Full Range Of Leadership Model Management Essay

As indicated in chapter one, this research attempts to fill a void in the discussion of how managers leadership styles influence employees to stimulate their creative performance in public organizations, particularly in developing countries where environmental variables or national contexts have a strong impact on leadership styles.

Since the study aims to determine the degree to which Omani civil service managers practise the Full Range of Leadership styles to enhance employees’ creative performance, three interrelated issues need to be addressed to meet these aims: 1) historical evolution of theories of leadership emphasized in the Full Range of Leadership model; 2) historical development of creativity theories focusing on an individual creativity model; and 3) the interrelationships between the issues 1 and 2. In this way, the three fields of the literature above together constitute a framework which will inform the analysis of this study. Therefore, the chapter is structured into these main areas of interest. In the first part, the chapter examines the leadership concept and its historical evolution theories. It concentrates on the Full Range of Leadership model and its components as a new leadership approach. In part two the chapter reveals the evolution of the creativity concept. It highlights individual creativity theories and discusses employees’ creative performance. In the third part, the chapter demonstrates the relationship between transformational and transactional leadership and employees’ creative performance. Finally, the chapter illustrates the study’s analytical framework.

2.2 Part One: The Historical Evolution of Leadership

2.2.1 Overview of the Leadership Concept

The leadership phenomenon is recognized as being the most extensively researched social process known to behavioural science, because it is believed that leadership plays a crucial role in organizations through a direct influence on individuals and groups within those organizations (Yukl, 2008).

Leadership is a difficult concept to define. Taylor (1994) argued that the literature has shown no one definition, list of descriptors, or theoretical model that provides a complete picture of either the theory or practice of leadership. Further, Yukl (2008) suggested that despite the fact that many definitions have been offered, no one particular definition captures the essence of leadership. Bass (1999) claimed that the definition of leadership should depend on the purposes to be served by the definition. According to Burns (1978), leadership is identified as the ability to inspire followers to attempt to accomplish goals that represent the values, motivations, wants, needs, aspirations, and expectations of both leaders and followers. Additionally, Schein (1992) referred to leadership as the ability to operate outside of the existing culture to start an evolutionary change processes.

Other scholars such as Bass and Bass (2008) attempted to describe leadership in broader terms. They mentioned that the definition of leadership involves a number of assumptions and understandings from both empirical and conceptual sources. Leadership: (a) exists within social relationships and serves social ends; (b) involves purpose and direction; (c) is an influence process; (d) is a function; and (e) is contextual and contingent. Therefore, leadership involves those who work with others to provide direction and who exert influence on persons and things in order to achieve the organization’s goals.

Leadership is also defined in terms of a process of social influence, whereby a leader influences members of a group towards a goal (Bryman, 1992). In his definition Bryman tends to emphasize three main elements of leadership: influence, group, and goal. Northouse (2012) extended Bryman’s leadership elements and identifies four main components central to the definition of leadership: (a) leadership is a process; (b) leadership involves influence; (c) leadership occurs in groups; and (d) leadership involves common goals.

Therefore, referring to leadership as a process it is not a trait or characteristics that reside in the leader. It means that a leader affects, and is affected by followers. It emphasizes that leadership is an interactive event occurring between the leaders and their followers. Therefore, leadership is concerned with how the leader affects followers, and thus involves influence. Obviously, those definitions want to illustrate that without influences, leadership does not exist.

Besides, Northouse (2012) pointed out that leadership is a phenomenon that occurs in groups. Groups are the context in which leadership takes place. Thus, leadership is basically about one individual who influences a group of others to accomplish common goals. Therefore, both leaders and followers are involved together in the leadership process. That is why it is common to say that leaders need followers, and followers need leaders. In fact, it is a transactional event that occurs between the leader and the followers. Although leaders and followers are closely linked, it is the leader who often initiates the relationship, creates the communication linkages, and carries the burden for maintaining the relationship (Bryman, 1992).

Briefly, after a careful revision of the enormous variety of conceptualisations of leadership available in the literature, the crucial elements of leadership are best represented in Northouse’s definition (2012:6), where leadership is defined as a “process whereby an individual motivates a group of individuals to achieve a common goal”.

This definition raises the following question: What are the leadership characteristics that enable an individual to influence others to unite for a common purpose? This question can best be answered by gaining a better understanding of the historical evolution of leadership and the theoretical paradigms in which leadership has been studied. With this in mind, the next sections will discuss the development of leadership theories, from the traditional leadership theories of the mid-1800s and leading to the more modern paradigm of transformational/transactional leadership theory.

2.2.2 Historical Evolution of Leadership Theories

Since the early 1800s researchers have attempted to develop different research approaches to analyse the construct of leadership and its relationship with motivating others to greater productivity. The next section focuses on five of the main organizational leadership theories that have been developed over time. These theories are the great-man theory, the trait theory, the behavioural approach, the situational approach, and the integrative approach.

2.2.2.1 Great-Man Theory

In the early nineteenth century, great-man theory was popular and focused on great leaders who helped to change and shape world events. Those great leaders or heroes were highly influential individuals due to their personal charisma, intelligence, or wisdom, and they utilized this power in a way that had a decisive historical impact. The theory assumes that leaders are born and not made. Thus, the capacity of the leader is inherent and there is not much you can do about it. The great-man theory believes that those great leaders possessed specific traits or characteristics that enabled them to stand out from others, to attract the necessary followers, to set direction, and to be strong leaders in their time. These theories evolved and were the natural forerunners to trait theory (Bass and Bass, 2008, and Kirkpatrick and Locke, 1991).

2.2.2.2 The Trait Approach

The trait approach focuses upon personal qualities of leadership. This approach is based on the assumption that leaders can be identified by specific traits or characteristics. Basically, there are three broad types of trait which have been addressed by the literature: first, physical elements, such as height, weight, appearance, and age; second, ability characteristics, such as intelligence, scholarship and knowledge, knowing how to get things done, and fluency of speech; and third, other personality features, such as self-confidence, inter-personal sensitivity, and emotional control (Yukl, 2008).

