InstructionsAssignment InstructionsFor this task, choose a leader in a local organization to interview. Then, develop a list of at least 10 questions that you will also include in your assignment pertaining to the leader’s style, successes, and personal experiences that shaped this person into the leader he or she is today. After completing the interview, write a paper that summarizes the experience and assign a leadership theory to the local organization. Then, determine which leadership theory or theories apply to your selected leader and explain why. Support your paper with at least five scholarly resources. In addition to these specified resources, other appropriate scholarly resources, including older articles, may be included.Length: 5-7 pages, not including title and reference pages, but including interview questionsYour paper should demonstrate thoughtful consideration of the ideas and concepts presented in the course by providing new thoughts and insights relating directly to this topic. Your response should reflect scholarly writing and current APA standards. Course Learning Outcomes associated with this assignment:1.0. Assess leadership theories for their efficacy in ensuring organizational success.4.0. Categorize various approaches to academic theories of leadership.ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS:Grading RubricCriteria1 – Developed a list of at least 10 interview questions which pertained to the leader’s style, successes, and personal experiences.2 – Composed a paper which summarized the interview experience.3 – Assigned a leadership theory to the local organization.4 – Explained which theory or theories applied to the local leader.
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Leadership for Quality and Innovation: Challenges, Theories, and a Framework for Future Research
Latham, John R
The Quality Management Journal; 2014; 21, 1; ProQuest
pg. 11
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
International Journal of Innovation Management
Vol. 18, No. 5 (October 2014) 1450034 (30 pages)
© Imperial College Press
DOI: 10.1142/S1363919614500340
Vietnam Academy of Social Sciences, Hanoi, Vietnam
Vietnam Academy of Social Sciences, Hanoi, Vietnam
Texas Tech University, Lubbock, USA
Hanoi University of Industry, Hanoi, Vietnam
Department of Economics, Konkuk University, Seoul, Korea
Published 25 July 2014
This paper discusses organisational innovation among state, private, foreign and jointstock enterprises with focus on leadership and resource which are expected as key factors
to innovation. Data drawn from a survey with more than 600 respondents in most
industrialised regions in Vietnam is analysed. The finding shows that higher educational
level of respondents in state enterprises has negative relationship with all kinds of innovation. State enterprises absorb large amount of funding from government budget but still
need more financial resource to generate innovation. However, private and foreign companies do not require more financial capital but they need human capital that is leaders
owning transformational characteristics, motivation and ability of building organisational

Corresponding author.
N. N. Trung et al.
culture to generate organisational innovation. This current research proposes that authorities in these enterprises are suggested to use financial capital in appropriate time only
otherwise they should use other tool to do innovation in their organisations.
Keywords: Leadership; resource; organisational innovation; state; private.
Vietnam’s economy has been influenced by two key developments — the change
from central planning in 1986 and the joining of the World Trade Organisation
(WTO) in 2007. Since then, there have been many achievements in economic
development aimed at realising the country’s internal potential and to take advantage of opportunities presented by the outside world. An important characteristic of this change is that it has seen the rise of a range of enterprises in the
country other than those owned by the government, including private, foreign and
mixed enterprises. All these compete for market share.
There have been many studies focusing innovation on state enterprises such as (Li,
2011; Girma et al., 2009) or comparison between small and medium-sized enterprises
on innovation as (Dierckx and Stroeken, 1999; Klaas et al., 2010). However, not
many studies have been carried out to explore different aspects of organisational
innovation between governmental and non-governmental enterprises. State enterprises in Vietnam are currently occupying most of financial and material capital but
not contributing much to Gross Domestic Product as expected meanwhile non-state
enterprises are gaining achievements in development even with limited resources. As
a result, investigating differences on organisational innovation between state and nonstate enterprises may provide useful findings for both policy makers and authorities as
well. Firstly, whatever they are, these enterprises need doing innovation to gain
promising performance as (Ganter and Hecker, 2012; Woodman et al., 1993) innovation in an organisation insures success, competitive advantage and a higher level of
development. In addition Cefis and Marsili (2012) believe innovation could enhance
performance and that firms displaying innovation are less likely to close down their
activities. Importantly, in the current context, innovation could help enterprises, especially young ones, overcome challenge and crisis.
