The vision integration process: Applying Rogers’ diffusion of innovations theory to leader

Abstract

Involving followers in the communication of a new vision can be critical to its ultimate adoption. Viewing vision as a relatively novel guiding framework that may or may not “diffuse” throughout an organization, we apply Roger’s (2003) Diffusion of Innovations model to the visioning process. Employees from a large supermarket chain (n = 1481) completed surveys concerning vision knowledge, perceptions of the vision’s innovation characteristics (i.e. relative advantage, compatibility, trialability, observability, and complexity), bidirectional leader–follower communication about the vision, perceived integration of the vision into work behaviors, and organizational commitment. Perceptions of the innovation characteristics of the vision were related to both vision integration and commitment. Based on our findings, we argue that a new vision can be conceptualized as an innovation, in which followers are actively involved in decisions of adoption or rejection. We advocate a more balanced approach to vision integration that highlights both leader and follower roles.

Keywords

Diffusion follower-centric integration leadership vision

“It matters little, so far as human behavior is concerned, whether or not an idea is ‘objectively’ new as measured by the lapse of time since its first use … the perceived newness of the idea for the individual determines his or her reaction to it. If an idea seems new to the individual, it is an innovation.”

Everett Rogers

“The fiddler's arm has gone dead,

And talk is beginning to spread.”

Bob Dylan

Employees frequently encounter novel ideas or “innovations” as organizations develop and implement new programs, processes, or strategies. Scholars have long studied the process of how innovations diffuse throughout social systems, recently synthesized in Crossan and Apaydin’s (2010) review of organizational innovation research over the past 27 years. As early as 1962, Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovations book reviewed case studies of innovations that were not widely adopted despite their obvious advantages. Examples such as the Dvorak keyboard, which failed to gain widespread acceptance despite its superiority over the now standard QWERTY keyboard, highlight that even innovations that objectively provide important advantages are not always successfully adopted. Relatively less attention has been paid to the processes through which new ideas and values diffuse (or do not) throughout organizations, and how and when they might be changed in this process. Rogers (2003: 17) notes that it was not until the 1970s that scholars began to study the concept of reinvention, or “the degree to which an innovation is changed or modified by a user in the process of adoption and implementation.”

Although Diffusion of Innovations was designated a Citation Classic in 1990 by the Institute of Scientific Communication based on the number of citations it has received (32,491 as of October 2011), Rogers’ ideas have been underutilized in the management literature (McGrath and Zell, 2001; for notable exceptions, see Kennedy and Fiss, 2009; Van de Ven et al., 1989). Over 10 years ago, in an interview with Everett Rogers in the Journal of Management Inquiry, McGrath and Zell (2001: 390) highlighted that this intersection could be a fruitful area “in which management theory can both benefit diffusion of innovation and be enriched by a good understanding of the diffusion of innovation literature.” In the current study, we test Rogers’ theory in the context of an organization attempting to diffuse a relatively new vision through a large organization, in order to gain a better understanding of when and under what circumstances vision adoption occurs, and whether adoption also impacts employee commitment to the organization.

Strange and Mumford (2002, 2005) defined vision as a set of beliefs about how followers should act, and interact, to realize an idealized future state. An organization’s vision thus represents an image of the future that articulates the values, purposes, and identities of followers (House, 1977; Levin, 2000; Nanus, 1992; Strange and Mumford, 2002, 2005). Vision is a key element of charismatic and transformational leadership (Berson et al., 2001), and a clear and compelling vision has been associated with a variety of positive outcomes, including increased employee motivation (Conger et al., 2000; Sosik et al., 1999), perceptions of leadership effectiveness (Awamleh and Gardner, 1999) and organizational performance (Baum, 1995; Baum et al., 1998; Deluga, 1998; Kirkpatrick and Locke, 1996; Westley and Mintzberg, 1989; Zhang et al., 2011).

However, the majority of this research focuses on leaders, or top leadership teams (Jansen et al., 2008) as the genesis, representation, and primary change agent(s) in implementing an organization’s vision. As a result, it largely ignores the complex processes involved in diffusing any new idea, no matter how conventional, throughout an organization. In addition, followers are only rarely mentioned in the visioning process, and are often relegated to a largely passive role in vision implementation. Recently, however, scholars have begun to examine the role of followers in enacting or resisting a leader’s vision (Carsten and Bligh, 2008; Carsten et al., 2010; Kohles et al., 2012) or more broadly in implementing strategically aligned behaviors (van Riel et al., 2009).

Integrating a diffusion of innovations approach with prior research on visioning, we develop and test a model of followers’ perceptions of vision-related communications and characteristics of the vision itself to better understand the implementation process. In essence, we seek to outline when vision integration has occurred, which we define as whether or not followers use the vision as a guiding framework when making decisions and discretionary behaviors in their daily work roles. In this approach, we explicitly assume that social change, or the process by which alteration occurs in the structure and function of a social system (Rogers, 2003), is a primary goal of the visioning process. While vision statements may be more or less novel, ranging from incremental shifts to drastic changes, all of them represent attempts to change employee behaviors. Thus, vision integration defines whether this process has been successful or not, and whether or not the vision innovation has diffused throughout the organization. As Rogers himself put it, “when an organization is involved, the implementation stage often becomes crucial. Much often goes wrong after the decision to adopt is made” (cited in McGrath and Zell, 2001: 390).

In this paper, we explore employees’ perceptions of the bidirectional leader–follower processes that may facilitate or hinder vision integration over time among organizational members, recognizing there are both planned and spontaneous channels in which ideas are communicated and diffused throughout an organization. Rogers pointed out that person-to-person communication is crucial in the diffusion process among all kinds of adopters. “It is people sharing their experiences with an innovation with others who have not yet adopted that ultimately is what convinces most people to adopt a new idea” (cited in McGrath and Zell, 2001: 390).

