ENABLER, ENGAGER, MOTIVATOR AND SUPPORTER
Communicational Roles of a Leader Promoting Employees’ Innovativeness
Master’s Thesis,
Innovation Management Tiina Weman (259205) April 17, 2016
UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND Faculty of Social Sciences and Business Studies Department of Business
Innovation Management
WEMAN, TIINA M.: Enabler, Engager, Motivator and Supporter. Communicational Roles of a Leader Promoting Employees’ Innovativeness.
Master’s Thesis, 76 pages and 2 appendices (4 pages) April 2016
Keywords: innovation, innovativeness, leadership communication, communicational roles The objective of this study was to examine different dimensions of leadership communication promoting employees’ innovativeness and to explore how leaders engage and inspire, and on the other hand, motivate, challenge and encourage their subordinates. This study aimed at providing a multifaceted and thick description of how leaders actually use communication to promote innovativeness in organizations.
The main theoretical concept of this study was the Wheel of leadership communication on innovations by Zerfass and Huck (2007). The concept examines communication comprehensively taking into account the dimensions that are relevant to leadership communication: cognitive, affective, conative, and social dimension. The other key concepts were transformational leadership and communicative leadership. All of the concepts highlight the meaning of visionary leadership, inspirational communication, personal involvement and supportive approach as key characteristics for leaders.
The data of this research was collected by conducting face-to-face interviews with eight leaders from Finnish SME’s during January 2016. For analysis, qualitative content analysis was utilized.
The findings of this research propose that leadership communication promoting employees’
innovativeness has four relevant dimensions - cognitive, affective, conative, and social – that requires multidimensional skills from leaders. In order to make innovation happen, leaders have to master different communicational roles, and act as enablers, engagers, motivators and supporters at the same time. This requires of them emotional and social sensibility, flexibility and adaptability to different people and situations.
Leadership communication is significant to the success of any organization but it is especially crucial when talking about innovation management. Creative thinking and employees’
commitment to the innovation process are essential to make innovations happen. Leaders and managers have to pay close attention to the ways they lead people and ask themselves whether they inspire and engage, motivate and support their personnel, and if they create an open atmosphere for communication. Today’s leadership and communication skills have many dimensions that leaders have to master to be able to succeed in their demanding tasks.
Considering the communicational roles of a leader promoting employees’ innovativeness, and studying and training the skills related to them can help executives and managers to become better leaders. Seeing people as an asset and treating them accordingly makes a huge difference.
ITÄ-SUOMEN YLIOPISTO
Yhteiskuntatieteiden ja kauppatieteiden tiedekunta Kauppatieteiden laitos
Innovaatiojohtaminen
WEMAN, TIINA M.: Mahdollistaja, sitouttaja, motivoija ja tukija. Johtajien viestinnälliset roolit työntekijöiden innovatiivisuuden edistämisessä.
Pro gradu –tutkielma, 76 sivua ja 2 liitettä (4 sivua) Huhtikuu 2016
Avainsanat: innovaatio, innovatiivisuus, johtamisviestintä, viestinnälliset roolit
Tutkimuksen tavoitteena oli tarkastella johtamisviestinnän erilaisia ulottuvuuksia työntekijöiden innovatiivisuuden edistämisessä ja selvittää, kuinka johtajat sitouttavat ja inspiroivat, ja toisaalta motivoivat, haastavat ja tukevat alaisiaan. Työn pyrkimyksenä oli tarjota monipuolinen ja vahva kuvaus siitä, kuinka johtajat tosiasiassa hyödyntävät viestintää edistääkseen organisaatioiden innovatiivisuutta.
Tutkimuksen keskeisin teoreettinen käsite oli Zerfassin ja Huckin (2007) johtamisviestinnän kehä suhteessa innovaatioihin. Käsite tarkastelee viestintää kokonaisvaltaisesti ottaen huomioon ulottuvuudet, jotka ovat oleellisia johtamisviestinnässä: kognitiivinen, affektiivinen, konatiivinen ja sosiaalinen ulottuvuus. Muita tärkeitä käsitteitä olivat transformationaalinen johtajuus ja kommunikatiivinen johtajuus. Kaikki nämä käsitteet korostavat visionäärisen johtamisen, inspiroivan viestinnän, henkilökohtaisen osallistumisen ja tukea antavan lähestymistavan merkitystä johtajien tärkeimpiä ominaisuuksia ajateltaessa.
Tutkimustieto kerättiin haastattelemalla kahdeksaa johtajaa suomalaisista pk-yrityksistä tammikuun 2016 aikana. Analyysissä hyödynnettiin kvalitatiivista sisällönanalyysiä.
Johtamisviestinnällä, joka pyrkii edistämään työntekijöiden innovatiivisuutta, on neljä oleellista ulottuvuutta – kognitiivinen, affektiivinen, konatiivinen ja sosiaalinen – ja nämä ulottuvuudet vaativat moniulotteisia taitoja johtajilta. Saadakseen innovaatioita aikaiseksi johtajien täytyy hallita erilaisia viestinnällisiä rooleja ja toimia yhtä aika sekä mahdollistajina, sitouttajina, motivoijina että tukijoina. Tämä vaatii johtajilta emotionaalista ja sosiaalista herkkyyttä, joustavuutta sekä sopeutuvuutta erilaisiin ihmisiin ja tilanteisiin.
Johtamisviestinnän merkitys on tärkeä minkä tahansa organisaation menestykselle, mutta se on erityisen keskeinen innovaatiojohtamisessa. Luova ajattelu ja työntekijöiden sitoutuminen innovaatioprosessiin ovat elintärkeitä innovaatioiden toteutumiselle. Johtajien ja päälliköiden täytyy kiinnittää huomioita tapoihin, joilla he johtavat ihmisiä ja kysyä itseltään, inspiroivatko, sitouttavatko, motivoivatko ja tukevatko he henkilöstöä, ja pystyvätkö he luomaan avoimen ilmapiirin viestinnälle. Nykypäivän johtaja- ja viestintätiedot sisältävät monia ulottuvuuksia, jotka johtajien täytyy taitaa menestyäkseen vaativissa tehtävissään. Huomion kiinnittäminen johtajan viestinnällisiin rooleihin työntekijöiden innovatiivisuuden edistämisessä, ja niihin liittyvien taitojen opiskelu ja harjoittelu voivat auttaa paremmaksi johtajaksi kasvamisessa.