Hundreds of trait studies were carried out during the 1930s and 1940s, but according to Stogdill (1974) the massive research effort failed to find any traits that would guarantee leadership success. Smith and Peterson (1988) suggest that the failure of the trait approach has been attributed to the following reasons: first, providing only a list of traits and skills found to be productive did not help in understanding leadership; second, the trait approach failed to tell what these leaders actually do in performing their day-to-day leadership tasks; and third, the method of measurement used by researchers for this approach did not include psychological scaling.

Obviously, over the years, it has been documented that leader traits contribute significantly to the prediction of leader effectiveness, leader emergence, and leader advancement. However, there is still a lack of agreement among researchers regarding leader traits and attributes (Zaccaro et al., 2004). Realizing the unreliability of trait theory, researchers began to focus on the observable leadership behaviours, an area which came to be known as behavioural leadership theory.

2.2.2.3 The Behavioural Approach

The behavioural approach started in the 1950s as researchers became discouraged with the trait approach and started to pay closer attention to what leaders actually do. Yukl (2008) provides details of two major research studies that were conducted by researchers from Ohio State University and the University of Michigan using two lines of research methods developed to study leader behaviour. The method used by Ohio State University utilized observations to investigate how leaders spend their time completing the activities, responsibilities, and functions of the job. Researchers, therefore, collected data from direct observation, diaries, job description questionnaires, and interviews. The other method of research used by the University of Michigan focused on perceptions of effective leadership behaviour.

In conformity with Horn-Turpin (2009) and Yukl (2008), from a series of studies which have been conducted at Ohio State University, it was concluded that the major dimensions of leaders’ behaviour involved two factors: consideration and initiation. Consideration refers to the extent to which the leader shows consideration to followers. This means the leader listens to the members, shows concern for their welfare, is friendly and approachable, expresses appreciation for good work, treats subordinates as equals, increases subordinates’ work and maintains their self-esteem, reduces inter-personal conflict, and puts subordinates’ suggestions into operation. On the other hand, initiation refers to task-related behaviour, such as initiating activity in the group, organizing it, coordinating tasks, and defining the problem for the group and outlining the way the work is to be done. The initiation of structure includes such leadership behaviour as planning activities, facilitating goal achievements, providing feedback for the group, maintaining standards and meeting deadlines, deciding in detail what should be done, and how establishing clear channels of communication, organizing work tightly, structuring the work context, providing a clear-cut definition of role responsibility.

Based on Yukl (1989), the University of Michigan study identified two specific leadership behaviours that corresponded to the two behaviours identified in the Ohio State University study: (1) production oriented; and (2) employee oriented. Production-oriented behaviours, which corresponded to the initiation behaviour in the Ohio State study, involved completion of tasks, while employee-oriented behaviours corresponded to the consideration-based behaviour in the Ohio State study. Leaders who demonstrated the employee-oriented behaviour also exhibited human-relation-oriented skills and relationships with their employees. Actually, these studies supported the notion that effective leaders had to be cognizant of both task and relationship orientation. Additionally, these studies suggested that some organizations may need leaders who are more focused on tasks, while others require a leadership perspective with strong human-relations skills.

Despite the significant findings from both studies, Bryman (1992) mentioned four problems that had been identified with the behavioural approach. The first was inconsistent findings – that is, the magnitude and direction of the correlations between consideration and initiating styles and various outcome measures were highly variable. Also, some correlations failed to reach statistical significance. Secondly, an absence of situational analysis. Behavioural approach studies failed to include in their research situational variables that are, including variables which moderate the relationship between leader behaviour and various outcomes. Thirdly, there was a measurement problem: for example, the consideration measure seemed to be affected by leniency effect. Ratings of leaders were found to be contaminated by subordinates’ implicit theory. Finally, there was a problem of causality – that is, does the style of leader influence various outcomes, or does the leader adjust his/her style in response to group performance?

Thus, some research went further to suggest that different situations may require different leadership styles and approaches. This concept led to a major shift to contingency theory.

2.2.2.4 The Contingency Approach

The fourth leadership approach is Fiedler’s (1967) contingency theory or the contingency approach. The theory was developed in the 1950s and 1960s and was viewed as a complement to the Michigan and Ohio State studies. It focuses upon the impact of the situation in determining the leader’s style. According to Fiedler (1967) as cited by Yukl (2008), leadership performance depends on both the organization and the leader. He suggested that situational variables have a moderate effect on the relationship between leadership style and effectiveness. Fiedler mentioned that leadership performance depends as much on the organization as it does on the leader’s own attributes.

Evidently, the contingency approach emphasizes the importance of contextual factors that might influence the leadership process. The characteristics of followers, the nature of the work that the leader’s unit performs, the organization type, and the external environment are all major situational variables. The theory suggests that the effectiveness of leader behaviour is dependent upon the situation. Indeed, the contingency approach is sometimes referred to as the situational theory (Yukl, 2008).

Northouse (2012) argued that the contingency approach is like the behavioural approach and has many problems similar to those identified in the behavioural approach, such as inconsistent findings, causality problems, and measurement problems. Further, the theory has also been criticized as being an ambiguous approach. Thus, the integrative approach appeared as an attempt to integrate all these theories in one.

2.2.2.5 The Integrative Approach

The integrative approach involves studying more than one type of leadership variable. Indeed, few theories or studies include traits, behaviour, influence processes, situation variables, and outcomes all in the same design (Northouse, 2012). In fact, as leaders engage in the constantly changing environment and demands of others, Yukl (2008) argued that this approach may offer a meaningful analysis of the practical day-to-day situations that leaders might encounter. He emphasized that leaders influence a number of situations. Leaders impact the effectiveness of a group or organization by influencing the: (a) interpretation of external events by members; (b) choice of objectives and strategies to pursue; (c) motivation of members to achieve the objectives; (d) mutual trust and cooperation of members; (e) organization and coordination of work activities; (f) allocation of resources to activities and objectives; (g) development of member skills and confidence; (h) learning and sharing of new knowledge by members; (i) enlistment of support and cooperation from outsiders; (j) design of formal structure, programme, and systems; and (k) shared beliefs and values of members. All of these situations are important and require that a leader effectively recognizes the situation and employs the appropriate leadership strategies.