Our model posits that the diffusion of vision throughout an organization requires that followers at all levels: 1) know and understand the vision; 2) perceive it as compatible with their particular work roles, which can be at times confusing, complex, and ambiguous, including aspects that leaders may not always fully comprehend; and 3) use the vision as a guiding framework in their particular jobs. Thus, we propose that these two-way leader–follower communication processes may distinguish organizations where vision is actually implemented into employee work roles versus perceived as mere jargon developed by top managers.

In the following section, we examine vision as a process “innovation” that must be communicated or diffused throughout an organization in order to be adequately implemented. However, we emphasize that the use of the term innovation does not necessarily imply that the vision represents revolutionary change, or even much that is new. Rather, following Rogers (2003), we argue that an organization’s vision represents an idea or practice that may be perceived as more or less novel by some employees, and as more or less attractive to adopt and implement. Using a diffusion of innovations framework, we develop and empirically test a hypothesized model in a large grocery store chain, and examine the relationship of followers’ use of vision and perceptions of their commitment to the organization in the wake of a newly developed vision statement.

A diffusion of innovations perspective: the vision integration process

A fundamental assumption of our approach is that current conceptualizations of vision may unwittingly foster a “romance of leadership,” whereby leaders are attributed the vast majority of accolades for the success (or blame for the failure) of vision implementation (Kohles et al., 2012; Meindl et al., 1985). Waldman, Siegel and Javidan (2006) similarly highlight that the heroic charismatic and visionary leader is more mythology than reality, and to a large extent, the leader’s role is to capture the foresight that often already exists throughout an organization. The emphasis on leaders as the primary agents in the vision process fails to address existing research suggesting that followers have different desires and needs for how leaders influence them, and that followers differ in their receptivity to a leader’s ideas and potential influence (Carsten and Bligh, 2007; de Vries et al., 1999, 2002; de Vries and van Gelder, 2005; Howell and Shamir, 2005; Kohles et al., 2012; Meindl, 1990, 1998; Schyns et al., 2007; Stam et al., 2010; Shung-Jae and Jing, 2003). Following Rogers’ (2003) diffusion of innovations framework, we suggest that a leader’s vision may best be conceptualized as an “innovation,” which employees and managers throughout the organization are more or less likely to adopt.

However, our use of the term innovation does not necessarily imply that the new vision represents a radically new, revolutionary change. Rogers (2003) defines innovation as an idea, practice, or object that is perceived as new by a social actor. From this perspective, innovations can be viewed along a continuum, from those involving a high degree of new knowledge (radical innovations) to those involving a very low degree of new knowledge (incremental innovations) (see Dewar and Dutton, 1986). Peter Drucker (1985) similarly defined innovation as “the effort to create purposeful, focused change in an enterprise’s economic and social potential.” As such, we argue that vision statements represent focused attempts by organizations to innovate, in that they are purposefully crafted statements about the desired future state of the organization. As Rogers (2003: 12) points out:

Newness in an innovation need not just involve new knowledge. Someone may have known about an innovation for some time but not yet developed a favorable or unfavorable attitude toward it, nor have adopted or rejected it. “Newness” of an innovation may be expressed in terms of knowledge, persuasion, or a decision to adopt.

In the case of vision, innovation can be said to occur when an organization’s guiding vision is integrated into the specific work behaviors and decisions of employees. Understanding the need for such an innovation is the first step in a complex innovation-development process in which an innovation is communicated through certain channels over time among members of a social system (Rogers, 2003). Integrating a new vision can help individual employees innovate strategies and modes of working, creating potential opportunities for every follower capable of doing work differently than the status quo (Hamel and Prahalad, 1994). Further, when employees integrate the vision into their work and begin to share it with others, organizational learning can be facilitated (Senge, 1990). However, a diffusion of innovation perspective does not imply that there is anything inherently novel or even revolutionary about the vision itself: rather, it simply suggests that vision statements contain ideas that may or may not diffuse through the organization and may or may not lead to any measurable changes in employee behaviors.

Although Rogers’ model has been studied in the diffusion of various “innovations” in very diverse areas including marketing (Flight et al., 2011; Tanakinjal et al., 2010), banking adoption (Suki, 2010), engineering management (Tornatzky and Klein, 1982), and information technology (Agarwal and Prasad, 1998; Taylor and Todd, 1995), it has yet to be applied to the management domain. This gap is surprising, given the fact that understanding how ideas diffuse through social systems, and what factors influence that process, has numerous applications to organizations attempting to disseminate new practices, training programs, ideas, and technologies. Even in some of Rogers’ own earlier work, he demonstrated the application of his framework to a wide variety of diverse domains, such as water-boiling behaviors in a Peruvian village, scurvy in the British Navy, hybrid seed corn adoption in the Midwestern US, in addition to the failure to adopt the Dvorak keyboard over the QWERTY keyboard (Rogers, 2003).

Below, we explore the application of Rogers’ (2003) framework to the management realm, developing a model that expands existing research on vision integration (see Figure 1). First, in response to calls for increased attention to communication processes in the study of leadership and vision (Kohles et al., 2012; Larwood et al., 1995; Zorn, 1991), we examine perceptions of bidirectional leader–follower communication processes. Second, from a diffusion of innovation framework, vision is viewed as an innovation that can be potentially adopted and integrated into follower work behaviors and decisions. Alternately, followers could also modify or even resist the vision. This framework, based on extensive research on the innovation-decision process in social systems (Rogers, 2003), incorporates leaders, followers, and characteristics of the vision itself in understanding how vision ultimately impacts follower outcomes. Potential adopters of the vision may go through the process of gaining knowledge of the vision innovation, evaluating the vision innovation, and making a decision to adopt and implement the vision innovation (Rogers, 2003) by integrating it into their work. Alternately, potential adopters may fail to correctly understand what the vision entails, may decide it has nothing to do with their work behaviors and goals, or may conclude that it is too confusing or costly to adopt.