Merkityksellistä on, että ihmiset nähdään ja heitä kohdellaan voimavarana.
FOREWORD
In the beginning of the research process, I was interested in this topic since I wanted to develop my skills as communications expert. My wish was to have a deeper insight into leaders’
communicational practices, possibilities and challenges in promoting innovativeness and leading creative people. Gladly I can say that I have achieved these goals now.
I would like to thank the interviewees of this study as it wouldn’t have been possible without their contribution. I am also grateful to my supervisor, Helena Kantanen, who has answered to my questions, given new useful perspectives and supported me.
Finally, I would like to thank my loved ones who have believed in me during the whole process.
Kuopio, the 17th of April, 2016 Tiina Weman
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ...6
1.1 Aspects of leadership communication on innovations ...6
1.2 The purpose of the study ...8
1.3 Key concepts of the study ...8
2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ...11
2.1 Concept of innovation ...11
2.2 The relation of innovation and communication ...13
2.3 Leaders’ communicational skills in leading creative people ...18
2.4 Visionary leader and transformational leadership ...21
2.5 Theoretical framework in this study ...24
3 METHODOLOGY ...30
3.1 Methodological approach ...30
3.2 Data collection ...33
3.3 Analysis of data ...36
4 RESULTS OF THE STUDY ...40
4.1 Dimensions of leadership communication promoting employees’ innovativeness ...41
4.1.1 Cognitive dimension: enabling communication and sharing new ideas ...41
4.1.2 Affective dimension: engaging people to the company’s vision ...44
4.1.3 Conative dimension: motivating people to innovate ...49
4.1.4 Social dimension: supporting the innovative atmosphere ...53
4.2 Leaders’ communicational practices, possibilities, and challenges ...56
4.3 Summary of the key results ...58
5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ...62
5.1 Summary of the study ...62
5.2 Key findings and theoretical implications ...64
5.3 Evaluation of the study and limitations ...67
5.4 Managerial implications and future research ...70
REFERENCES ...72
APPENDIX ...77
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Aspects of leadership communication on innovations
The role of communication in innovation management has been acknowledged widely in the academic literature earlier. Numerous studies suggest that open communication plays a critical role in driving innovation and leading creative people (Kivimäki, Länsisalmi, Elovainio, Heikkilä, Lindström, Harisalo, Sipilä & Puolimatka 2000; Mumford, Scott, Gaddis & Strange 2002; Gilley, Dixon & Gilley 2008). In some studies, communication is connected with the concept of transformational leadership (Conger 1991; Sarros, Cooper & Santora 2008). There is also research of leadership communication and its impact on employees’ innovative behavior (Conger 1991; De Jong & Den Hartog 2007).
Zerfass has studied widely the relation of innovation, communication and leadership. He (2005) has developed a framework of innovation readiness which emphasizes the importance of communication in sustaining organizations’ ability to innovate. Strategic communication functions as a facilitator on three levels: macro, meso and micro level of which the latest underlines the meaning of leadership communication aimed at employees. Zerfass and Huck (2007) state that leaders should communicate the innovative spirit by enhancing organizations’
culture and climate, as well as empowering employees to put their effort on the innovation.
It has also been studied how CEOs and other top executives see the role of communication for business success. Leaders seem to think that personal communication is crucial for their organizations, and most of them agree that communication is part of strategic processes and planning (Bronn 2014). For top executives, the prime goals of communication are motivating employees and conveying corporate trust (Zerfass & Sherzada 2014). CEOs also understand the importance of corporate character, corporate reputation and corporate values for the business plan. Therefore, they expect more hard data-driven communications measurement and interpretation to be able to construe complex business environment we have today (Arthur W.
Page Society 2013).
To my knowledge, there seems not to be much qualitative research of the relation of communication, leadership and employees’ innovativeness. However, qualitative research and particularly interview research is widely used in social sciences, for example in psychology,
sociology, media studies as well as in marketing and business. The reason for this is that interviewing offers a way to collect empirical data about the social world by asking people to talk about their life experiences (Holstein & Gubrium 1997, 113). Qualitative research focuses on human thinking, our ways of learning, knowing and understanding ourselves as persons (Kvale & Brinkman 2009, 12). More precisely, qualitative interviewing tries to see the world through eyes of subjects, and reveal the meaning of their experiences in order to explain them scientifically (Kvale & Brinkman 2009,1). With qualitative approach, I seek to contribute to the literature by providing a multifaceted description of how leaders actually use communication to promote innovativeness in organizations.
Practical relevance of this topic lies in the current economic situation in Finland together with ever increasing global competition which calls for a fresh kind of thinking in organizations. As a small nation, we can’t lean on our home market but we have to orientate ourselves towards global markets with clever and unique products and services. In order to create a culture and climate where people feel free to look for new ideas, leaders need to improve their communication skills: they have to be able to inspire and challenge, guide and listen at the same time to get the best out of their employees.
The main theoretical framework in my thesis is the Wheel of leadership communication on innovations (Zerfass & Huck 2007). The concept examines communication comprehensively taking into account all the main dimensions that are relevant to leadership communication:
cognitive, affective, conative, and social dimension. However, when comparing the concept of leadership communication on innovations to the leadership styles as transformational leadership and communicative leadership, I found many similarities between them. All of the concepts highlight the meaning of visionary leadership, inspirational communication, personal involvement, and supportive approach as key characteristics for leaders. Therefore, together with the concept of Zerfass and Huck (2007), I also consider the dimensions of transformational leadership by Rafferty and Griffin (2004), and the framework of communicative leadership presented by Johansson, Miller and Hamrin (2014) as a broader framework for my empirical study.
1.2 The purpose of the study
The purpose of this study is to examine different dimensions of leadership communication promoting employees’ innovativeness. I am especially interested how leaders engage and inspire, an on the other hand, motivate, challenge and encourage their subordinates. My aim is also to get a deep insight into top executives’ perceptions and experiences in leadership communication, and to understand the possibilities and challenges leaders face in promoting innovativeness.
