is het meest waardevolle bezit). If we would directly couple the narrative to the strategic intent, we could, for example, use: “your health is insured/secured” (Uw gezondheid is verzekerd). This refers to the fact that the parties cooperate in the aim for qualitative affordable healthcare as well as it is also financial secured by the insurance companies since the three parties cooperate in order to fulfil the demands of these companies. Furthermore, the term “Your well-being”, is accessible for multiple interpretations and dialogues. For example, in future strategic design, the intent could be formulated to aim for health monitoring of the customer base of the facility. The aim to put “Your well-being” as the central narrative would then still be sufficient.

5.2 Participant leadership characterization

5.2.1 Questionnaire data

(23)

- 23 -

Figure 6. Results of Quinn questionnaire. The blue area refers to transformational leadership styles, the Red area refers to transactional leadership styles.

5.2.2 Observational data

During the three meetings, most decisions and steps during the conversations were made in

harmony and little discontent. Everybody seemed pleased with the chosen path, although sometimes people asked for a clarification of points made or information given.

In the first meeting, it was observed that the participants who were characterized by the Mentor style tried to support and help other participants in creating their argumentation and input towards the discussion. They acted in an accessible and open way. One of the Facilitator participants tried to create and sustain harmony at moments of indistinct and disagreement. This behaviour created a setting in which the group could create their goals and intent for the next meeting. The setting of the meetings as well as the behaviour of the participants, made it possible to evoke collective creativity by the creative team.

During the second meeting, the participant who was characterized as Innovator tried to encourage other participants to develop new visions for the strategic intent. The participant who was

(24)

- 24 -

visions. By acting in this way, the producer placed his arguments outside the group process. Participants who were characterized as Mentor, used metaphors, anecdotes and gags in order to create an open and safe environment to create the strategic intent and narrative. This setting had a positive influence on the collective creativity.

In the third meeting, at one point, the participant with a Producer leadership style intervened the decision making process by stating: “We should make this decision the way I suggested”. This suggestion was not based upon the common interests of all participants but a deviated personal opinion. The participant made this point in the process a critical moment. This occurred during the final formulation of the strategic intent. The other group members, especially Mentors and Innovator, reacted by asking this person to think in favour of the group process and mind-set necessary for the Stairway to Heaven model. After some discussion, the Producer eventually agreed to make the decision the way the group wanted to, which resulted in the narrative.

5.3 Results

Respondents who scored high on Mentor and Facilitator were great contributors to the dialogue. They were open for ideas of others and tried to complement to the argumentations of others. It became clear that respondents who were characterized as Producer did not always contribute in an effective and generative way to the discussion but did this from a personal or one-sided interest. The Innovator contributed in a cooperative way to the discussions and tried to come up with new ideas in order to focus on a more creative span. The Facilitators and Mentors sometimes pointed out

personal interests but the main argumentation was towards common interests and goals. During interventions there was also a clear distinction between reactions of the Mentor and Innovator in respect to the Facilitator and Producer. Mentors and Facilitators were more willing to think about suggestions or use these suggestions in their argumentation. Innovator and Producer participants sometimes ignored suggestions or did not use them. Furthermore, some of the Mentor and Facilitator participants asked me for suggestions or to recap what was discussed in my opinion. Innovators and the Producer did not do this.

More transformational leadership characteristics (Innovator, Facilitator, Mentor and Broker) tried to cooperate and create common interests and goals whereas the more transactional oriented

leadership characters (Producer, Director, Coordinator and Monitory) did not show this behaviour. Nevertheless, the transaction oriented people eventually agreed upon the suggestions and directions that were chosen. Throughout the process, the transactional character showed some cooperation but this was based on his/her own perspective.

People with a transformational leadership style tried to help other participants in order to understand the conversation. When someone did not understand a point that was made or

misunderstood arguments, those people tried to explain what was meant. Furthermore, participants with a more transformational leadership style had patient during the conversation. They did not seem to have problems with explaining their vision or point several times. The transformational people listened actively and where constantly participating to the discussion.