Figure 1.

Hypothesized research model for the vision integration process.

In the current paper, we build on Kirkpatrick and Locke’s (1996) lab study, expanding the definition of vision implementation behaviors beyond task-relevant cues to reflect a bidirectional communication process. Our approach to vision communication includes both leader–follower communications, linking the vision with actual work behaviors and decisions of followers, and follower–leader communications, which might include followers’ suggestions, questions, and concerns about how to apply the vision. These two-way leader–follower communications are expected to influence the extent to which followers know and understand the organization’s vision, and ultimately whether or not they decide to use it.

Finally, we note that it is also possible that leader–follower communications may “muddy the waters” in the sense that these communications may lead to divergent interpretations of the vision and what it entails. For example, Eisenberg and Witten (1987) point out that leaders who are overly explicit in stating the mission and goals take a risk: when missions are couched in unequivocal terms, conflict is inevitable. A long tradition of research suggests that communication processes are more accurately viewed as complex negotiations among social actors, suggesting that when goals are stated concretely, they may be less effective than strategic ambiguity (Pfeffer, 1981; Pondy, 1978; Putnam and Pacanowsky, 1983; Weick, 1979). More specifically, Eisenberg and Witten (1987: 422) suggest that “ambiguous missions and goals allow divergent interpretations to coexist and are more effective in allowing diverse groups to work together.” To our knowledge, few previous studies have measured the extent to which employees at all organizational levels know and understand the vision, nor have they empirically examined whether or not increased communication about the vision actually leads to clarity in understanding versus the fragmentation of meaning consistent with a more complex view of communication. Based on these arguments, we test the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: Vision communication, defined as two-way communication (top-down and bottom-up) will be significantly and positively associated with vision knowledge.

In addition, given the importance of vision formulation itself (Shipman et al., 2010), including its ability to provide a framework under which groups can respond to crises (Hunt et al., 1999), the innovation characteristics of the vision from followers’ perspectives (rather than solely from top leaders’ perspectives) are examined. Following Rogers (2003), we note that characteristics of the vision itself, as perceived by individual followers, may be critical in explaining different rates of diffusion and adoption throughout the organization. In other words, the subjective perceptions of individual followers about the vision itself – whether communicated from leaders to followers, followers to leaders, or spread through interfollower processes – matter in the likely rate of vision adoption.

Rogers (2003) outlines five characteristics of innovations that impact the relative adoption and integration of vision by followers: 1) relative advantage, 2) compatibility, 3) trialability, 4) observability, and 5) complexity. Relative advantage is the degree to which the vision is perceived as better than the idea or ideas it supersedes. Thus, as organizational visions are deployed, followers must decide whether incorporating the vision as a guide for their behavior will likely provide some benefit for them in terms of performing their jobs compared to previous guiding frameworks they may have used (i.e. is it even worth it as compared to other available options?). It is also important to note that the relative advantage of an idea may refer to any informal framework or idea currently in use, and does not necessarily have to be a formally stated vision. Compatibility is defined as the degree to which the vision is perceived as consistent with the existing values, past experiences, and needs of potential adopters. If the vision is perceived as compatible with prevailing norms, then followers may be more likely to identify with the vision. Trialability is the degree to which the vision may be experimented with on a limited basis. If followers are able to easily try out the vision as a guiding framework for their work, without much difficulty, falling behind, getting in trouble, or risking their jobs, then they may be more likely to adopt the vision. Conversely, if trying to use the vision as a guide for their work results in negative consequences, adoption may be less likely to occur. Observability is the degree to which the results or outcomes of vision use are visible to others. The easier it is to see if managers or other followers are using the vision to guide their work, the more likely it may be that discussion will occur about this new way of performing work. This observability, in the form of symbols, common practices, or visible behaviors, may encourage others to think about, discuss, or try to integrate the vision into their work as well. Finally, complexity is the degree to which the vision is perceived as more or less difficult to understand and use. If the vision is relatively difficult to understand, particularly as it relates to followers’ particular jobs, then the vision may not be readily adopted because it is perceived as overly convoluted or too intricate to be practical. In other words, if the vision is too lofty, vague, or abstract, it may simply be ignored.

Together, these five characteristics reflect how the vision is perceived by potential adopters. We expect that higher levels of vision knowledge will be associated with more positive perceptions of the innovation characteristics of the vision; that is, the more employees know about the vision, the more likely they are to be able to assess its potential compatibility and level of complexity, whether it offers any clear advantages for their roles, and whether or not they perceive they can observe or try the vision “in action.” We argue that employees must need to know something about the vision in order to assess its attractiveness. In addition, it is important to reiterate here that we assume the elements of the vision are carefully crafted to align employee behaviors toward a desirable future state for the organization; hence, we predict that increased knowledge of the vision will be associated with more positive perceptions of its innovation characteristics. However, we also note that it is possible that increased knowledge about the vision may also lead to less favorable evaluations of the vision and its attractiveness. In other words, for some followers, knowing more about the vision may also undermine perceptions of its relative advantage, compatibility, observability, trialability, and low complexity.