The main research question of my study is: How do leaders use communication to promote employees’ innovativeness in Finnish SMEs? Sub-questions are: How do leaders engage and inspire their subordinates? How do they motivate, challenge and encourage their people? What are the best practices leaders use and the biggest challenges they face in communication with employees?
To contribute to the existing literature, I seek to provide a multifaceted and thick description of how leaders actually use communication to promote innovativeness in organizations. I also hope that findings of my study will help CEOs and other top executives as well as managers to pay attention to and improve their companies’ communicational practices relating to leading innovative people.
To answer my research questions, I will review the literature of leadership communication and leadership styles related to innovation and creativity. The methodological approach of this study is qualitative. For data collection, I will conduct semi-structured interviews with open-ended questions. To analyze the data, I will utilize qualitative content analysis with abductive approach.
1.3 Key concepts of the study
The key concept in my thesis is the Wheel of leadership communication on innovations (Zerfass
& Huck 2007). The concept examines communication comprehensively taking into account all the main dimensions that are relevant to leadership communication: cognitive, affective, conative and social dimension. Cognitive dimension is a start for leadership communication since it raises knowledge about new ideas, processes and technologies by managing meaning
in interactions with employees. Affective dimension refers to engaging employees in sharing their own thoughts and ideas of an innovation. As conative dimension, leaders must also motivate employees to participate the innovation process and contribute to the managing of meaning with external stakeholders. Social dimension creates a foundation for other dimensions as its main factors - the organizational culture, climate, and the spirit of innovation – construct the social infrastructure for innovation.
The reason for choosing Zerfass’ and Huck’s concept is the holistic and pragmatic way it scrutinizes interaction and communication in organizations in the context of innovation. It pays attention to fundamental human behaviors: we reason and create beliefs and perceptions of the social world around us by cognitive, affective and conative means (Insko & Schopler 1967;
Breckler 1984). However, when comparing the concept of leadership communication on innovations to the leadership styles as transformational leadership and communicative leadership, I found many similarities between them. All of the concepts emphasize the meaning of visionary leadership, inspirational communication, personal involvement and supportive approach as key characteristics for leaders. As a broader framework for my empirical study, I also consider the dimensions of transformational leadership by Rafferty and Griffin (2004) including leadership vision, inspirational communication, intellectual stimulation, supportive leadership, and personal recognition, and the framework of communicative leadership presented by Johansson, Miller and Hamrin (2014), which proposes that the most important aspects of leaders’ communication behavior are structuring, facilitating, relating, and representing.
Previous literature acknowledges the importance of communication in leading innovative organizations. It also shows that leading creative people requires multidimensional skills from leaders. With my synthesis of the concepts presented above, I seek to get a deep understanding of different dimensions of leadership communication promoting employees’ innovativeness.
This thesis is structured as follows: after an introduction I review the literature by defining the key concepts of this research and by discussing the relation of innovation and communication, leaders’ communicational skills in leading creative people, as well as the role of visionary leader and transformational leadership. In the end of the literature review, I present my synthesis as the theoretical framework of this study. After that I discuss the methodological approach, and describe in detail how I have done data collection and analysis to get the results. The
findings are presented by different dimensions of leadership communication promoting employees’ innovativeness. I also discuss leaders’ communicational practices, possibilities and challenges, and summarize the key results. To conclude my thesis, I present a summary of the study, key findings and theoretical implications, evaluation of the study and limitations, as well as managerial implications and future research.
2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
2.1 Concept of innovation
Innovation is one of the major determinants of ensuring the success of companies and the progress of societies. The speed of change in business environment is unforeseen: in global competition companies are relocating their functions, and jobs are shifting to the countries where labor force is the cheapest. To be able to survive in this turbulence, companies and regions have to strengthen their abilities to innovate. Innovations’ wider impact on social and economic environment has also been recognized in the academic world, and innovation studies have been popular especially in Europe (Fagerberg & Verspagen 2009). However, innovation as such is a broad concept, and it has been defined in multiple ways in previous literature. I concentrate on organizational innovation since it consists of elements that can be controlled by the company (Crossan & Apaydin 2010).
Damanpour (1991, 556) describes innovation as “a new product or service, a new production process technology, a new structure or administrative system, or a new plan or program pertaining to organizational members”. Different types of innovation can be seen as pairs:
technical and administrative, product and process, and radical and incremental. Technical innovations are about products, services, and technologies whereas administrative innovations concern structure and processes of an organization. Product innovations are products and services for user needs, and process innovations are new ideas and methods for the organization’s production and service operations. Radical innovations cause constitutive changes in activities of the organization as they are something totally new. Incremental innovations are seen as minor alterations that don’t cause that much change in existing practices.
Damanpour and Wischnevsky (2006) separate innovation-generating organizations from innovation-adopting organizations by radicalness of innovation. Innovation-generating organizations create products, services or technologies for the market whereas innovation- adopting organizations assimilate products, services or technologies to be used for the first time in the organization. Developing innovations is crucial for innovating-generating organizations’
success while adopting innovations can contribute to organizational success but it is not necessarily the critical factor.
According to Crossan’s and Apaydin’s systematic review of the literature (2010), innovations can be viewed in two roles: as a process or as an outcome. Both include various dimensions of which I illustrate in Figure 1. The dimensions that innovation as a process include are level, driver, direction, source, and locus. Level refers to whether innovation process is at an individual, a group or a firm level. Driver for innovation can be internal or external, the former could be available resources in the organization and the latter a good market opportunity.
Likewise, source may be an internal invention or an adoption from outside of the organization.
Direction implies to innovation process, whether it is top-down or bottom-up. Locus deals with openness of an innovation process: it can be closed happening inside the organization or open taking place in networks.
Figure 1: Dimensions of innovation (Modified from Crossan & Apaydin 2010, 1167)
Innovation as an outcome involves four dimensions: form, magnitude, referent, and type. Form is about whether an innovation is a product, a service, a process or a business model. Magnitude and referent relate to each other: incremental innovation can be new to the organization whereas more radical innovation can change the whole market. Type refers to innovation being administrative or technical. Nature pertains both innovation as a process and innovation as an outcome. Product innovations are often visible whereas service or process innovations may remain hidden. What comes to the interrelationship of the two roles of innovation, innovation as a process comes before innovation as an outcome. (Crossan & Apaydin 2010.)