2.2.3 The New Leadership Approach: The Full Range of Leadership Model

Leadership theories had focused primarily on making operations more efficient, through looking for ways to increase production and improve operations. Bass (1985) emphasized that in leadership theories, employee motivation was considered not the key; but only the vehicle. Vroom’s expectancy theory (1982) demonstrates that motivation influences job performance and employees are motivated by receiving rewards and avoiding punishment. Thus, employees tied their level of effort to their expected outcome. They were transaction driven. In conformity with Bass (1985), transactional leaders understood the needs of their employees and how to meet those needs in exchange for the appropriate level of effort. However, researchers saw situations where individuals were led by visionary and charismatic leaders who helped their organizations achieve more than was believed possible (Bass, 1985; House, 1977; and Bryman, 1992). Hence, those findings helped lay the foundation for transformational and transactional leadership theory, which later extended to the Full Range of Leadership theory.

The theory of transformational and transactional leadership began to develop in the 1970s and 1980s. Downton (1973) introduced the term “transformational leadership”, followed by Burns (1978), who focused on transformational and transactional leadership in the political field. In fact, they opened a new chapter in leadership research. From that time the transformational leadership approach become one of the most popular approaches to leadership that has successfully attracted researchers since the early 1980s. According to Lowe and Gardner (2000), research in transformational leadership was found to cover one third of the all leadership research, and it occupies a central place in leadership studies.

As cited by Pearce et al., (2003), the literature confirms that Downton (1973) is the first researcher to make a distinction between transactional and transformational leadership, whereas the idea gained more attention in James McGregor Burns’ published work (1978) on political leaders. Burns distinguished between ordinary (transactional) leaders, who exchanged tangible rewards for employees’ work and loyalty, and extraordinary (transformational) leaders, who engaged with employees, focused on higher-order intrinsic needs, and raised consciousness about the significance of specific outcomes and new ways in which those outcomes might be achieved (Barnett et al., 2001; Pearce et al., 2003; Gellis, 2001; Rafferty and Griffin, 2004; and Judge and Piccolo, 2004). Actually, Burns defined transformational and transactional leadership styles as opposites, whereas Bernard Bass added to these concepts but also believed that managers could demonstrate both depending on the situation (Bass, 1985). Furthermore, Bass et al. (1987) and Waldman et al. (1990) noted that transformational leadership was an extension of transactional leadership. Later, Bass introduced the augmentation model, where he argued that transformational leadership augments transactional leadership in predicting levels of individuals’ performances (Bass and Riggio, 2006).

It is obvious, then, that much of the research on transformational leadership today goes back to the original works of Burns and Bass. Indeed, many researchers state that the most elaborate exposition of transformational leadership theory, which was later extended to the Full Range of Leadership theory, belongs to Bernard Bass (for example, Bryman, 1992; Simic, 1998; Zhang, 2011; and Si and Wei, 2012).

Bernard Bass applied the work of James McGregor Burns (1978) on transformational and transactional leadership to organizational management. Bass (1999) defined the transactional leader as a leader who: (1) recognizes what his or her employees want to get from their work and tries to see that employees get what they desire if their performance warrants it; (2) exchanges rewards and promises of rewards for appropriate levels of effort; and (3) responds to the self-interests of employees as long as they are getting the job done. On the other hand, Bass and Bass (2008) claimed that transformational leaders motivate subordinates to do more than is expected. They characterized transformational leaders as those who: (1) raise the level of awareness of employees about the importance of achieving valued outcomes, a vision, and the required strategy; (2) get employees to transcend their own self-interest for the sake of the group and organization; and (3) expand employees’ portfolio of needs by raising their awareness to improve themselves and what they are attempting to accomplish.

Horn-Turpin (2009) outlines three important differences between the work of Burns (1978) and Bass (1999) on transformational and transactional leadership. Firstly, Burns (1978) suggested that the two styles of leadership are at opposite ends of the same leadership continuum: that is, the leader cannot be transactional and transformational at the same time, but could be either one of them, while Bass (1999) proposed that both transactional and transformational leadership can be displayed by the same leader. For example, Bass (1999) recognized that the same leader may use both types of the process at different times in different situations. Bass (1999) sees transformational leadership as a higher-order second leadership which is needed in addition to transactional leadership.

Secondly, Burns (1978) suggested that actions are transformational if society benefits from them. Bass (1999) sees transformational leadership as not necessarily inherently beneficial; for example, Hitler was negatively transformational. Bass (1999) focuses on the individual personality while Burns (1978) placed emphasis on the leader-follower relationship.

Thirdly, Bass (1999) outlined the components of the two types of leadership, specifying their content more than Burns (1978). Based on practical researches, Bass (1985) found evidence for five leadership factors: individualized consideration, charismatic leadership, intellectual stimulation, contingent rewards, and management-by-exception. Transformational leadership consisted of the first three: charismatic leadership, individualized consideration, and intellectual stimulation. Transactional leadership consisted of the last two factors: contingent rewards and management-by-exception.

After additional investigation between approximately 1985 and 1995 the theory was expanded to denote three types of leadership behaviour – transformational, transactional, and non-transactional laissez-faire leadership or passive leadership – and it is referred to in the Full Range of Leadership model (Antonakis, 2003, and Bennett, 2009). Moreover, researchers conducted a meta-analysis of multiple studies which provided a review of hundreds of studies completed over the past twenty years indicate that indicate there has been fairly consistent support for the key factors of transformational leadership: charisma/idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individual consideration (for example, Lowe et al., 1996; DeGroot et al., 2000; Dumdum et al., 2002; and Judge and Piccolo, 2004). Investigation into the Full Range of Leadership theory expanded the components into nine factors: five transformational factors, three transactional factors, and one non-transactional leadership factor (for example: Avolio et al., 1999; Avolio and Bass, 2004; Barbuto, 2005; Rowold and Heinitz, 2007).