In essence, we hypothesize mediation effects in our model. Mediators explain how external physical events take on internal psychological significance to followers, and thus mediation represents the core of the active process of followers in the innovation-decision process (Rogers, 2003). Essentially, we argue that the characteristics of the vision must be evaluated psychologically by employees before they decide whether or not to adopt it. In other words, potential adopters of the vision may go through the process of gaining knowledge of the vision innovation, evaluating the vision innovation, and making a decision to adopt and implement the vision innovation (Rogers, 2003) by integrating it into their work behaviors and decisions. Of course, the opposite may also be true: potential adopters may fail to understand the vision, or may evaluate it as too ambiguous or difficult to understand. Whereas moderator variables specify when certain effects will hold, mediators speak to how or why such effects occur. We explicitly test mediation in the vision integration process, suggesting that followers must fundamentally know the vision and actively evaluate its perceived characteristics in order to make a decision about its potential relevance and utility for their work. Therefore, we test the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 2a: Vision knowledge will be significantly and positively associated with innovation characteristics of the vision.

Hypothesis 2b: Vision knowledge will be indirectly related to vision integration through innovation characteristics.

Based on Rogers’ (2003) work, followers’ perceptions of the innovation characteristics of the vision should also have a strong impact on whether or not the vision is actually adopted and integrated into work behaviors and decisions. As stated above, we define vision integration as the degree to which followers perceive that they actually use the vision as a guiding framework for their particular jobs. We hypothesize that these innovation characteristics of the vision, to the extent that employees understand them and perceive that they are favorable, play an important role in mediating the degree to which employees integrate the vision into their work behaviors and decisions. In other words, vision integration comprises follower perceptions of how much they actually use their organization’s vision to guide their behavior and decisions. Thus, the current research extends previous findings by assessing followers’ perceptions throughout the organization on how much (if any) they actually use the vision.

In addition, integration of the organization’s vision will likely increase perceptions of employee commitment, a key outcome variable in organizational research. A direct result of vision integration is likely to be more committed followers (Mathieu and Zajac, 1990) who feel both psychological attachment to the organization’s vision and some level of responsibility to make their work behaviors and decisions consistent with it. Following O’Reilly and Chatman (1986), we define organizational commitment as an employee’s psychological attachment to the organization based on the level to which they internalize the organization’s values, identify with its core principles, and feel it is important to comply with the organization’s rules and procedures. Organizational commitment thus represents an employee’s loyalty to the organization and his or her investment in the organization’s success (Slack et al., 2010).

Slack et al. (2010) found that having a clear organizational vision that was understood by employees at all levels was significantly related to employee satisfaction and commitment (see also Kohles et al., 2012). Other research has shown that commitment is predicted by followers’ perceptions of organizational values, which are highlighted and formalized in vision statements (Finegan, 2000). In sum, we argue that when followers share the organization’s common values as formalized in the vision, their desire to remain in the organization increases. Further support is provided by findings that organizational conditions which reduce one’s feelings of responsibility to the organization result in lower commitment (Luthans et al., 1987; Salancik, 1977).

Hypothesis 3a: Innovation characteristics will be significantly and positively related to vision integration.

Hypothesis 3b: Innovation characteristics will be indirectly related to organizational commitment through vision integration.

Hypothesis 4: Vision integration will be significantly and positively associated with organizational commitment.

Methodology

Sample and procedures

Pilot test

A pilot test was conducted on a sample of 79 MBA students at a large northeastern university in the US to test the reliabilities for each of the scales not previously used in published research, as well as for the innovation characteristics measure (Rogers, 2003). All of the measures had acceptable reliabilities: vision communication, .88; vision knowledge, .84; innovation characteristics of the vision, .78; and vision integration, .95.

Research site

We had two criteria for research site selection: the organization had to have a relatively new and innovative vision statement, and communication of this new vision had to be a top priority for the organization. A large multi-state grocery store chain in the northeastern US had developed a new vision statement approximately six months prior to data collection and agreed to participate. The organization used a number of communication channels to disseminate its new vision, including formal communications from management, town hall forums, emails, and newsletters.

Sample

Surveys were mailed directly to 6098 employees (53% of the entire organization) via the organization’s internal mailing system, and respondents were allowed to complete the surveys on company time in order to increase the response rate. All upper and middle management and salaried personnel were included in the sample. In addition, a random number generator was used to select a stratified, random sample of half of the lower-level non-salaried employees. Thus, employees at all levels and work roles were included in the sample. Respondents returned the completed surveys directly to the researchers to maintain confidentiality. The response rate was 24.3%, with 1481 valid surveys returned. The gender composition was split almost exactly equally, with 50.2% female, and the average age was 34.6 years. Thirty percent of respondents had a high school education, 41.6% had some college education, 16.1% had bachelor’s degrees, and 6.3% received education beyond the bachelor’s degree. Average tenures were as follows: organizational tenure, 5.3 years; job tenure, 3.7 years; and tenure under current immediate supervisor, 1.6 years. Finally, 28% of the respondents were managers.

Measures

Prior to data collection, a focus group was conducted with a cross-section of 13 employees from different levels of the organization. The primary purpose of the focus group was to assess whether or not the researchers’ understandings of major concepts such as vision, leadership, and communication behaviors using standard scales were similar to those of employees from multiple levels of the organization. The focus group yielded no major problems with understanding, or comprehension of, major concepts included in the survey. Furthermore, employees reported comfort discussing the concepts of vision, leadership, and communication, supporting both the face validity and construct validity of our measures with this population.

To emphasize that the organization’s vision was referent for the survey, directions for survey participants were provided as follows: “This confidential questionnaire concerns the organizational vision of [Company X.]” In order to partially mitigate concerns with common methods bias (Avolio et al., 1991), we varied the scaling format and anchors across the scales, and deviations from a seven-point Likert-type scale anchored with Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (7) are noted below.