Innovation as a process
Level
(Individual/Group/Firm)
Driver
(Resources/Market opportunity)
Direction
(Top-‐down/Bottom-‐up)
Source
(Invention/Adoption)
Locus
(Firm/Network)
Innovation as an outcome
(Product/Service/Process/Business Model)Form Magnitude
(Incremental/Radical)
Referent
(Firm/Market/Industry) (Administrative/Technical)Type Nature
(Tacit/Explicit)
At a level of analysis, Crossan and Apaydin (2010) propose three determinants of innovation:
innovation leadership, managerial levers, and business processes. In this discussion, I concentrate on innovation leadership since leaders have a big role in companies’ success. The concept of innovation leadership refers to the upper echelon theory stating that leaders’ strategic choices and behaviors are based on their background characteristics like values, experiences and personalities (Hambrick & Mason 1984). It seems that leaders’ attitudes toward innovation have a significant impact on organizations’ ability to innovate. Organizations that wish to create innovations should pay attention to choice of their top executives.
A concept closely related to innovation is innovativeness. Damanpour (1991) defines it the adoption of innovations in organizations and organizational features that increase or decrease innovativeness. For measuring innovativeness, Subramanian and Nilakanta (1996) propose a multidimensional approach containing three aspects: mean number of innovation adoptions over time, mean time of innovation adoption over time, and consistency of the time of innovation adoption. There is evidence that companies who adopt more innovations and are consistent in their time of adoption enhance their efficiency. Also, companies adopting innovations early seem to gain more market share than those who are late adopters.
(Subramanian 1996.)
Even though innovations are seen as vital for companies’ success they are also considered difficult to implement. On the basis of the study of Salaman and Storey (2002), managers’
perceptions of innovation are two-parted. Managers think of innovation crucial for their business but at the same time as something that requires courage and involves risks. They see the opportunities but also organizational obstacles that can hamper innovation. One of the most remarkable problems relating to managing innovation is the management of relations in the organization. This is partly due to lack of communication and misunderstandings between different work units. (Van de Ven 1986.)
2.2 The relation of innovation and communication
As noted above, being innovative is not enough but companies need to communicate their new ideas, products, and services to different stakeholders. Zerfass (2005) has developed the concept of Innovation Readiness which emphasizes organizational and societal factors to companies’
and regions’ ability to innovate. Companies and regions should orientate themselves towards their stakeholders and use communication as means for coordinating actions and adjusting interests of them. Communication works on three levels: at macro-level communication means public debate about novelties and information flow within national and regional clusters and innovation systems; at meso-level it helps companies to reinforce their competitive advantages;
and at micro-level it is about leadership communication aimed at employees. Companies themselves consider customers and employees to have the biggest impact on their success (Mast, Huck & Zerfass 2005). Top executives name motivating employees and conveying corporate trust as prime goals for communication (Zerfass & Sherzada 2014). However, there still are internal barriers in information sharing and communication that hamper innovations to become public (Huck 2006).
The lack of proper communication in companies makes implementing of innovations ineffective. Therefore, Zerfass and Huck (2007) suggest that communication should be an essential part of the innovation process and build relationships with employees who are one of the most important stakeholders within the process. Employees are very often the ones who come up with new ideas, and their commitment to the innovation process is crucial. Leaders should give their subordinates enough space for developing their ideas and responsibility to implement them successfully. This requires excellent leadership communication that can explain to employees why and for what they should give their energy and commitment, and motivate them on a personal and emotional level (Zerfass & Huck 2007; Linke & Zerfass 2011).
Zerfass and Huck (2007) have developed the Wheel of leadership communication on innovations which consists of four dimensions: cognitive, affective, conative, and social dimension. All of these dimensions are relevant to leadership communication. They are illustrated in Figure 2 which I have adapted from the concept presented by Zerfass and Huck (2007).
Figure 2: Wheel of leadership communication on innovations (Modified from Zerfass & Huck 2007, 119)
Cognitive dimension is a starting point for leadership communication as it builds up knowledge about new ideas, processes, and technologies by managing meaning in interactions with employees. This is done through stories and visualization, simple examples, and concrete applications. Affective dimension means engaging employees in sharing their own thoughts and ideas of an innovation. This can be achieved by ensuring trustful relationships and interaction with feedback between executives and subordinates as well as positive surroundings in a workplace. As conative dimension, leaders must also motivate employees to take part in the innovation process and contribute to the managing of meaning with external stakeholders.
Motivating includes challenging and encouraging, freedom, and responsibility as well as rewards. Social dimension is a basis for other dimensions as its main factors - the organizational culture, climate, and the spirit of innovation – make the social infrastructure for innovation.
I will use the Wheel of leadership communication on innovations as a main framework in my study since it shows all the major aspects of communication leaders have to master to be able to promote employees’ innovativeness. I am especially interested in how leaders engage and inspire, and on the other hand, motivate, challenge and encourage their subordinates.
•Contributing to Innovations
•Rewards
•Challenge & encourage
•Freedom & responsibility
•Frames of reference
•Integrating followers
•Identification
•Integration
•Participation
•Motivation
•Sharing the Vision on Innovations
•Trustful relationships
•Interaction with feedback
•Emotional bond
•Positive surroundings
•Knowing about an Innovation
•Simple to grasp examples
•Concrete applications
•Benefits for followers
•Stories & visualization
•Frames of references
Cognitive
Dimension Affective Dimension
Conative Dimension Social
Dimension
A concept very close to leadership communication is communicative leadership. Hamrefors (2010) has studied what kind of knowledge and skills communicators must develop to support organizational efficacy. He has identified four areas of knowledge: communication through processes, communication through structures, communication through social interaction, and communication to and from the environment. Similarly, four areas of skills and consistent roles have been found: system designer, mediator, coach, and influencer. As a knowledge area, communication through processes concerns how fluently processes flow, as well as the way communication is coordinated between organizational levels and implemented in processes. A related role is system designer who takes part in designing of organizational processes and structures. Communication through structures implies to transparency of the organization and its impact on employees’ understanding of the organizational mission. The role of mediator is to create meaning in order to ease co-operation. This requires negotiation and persuasion skills.