Another modification to the model occurred with regard to its components. Antonakis et al. (2003) suggested using idealized influence instead of charisma and suggested that idealized influence should be separated into two parts: attributes and behaviour. Further, Avolio and Bass (2004) noted that management-by-exception should be divided into two parts: active and passive. Later, studies suggested using the term “passive/avoidant” instead of “laissez-faire” as the third leadership type in the Full Range of Leadership theory because it was more descriptive. Also, it was proposed that management-by-exception (active) was a better fit with transactional leadership, and management-by-exception (passive) was a better fit with laissez-faire as two subscales under the third type of leadership, now identified as passive/avoidant (Avolio and Bass, 2004; Avolio et al., 1999; Geyer and Steyrer, 1998; Bennett, 2009 and Den Hartog et al., 2011; and).

The Full Range of Leadership model is displayed in Figure 2.1. As illustrated in Figure 2.1, the Full Range of Leadership model components are organized around two axes: level of activity and degree of effectiveness. The activity axis is concerned with how active or passive the leader is in his or her way of being towards employees and towards the aims of the organization. Essentially this axis has to do with the leaders’ level of engagement and involvement in the leadership process. The effectiveness axis relates to the effect the specific leadership style has on employee, group, and organizational outcomes – in this study the outcome being investigated is employees’ creative performance.

Figure 2.1: The Model of the Full Range of Leadership.

Source: Adopted from Bass and Riggio (2006).

ACTIVE

EFFECTIVE

INEFFECTIVE

5 I’s

CR

MBE-A

MBE-P

LF

PASSIVE

2.2.3.1 Transformational Leadership

The Full Range of Leadership theory demonstrates that transformational leadership is a process whereby a leader utilizes a number of leadership behaviours or practices to influence the commitment and effort of employees toward the accomplishment of organizational objectives. Those practices, indeed, enhance the values and aspirations of both leader and employees (Bass and Riggio, 2006). Unlike other traditional leadership styles, transformational leadership attempts to give adequate support to organizational members so that they become highly engaged and inspired by goals that are motivational, because those goals are associated with values in which those members strongly believe or are persuaded to strongly believe. Thus, a transformational leader undertakes a matching process where he or she identifies which internal states of organizational members are critical to their performance and specifies a set of leaders’ practices most likely to have a positive influence on those internal states (Leithwood and Sun, 2012).

Bennis and Nanus (1985) went beyond that by conceptualizing transformational leadership as a process that changes the organization by focusing on action, and by converting followers into leaders and leaders into agents of change. This notion is also supported by Sergiovanni (1990) and Avolio (1999), who argued that transformational leadership might be defined as the process whereby leaders develop followers into leaders. Followers become leaders when they are committed to a cause and are self-managing.

For the purpose of this study, transformational leadership is defined in conformity with Bass and Riggio (2006), as a process through which a leader influences the organizational members toward the achievement of organizational goals by utilizing his social charisma and actions to encourage people in organization, articulate an inspiring vision for the future, create an environment for creativity, and pay close attention to individuals’ needs and wants.

2.2.3.2 Components of Transformational Leadership

According to Bass and Avolio (1985), transformational leaders motivate others to do more than they originally intended and often even more than they thought possible. They behave in ways to achieve superior results by employing one or more of the four core components of transformational leadership, which are: (1) idealized influence (attributed and behaviours); (2) inspirational motivation; (3) intellectual stimulation; and (4) individual consideration. To some extent Bass and Riggio (2006) stated that those components have evolved, as refinements have been made in both the conceptualization and the measurement of transformational leadership. For example, Bass and Riggio (2006) argued that there are two aspects to idealized influence: the leader’s behaviours, and the elements that are attributed to the leader by employees and other associates. These two aspects, measured by separate sub-factors of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ), represent the interactional nature of idealized influence: it is embodied both in the leader’s behaviour and in attributions that are made concerning the leader by employees.

Conceptually, transformational leaders are charismatic and employees seek to identify with the leader and emulate them. Transformational leaders inspire employees with challenge and persuasion, and provide both meaning and understanding. They intellectually stimulate and expand the employees’ use of their own abilities. Finally, transformational leaders are individually considerate, and provide the employees with support, mentoring, and coaching.

Each of these components can be measured with the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ), which will be discussed in the Methodology Chapter. Together, the five main dimensions of transformational leadership are interdependent; they must co-exist; and they are believed to represent the most effective leadership attitudes and behaviours (Gellis, 2001; Moolenaar et al., 2010; Hall et al., 2008; Pieterse, et al., 2010 and Leithwood and Sun 2012). Descriptions of the components of transformational leadership are presented in the following subsections.

2.2.3.2.1 Idealized Influence Attributed (IIA)

Idealized influence attributed is defined as the socialized charisma of the leader: whether the leader is perceived as being confident and powerful, and whether the leader is viewed as focusing on higher-order ideals and ethics. Leaders who exhibit idealized influence attributed are providing a role model that employees seek to emulate (Bono and Judge, 2004; Simic, 1998; Stone, et al., 2003 and Ho et al., 2009). On the other side, employees view their leaders as having extraordinary capabilities, persistence, and determination, and they feel admiration, loyalty, and respect for the leaders (Bass, 1985).

Idealized influence leaders or charismatic leaders are highly motivated to influence their employees. Their employees trust their judgments and have faith in them. Such leaders can transform the established order, and instil pride, faith, and respect. They have a gift for seeing what is really important and a sense of a vision which is effectively articulated (Avolio and Bass, 1988). Further, it has been noted that individuals who are under charismatic leadership are highly productive (Bass, 1985).