Two-way vision communication

Bidirectional vision communication was measured with a seven-item scale where top-down vision communication emphasized leaders’ participation in the communication process. Sample items include: “My immediate supervisor initiates conversation with me about aligning my work behaviors and decisions with the company’s vision” and “My immediate supervisor gives suggestions about how the company’s vision can be used to guide my work behaviors and decisions.” Bottom-up vision communication emphasized follower participation in the communication process. Sample items include: “I initiate conversation with my immediate supervisor about aligning my work behaviors and decisions with the company’s vision” and “I suggest ideas to my immediate supervisor concerning how the company’s vision can be used to guide my work behaviors and decisions.” In addition, several items allowed employees to comment on bidirectional communications, for example: “My immediate supervisor and I discuss how my work behaviors and decisions should be in alignment with the vision” (alpha = .96).

Vision knowledge

Perceived vision knowledge was measured with a two-item scale designed to target whether or not employees knew and understood their organization’s vision. Items included: “I understand what the vision means” and “This organization’s vision is easy to understand” (alpha = .90).

Innovation characteristics of the vision

Innovation characteristics of the vision were measured with a five-item scale asking respondents to rate each of the five innovation characteristics developed by Rogers (2003). Items included: “There is a clear advantage to using the vision as a guide for my work behaviors and decisions;” “The vision is compatible with my work behaviors and decisions;” “It is easy to try to use the vision to guide my work behaviors and decisions;” “It is easy to recognize when someone is using the vision to guide his/her work behaviors and decisions;” and “It is easy to understand how the vision can be used to guide my work behaviors and decisions” (alpha = .93). An EFA conducted on these five items also shows that they all load on a single factor and that the one factor model accounts for 69% of the variance in the innovation characteristics construct.

Vision integration

Vision integration was measured with a seven-item scale. Sample items include: “The vision serves as a ‘mental guideline’ for how to do my job” and “Knowing the vision affects what I think is important when doing my job” (alpha = .95).

Organizational commitment

Organizational commitment was measured with a 12-item scale developed by O’Reilly and Chatman (1986) (alpha = .76).

Leadership with vision

Given the fact that vision communication processes have not been studied extensively and there is no well-established measure in previous literature, we also included a leader-centric approach to vision and its articulation in the form of three well-known leadership subscales dealing with vision and its articulation (Bass and Avolio, 1995; Conger and Kanungo, 1998; Podsakoff et al., 1990). While these variables are not part of our hypothesized model, they were included to assess the discriminant validity of vision communication as a new construct, compared to these three well-established subscales dealing with vision and its articulation.

Specifically, items from Conger and Kanungo’s (1998) Charismatic Leadership Subscale for Vision and Articulation include, “Inspirational; able to motivate by articulating effectively the importance of what organizational members are doing” (alpha = .95). Items from Bass and Avolio’s (1995) Transformational Leadership Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Form 5X) Subscale for Charisma/Inspiration include, “Articulates a compelling vision of the future” (alpha = .97). Items from Podsakoff et al.’s (1990) Transformational Leadership Inventory Subscale for Identifying and Articulating a Vision include, “Inspires others with his/her plans for the future” (alpha = .95).

Demographic variables

Demographic variables included gender, age, education, position/level, unit/location, and organizational tenure.

Data analysis

We tested the paths in our models using structural equation modeling (SEM) with EQS 6.1 software. Testing path models using SEM is recommended, as it accounts for measurement error, causality among variables, and provides the decomposition of correlations among variables (Arbuckle, 1996, 1997; Joreskog and Sorbom, 1993; Maruyama, 1998; Medsker et al., 1994; Schumacker and Lomax, 1996).

Results

Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations of the key variables are presented in Table 1. Prior to testing the hypothesized path model, we conducted Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) on the measurement model. The CFA was intended to establish discriminant validity between the three leadership with vision subscales and vision communication.

Table 1.

Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations.

Variables	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
N = 1481
1. Vision Communication	4.19	1.67	.96
2. Conger and Kanungo (1998)	4.41	1.55	.70**	.95
3. Bass and Avolio (1995)	4.72	1.54	.68**	.89**	.97
4. Podsakoff et al. (1990)	4.48	1.63	.68**	.88**	.92**	.95
5. Leadership with Vision (Composite)	4.58	1.53	.71**	.95**	.98**	.96**	.98
6. Vision Knowledge	5.41	1.54	.29**	.27**	.28**	.29**	.29**	.90
7. Innovation Characteristics	4.80	1.45	.57**	.41**	.40**	.42**	.42**	.49**	.93
8. Vision Integration	4.80	1.47	.59**	.40**	.40**	.41**	.41**	.46**	.86**	.95
9. Organizational Commitment	4.07	.95	.51**	.44**	.41**	.43**	.44**	.29**	.55**	.58**	.76

Note: **p < .01. Alpha reliabilities presented on the diagonal.

Results of the CFA show that the hypothesized model with four distinct factors fit the data adequately, as all of the goodness of fit indices were above .95, with most at .99 or above. Whereas we generally expected the three established subscales comprising leadership with vision and the newly developed vision communication variable to be highly related yet distinct constructs, we tested a one-factor model (with all leadership and communication items loading on a single factor) against the four-factor model that distinguished between all three leadership with vision subscales and vision communication. Results from this analysis suggest that the four-factor model accounting for the three leadership subscales and the vision communication scale (χ² (428) = 2548.76, p < .05, CFI = .95, TLI = .94, RMSEA = .06) demonstrated a superior fit over the single-factor model (χ² (434) = 6861.74, p < .05, CFI = .85, TLI = .83, RMSEA = .10) where all leadership and communication items were forced to load on a single factor (Δχ² (6) = 3847.65 p < .001). Interestingly, these results suggest that leadership with vision and two-way leader–follower vision communication are best conceptualized as distinct constructs (see Figure 2). According to Campbell and Fiske (1959), these results provide some evidence for the discriminant validity of the vision communication construct, and suggest that although vision communication is related to leadership with vision, it appears that there is not a great amount of redundancy in these constructs (Edwards, 2003).