Communication through social interaction is about refining social patterns in the organization in order to raise organizational efficacy. This is done by coaching which means in this context developing the communication skills of others. Communication to and from the environment refers to how the organization communicate, influence, and change knowledge with other actors in the surroundings. Influencer handles social processes by affecting and changing peoples’
minds. These roles are not played by different persons but a communicator must have all four skills mentioned above.
The concept of communicative leadership has been broadened in recent literature. Johansson, Miller and Hamrin (2014) see the concept as communicative behaviors leaders direct to their everyday responsibilities. They (2014, 155) define a communicative leader as “one who engages employees in dialogue, actively shares and seeks feedback, practices participative decision making, and is perceived as open and involved”. The most important aspects of leaders’ communication behavior are structuring, facilitating, relating, and representing. I demonstrate these central communicative behaviors in Table 1.
Table 1: Profile of central communicative behaviors of leaders
Manager-‐employee level Team or unit level Initiating structure Set goals and expectations
Plan and allocate tasks Define mission
Set goals and expectations Plan and allocate tasks Select
Sense-‐making
Facilitating work Coaching and training
Performance feedback Coaching and training Performance feedback Problem solving
Encourage self-‐management
Relational dynamics Openness Supportiveness Conflict management
Openness Supportiveness Conflict management
Representing Upward influence Active monitoring Networking
Manage boundaries Provide resources
Outcomes Role clarity Commitment Engagement
Performance
Cohesion Confidence Group processes
Performance
Reference: Johansson, Miller & Hamrin 2014, 151.
Initiating structure at the manager-employee level means that managers plan and give out tasks as well as set targets and expectations for employees. At the team or unit level, managers also define mission and contribute to sense-making of different situations for employees.
Facilitating work at the manager-employee level includes coaching, training, and giving feedback to employees in order to help them to succeed. At the the team or unit level, managers encourage employees to problem solving and self-management. Relational dynamics refers to maintaining open and supportive communication climate where employees feel secure to ask questions or give feedback and can be sure that they are listened to. Representing at the manager-employee level implies to managers being able to influence to upper management to get resources. At the team or unit level, managers are expected to actively monitor their surroundings for opportunities and threats as well as network. As a result of communicative
leadership and its impact on role clarity, commitment and engagement at the individual level as well as cohesion, confidence, and enhanced group processes at the team or unit level, employees perform better at both levels.
2.3 Leaders’ communicational skills in leading creative people
The impact of leadership communication on employees’ attitudes and performance has been widely discussed over the recent decades. Smircich and Morgan (1982) suggest that above all, leadership is a social process which is constructed through interaction. Leaders must define reality in ways that make sense to employees, and if succeed, employees engage themselves to achieve organizational goals. In this sense-making, the use of language, stories, drama, and other symbolic constructions are very important. Especially, the power of the spoken word is emphasized in constructing an inspirational and powerful vision that motivates and provides meaning for employees (Conger, 1991).
There is evidence that information flow inside the organization and effective communication play a key role in generating innovations. In practice, managers should develop organized ways to share information and facilitate discussion in order to enhance organizational innovation (Monge, Cozzens & Contractor 1992). The study of Kivimäki et al. (2000) shows that innovative performance is connected to several aspects of communication, such as encouragement of initiatives and evaluation of performance. Other important factors for employees’ innovativeness are a participative climate and collaboration. A direct and interpersonal communication is seen especially effective when leading motivated employees whereas use of mediated communication (company newsletters, videos etc.) may be useful in creating an atmosphere where people are interested in and receptive to innovation (Johnson, Donohue, Atkin & Johnson 2001).
Leaders of innovative organizations inspire their employees, make them feel proud of working in the company, and create a sense of community across the firm (Thamhain 2003). Appropriate communication and motivation of employees are strongly related to effective implementation of change and innovation (Gilley et al. 2008). It seems that failures in innovation implementation are mostly due to leaders’ inability to communicate, inspire, and encourage.
Mumford et al. (2002) propose that the leadership of creative people calls for an integrative
style. It is about the leader organizing expertize, people and relationships in a manner that bring novel ideas forth. The integrative style includes three major phases: idea generation, idea structuring and idea promotion. In idea generation, the leader helps others to come up with new ideas. Idea structuring means guiding the work, setting output expectations, as well as recognizing and integrating following projects. In an idea promotion phase the leader makes sure that the new projects and implementation of novel ideas get support from the whole company.
The role of different leadership behaviors and leaders’ social and communication skills in leader effectiveness have also been investigated in previous literature. In order to enhance employees’
innovativeness, leaders should consult them more frequently, provide them enough space to decide how to do their job and acknowledge people’s initiatives. They should also create an open and safe atmosphere, build transparent communication processes, and give employees tasks that are challenging enough. (De Jong & Den Hartog 2007.) Leaders who have advanced skills in emotional and social communication seem to be valued also for their leadership effectiveness (Riggio, Riggio, Salinas & Cole 2003).
Riggio and Reichard (2008) have developed a framework for emotional and social skills that affect leader and managerial processes and outcomes. They suggest that emotional and social communication consist of three basic skills which are skill in expression or encoding, skill in noticing and decoding messages from others, and skill in monitoring and controlling communication behaviors. These skills operate in both emotional and social level. As I show in Table 2, the skills in emotional level are emotional expressiveness, emotional sensitivity, and emotional control. Emotional expressiveness means the capability to communicate nonverbally, particularly when messages involve emotions. Emotional sensitivity refers to ability to receive and interpret the nonverbal and emotional messages from the environment. Emotional control is about regularizing nonverbal and emotional expressions. Correspondingly, the three skills in social level are social expressiveness, social sensitivity, and social control. Social expressiveness implies to capability to communicate verbally and engage others in social interaction. Social sensitivity is ability to listen and ‘read’ social situations as well as social rules and norms. Social control is composed of smart role-playing and tactfulness in social life.
