Nowadays, competition forces different organizations to search for ways to become the best amongst others in their field of operation. The range of possibilities might seem endless, from mastering the old techniques to hiring the most fitting people as their employees. However, nothing compares to a sudden innovation that can potentially boost the organization’s overall output beyond limits. The importance of innovation encourages most managers to stimulate creativity in their subordinates to suggest and implement new ideas more freely. Different approaches to leadership do not provide the same result, though. According to Almaskari et al. (2021), Chammas et al. (2019), and Gerlach et al. (2020), transformational, instrumental, and ambidextrous styles of leadership have a positive influence on innovation performance. Nonetheless, a positive effect in each case is achieved entirely differently.
Sometimes, people look up to the most charismatic person in their environment – such as transformational leadership. This style of leadership, also referred to as charismatic by Chammas et al. (2019), “transforms” employees in a way that they go “beyond their self-interest” (Gerlach et al., 2020) influenced by their leader’s example. By motivating and supporting their subordinates, transformational leaders create a positive atmosphere suitable for innovation. One of this style’s downsides, though, is that leader’s influence is strong enough to impact an individual’s vision and thus the ideas he might come up with (Almaskari et al., 2021). Transformational leadership is also not going to work if there is a weak connection, or no connection at all, between the manager and the employees (Siangchokyoo, N., 2019). In this case, a better strategy would be to go for instrumental leadership.
Instrumental leadership, in many ways, performs opposite to its transformational variant. Fundamentally, it pursues two goals: set up the objective and accordingly map the course of actions, and provide any resource necessary to achieve that objective (Gerlach et al., 2020). In other words, this approach distances itself from the romanticization of leadership, emphasizing its strategic and objective aspects. Although this might seem to have little connection to the innovation at first glance, it shines in its simplicity. By considering opportunities, instrumental leaders can promote innovative ideas born inside the company. In addition, in the same way as the process of leading people, the innovation process also requires strategy and means for its occurrence in the first place (Gerlach et al., 2020). This task-related approach, which partly omits employees’ concerns, can be crucial in innovation implementation. With such emphasis on required actions, instrumental leadership is similar to the ambidextrous style.
Ambidextrous style, in theory, might be the best approach regarding innovation performance. It consists of two types of a leader’s behavior – opening and closing. Opening behavior motivates subordinates to explore new possibilities and find ways to disrupt the status quo, while closing behavior involves strategic planning, and the deadlines check (Kung et al. 2020). This ambivalent approach fosters the most appropriate atmosphere for innovation performance because it covers two main aspects of innovation performance – creativity and implementation. Although, for this style to work correctly, the manager has to learn when it is suitable and appropriate to switch between two behavior types.
Transformational, instrumental and ambidextrous leadership styles – all three impact innovation performance, but each does that in its way. The transformational style relies on the leader’s charisma and personal approach to encourage creativity. Instrumental style thrives in providing the solid ground for the innovation to take roots and blossom. Ambidextrous style implements both mentioned methods to balance out their negative aspects. Despite their differences, they have a thing in common – their influence on innovation performance is positive. In conclusion, everything comes to the manager’s ability to choose the right style depending on the current events.
References
Almaskari, T. H., Mohamad, E., Yahaya, S. N., & Jalil, M. F. (2021), Leadership as a driver of employees’ innovation performance: The mediating effect of cultural diversity in UAE universities, The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 8(8), 271-285.
Chammas, C.B. & Hernandez, J.M.d.C. (2019), Comparing transformational and instrumental leadership: The influence of different leadership styles on individual employee and financial performance in Brazilian startups, Innovation & Management Review, 16(2), 143-160.
Gerlach, F., Hundeling, M. & Rosing, K. (2020), Ambidextrous leadership and innovation performance: a longitudinal study, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 41(3), 383-398.
Kung, C.W., Uen, J.F., & Lin, S.C. (2020), Ambidextrous leadership and employee innovation in public museums, Chinese Management Studies, 14(4), 995-1014.
Siangchokyoo, N., Klinger, L. Ryan, & Campion, D. E. (2019), Follower transformation as the linchpin of transformational leadership theory: A systematic review and future research agenda, The Leadership Quarterly, 31(1)