With regard more to innovation and performance, researches usually cite works
from Amabile, a so-called founder in the field of innovation. Amabile (1998)
believes that beside money and time, supervisory encouragement is helpful in
fostering innovation/creativity. Besides, a manager who often interacts with
subordinates can influence their perceptions, feelings, performance and ultimately
the overall creativity of the work they do in an organisation (Amabile et al., 2004).
Moreover, socio-psychological factors also generate impacts on individual
Leadership, Resource and Organisational Innovation
creativity as well as organisational innovation (Amabile, 1996). Finally, Amabile
et al. (1996) conclude that managers at all levels who want to foster organisational
innovation should pay attention not only to skill or characteristic of individuals but
also to the environment that create climate for potential innovation.
In the new economic structure, the state-owned enterprises still play key roles in
some sectors of the economy due to political demands. Investigating organisational
innovation in relation to characteristics of the state and non-state enterprises in
Vietnam may help identify factors which have strong impact on organisational innovation in these two types of enterprises. According to the classification of enterprises in Vietnam, there are four main kinds of enterprises: state, private, foreign and
joint stock companies. These four enterprise types will be considered in this study.
Both disciplines of psychology and organisational behaviour consider creativity
to be novel and useful or involve appropriate ideas, processes, or procedures
(Amabile, 1998; Mumford and Gustafson, 1998; Shalley, 1991). According to
(Shalley and Zhou, 2008), in the organisational literature, “creativity has been
commonly referred to as the ideation component of innovation, while innovation
includes both ideation and the application of new ideas i.e. implementation”.
Therefore, organisational innovation can be described based on consideration of
these two steps: ideas creation and ideas application and individual creativity is
only one of the inputs for organisational innovation.
In examining organisational innovation in these enterprises, factors such as
leadership, skill of employee, research and development (R&D), financial resource
and organisational culture all need to be analysed to reveal the true relationship
among these variables and to see how they contribute to organisational innovation.
The substantial framework is that, with working atmosphere of organisation as a
climate of positive challenge, work group support or encouragement will influence
organisational innovation. In spite of everything, this working environment has
impact on leadership, resource and organisational culture which seems to be the
most immediate and direct and this relation is the main trend in this study. The
relation among variables and how they interact with organisational innovation is
shown in Fig. 1.1
After reviewing the literature and recent studies on leadership, resource and
organisational innovation, this paper will provide a description of the research
undertaken, including details on data collection, variable construction and the
model’s validity. The paper will then present the results of the study and show out
a comparision with previous researches on innovation. Finally, main findings will
be reviewed in the conclusion.
In theoretical view, leadership functions also have an impact on resources and organisational
N. N. Trung et al.
Fig. 1. Impact of main factors on organisational innovation.
Theoretical Background
Leadership and innovation
Empirical research has been inconsistent in its findings in relation to whether
innovation positively affects performance of organisation. For example, Bowen
et al., (2010) and Hurley and Tomas (1998) find that this positive relationship is
strengthened in organisations that are smaller or that focus on developing innovative plans and which have cultures that emphasise learning, development and
participative decision making. In the same trend, with a meta-analysis of relationship between organisational innovation and potential determinants including
professionalism, technical knowledge resources and specialisation, Damanpour
(1991) also provides statistically significant associations between these factors and
these associations are found to be strong and consistent stable.
In the scope of this paper, leadership and resources are believed to be key
factors affecting organisational innovation. So far, there have been many studies
emphasising the role of leadership and management on organisational innovation.