Table 2: The emotional and social skills framework: definitions and leader behaviors
Skill Definition Examples of leader behaviors
Emotional expressiveness Skill in communicating nonverbally, especially in sending emotional messages, nonverbal expression of attitudes, dominance, and interpersonal orientation
Motivating/inspiring followers;
conveying positive affect and regard
Emotional sensitivity Skill in receiving and interpreting the emotional and nonverbal
communications of others
Understanding followers’ needs and feelings; establishing rapport
Emotional control Skill in controlling and regulating one’s own emotional and nonverbal displays, especially conveying or masking emotions on cue
Regulating inappropriate emotions; masking or stifling the expression of strong emotions
Social expressiveness Skill in verbal expression and the ability to engage others in social discourse
Public speaking; persuasion;
coaching
Social sensitivity Skill in interpreting the verbal communication of others;
ability to engage others in social discourse
Effective, active listening;
regulating and monitoring of social behavior
Social control Skill in role-‐playing and social self-‐presentation
Being tactful; leader impression management; social and leader self-‐efficacy
Reference: Riggio & Reichard 2008, 172.
According to the findings of Riggio and Reichard, the most crucial skills for leaders’ success are emotional and social sensitivity. In practice, leaders must be able to actively listen to both verbal and nonverbal messages, understand social situations as well as be empathetic towards employees. Emotional expressiveness is a key element in charismatic and transformational leadership as it refers to leaders’ capability to communicate an inspirational and powerful vision that is meaningful for employees (Conger 1991; Riggio & Reichard 2008). In the next chapter, I will discuss more of these leadership styles and their impact on employees’ innovativeness.
2.4 Visionary leader and transformational leadership
As mentioned earlier, the power of the spoken word is emphasized in constructing an inspirational and powerful vision that motivates and provides meaning for employees. For instance, Conger (1991) states that expressive and inspiring use of language has a significant role in transformational leadership. This leadership style has its origins in charismatic leadership which first evolved into transactional leadership, and later advanced into transformational leadership (Bottomley, Burgess & Fox 2014). Charismatic leaders strive for change with idealized vision that is strongly articulated to followers. They are experts in utilizing unconventional means and personal power to change the status quo and make their followers to agree with the changes. At the same time, they also concern for their followers’
needs. (Conger & Kanungo 1987.)
Charismatic leadership’s motivational effects are associated with leaders’ ability to increase the intrinsic value of efforts and goals. This is done by engaging employees’ self-concepts (self- expression, self-esteem, self-worth and self-consistency) for the benefit of the organizational mission (Shamir, House & Arthur 1993). Kirkpatrick and Locke (1996) propose that charismatic and transformational leadership styles have at least three elements in common:
communicating a vision, implementing the vision, and demonstrating a charismatic communication style. Particularly important is the meaning of a vision in motivating employees.
Bass (1999) defines transformational leadership as leader behaviors that motivate employees to perform according to organizational goals and beyond expected levels of work performance through idealized influence (charisma), inspirational leadership, intellectual stimulation, or individualized consideration. Idealized influence and inspirational leadership are shown when the leader articulates a vision and how it can be achieved, acts exemplary and sets high standards of performance, and is determinant and confident. When the leader enables followers to be more innovative and creative, he provides them with intellectual stimulation. Individualized consideration is displayed by taking employees’ developmental needs into consideration and supporting their development.
As an extension to Bass’ concept, Rafferty and Griffin (2004) present five more focused aspects of transformational leadership: vision, inspirational communication, intellectual stimulation,
supportive leadership, and personal recognition. These sub-dimensions are illustrated in Figure 3.
Figure 3: Sub-dimensions of transformational leadership (Created from Rafferty & Griffin 2004, 339)
Rafferty and Griffin emphasize the relationship between vision and outcomes, and especially the importance of inspirational communication when articulating an appealing vision to employees. Executives and managers can have a positive impact on their employees when they express optimistic and encouraging messages to personnel. Also, intellectual stimulation has positive effects on employees as it gets them to engage to the organization. Supportive leadership is about caring for followers and their individual needs. Personal recognition refers to rewarding and acknowledging employees who have done good job and reached certain targets.
The role of transformational leadership as a promoter of organizational innovation has been discussed widely in previous literature. Transformational leaders are seen to improve organizational innovation by creating an organizational culture in which employees feel free to talk about and experiment with new ideas and approaches (Jung, Chow & Wu 2003). This is
Transformational leadership
Vision
Inspirational communica-‐
tion
Intellectual stimulation Supportive
leadership Personal
recognition
crucial for companies’ success as the most innovative companies in the future are considered to be the ones that are capable of building a lasting environment for creative individuals and innovative societies (Pervaiz 1998). A favorable culture for innovations is also been constructed through articulating a vision, setting high expectations of performance and giving personal support to employees (Sarros, Cooper & Santora 2008).
Martins and Terblanche (2003) have identified five determinants of organizational culture that induce creativity and innovation: strategy, structure, support mechanisms, behavior that encourages innovation, and open communication. According to my own work experience, leaders can greatly affect all of the determinants but especially leader behaviors seem to be important: how leaders support idea generating and risk taking, how they handle mistakes and conflicts, and how they ensure an open communication climate. Thus, leaders have a huge responsibility for building an organizational culture since - depending on their actions - leaders can either encourage or restrict innovation in their organizations. There is evidence that adhocracy cultures that stresses flexibility, change, and external orientation have a positive effect on innovation whereas control orientating hierarchical cultures restrain innovation (Naranjo-Valencia, Jiménez-Jiménez & Sanz-Valle 2011).
Besides organizational level, transformational leadership affects positively also at the individual level. Gumusluoglu and Ilsev (2009) suggest that transformational leaders have favorable impact on employees’ creativity through psychological empowerment. In other words, leaders allow employees to make their own decisions and initiate. In addition, transformational leaders’ behaviors positively influence employees’ emotional well-being, and create expectations of creative performance. Further, individual-level creativity enhances organizational innovation.
The relation of transformational leadership, product innovation and performance in the context of SMEs has also been investigated in academic literature. O’Regan, Ghobadian and Sims (2006) propose that transformational leadership together with adequate human resources, empowerment culture, and staff creativity enhance innovation in SMEs. According to the study of Matzler, Schwarz, Deutinger and Harms (2008), transformational leadership articulates a vision, affects on intrinsic motivation of personnel in product development, and establish basic circumstances for their work. Also, it can directly enhance company performance. The authors suggest that transformational leadership might be a suitable leadership style for SMEs since
entrepreneurs themselves are usually the ones who lead the firms providing the vision and direction, and communicating their expectations to personnel.