2.2.3.2.2 Idealized Influence Behaviours (IIB)

Idealized influence behaviour refers to the charismatic actions of the leader that are focused on values, beliefs, and a sense of mission. It is leaders’ ability to behave in particular ways that allow them to build confidence and trust (Antonakis et al., 2003). Trust is earned by a willingness to take personal risks and the consistency in decisions (Bass, 1999). Idealized influence behavioural leaders are willing to make personal sacrifices in order to achieve set goals and meet organizational expectations. For instance, admiration and respect for the leader provides a foundation for accepting (radical) organizational change. That is, employees who are sure of the virtues of their leader will be less likely to resist proposals for change from her or him (Avolio and Bass, 1993). Further, leaders who demonstrate idealized influence behaviours avoid using power for personal gain and reveal high standards of ethical and moral conduct. They consider the ethical consequences of any decisions they make. They specify the importance of having a strong sense of purpose and they empower long-term performance (Avolio et al., 1999). In keeping with Bryman, Gillingwater, and McGuinness (1996), this dimension broadens the traditional leadership role into that of a ‘manager of meaning’.

2.2.3.2.3 Inspirational Motivation (IM)

Inspirational motivation behaviour refers to the way in which transformational leaders energize their employees by articulating a compelling vision of the future. They behave in ways that motivate and inspire their employees by providing meaning and challenge to their work. They talk enthusiastically about what needs to be accomplished and express confidence that goals will be achieved (Avolio and Bass, 1993). They also arouse team spirit, enthusiasm, and optimism. Inspirational motivation leaders get employees involved in envisioning attractive future states (Avolio et al., 1999).

Transformational leaders involve their employees by clearly communicating the expectations for employees and also demonstrating commitment to goals and a shared vision. Those leaders encourage employees to become part of the overall organizational culture and environment (Moolenaar et al., 2010 and Stone, et al., 2003). This might be achieved through motivational speeches and conversations and other public displays of optimism and enthusiasm, highlighting positive outcomes, and stimulating teamwork (Simic, 1998).

Actually, an inspirational leader stimulates enthusiasm among subordinates, and says things to build their confidence in their ability to achieve group objectives (Yukl and Van Fleet, 1992). In fact, confidence building in employees is the major element in being an inspirational leader. Confidence and belief in the cause are important for employees’ aspiration (Yukl, 1981). According to Bass (1985), the combination of confidence in the individual’s capabilities and belief in the correctness of the cause will lead to extra effort and success. For example, in organizations, people who believe they are working for the best organization with the best products and resources are most likely to be committed and loyal and to exert extra effort.

2.2.3.2.4 Intellectual Stimulation (IS)

Transformational leaders stimulate their employees’ efforts to be innovative and creative by encouraging the imagination of employees, challenging the old ways of doing things, looking for better ways to do things, questioning assumptions, reframing problems, and approaching old situations in new ways (Bass and Riggio, 2006). Furthermore, leaders who practise a transformational leadership style solicit new ideas and creative solutions to problems from employees who are included in the process of addressing problems and finding solutions (Politis, 2005).

In fact, by providing an intellectually stimulating environment, transformational leaders are able to foster the development of creative solutions to problems which stand in the way of organizational goal attainment. For example, when employees make mistakes, the leader does not publicly criticize them, and their ideas are not criticized because they differ from the leader’s ideas (Yammarino and Bass, 1990).

Moreover, intellectually stimulating leaders encourage employees to develop their own capabilities to identify, understand, and solve future problems. Employees of intellectually stimulating leaders can operate without the leader’s direct involvement in the problem-solving process. They can also become more effective problem solvers, and more innovative in analysing problems and the strategies they use to resolve them. Through intellectual stimulation the status quo can be questioned and new creative methods for organizational development can be examined (Bass and Bass, 2008; Felfe and Schyns, 2004; Felfe et al., 2004).

2.2.3.2.5 Individual Consideration (IC)

In a humanistic sense, the most outstanding component of transformational leadership is the leader’s individualized consideration of his/her employees. In conformity with Bass and his colleagues (1987), a leader’s use of individual consideration is a crucial element in employees’ achievement of their full potential via a close consideration of their developmental needs. In providing individual consideration, the leader is not only cognizant of and sensitive to the current needs of employees, but is also aiming to elevate those needs to a higher level. This is done, for example, by coaching and mentoring, as well as by setting examples and tasks which are developmentally consistent with the needs of each individual (Avolio and Bass, 1993, and Yammarino, Spangler, and Bass, 1993).

That is, individualized consideration is a trait whereby leaders pay special attention to each individual employee’s needs, abilities, and aspirations for achievement and growth by acting as a coach and mentor. According to Antonakis et al. (2003), leaders using individualized consideration contribute to follower satisfaction by advising, supporting, and paying attention to the individual’s needs and wants, and directing them to develop their self-actualization.

Leaders who recognize and understand these differences reduce resistance and create an understanding environment in which employees can acquire new skills and take advantage of opportunities (Stone et al., 2003). Leaders who demonstrate individual-consideration behaviours provide opportunities to employees for self-actualization and personal growth. They delegate tasks as a means of developing employees. These delegated tasks are monitored to see if their employees need additional direction or support and to assess progress (Bass, 1999).

In their demonstration of individual consideration, transformational leaders are effective listeners and encourage two-way communication. They practise ‘management by walking around’ which will enable them to treat their employees individually and differently on the basis of their talents and knowledge (Shin and Zhou, 2003) and with the intention of allowing them to reach higher levels of achievement than might otherwise have been achieved (Chekwa, 2001).

Bass (1985) emphasized that individualized consideration is a very important factor in transformational leadership and is probably the key characteristic that distinguishes transformational leadership from transactional leadership.

2.2.3.3 Transactional Leadership

Transactional leadership occurs when there is an exchange or a transaction between leaders and employees. Leaders explain what is required from employees, and what reward they will receive if they do what is required (Bass and Avolio, 1993). That is, a transactional leader recognizes the employee’s needs and desires, clarifying how these needs and desires will be met in exchange for enactment of the employee’s work role (Bass, 1998).