In one study by (Chandler et al., 2000), they find support and reward from
managers create favourable conditions for innovation supportive culture and that
these two factors are vital to employees if managers need to have more innovation
in their organisation. While, Shalley and Gilson (2004) suggest managers should
encourage and support employees as well as nurture relationship with them. As a
matter of fact, if leaders have a supportive style, creativity is likely to occur and it
is also seen as vital that leaders understand staff. Leadership is identified as one of
the most important factors affecting organisational innovation, especially for
Leadership, Resource and Organisational Innovation
transformational leadership in empowering subordinates and creating an appropriate climate for innovation (Jung et al., 2003). In addition, Oke et al. (2009) say
that transformational leadership is different from transactional leadership where
the first is more appropriate to foster creative ideation stage and the latter goes
well with the implementation stage of innovation process. These authors also
differentiate from the effect of transformational leadership on innovation process
which is moderated by organisational contexts including environment of risktaking, innovative culture, while the effect of transactional leadership is enhanced
in contexts of development efforts, rewards and incentives. In the international
innovation of seeking alliance, knowledge/information based leadership by the
alliance head is associated with higher innovation and transformational leadership
is dysfunctional for alliance innovation (Osborn and Marion, 2009).
Studying direct and indirect impacts of leadership on innovation, AragónCorrea et al. (2007) are persons following the opinion that leadership has a strong
and significant influence on organisational learning, indirectly affecting firm innovation. Even organisational learning has a stronger direct influence on innovation compared to a transformational CEO and organisational changes are also
considered under the role of leadership. As Battilana et al. (2010) have found,
leaders who are more task-oriented often do not care about activities related to
communication for changes when compared with other types of leaders. Moreover, leadership with selected attributes granting freedom and autonomy, and
using expert knowledge has a strong influence on innovative behaviours and
innovation-blocking behaviours (Krause, 2004). On the other hand, leaders at the
top position play an important role in improving the organisation ability to innovate because they are in a position to create the organisational vision and put it
into practice (Makri and Scandura, 2010).
As a matter of fact, speaking about the goals of telecommunication firms,
Berson and Avolio (2004) indicate that leaders at the top and middle levels with
transformational leadership style tend to have risk-oriented views of goals in their
organisation and tend to open more new markets. Meanwhile, leaders with less
transformational characteristics tend to adhere to conservative goals and stability.
Alternatively, discussing collective efficacy and knowledge-sharing among group
persons in Chinese companies, Zhang et al. (2011) highlight that transformational
leaders positively enhance group creativity while authoritarian leaders negatively
influence group creativity. Furthermore, in another study of the importance of
innovative leadership in nurturing a strategic fit between an organisation’s atmosphere, and economic and product performance, leaders of innovation both directly and indirectly increase strategic fit and significantly promote organisation
performance (Carmeli et al., 2010).
N. N. Trung et al.
Resource and innovation
In addition to leadership as the main impact on organisational innovation,
resources including human capital and financial capital have been mentioned in
studies since they also play critical role in issuing innovation. First, this part
reviews relationship between financial factor and innovation and later, mutual tie
between factor of human capital and innovation is cited.
Hyytinen and Toivanen (2005) provide evidence that financial constraints hold
back innovation and growth and governmental financing of industrial R&D can
be an crucial option of innovation policy in small and medium enterprises. Nevertheless, Hoegl et al. (2008) state that innovation in organisation faces no
obstacles if several moderating points beneficial to innovative activities such as
engaging project objectives or creative team capacity, even there are some constraints on financial resources. Furthermore, product innovation and financial
performance of firms have a positive relationship and it depends on how budgets
are used in organisations. If budgets are planned, then this increases the likelihood
of better performance for product innovation. On the other hand, financial performance and innovation have a negative relationship if the budgets are used
according to a control mechanism, (Dunk, 2011). Also regarding the relationship between finance and innovation, private finance initiative may have less
effectiveness in stimulating innovation than public finance initiative involving
cooperation among individual project and operational systems (Barlow and
Köberle-Gaiser, 2008). But the result does not mean that private resource should
be ignored in all programs for fostering innovation. In general, financial resource
has a significant impact on innovation of firms in most research.