Previous literature indicates that effectiveness of leadership behaviors depends on how well they fit with the values and needs of societies. According to the study of Elenkov and Manev (2005), different cultures value different aspects of leadership behaviors, and that has to be taken into account in order to influence organizational innovation. For instance, the Russian culture with high power distance, quite low individualism and relatively high masculinity calls for charisma, openly demonstrated confidence and power as key characteristics for leaders. On the other hand, in the Swedish culture (that is quite close to the Finnish culture) with low power distance, high individualism and low masculinity leaders have to utilize inspirational motivation and intellectual stimulation. Boies, Fiset and Gill (2015) suggest that it depends on desired outcome what dimensions of transformational leadership it is useful to emphasize.
When comparing intellectual stimulation and inspirational motivation, it seems that intellectual stimulation is crucial for creative performance whereas inspirational motivation has impact on task performance. According to Marques (2015), the leadership behaviors that have the most significance today are those which enable employees to communicate and change ideas with their leaders as well as to grow and take charge of their work.
2.5 Theoretical framework in this study
The main theoretical framework in my thesis is the Wheel of leadership communication on innovations (Zerfass & Huck 2007). The concept examines communication comprehensively taking into account all the main dimensions that are relevant to leadership communication:
cognitive, affective, conative, and social dimension. Cognitive dimension is a start for leadership communication since it raises knowledge about new ideas, processes and technologies by managing meaning in interactions with employees. Affective dimension refers to engaging employees in sharing their own thoughts and ideas of an innovation. As conative dimension, leaders must also motivate employees to participate the innovation process, and contribute to the managing of meaning with external stakeholders. Social dimension creates a foundation for other dimensions as its main factors - the organizational culture, climate, and the spirit of innovation – construct the social infrastructure for innovation.
The reason for choosing Zerfass’ and Huck’s concept is the holistic and pragmatic way it scrutinizes interaction and communication in organizations in the context of innovation. It pays attention to fundamental human behaviors: we reason and create beliefs and perceptions of the social world around us by cognitive, affective, and conative means (Insko & Schopler 1967;
Breckler 1984). However, when comparing the concept of leadership communication on innovations to the leadership styles as transformational leadership and communicative leadership, I found many similarities between them. All of the concepts highlight the meaning of visionary leadership, inspirational communication, personal involvement and supportive approach as key characteristics for leaders. Therefore, together with the concept of Zerfass and Huck (2007), I chose to consider also the dimensions of transformational leadership by Rafferty and Griffin (2004), and the framework of communicative leadership presented by Johansson, Miller and Hamrin (2014) as a broader framework for my empirical study. I illustrate the relations of the concepts in Figure 4.
Figure 4: Overlapping concepts of leadership communication on innovations, transformational leadership, and communicative leadership (Created from Zerfass & Huck 2007, 119; Rafferty
& Griffin 2004, 339; Johansson, Miller & Hamrin 2014, 151)
Five dimensions of transformational leadership proposed by Rafferty and Griffin (2004) include leadership vision, inspirational communication, intellectual stimulation, supportive leadership,
Leadership communication on
innovations
Communicative leadership Transformational
leadership
and personal recognition. Vision and inspirational communication are interrelated since articulating an appealing picture of the future for the organization requires expression of positive and encouraging messages that motivate and convince employees. Intellectual stimulation refers to increasing employees’ interest in and knowledge of problems as well as improving their capability to consider problems in novel ways. Supportive leadership is about caring for followers and their individual needs. Personal recognition refers to rewarding and acknowledging employees who have done good job and reached certain targets.
According to communicative leadership, the most important aspects of leaders’ communication behavior are structuring, facilitating, relating, and representing. Initiating structure means that managers plan and give out tasks, set targets and expectations as well as define mission and contribute to sense-making of different situations for employees. Facilitating work includes coaching, training, giving feedback to employees, and encouraging them to problem solving and self-management. Relational dynamics refers to maintaining open and supportive communication climate where employees feel secure to ask questions or give feedback and can be sure that they are listened to. Representing implies to managers being able to influence to upper management to get resources, and actively monitor their surroundings for opportunities and threats. (Johansson, Miller and Hamrin 2014.)
As synthesis, I link the dimensions of leadership communication on innovations with the different aspects of transformational leadership and communicative leadership described above.
The synthesis is illustrated in Figure 5.
Figure 5: Leadership communication promoting employees’ innovativeness
(Created from Zerfass & Huck 2007, 119; Rafferty & Griffin 2004, 339; Johansson, Miller &
Hamrin 2014, 151)
First, cognitive dimension as leaders’ ability to raise employees’ awareness of new ideas, processes and technologies relates to transformational leadership’s intellectual stimulation which refers to increasing employees’ interest in and knowledge of problems as well as improving their capability to consider problems in novel ways. Initiating structure follows right after raising awareness: leaders define mission, set targets, and plan and give out tasks for employees. Affective dimension is all about inspirational expression of vision that resonates with employees, creating an open and positive atmosphere for interaction, and feedback between leaders and subordinates as well engaging employees to share their own ideas of innovation.
Conative dimension refers to motivational factors that are important for employees’
willingness to take part in the innovation process. Personal recognition plays a big role in this as it implies to rewarding and acknowledging employees who have done good job and reached certain targets. Facilitating work is crucial for employees’ ability to succeed in contributing to innovations: coaching, training, giving constructive feedback to employees, and encouraging them to problem solving and self-management. Social dimension is a basis for other
•Contributing to Innovations
•Rewards
•Challenge & encourage
•Freedom & responsibility
•Frames of reference
•Personal recognition
•Facilitating work
•Integrating followers
•Identification and integration
•Participation and motivation
•Supportive leadership
•Representing
•Sharing the Vision on Innovations
•Trustful relationships
•Interaction with feedback
•Emotional bond
•Positive surroundings
•Inspirational communication
•Relational dynamics
•Knowing about an Innovation
•Simple to grasp examples
•Concrete applications
•Benefits for followers
•Stories & visualization
•Frames of references
•Intellectual stimulation
•Initiating structure
Cognitive
Dimension Affective Dimension
Conative Dimension Social
Dimension
dimensions since it indicates how favorable the organizational culture and climate are for innovation. In a sense of leadership behaviors, it is about identifying employees’ needs and answering to them, ensuring resources, and monitoring new opportunities and threats to the organization.