(25)

- 25 -

in the sense that the Facilitator, Mentors and Innovator tried to focus on the creation of common interests and goals. The Producer showed behaviour that did not contribute in a generative way of creating a narrative and strategic intent. However, in the end this participant agreed upon the decisions that were made by the group. This might be caused by the fact that the transformational leadership style characterizations were a majority in this group. The reaction of the person with a transactional leadership characterization during the further steps of the Stairway to Heaven model has not been observed.

(26)

- 26 -

6. Discussion and conclusions

The Stairway to Heaven model tries to evoke the emergence of complex problem solving. Within this model, it is expected that leadership roles play a less relevant factor in an emergence approach compared to conventional change approaches. Nijs does not deny that there is space for leadership, she only questions whether it is necessary and argues that it does not fulfil a critical role. This research tried to give insight in which leadership styles would be effective during the first stage of the model. The case study tried to give an illustration about leadership within the creation of a strategic intent and narrative. This research contributes by tying the Stairway to Heaven theory together with existing theory on leadership styles. The question that was central to this thesis is:

How do leadership styles influence the creation of the narrative and strategic intent when using the Stairway to Heaven process?

The literature study showed us that the representation of transformational leadership characteristics is desirable during the first stage of the Stairway to Heaven model. Nevertheless, transactional leadership characteristics could also be beneficial to the process. The propositions, resulted from the literature study, were tested in the case study. The results of the case study (questionnaire and observations) in relationship to the propositions will provide indicative conclusions.

P1: Leadership styles which are more flexible, relationship and transformational oriented, will have an effective influence during the creation of the narrative and strategic intent.

People with transformational oriented leadership characteristics, are more open and flexible towards influence of other contributors. These people might be most effective in the sense that their open, progressive attitude contributes towards the dialogue of forming a strategic intent and narrative. During the case, participants with transformational leadership characteristics (Mentor, Facilitator and Innovator)did have an effective influence during the creation of the narrative and strategic intent. By explaining their points of view again or in another way and clarify what they meant, these people created a setting of openness and understanding. This more joined-up, collaborative approach seemed to be better understood and implemented by participants with a transformational

leadership style in respect to participants with a transactional leadership style (Producer). In respect to transactional and transformational leadership characteristics, transformational leadership characteristics seems to make stakeholders commitment to a particular change initiative stronger. P2: leadership styles which are more structured, task and transactional oriented, will have a less effective influence during the creation of the narrative and strategic intent.

(27)

- 27 -

6.1 Research limitations & Future research

This study focussed on the first stage of the Stairway to Heaven model illustrated with a case in the healthcare sector. The influence of leadership styles during the other stages has not been tested. Future research can take a closer look on these stages.

The group of participants in this case contained 14 participants, which is a relatively high amount for this process compared to other studies. However, in this case this appeared to be no impossibility. Since this group showed a majority of transformational leadership characterizations (only one participant had transactional leadership characteristics), future research can focus on groups with a more transactional majority or more balanced structure. This can, for example, be found in other industries. Industries which are known for their more transactional oriented leadership

characteristics, e.g. the bank sector. People with transactional leadership characteristics could for example decide to be loyal to the transactional leader but can frustrate the idea of the Stairway to Heaven model during the further stages of the process.

The acceptance of the narrative by all other stakeholders and the realisation of the strategic intent are not included in the scope of this study. The tentative findings of this research can be studied in more detail in multiple approaches. A methodological limitation, implicated by the chosen

assessment technique, is that the leadership style results are based upon the self-image people have about their leadership styles.

6.2 Theoretical & Managerial implications

This was the first study that took a closer look towards the role of leadership styles during the first stage of the Stairway to Heaven model, in which the strategic intent and narrative are created. This study showed that the composition of the creative group is a point of interest during the first stage of the Stairway model. The scientific focus, for Nijs, could be on working out and substantiate that this composition needs sufficient diversity of leadership characteristics. It can be desirable to have at least transformational leadership characteristics within this composition. However, the presence of transactional leadership characteristics can have a positive influence as well.