With respect to human resource and innovation, using micro and macro data in
Europe, Filippetti and Archibugi (2011) express that specialisation in high technology and quality of human resource are important factors that are able to offset
the effects of economic crisis on innovation investments of European firms. Also
in a time of economic crisis, financial deregulation puts pressure on enterprises so
that firms have to rationalise R&D costs, carry out new innovation paths and
especially accumulate human capital to reduce negative effect (Laperche et al.,
2011). Above all, examining the relationship between incremental and radical
innovation via human resource, Thornhill (2006), in a survey of 845 Canadian
manufacturing enterprises, proposes that a highly skilled workforce is most beneficial to firm development in highly competitive environments while firms in
stable manufacturing industries get positive signals from investment in training.
The issue faced now by enterprises is how to improve the skills of the workforce for innovation in enterprises. As Antonioli et al. (2011) hypothesise, firms
have two main paths of skill provision. Those are external labor market strategies
Leadership, Resource and Organisational Innovation
by hiring and firing mechanisms and internal market strategies by improving the
skill base of workers via training programs. They find that training activities are
very important for upgrading the skills of employees in any organisation. In
addition, hiring multi-skilled core customer-contact staff and training core customer-contact workers for multiple skills are significantly beneficial to innovation
(Chang et al., 2011). Importantly, Antonelli et al. (2010) conclude that the effect
of innovation on work-based training generating specific skills is stronger with the
introduction of new technologies that is supported by organisational innovation.
Moreover, the nature of work-based training for specific skills is developed positively by both in-house and outside training.
Considering process innovation, the importance of technological skills and
marketing skills is apparent. Furthermore, training in higher levels seems to be
very useful for incremental innovations in SME firms in Britain (Freel, 2005). On
the indirect side in SMEs, Amara et al. (2008) indicate multiple kinds of learning
impacts on innovation as well as a degree of novelty of innovation. Factors such
as learning by doing, learning by training, and learning by interacting, which
promote employees’ working skills, have the greatest influence on generating
novelty of innovation. In summary, enterprises benefit more from innovation when
employees have sufficient skills as workers have complementary capabilities and
learning ability. Investments in skills are helpful to organisations that have the
potential to innovate effectively (Leiponen, 2005).
Data, Variable and Model
Data and variable
Data for this study were drawn from a survey carried out in late 2011 among leaders,
technical managers and R&D directors of enterprises in Vietnam. Respondents were
chosen from enterprises in the two largest cities, Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City, and
two other most highly industrialised provinces in the South and the North of
Vietnam where there are numerous state, private, foreign and joint stock enterprises.
The study employed two-stage stratified sampling to select respondents based on the
number of employees in the business with information provided by the provincial
General Statistics Office. In the first stage, 30 business agencies were chosen randomly from enterprises which have good business performance. In the second stage,
questionnaire was distributed to enterprises proportional to the number of
employees working for this company and total number of employees of all companies surveyed. Thousand questionnaires were distributed and 617 were returned
representing 61.7% response rate. The number of males and females is almost equal.
N. N. Trung et al.
The questionnaire concerned organisational innovation. The level of organisational innovation could be ascertained based on three main indicators: innovative motivation, process innovation and product innovation. (1) Innovative
motivation as a variable of innovation can be measured based on organisational
values, goals and strategies of innovation. (2) Process innovation as a variable of
innovation can be measured based on actual working groups organised for generating creative ideas and applying these ideas into practice. (3) Product innovation as a variable of innovation can be measured based on estimated by
respondents results of innovative activities of their enterprises. Number of patents
or R&D achievements are not easy to obtain while most companies and enterprises
are engaging innovations in production and managerial practices to increase
In this study, factors such as leadership functions and organisational resour …
Purchase answer to see full

Are you having trouble with the above assignment or one similar?

We offers 100% original papers that are written from scratch.We also have a team of editors who check each paper for plagiarism before it is sent to you.
!-- End of Footer -->