In addition to the dimensions mentioned above, I am convinced that leaders’ emotional and social skills make a difference whether they succeed in their organizational task. Especially emotional sensitivity and social sensitivity are vital for leaders: skills in interpreting the verbal and nonverbal communication of others particularly when the messages are emotional, and capability to engage other people in conversation (Riggio & Reichard 2008). Also as stated before, emotional expressiveness is one of the key characteristics of transformational leadership implying to leaders’ ability to communicate an inspirational vision that is meaningful to organizational members (Conger 1991; Riggio & Reichard 2008).
As previous literature shows, leading creative people and innovative organizations requires multidimensional skills from leaders. Humans are entities with different strengths and weaknesses, with various skills and knowledge which makes interaction between individuals intriguing and challenging at the same time. Leaders make no exception to this as they are not supermen but humane people with their own history which affect their behavior in social situations in organizations. Academic literature acknowledges the importance of communication in leading innovative organizations, and defines the most suitable leader behaviors and skills for succeeding in such a task.
I wish to contribute to the existing literature by examining how leaders actually use communication to promote employees’ innovativeness in practice. I am particularly interested in how leaders engage and inspire, and on the other hand, motivate, challenge and encourage their subordinates. My aim is also to understand the possibilities and challenges leaders face, find the best communicational practices they use, and get a deeper insight into top executives’
perceptions and experiences in leadership communication. I hope that findings of my study will help CEOs and other top executives to pay attention to and improve their companies’
communicational practices relating to leading innovative people.
I believe that leaders of innovative companies show the way for others what comes to guiding people for organizational success. Leading creative people calls for the holistic approach:
leaders must appreciate diversity of their employees and utilize it, allow people to use their full potential, and encourage risk taking in spite of occasional failures. The role of the modern leader is very multidimensional, and therefore adjusting the leader behaviors according to the situation and society at hand is one of the key characteristics of contemporary executives.
3 METHODOLOGY
3.1 Methodological approach
In my Master’s thesis, I utilize qualitative approach. According to Tuomi and Sarajärvi (2002, 21), qualitative research is empirical by nature, and it is about the way empirical analysis examines and reasons the material under observation. Silverman (1993, 23-29) presents several versions of qualitative research. There are certain commonalities among them: qualitative research is interested mainly in words, prefers everyday settings rather than experimental conditions, and aims to understand meaning and function of social action. However, there are also differences: some of the approaches try to avoid concepts and theories at first stages of a study and use inductive hypothesis-generating research but increasing number of studies begin with prior hypotheses or definitions, and test them (Silverman 1993, 25).
More precisely, the approach of this study is qualitative interviewing. Qualitative interview research tries to see the world through eyes of subjects and reveal the meaning of their experiences in order to explain them scientifically (Kvale & Brinkman 2009, 1). It is tempting to think of interviewing as something relatively easy to conduct. Everyone can speak and ask a question after another, so it doesn’t sound that hard. In reality, interviewing is not that simple but is considered to be one of the most challenging ways to collect data. Kvale and Brinkman (2009, 17) define interviewing as a craft that requires practical skills and personal judgments that are learned by practicing interviewing. Since there are no exact rules how to conduct an interview the best practices can only be found by training the craft. Interviewing is an active process where both an interviewer and an interviewee construct reality together (Holstein &
Gubrium 1997, 127; Kvale & Brinkman 2009, 17-18). Thus, interviewing is seen as a social practice that has ethical and social aspects to concern as it alters our apprehensions of humans and their social worlds (Kvale & Brinkman 2009, 18).
I believe qualitative interviewing fits for my research purposes since it offers rich data on social reality: how people interpret and explain their perceptions, feelings, and experiences.
Interviewing produces versatile knowledge that reveals aspects of human relations, meanings with specific context as well as linguistic and narrative nature of our world (Kvale & Brinkman 2009, 301). By seeing interviewees as experts on a phenomenon in relation to their experiences, interviewers are able to gain a deep insight into the subject (Knapik 2006).
Eriksson and Kovalainen (2008, 78-86) offer a more practical picture of qualitative interview.
They describe three types of interview study: positivist, emotionalist and constructionist.
Positivist approach, which is also called naturalist or realist, is looking for ‘facts’ about the world. Interview data is seen to correspond to a factual reality (Silverman 1993, 91). In this case, interview questions usually start by words ‘what’, ‘who’ or ‘when’. On the other hand, emotionalist or subjectivist approach concentrates on people’s impressions, understandings, opinions, and emotions. The researcher wants to know how people experience or feel about something. Constructionist approach is interested in interaction that takes place between the interviewer and interviewee. It focuses especially on how meanings are produced in this interaction. The type of this study is emotionalist or subjectivist as I am particularly interested in interviewees’ own perceptions and experiences of the phenomenon under investigation.
Qualitative interview is also differentiated by types of interview questions. Eriksson and Kovalainen (2008, 80-83) divide questions into three types: structured and standardized, guided and semi-structured, as well as unstructured and open. In structured and standardized interviews, the researcher follows a preplanned script with a certain order of questions and words, and asks often ‘what’ questions. This type of interview may be suitable for novice interviewers who have only little experience of conducting interviews. Guided and semi- structured interviews are used to study both ‘what’ and ‘how’ questions. In this type of interview, the researcher has a prepared list of topics or themes, but also has a freedom to vary the words and order of questions. This interview approach is suitable for an interviewer that has some experience already. Unstructured and open interviews differ from structured interviewing substantially: even if the researcher has some core questions that guide to the subject, there still is freedom to move the conversation to the direction that is the most interesting at the time.
Unstructured interviews offer very individualized and contextualized data, and are suitable for researchers with good interpersonal skills and vast experience of interviewing. I use guided and semi-structured questions in my research since they provide the main themes to discuss but give enough space to vary more specific questions.
To my knowledge, the majority of studies concerning the relation of communication, leadership and innovativeness has been quantitative in nature. However, qualitative interviews have been utilized, for instance, to explore managers’ theories about the process of innovation (Salaman
& Storey 2002), and to find out how leaders influence employees’ innovative behavior (De Jong & Den Hartog 2007). In these cases, the methodology has been chosen in order to achieve