Figure 2.

Hypothesized model including leadership with vision comparison.

The hypothesized model was tested using SEM via EQS 6.1 (Bentler, 2005) with Maximum Likelihood estimation. This allowed a simultaneous test of direct and indirect effects of the leadership and vision communication variables on the model’s numerous mediating and outcome variables. Scale means were used to represent measured variables in the hypothesized model. Path analysis revealed that the hypothesized fully mediated model did not adequately fit the data χ² (9) = 529.61, p < .01, CFI = .85, TLI = .84, RMSEA = .20, even though all path coefficients in the model were statistically significant at the p < .05 level. Following the .95 “rule of thumb” for the goodness of fit indexes (Hu and Bentler, 1999), the hypothesized model did not come close to fitting the data, even though all four hypotheses were strongly supported.

We proceeded with our analysis by specifying several alternative models (see Table 2), following the recommendations of Anderson and Gerbing (1988). Alternative models were specified in a theory-guided process by adding direct paths between variables. Of the four alternative models tested, the best fitting model was one where two direct paths were added to the hypothesized model (see Figure 3). Specifically, we tested for direct effects between vision communication, innovation characteristics, and vision integration. As vision communication is likely to directly affect these other vision integration variables as well, this revised model maintains strong theoretical grounding, but tests for partial, rather than full mediation.

Figure 3.

Modified model with standardized direct path coefficients. χ²(7) = 117.03 p < .001, CFI = .97, TLI = .97, RMSEA = .10, *All paths are significant.

Table 2.

Model fit and model comparison tests of hypothesized and alternative models.

Model	Description	χ²	df	RMSEA	CFI	Comparison	Δχ²	df
M_H	Hypothesized, fully mediated model	529.61	9	.20	.85
M_VI	M_H + direct path Vis. Com → Inn. Char.	179.49	8	.12	.95	M_H	413.92	1
M_VV	M_H + direct path Vis Com → Vis. Integ.	455.07	8	.19	.87	M_H	76.11	1
M_OC	M_H + direct path Vis Com → Org. Com.	449.78	8	.19	.87	M_H	82.22	1
M_PM	M_VI + M_VV	117.03	7	.10	.97	M_H	443.96	2

Note: Vis. Com = Vision Communication; Inn. Char. = Innovation Characteristics; Vis. Integ. = Vision Integration; Org. Com. = Organizational Commitment

Results suggest that this modified model adequately fits the data (χ² (7) = 117.03, p < .001, CFI = .97, TLI = .97, RMSEA = .10), and all path coefficients in the model were statistically significant. It is particularly noteworthy that although leadership with vision was a marginally stronger direct predictor of vision knowledge (β = .18 for leadership with vision and β = .16 for vision communication), vision communication was a stronger indirect predictor of the rest of the variables involved in the vision integration process. For example, vision communication related indirectly to innovation characteristics, vision integration, and organizational commitment, and did so over and above the leadership with vision variable, and with generally stronger associations (see indirect and total effects in Table 3). These findings offer further support for vision communication as a distinct and important antecedent of the vision integration process, and as an important predictor of employees’ organizational commitment.

Table 3.

Standardized indirect and total effects.

	VIS Communication		Leadership w/VIS		VIS Knowledge		Innovation Char.		VIS Integration
	IND	TOTAL	IND	TOTAL	IND	TOTAL	IND	TOTAL	IND	TOTAL
VIS Knowledge	--	.16	--	.18
Innovation Char	.06	.53	.07	.07	--	.35
VIS Integration	.41	.56	.05	.05	.27	.27	--	.78
Org. Commitment	.32	.32	.03	.03	.16	.16	.45	.45	--	.58

Note. IND = Indirect effect. VIS = Vision. All direct and indirect path coefficients are significant at p < .05.

An examination of both the direct and indirect path coefficients in the modified model suggest that all of our hypotheses were supported. Specifically, our results suggest that both vision communication (β = .16, p < .05) and leadership with vision (β = .18, p < .05) were significantly related to vision knowledge. As expected, vision communication and leadership with vision also proved to be significant covariates (β = .69, p < .05). Although not originally hypothesized, the two additional paths added to the modified model were also significant (i.e. vision communication was directly related to both innovation characteristics (β = .47, p < .05) and vision integration (β = .15, p < .05). As hypothesized, vision knowledge was directly related to innovation characteristics (β = .35, p < .05), innovation characteristics was directly related to vision integration (β = .78, p < .05), and vision integration was directly related to organizational commitment (β = .58, p < .05).

Beyond the hypothesized direct effects described above, our results also provide evidence for significant indirect effects of vision knowledge on vision integration through innovation characteristics (β = .27, p < .05), and innovation characteristics on organizational commitment through vision integration (β = .45, p < .05). Overall, the vision integration process hypothesized in this study, and displayed in Figure 2, is supported by the data. Furthermore, in addition to the relationships hypothesized in the model, the vision integration process is best explained by the addition of two direct paths between vision communication and both innovation characteristics and vision integration (see Figure 3).