Transactional leaders use positive and negative rewards when dealing with employees. For instance, they promote and give allowances to employees who perform well and give penalties to those who don’t do a good job (Avolio et al., 1999). However, the effectiveness of transactional leadership depends on whether the leader has control of the rewards or penalties and whether employees are motivated by the promise of the reward and interested in avoiding the penalties (Bass, 1998). In line with Bass (1985), leaders in many organizations have little say regarding pay increases and promotions, which depend on seniority and qualifications. Therefore, Bass (1985) states that transactional leaders motivate their employees through positive and negative aversive contingent reinforcement. Contingent positive reinforcement reward occur when agreed upon performance is achieved, where reinforces will aim to maintain the desired speed and accuracy of employee performance. Contingent aversive reinforcement is a leader’s reaction to an employee’s failure to achieve the agreed-upon performance. The leader’s reaction signals the need to halt the decline in speed or accuracy of the employee’s performance, and to modify or change the employee’s behaviour. It signals the need for a re-clarification of what needs to be done and how.

For the purpose of this study, transactional leadership is defined, as in the study by Bass and Riggio (2006), as an exchange or a transaction process between leaders and employees where leaders clarify the employees’ responsibilities and demonstrate the expectations that they have, the tasks that must be accomplished, and the benefits of compliance to the self-interests of the employees.

2.2.3.4 Components of Transactional Leadership

Transactional leadership consists of two dimensions and, conforming to the Full Range of Leadership model that was introduced by Bass (1998), the relationship among those dimensions is oriented toward leader-employee exchanges, and they represent relatively low forms of leader activity and involvement (at least when compared with the transformational dimensions). The transactional leadership dimensions are contingent reward and the active management-by-exception behaviours.

2.2.3.4.1 Contingent Reward (CR)

Contingent reward is an interaction process between leaders and employees where leaders exchange promising rewards for good performance and recognize accomplishments. Contingent reward involves identifying employees’ needs and facilitating the achievement of agreed objectives, linking both to what the leaders expect to accomplish, and rewarding employees if objectives are met (Bass, 1998). Contingent reward leaders tell an employee what to do if he/she wants to be rewarded for his/her effort and arranges that the employee gets what he/she wants in exchange for achieving objectives (Bass, 1985). That is, in line with Antonakis et al. (2003), leaders who show contingent reward behaviours clarify role and task requirements and provide followers with material or psychological rewards contingent on the fulfilment of contractual obligations (Antonakis et al., 2003).

Furthermore, contingent reward can be displayed in two ways: positively or negatively. Positive contingent reward takes three forms: rewards for work well done, recommendations for bonuses and promotion, and commendations for meritorious effort including public recognition and honours for outstanding service. Negative contingent punishment may take several forms, such as calling someone’s attention to his or her failure to meet standards, sending a report to top management, giving him or her a bad evaluation, and halting his or her annual allowances (Bass and Avolio, 1993).

2.2.3.4.2 Management-By-Exception (Active) (MBE-A)

The second factor of transactional leadership is active management-by-exception. It entails enacting pro-active behaviours that try to prevent mistakes. Active management-by-exception leaders are monitoring employees’ performance, anticipating any deviations from standards, and taking corrective action (Bass and Avolio, 1993). According to Bass and Riggio (2006), active management-by-exception may be effective and even required in some situations, such as when safety is of paramount importance.

2.2.3.5 Passive/Avoidant Leadership

The third type of the Full Range of Leadership model is passive/avoidant. Meta-analytic studies have shown that transformational and transactional leadership behaviours are effective, and passive/avoidant leadership is ineffective (Judge and Piccolo, 2004; Lowe et al., 1996).

For the purpose of this study, passive/avoidant leadership is defined as the process where leaders avoid responsibilities and are passive and inactive; do not make necessary decisions; fail to follow up on issues; delay actions; and do not make use of authority.

2.2.3.6 Components of Passive/Avoidant Leadership

Passive/avoidant behaviour consists of two factors, namely passive management-by-exception behaviours and laissez-faire style. Both types of behaviour are more passive and reactive.

2.2.3.6.1 Management-By-Exception (Passive) (MBE-P)

Passive management-by-exception suggests a hands-off leadership approach until an employee requests intervention. Thus, leaders’ intervention occurs only when problems become serious. That is, leaders monitor employees’ performance, wait until mistakes are brought to their attention, and then take action (Bass, 1998). Passive management-by-exception is more reactive. It does not react to a problematic situation analytically. Passive management avoids identifying resolutions or even clarifying goals to be achieved by the followers. Further, leaders only intervene after noncompliance has occurred or when mistakes have already happened (Antonakis et al., 2003). As cited in Avolio and Bass (2004), “in this regard, passive management-by-exception is similar to laissez-faire styles – or no leadership. Both types of behaviour have negative impacts on followers and associates.”

2.2.3.6.2 Laissez-Faire (LF)

The second factor of a passive/avoidant style is laissez-faire. It is the avoidance or absence of leadership style. It describes leaders’ behaviours in avoiding responsibilities, not making necessary decisions, failing to follow up on issues, delaying actions, and not making use of authority (Bass, 1998).

According to Bass (1999), laissez-faire leaders have no confidence in their own ability to supervise; they bury themselves in paperwork, leave too much responsibility with employees, set no clear goals, and do not help their group to make decisions.

The employees under laissez-faire leadership will be left to their own devices and proceed as they think best. Basically, laissez-faire leadership demonstrates a lack of any kind of leadership. It is the failure of both transformational and transactional leadership (Antonakis et al., 2003). However, because the Full Range of Leadership model views all passive/avoidant leadership as less active, it makes sense that laissez-faire is the best exemplar of inactive leadership. Evidence suggests that contingent reward for transactional leadership is found to be positively correlated with transformational leadership, whereas laissez-faire for passive/avoidant leadership is found to be negatively related to transformational leadership (Bass, 1998).

The components that make up the Full Range of Leadership model are presented in Table 2.1.