(28)

- 28 -

7. References

Amabile, T.M., Schatzel, E.A., Moneta, G.B. & Kramer, S.J., (2004). Leader behaviors and the work environment for creativity: Perceived leader support. The Leadership Quarterly, 15:5-32.

Avolio, B.J., Zhu, W., Koh, W. & Bhata, P., (2004). Transformational leadership and

organizational commitment: mediating role of psychological empowerment and moderating role of structural distance. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 25:951-968.

Bass, B.M., (1990). Bass & Stogdills handbook of leadership. Free Press: New York. Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E., (2006). Transformational leadership. Erlbaum: Mahwah, New Jersey.

Bass, B.M., Valenzi, E.R., Farrow, D.U. & Solomon R.J., (1975). Management styles associate with organizational, task, personal, and interpersonal contingencies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60:720-29.

Bakker, P. & Jansen, P. (2013). Generalistische Basis GGZ Verwijsmodel en productbeschrijving. Bureau HHM.

Battalina, J. & Casciaro, T., (2012). Change agents, networks and institutions: A contingency theory of organizational change. Academy of Management Journal, 55(2):381-398.

Brown, M. & Cregan, C., (2008). Organizational change cynicism The role of employee involvement. Human Resource Management, 47(4):667-686.

Burns, J. M., (1978). Leadership. Harper & Row: New York.

Burke, R. J. (2002). Organizational change: Theory and practice. Sage: Thousand Oaks, California.

Carter, M.Z., Armenakis, A.A., Field, H.S. & Mossholder, K.W., (2013). Transformational leadership, relationship quality, and employee performance during continuous incremental organizational change. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 34:942-958.

Covey, S.R., (1998). De zeven eigenschappen van effectief leiderschap. Wolters-Noordhoff: Groningen.

Dalton, G.W., Lawrence, P.R., & Greiner, L.E., (1970). Organizational change and development. Irwin-Dorsey Press: Homewood, Illinois.

De Dreu, C.K.W. & West, M.A., (2001). Minority dissent and team innovation: The importance of participation in decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(6):1191-1201.

De Poel, F.M., Stoker, J.L. & van der Zee, K.I. (2012). Climate control? The relationship between leadership, climate for change, and work outcomes. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(4):694-713.

(29)

- 29 -

Ferdig, M.A. & Ludema, J.D., (2005). Transformative interactions: Qualities of conversation that heighten the vitality of self-organizing change. Research in organizational change and

development 15: 171-207.

Gergen, K. J., (1994). Realities and relationships: Soundings in social construction. Harvard University Press: Boston, Massachusetts.

Hage, J., & Aiken, M., (1970). Social change in complex organizations. Random House: New York.

Hammersley, M., (1990). What’s wrong with Ethnography? The Myth of theoretical description. Sociology 24(4):597-614.

Herold, D.M., Fedor, D.B., Caldwell, S. and Liu, Y., (2008). The effects of transformational and change leadership on employees’ commitment to change: A multilevel study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2):346-357.

Idenburg, P.J. & van Schaik, M., (2013). Diagnose Zorginnovatie: Over technologie en ondernemerschap. Scriptum: Den Haag.

Kahai, S.S., Sosik, J.J., & Avolio, B.J., (1997). Effects of leadership style and problem structure on work group process and outcomes in an electronic meeting system environment. Personnel Psychology, 50:121-146.

Kamisan, A. & King, B.E.M., (2013). Transactional and Transformational Leadership: A Comparitive Study of Difference between Tony Fernandes (Airasia) and Idris Jala (Malaysia Airlines) Leadership Styles from 2005-2009. International Journal of Business and Management, 8(24):107-116.

Kezar, A., (2013). Understanding sense making/sense giving in transformational change processes from the bottom up. Higher Education, 65:761-780.