Discussion

In sum, our results suggest that vision integration is associated with followers who know about the vision, and perceive that it represents some form of improvement or advantage to their current work roles. Perceptions of bidirectional communications between immediate supervisors and followers were significantly related to how much employees felt that the vision was directly applicable to their work roles, and how much they felt that they have actually integrated the vision into their work. Further, our findings suggest that just because employees have been educated as to what the vision is (vision knowledge), this does not necessarily mean that they directly integrate the vision into their jobs. The modified model (Figure 3) clearly shows that what is important are communications about how the vision is compatible with, and can be applied to, their particular jobs. Only at this point, when followers perceive the vision as compatible with their jobs, do they take the next step and integrate the vision as a guide for their work.

Furthermore, the modified model (Figure 3) illustrates that the innovation characteristics of the vision, developed from Rogers (2003), serves as a fundamentally important construct determining whether employees actually integrate the vision into their work. To the extent that followers perceive that the vision has relative advantage over existing ideas, high compatibility with the organization’s existing values, is easy to try without incurring high risk of recrimination, and is readily observable and understandable, the more likely they are to perceive that it is useful to their jobs and the greater their commitment to the organization.

These results have important implications for both theory and practice. Theoretically, our findings support the utility of Rogers’ (2003) diffusion of innovations framework to new ideas and values that leaders attempt to instill in their organizations. To the best of our knowledge, this is one of the few studies to apply Rogers’ theoretical model to the management literature. In addition, it is one of the first studies to examine vision from the perspective of followers, demonstrating that followers’ knowledge and perceptions of a new vision’s characteristics at all levels within an organization are important. Consistent with other recent research (Carsten and Bligh, 2007; Kohles et al., 2012), the use of vision as an aligning function within organizations should not just be for top leaders. Rather, visionary content should be communicated with followers in a two-way fashion, allowing employees to assess whether or not its characteristics resonate with their work roles. Everyday managers and mid- and lower-level supervisors, who are also followers, must also participate in the process of communicating and diffusing the vision. Thus, organizational vision has utility in aligning employee behavior and decisions, even when communicated by everyday managers in everyday conversations.

For confidentiality reasons, we cannot include the precise content of this organization’s vision statement. However, the vision included themes of creating a “fun,” “exciting” place that specifically engaged “busy families,” which was perceived as a significant departure from the previous focus on quality and customer service. We explicitly recognize that not all visions are equally innovative; the content of the vision and its relationship to current norms and values is likely an important boundary condition, and future research should explore to what extent different types of visionary content may be more or less effective in engaging followers’ self-concepts and enhancing motivation (see Shipman et al., 2010; Stam et al., 2010). Further, our application of Rogers’ (2003) work assumes a relatively calculative approach to evaluating the utility of the new vision (e.g. relative advantage, compatibility). While these aspects were clearly important to followers in this study, this approach may underemphasize the role of emotional appeals and interfollower contagion processes that are emphasized in charismatic rhetoric (e.g. Bligh et al., 2004; Meindl, 1990).

Another important factor may be the “age” of the vision, or the length of time since it was crafted and first communicated. Our data were collected six months after a new vision was crafted and initially communicated by top management. Followers’ perceptions of the vision’s novelty, age, and applicability likely play a critical role in their subsequent motivation to understand and integrate the vision. Also, it is important to assess the level of follower receptivity to a new vision based on previous history; for example, followers that have experienced high levels of top management turnover and changes in organizational vision are likely to be much more cynical that a new vision is just the “flavor of the month.” As a result, they are probably less likely to invest significant amounts of time in modifying their work behaviors in favor of maintaining the status quo.

In our sample, the bidirectional vision communication mean was 4.19, indicating that followers did perceive moderate levels of vision-related discussion between leaders and followers. Both leader- and follower-initiated communications regarding Rogers’ characteristics of the vision, followers’ roles in integrating the vision, and discussions about how work behaviors align with the vision, help employees understand how the vision can act as a guiding framework for their work. In turn, there was a significant relationship to employees’ organizational commitment. In the context of prior approaches to visioning as an activity primarily for top management and C-Suite leaders, these results support a more participative approach to the vision integration process.

Limitations and practical implications

In addition to the age of the vision, another important factor to consider may be the number of previous visions within a given time period. Employees may experience “vision statement fatigue” when organizations continually develop and attempt to implement different vision statements in a relatively short period of time. In addition, our data are based on self-report measures collected on questionnaires administered at a single point in time, and employees were asked to rate their own communication behaviors as well as those of their immediate supervisors. Thus, we focus on follower perceptions of leaders’ communication behaviors rather than the actual efforts themselves, as these perceptions are likely more proximal antecedents of employee behavior (van Riel et al., 2009). Although varying the rating scale and the rating referent in our survey (the participant’s leader, the organization’s vision, and the participant’s own attitudes and behaviors) helps mitigate concerns with common method bias, it remains an important limitation of our study. In addition, in order to retain a logical progression on the survey itself, variables were also presented in the same order in our surveys, which could raise the possibility of order effects. However, we felt this trade-off was necessary to enhance both the realism of the survey and ensure comprehension of the items, and note that some of these trade-offs were necessary in order to attain a large sample size given the constraints of field study research (see Snow and Thomas, 1994 for a discussion of innovative data-gathering techniques in field research).

We also note that it is possible that our measurement of leadership with vision violated the independence of observation assumption, since we did not collect information that would allow us to rule out multiple followers rating the same leader. Future research might focus on replicating the discriminant validity of our measures with a sample that is not nested. Our findings are thus subject to common method and source bias, as well as possible halo (or horns) effects: employees with good (or bad) relationships with their leaders may communicate more often and use the vision more readily (or not). We are also unable to rule out the potential for reverse causality: more committed followers may simply be more likely to know more about a new vision, and evaluate it and their relationship with their leader more favorably. Finally, it is important to note that employee self-ratings of vision knowledge may be somewhat inflated (M = 5.41), and future research should incorporate both qualitative and quantitative measures of vision knowledge in order to mitigate this potential bias.