2.2.3.7 The Differences and Augmentation Model between Transformational and Transactional Leadership

According to Ho et al. (2009), transformational leaders are distinguished from transactional leaders in that transformational leaders are those who inspire their employees through their personal values, visions, and trust, while the latter view the relationship between leaders and employees as a “give-and-take” process. This feature means that while transformational leadership is concerned with motivating employees, transactional leadership focuses on the use of manipulation of power and authority. In keeping with Ho et al. (2009), transformational leadership aims at creativity and innovation, whilst transactional leadership focuses on planning and execution, and uses rewards and punishments in order to achieve goals. These characteristics suggest that transformational leadership strives to create new opportunities for employees in an organization, whereas the transactional style works off of an existing structure. Stewart (2006) reviewed the conceptual and empirical development of transformational leadership as it evolved through the work of James MacGregor Burns, Bernard M. Bass, Bruce J. Avolio, and Kenneth Leithwood. She argued that the distinction between transactional leadership and transformational leadership is very close to the distinction made between management and leadership and that a “transactional leader” might be better termed a “transactional manager”.

The above differences raise the following question: Does transformational leadership replace transactional leadership?

Bass and Riggio (2006) argued that there is a large and growing body of evidence that supports the effectiveness of transformational leadership over transactional leadership and the other components in the Full Range of Leadership model. They also suggested that there is nothing wrong with transactional leadership. It can, in most instances, be quite effective. Similarly, active, and even passive, management-by-exception can work depending on the circumstances. Indeed, transformational leadership does not replace transactional leadership. It increases transactional leadership in achieving the goals of the leader, employees, team, and organization.

Studies reveal that leaders could be transactional and transformational at the same time; it depends on the situation. There are different leadership styles that are appropriate to different situations and problems. In some situations the time is suitable for transformation, while in another situation being transformational may not be appropriate (Bass, 1985; Bass and Avolio, 1993; and Bass and Bass, 2008).

In fact, Bass (1985) proposed an augmentation relationship between transformational and transactional leadership. It was suggested that transformational leadership augments transactional in predicting effects on follower satisfaction and performance. Bass and Avolio (2004) supported the model with evidence and noted that transactional leadership provides a basis for effective leadership, but a “greater amount of extra effort, effectiveness, and satisfaction is possible from employees by augmenting transactional with transformational leadership”.

Moreover, Waldman, Bass, and Yammarino (1990) reported evidence for the augmentation effect among various samples of industrial managers and military officers, and Elenkov (2002) found it with Russian managers. The augmentation effect was also obtained by Seltzer and Bass (1990) for a sample of 300 part-time MBA students, each describing their superiors at their full-time working settings. Further, Avolio and Howell (1992) reported that transformational leadership also augments transactional in predicting levels of innovation, risk taking, and creativity.

Finally, Rowold and Heinitz (2007) conducted a study in a public transport company in Germany and found that transformational leadership augmented the impact of transactional leadership on profit. The researchers suggested that empirical studies needed to extend their research to other cultures, countries, and organizational contexts, such as government, non-profit, or research-and-development organizations.

Table 2.1: The Components that Make Up the Full Range of Leadership Model

Full Range of Leadership Style/Components

Characteristics

Transformational Leadership

A process through which leaders effect a radical change in the behaviour of employees, to build respect, confidence, and trust, through their social and action charisma; by inspiring employees to commit to a shared vision and goals for an organization or unit; by challenging them to be creative problem solvers; and by developing employees’ leadership capacity via coaching, mentoring, and provision of both challenge and support, thereby influencing the organizational members’ performance toward the achievement of organizational goals.

Idealized Influence Attributes (IA)

(Exhibit social charisma)

Leaders are perceived as being confident, powerful, and focusing on higher-order ideals and ethics. Leaders are providing a role model that employees seek to emulate. The employees feel admiration, loyalty, and respect for the leaders.

Idealized Influence Behaviours (IB)

(Utilize charismatic actions)

Leaders utilize their charismatic actions which are centred on values, beliefs, and a sense of mission. It is leaders’ ability to behave in ways that allow them to build confidence and trust.

Inspirational Motivation (IM)

(Inspires individuals)

Leaders energize their employees by articulating a compelling vision of the future and behave in ways that motivate and inspire their employees by providing meaning and challenge to their work. They talk enthusiastically about what needs to be accomplished and express confidence that goals will be achieved.

Intellectual Stimulation (IS)

(Encourage creative thinking)

Leaders stimulate their employees’ efforts to be innovative and creative by encouraging the imagination of employees, challenging the old ways of doing things, looking for better ways to do things, questioning assumptions, reframing problems, and approaching old situations in new ways.

Individual Consideration (IC)

(Coaching and mentoring individuals)

Leaders treat followers as individuals rather than as a group and pay special attention to each individual employee’s needs, abilities, and aspirations for achievement and growth by acting as a coach and mentor.

Transactional Leadership

An exchange process between leaders and employees where leaders clarify the employees’ responsibilities and demonstrate the expectations that they have, the tasks that must be accomplished, and the benefits of compliance to the self-interests of the employees.

Contingent Reward (CR)

(Reward achievements)

Leaders identify employees’ needs and facilitate the achievement of agreed objectives, linking both to what the leaders expect to accomplish and rewarding employees if objectives are met.

Management-By-Exception (Active) (MBEA)

(Monitor mistakes and take corrective action)

Leaders are monitoring employees’ performance, anticipating any deviations from standards, and taking corrective action.

Passive/Avoidant leadership

A process where leaders avoid responsibilities and being passive and inactive; do not make necessary decisions; fail to follow up on issues; delay actions; and do not make use of authority.

Passive Management-By-Exception (MBEP)

(Resolving problems when they become serious)

Leaders monitor employees’ performance, wait until mistakes are brought to their attention, and then take action.

Laissez-Faire Leadership (LF)

(Avoids involvement)

Leaders were absent when they were needed. Leaders tended to withdraw from their leadership roles, preferring to avoid being involved in resolving conflicts, taking responsibility, and making decisions.