Kuhnert, K. W., & Lewis, P., (1987). Transactional and transformational leadership: A constructive/developmental analysis. Academy of Management Review, 12(4):648–657.

Lundy, V. & Morin, P., (2013). Project Leadership influences resistance to change: The case of the Canadian public service. Project Management Journal, 44(4):45-64.

Limbare, S., (2012). Leadership styles & Conflict management styles of executives. The indian journal of industrial relations 48(1):172-180.

Nijs, D., (2013). Imagineering the Butterfly Effect: Complexity and Collective Creativity in Business and Policy. Groningen.

Mintzberg, H., Raisinghani, D. & Theoret, A., (1976). The structure of “unstructured” decision processes. Administrative Science Quarterly 21: 246-275.

(30)

- 30 -

Oreg, S. & Berson, Y., (2011). Leadership and employees’ reactions to change: The role of leaders’ personal attributes and transformational leadership style. Personnel Psychology, 64:627-659.

Paulsen, N., Callan, V.J., Ayoko, O. & Saunders, D., (2012). Transformational leadership and innovation in an R&D organization experiencing major change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 26(3):595-610.

Peters, K., (2012). Argument and Innovation: Theoretical and empirical explorations in knowledge claim evaluation. PhD Groningen, Ipskamp BV: Enchede.

Pfeffer, J., (1977). Power and resource allocation in organizations. In Barry M. Staw and Gerald R. Salancik. New Directions in Organizational Behavior. St. Clair Press: Chicago.

Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., & Bommer, W.H., (1996). Transformational leader behaviors and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment, trust and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of management, 22(2):259-298.

Quinn, R.E., Faerman, S.R., Thompson, M.P. & McGrath, M.R. (1994). Handboek management vaardigheden. Schoonhoven: Academic Service.

Reddin, W.J., (1967). The 3-D management style theory A typology based on task and relationships orientation. Training and Development Journal, 21(4):8-18.

Santhidran, S., Chandran, V.G.R. & Borromeo, J., (2013). Enabling organizational change leadership, commitment to change and mediating role of change readiness. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 14(2):348-363.

Shanker, M. & Sayeed, O.B., (2012). Role of transformational leaders as change agents: Leveraging effects on organizational climate. The Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 47(3):470-484.

Shotter, J., (1993). Conversational realities: Constructing life through language. London, Sage: Thousand Oaks, California.

Somech, A., (2003). Relationships of participative leadership with relational demography variables: A multi-level perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(8):1003-1018.

Spreitzer, G., (2007). Giving peace a chance: Organizational leadership, empowerment and peace. Journal of Organizational behaviour, 28(8):1077-1095.

Stoker, J.I., Looise, J.C., Fisscher, O.A.M. and de Jong, R.D., (2001). Leadership and innovation: Relations between leadership, individual characteristics and the functioning of R&D teams.

International Journal of Human Resource Management, 12(7):1141-1151.

Tracey, J. B., & Hinkin, T. R., (1994). Transformational leaders in the hospitality industry. The Cornell H.R.A. Quarterly, 35(2):8-24.

(31)

- 31 -

Vuckovic, A., Kwantes, P.J. & Neal, A., (2013). Adaptive decision making in a dynamic environment: A test of a sequential sampling model of relative judgment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 19(3): 266-284.

Weick, K.E., (1977). Enactment processes in organizations. In Barry M. Staw and Gerald R. Salancik. New Directions in Organizational Behavior. St. Clair Press: Chicago.

Weick, K.E. (2006). The role of imagination in the organizing of knowledge. European Journal of Information Systems 15: 446-452.

Wentzel, A., (2006). Conjectures, constructs and conflicts: a framework for understanding Imagineering in: Pyka A. & Hanusch H. Applied evolutionary economics and the knowledge economy. Bodmin, Cornwall: MPG Books Ltd. pp. 13-39.

