Does Meaningful Work Explains the Relationship Between Transformational Leadership and Innovative Work Behaviour?

Transformational Leadership and Innovative Work Behaviour

The traditional transactional style of leadership is inadequate in competing in the current dynamic business environment. Today’s organizations require leaders who are audacious enough to embrace change and motivate their employees to do the same. One of the characteristics of an effective leader is the ability to use innovative or unconventional strategies to achieve goals (Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Tichy & Devanna, 1986). These effective leaders are not averse to taking calculated risks in order to realize their vision. They are generally tolerant towards their subordinate’s mistakes and encourage them to treat mistakes as learning opportunities rather than absolute failures.

Constant changes in the marketplace in last three decades have resulted in the need for leaders who are more transformational and less transactional. The original ideas of transformational leadership can be traced back to the seminal writing of the political author James Burns. In his book Leadership, Burns (1978) introduced a form of leadership that was refreshingly different from the transactional forms of leadership. Based on the ideas originally stated by Burns (1978), Bass (1985) while studying the leadership style of some South African senior managers finds glimpses of an extraordinary form of leadership that was different from the previously known transactional form of leadership. Bass (1985) in his book Performance Beyond Expectations distinguished transformational leadership from transactional leadership in terms of what they do (outcome) and how they do it (process). Bass and Avolio’s (1990) transformational leadership model has four dimensions: idealized influence, individualized consideration, inspirational motivation, and intellectual stimulation. Transformational leaders encourage their followers to think out of box and encourage them to look at problems from different perspectives (Gardner & Avolio, 1998). Shin and Zhou (2003) found that transformational leadership is positively related to follower’s creativity, and instrumental in fostering a culture of innovation in organization. Transformational leaders offer an appealing vision to the followers and stimulate their intellect by urging them to challenge the existing mental models and to innovate better solutions to bring about positive change (Bass & Riggio, 2006; Eisenbeiss, Van Knippenberg, & Boerner, 2008). Transformational leaders also lead by example; they practice what they preach by taking calculated risk and by engaging in creative and nonconventional behaviours that stimulate innovation among the followers (Bass & Riggio, 2006). Transformational leaders boost the intrinsic motivation of their followers and encourage them to question the status quo or the old ways of doing things in organizations. In a laboratory study of student sample, Jaussi and Dionne (2003) found that transformational leadership is positively related to employee’s innovation.

Although it is logical to assume that transformational leaders will always positively influence employee’s innovative behaviour at work (Eisenbeiss et al., 2008), interestingly, prior studies report mixed results. For instance, Wilson-Evered, Hartel, and Neale (2001) found no significant relationship between transformational leadership and team innovation. Presenting a similar viewpoint, Pradhan (2015), in his study of Indian software professionals reported that transformational leadership will be able to arouse creativity and motivate followers to engage in innovative behaviour only under the circumstances where the followers expect guidance and inspiration from leader, and secondly, when the situation demands out-of-box or non-conventional solutions to the existing problems. In the absence of either or both the conditions, it would be very difficult on the part of a transformational leader to inspire innovativeness among the followers. Also, leadership scholars lament the fact that intellectual stimulation is the most underdeveloped and underexplored dimension of transformational leadership (Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996). This study replicates the testing of the relationship between the focal constructs (transformational leadership and IWB) in an Indian context, which is in line with Nuzzo (2014), who urged that empirical investigations need multiple replication in order to provide greater confidence and acceptability of the findings.

Thus, we propose:

H1. Transformational leadership will be positively related to employee’s IWB.

Transformational Leadership, Meaningful Work and Innovative Work Behaviour

Previous studies have linked transformational leadership with follower’s attitudes, behaviours and performance at both individual and collective level (Avolio, 1999; Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1996). Yet there is lack of clarity about the intervening (mediating) process by which transformational leaders influence their followers (Yukl, 1999). This supports Bass’s (1999) urging that, ‘much more explanation is needed about the inner workings of transformational leadership’. Similar concern was also raised by Garcia-Morales, Matias-Reche, and Hurtado-Torres (2008) who pointed out a conspicuous lack of understanding regarding how transformational leaders promote processes through which they exert positive influences on their followers.