Sources: Antonakis, Avolio, and Sivasubramaniam (2003); Avolio and Bass (2004); Bass and Riggio (2006); Nawaz and Bodla (2010); and Michel, Lyons, and Cho (2011).

2.3 Part Two: The Historical Development of Creativity

2.3.1 The Evolution of the Definition of Creativity

Researchers have discussed, debated, argued, and investigated the concept of creativity widely. While it may be easy to recognize creative ideas or creative individuals, defining creativity can be a bit more challenging (Amabile, 1997).

Historically, scholars defined creativity in accordance with their particular research focus: (a) as a process that takes place; (b) as a collection of characteristics and individual traits; or (c) as a set of uniqueness revealed by certain ideas or products (Amabile, 1988; Woodman et al., 1993; Amabile, 1997).

In the 1700s, the French philosopher Voltaire viewed the creative process as an individual taking two ideas and combining them together to form something new and exciting (Zhang and Bartol, 2010). At the turn of the twentieth century Poincare (1913) proposed new thoughts on the generation of creative ideas. He described creativity as the emergence of sudden illumination as a manifest sign of long unconscious prior work (Glover et al., 1989).

Actually, the first milestone in the study of modern creativity research was introduced by Wallas. Wallas’s theory (1926) presented the steps an individual engages in during the creative experience as a four-stage process. Those steps are: preparation, incubation, illumination, and verification. Apparently, researchers and scholars accepted the Wallas model as a simple formula for generating creative ideas. For instance, Sadowski and Connolly (2009) mentioned that Patrick (1955) studied poets, artists, and scientists and confirmed the existence of Wallas’s four stages. Osborn (1963) divided the creative process into seven stages, including: orientation; preparation; analysis; ideation; incubation; synthesis; and evaluation. Expanding on the original four stages of Wallas, Taylor (1964) suggested that creativity exists at five different levels. Additionally, Rossman (1964) studied 710 inventors and based on the obtained result he expanded Wallas’s four stages into seven. Rossman’s seven steps of creativity were: observation of need; analysis of need; survey of available information; formulation of all objective solutions; critical analysis of solutions, including advantages and disadvantages; the idea or inventions; and experimenting to test the best solution.

In the late twentieth century researchers attempted to introduce definitions for creativity based on a process-oriented approach. Fabun (1968) described creativity as the process by which original patterns were formed and expressed. Worthy (1999) proposed that creativity involved closing the gaps, which made the unknown known, and the unseen seen. Feldman (1994) viewed creativity as the achievement of something remarkable and new, something that transformed and changed a field of endeavour in a significant way. Creativity has also been defined as the energy that allowed an individual to think a different thought, and to express thoughts in a novel way, while creative individuals view life as an opportunity for exploration, discovery, and an expanding sense of self (Cohen et al., 2000). Moreover, Boden (2003) defined creativity as the ability to generate new, surprising, and valuable ideas or artefacts. The concept of creativity is also viewed as ” going beyond existing knowledge and syntheses to pose new questions, offering new solutions, and fashioning works that stretch existing genres or configure new ones; creating builds on one or more established disciplines and requires an informed field to make judgments of quality and acceptability” (Gardner, 2007: p. 156). Clearly, the previous definitions led to a synthesis of ideas, a common understanding of the creative process and the mechanics and unexplained processes involved. However, researchers looked at the individual characteristics and traits for evidences regarding the creative process.

Evidently, there has been a growing consensus among creativity researchers regarding the appropriateness of defining creativity in terms of individual characteristics and traits. Guilford (1975) hypothesized that there were at least eight primary abilities that were the foundations of creativity: sensitivity to problems, fluency, novel ideas, flexibility, synthesizing and analysing abilities, complexity, and evaluation. He contended that the human mental abilities that contributed to the potential for creative production, and the mental functions that go with them, were considered to be an important part of human intelligence. In fact, Armstrong (1998) stated that the word creativity was closely linked to the word genius, since both had the root meaning “to give birth”. Essentially, creativity designated the capacity to give birth to new ways of looking at things and the ability to make new connections between different things, and to see things that might be missed by the typical ways of viewing life. Further, Armstrong (1998) asserted the twelve qualities of genius. Armstrong’s qualities list included: curiosity, playfulness, imagination, wonder, wisdom, inventiveness, sensitivity, behaviour, irrelevancies, silliness, and even rudeness and creativity. Additionally, Vernon (1989) identified creativity as the person’s ability to generate ideas, inventions, artistic objects, insights, and products that are judged by experts as being of high scientific, social, aesthetic, and technological value.

Researches contributed to the individual traits approaches by adding other personality characteristics such as openness, originality, risk taking, and innovation (for example, Tesluk et al., 1997 and Moukwa, 1995). Morrison (1992) also characterized creative individuals as being achievement oriented, seeking attention and recognition for their ideas, being interested in new experiences, and valuing learning. However, because of some limitations of the personality approaches regarding explaining creative behaviour, the studies of personality have been reduced (Feist and Runco, 1993). The correlations between personality measures and behaviour are weak (Terborg, 1981). Thus, scholars moved to focus on creativity outcomes.

The third view in research regarding creativity is focus on its outcome. Scholars such as Amabile (1988) and Woodman et al. (1993) view creativity as a set of uniqueness revealed by certain ideas or products. Apparently, since experts from within the product field can easily evaluate it as a creative product, a significant number of creativity researchers who focus on organizational settings have adopted a definition of creativity that focuses on the product (for example, Amabile, 1983, 1988; Amabile et al., 1996; Oldham and Cummings, 1996; Woodman et al., 1993). Amabile (1988) defines creativity in the workplace as “the production of novel and useful ideas by an individual or small group of individuals working together”. Oldham and Cummings (1996) add that a product, idea, or procedure is novel if it involves a significant recombination of existing materials, as well as the introduction of completely new materials. Indeed, Amabile’s definition of creativity has been cited in subsequent conceptual models (for example, For

Order Now