(32)

- 32 -

8. Appendix

8.1 Questionnaire for the roles of Quinn

Source: www.assesmentsonline.nl Naam:

Functie:

Functie binnen centrum: Vragenlijst:

Deze vragenlijst bestaat uit 32 vragen. Geef bij deze vragen aan in hoeverre deze op u van toepassing zijn. Let hierbij dat links invullen weinig toepassing op u heeft en rechts veel. De antwoorden op deze vragen zullen worden verwerkt waarna er een leiderschapsprofiel van u wordt gemaakt. U zult dan ook merken dat de meeste vragen zullen gaan over een manier van leidinggeven of invloed uitoefenen. Heeft u zich nog nooit in een dergelijke situatie bevonden, probeer dan een antwoord te geven dat in een dergelijke situatie het beste bij u zou passen.

Vraag 1. Ik breng veel innovatieve ideeën in

Weinig Veel

Vraag 2. Ik probeer mijn invloed aan te wenden bij mijn superieuren

Weinig Veel

Vraag 3. Ik benadruk bij mijn mensen de noodzaak om onze doelen te bereiken

Weinig Veel

Vraag 4. Ik benadruk regelmatig het doel van mijn team

Weinig Veel

Vraag 5. Ik zoek naar innovatie en potentiele verbeteringen

(33)

- 33 -

Vraag 6. Ik stel de rol van mijn team duidelijk

Weinig Veel

Vraag 7. Ik organiseer processen

Weinig Veel

Vraag 8. Ik houd bij wat er in mijn team gebeurt

Weinig Veel

Vraag 9. Ik zoek wederzijds geaccepteerde oplossingen voor openlijke ruzies

Weinig Veel

Vraag 10. Ik houd het team strak georganiseerd

Weinig Veel

Vraag 11. Ik luister naar privé problemen van mijn mensen

Weinig Veel

Vraag 12. Ik houd open gesprekken over botsende meningen

Weinig Veel

Vraag 13. Ik stimuleer mijn mensen om resultaat te halen

Weinig Veel

Vraag 14. Ik haal de conflicten tussen mijn teamleden naar boven en werk aan een oplossing

(34)

- 34 -

Vraag 15. Ik zie erop toe dat men zich aan de regels houdt

Weinig Veel

Vraag 16. Ik behandel elk teamlid met gevoel en zorg

Weinig Veel

Vraag 17. Ik experimenteer met nieuwe concepten en procedures

Weinig Veel

Vraag 18. Ik toon aandacht en betrokkenheid naar medewerkers

Weinig Veel

Vraag 19. Ik probeer de capaciteit van mijn team te verbeteren

Weinig Veel

Vraag 20. Mensen in hogere posities luisteren naar mij

Weinig Veel

Vraag 21. Ik stimuleer inspraak bij besluitvorming

Weinig Veel

Vraag 22. Ik controleer notulen, verslagen en dergelijke op tegenstrijdigheden

Weinig Veel

Vraag 23. Ik los planningsproblemen op

(35)

- 35 -

Vraag 24. Ik laat mijn team doelen bereiken

Weinig Veel

Vraag 25. Ik los problemen op een heldere creatieve manier op

Weinig Veel

Vraag 26. Ik anticipeer op problemen bij het doorstromen van werk

Weinig Veel

Vraag 27. Ik controleer werk op fouten

Weinig Veel

Vraag 28. Ik verkoop mijn ideeën op een overtuigende manier aan het management/de leiding

Weinig Veel

Vraag 29. Ik zie er op toe dat de doelen op tijd worden gehaald

Weinig Veel

Vraag 30. Ik stel prioriteiten en de werkinrichting van de afdeling duidelijk

Weinig Veel

Vraag 31. Ik maak me druk om het welzijn van mijn groepsgenoten

Weinig Veel

Vraag 32. Ik beïnvloed beslissingen die op hoger niveau worden genomen

Leadership styles and characteristics that are beneficial for creating emergence in organizations