Most of the transformational leadership literature is unequivocal about the leader’s role in raising followers’ levels of morality to more ‘principled levels of judgement’ (Burns, 1978), and in activating followers’ ‘higher order needs’ (Yukl, 1999) through altering their needs, values, preferences, and aspirations by appealing to ideological values (Shamir et al., 1993). This conceptualization of transformational leader’s effect in other words is mediated by the followers’ perception of meaningful work. A follower’s transformation occurs when they link their work with ‘higher purposes’ that goes beyond mere financial gain (Yukl, 1999). Shamir et al. (1993) in their self-concept-based theory have discussed three ways by which transformational leaders influence their followers: first, by increasing the self-efficacy of the follower; second, by increasing follower’s social identification with the group; and third, by influencing follower through value internalization and ‘self-engagement’ with work. The trio referred to the third way as an internalized personal or moral commitment of the follower towards their work. They further added that such commitment is only possible when the work or course of action is consistent with and expressive of the follower’s self-concept. Thus, a follower who is committed to a worthy cause will be more concerned about the intrinsic rewards, such as self-consistency and -efficacy, rather than any extrinsic materialistic rewards.

In their empirical study of multilevel marketing organizations, Sparks and Schenk (2001) have demanded further investigation of higher order needs like meaningful work as a mediator affecting the relationship between transformational leadership and job-related outcomes. The theoretical assumptions and previous empirical investigations urge further testing of the meditational role of meaningful work on the relationship between transformational leadership and IWB. Thus,

H2. The positive relationship between transformational leadership and IWB will be mediated by perceptions of meaningful work.

Participants and Sample respondents

For examining the proposed hypothesis, we carried out our survey with two independent samples drawn from Indian Navaratna central public sector enterprises. Sample I data was collected from the executives employed in an aeronautical manufacturing and overhaul company. Sample II was collected from executives of a premier steel manufacturing plant. Both the organizations are situated in Eastern India.

The data collection process started with a formal communication from the HR department to the executives of both the plants regarding the purpose of the study, the voluntary nature of participation and an assurance that the responses will be kept anonymous and will be used for academic purpose only. Subsequently, the researchers visited both the plants and explained the objective and goals of the study and shared the survey weblink with the prospective respondents for participation.

Sample I: A total of 387 executives working in aero-manufacturing plant participated in the survey. After discarding 38 responses due to unusable data, the final sample was 349 responses, out of which 63.8 per cent (223) were male executives. The average age of the respondents was 32.3 years (SD 6.9). Executives with less than three years of experience in the present organization accounted for 46.4 per cent (162) responses while the remaining were middle and senior executives with more than three years of experience. About 52.3 per cent (183) of respondents hold graduate degree (mostly, bachelor’s degree in engineering and technology). The remaining respondents (166) hold post-graduates degree (MTech, MPhil, MBA, PhD).

Sample II: In the steel manufacturing plant, after discarding 33 responses because of missing information, we received 539 usable responses. Out of 539 responses, 54.6 per cent (294) were male executives with the average age as 35.2 years (SD 8.4). A total of 38.7 per cent (209) of executives had less than three years of experience in their present organization. About 28.8 per cent executives hold graduate degree whereas the remaining ones hold professional post-graduate degrees (MTech, Executive MBA) and specialized certification courses.

Measurement

Transformational Leadership: multifactor leadership questionnaire (MLQ) by Bass and Avolio (1990) was used to assess the extent to which employees attribute transformational leadership to their superior. The scale has four dimensions: (a) idealized influence (attitude and behaviour), (b) inspirational motivation, (c) intellectual stimulation and (d) individualized consideration. This questionnaire has 20 items capturing the four dimensions of transformational leadership. Examples of some of the items are, ‘my supervisor specifies the importance of having a strong sense of purpose’ and ‘my supervisor considers individuals are having different need(s), abilities, and aspiration’. The Cronbach alpha of this measure is 0.88.

Meaningful Work: A questionnaire developed by Arnold, Turner, Barling, Kelloway, and McKee (2007) based on the original workplace spirituality scale by Ashmos and Duchon (2000) was used to measure the extent by which an employee experiences meaningful work at office. Examples of some of the items of the scale are, ‘I see a connection between my work and the larger social good of my community’ and ‘the work I do is connected to what I think is important in my life’. The Cronbach alpha of this scale is 0.85.

Innovative Work Behaviour: To measure the IWB, Scott and Bruce’s (1994) innovative work behaviour scale was used. The scale has six items. Example of the sample items, ‘I search out new technologies, processes, techniques, and/or product ideas’ and ‘I develop adequate plans and schedules for the implementation of new ideas’. The Cronbach alpha of this measure is 0.81.

All responses were measured using a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from 5 (strongly agree) to 1 (strongly disagree).

Control Variables: In this study, demographic variables (age, gender, and experience in the organization) were used as control measures, so that the relationship among the study variables is not affected. Gender was coded as follows: male = 1, female = 2. Age was coded as 19 – 25 = 1, 26 – 40 = 2, 41 – 54 = 3. Experience was also coded as follows: less than 3 years = 1 and 3 years and more = 2.