Given the cross-sectional nature of this study, we cannot make any definitive statements regarding causal relationships among the variables in our model. Organizational commitment could lead to vision integration, for example, and it is also likely that vision knowledge leads to vision communication: it is hard to communicate and discuss a new vision at all without a basic knowledge of its content. Further, more favorable innovation characteristics (e.g. a vision that is easy to both understand and try out) could lead to increased vision knowledge. We simply posit that there is a significant relationship among the variables in our model. Lastly, the organization in our study is from a single region and industry within the US. Ideally, multiple organizations across industries and in globally diverse geographical regions should be examined. As today’s multinational corporations (MNCs) face a global business environment that must align strategic functions and behaviors across both cultural and national boundaries, vision integration processes are likely to become increasingly critical. In light of findings on cross-cultural differences in charismatic and transformational leadership (e.g. Den Hartog et al., 1999; Javidan and Carl, 2005; Lee, 2011), this is an important direction for future research in this area.

Despite some limitations, the current research has important practical implications for both managers and employees. In everyday conversations and behaviors, leaders and followers can literally transform a vision from mere words on paper to enacted behaviors. Organizations should thus assess both leaders and followers on their ability to translate vision into everyday actions that are meaningful, and would ideally train leaders how to translate visionary content in a more follower-centered and customized fashion that specifically resonates with their particular work roles. For example, vision-related workshops could help employees share the ways in which the vision can be enacted differently within and across functions of the organization. These activities would also symbolically communicate the importance of the vision.

In addition, organizations should focus on selection, training, promotion, and regular assessment of both leaders and followers who identify with and communicate about the vision and its core values. Organizations could also highlight specific work teams and departments that exemplify effective vision integration, further enhancing the vision’s functional and symbolic appeal. Ultimately, we hope this study will stimulate these practices, as well as foster additional research into how both leaders and followers transform a vision from empty rhetoric into powerful meaning that fundamentally enhances both work tasks and organizational life.

Footnotes

Jeffrey C Kohles is Professor of Management and Organizational Behavior in the College of Business Administration, as well as Director and founding member of the Center for Leadership Innovation and Mentorship Building (CLIMB), at California State University San Marcos. Prior to this, he was a research fellow at the Center for International Leadership in Buffalo, New York, as well as a research associate at the Kravis Leadership Institute in Claremont, California. His research interests include leadership, organizational communication, and the implementation of organization-level vision and strategy at the individual level.

Michelle C Bligh is Associate Professor in the School of Behavioral and Organizational Sciences and the Drucker-Ito School of Management at Claremont Graduate University. Her research interests include charismatic and political leadership, followership, and gender. Her work has been published in over a dozen scholarly outlets, and she serves on the editorial review boards of The Leadership Quarterly, Leadership, and the European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. She has received the Sage Best Paper Award and the Sage Outstanding Paper Award for Research Methods. Dr Bligh has helped a variety of organizations improve their effectiveness in leadership development, organizational culture, and change management.

Melissa K Carsten is Assistant Professor of Management at Winthrop University in Rock Hill, South Carolina. She previously was a post-doctoral fellow in leadership at the University of Nebraska. Her research examines followers' roles in the leadership process, and the relationships amongst follower beliefs, behaviors, and leaders' evaluations of followers. Dr Carsten has written several book chapters, and has published her research in refereed journals such as The Leadership Quarterly, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Organization Management Journal, Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, and Organizational Dynamics. Dr Carsten has also consulted for both public and private organizations to build leadership development programs and evaluate culture change initiatives.

References

Agarwal

Prasad

(1998) A conceptual and operational definition of personal innovativeness in the domain of information technology. Information Systems Research 9(2): 204–215.

Anderson

Gerbing

(1988) Structural Equation Modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin 103: 411–423.

Arbuckle

(1996) Full information estimation in the presence of incomplete data. In: Marcoulides

Schumacker

(eds) Advanced Structural Equation Modeling: Issues and Techniques, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Arbuckle

(1997) Amos Users' Guide Version 3.6, Chicago, IL: SmallWaters Corporation.

Avolio

Yammarino

Bass

(1991) Identifying common methods variance with data collected from a single source: An unresolved sticky issue. Journal of Management 17: 571–587.

Awamleh

Gardner

(1999) Perceptions of leader charisma and effectiveness: The effects of vision content, delivery, and organizational performance. The Leadership Quarterly 10: 345–373.

Bass

Avolio

(1995) Manual for the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire: Rater Form (5X Short), Palo Alto, CA: Mind Garden.

Baum JR (1995) Vision and entrepreneurship performance. Proceedings of the annual meeting of the Academy of Management. Vancouver, BC.

Baum

Locke

Kirkpatrick

(1998) A longitudinal study of the relation of vision and vision communication to venture growth in entrepreneurial firms. Journal of Applied Psychology 83(1): 43–54.

10.

Bentler

(2005) EQS 6 Structural Equations Program Manual, Encino, CA: Multivariate Software.

11.

Berson

Shamir

Avolio

Popper

(2001) The relationship between vision. strength, leadership style, and context. The Leadership Quarterly 12(1): 53–73.

12.

Bligh

Kohles

Meindl

(2004) Charisma under crisis: Presidential leadership, rhetoric, and media responses before and after the September 11^th terrorist attacks. The Leadership Quarterly 15(2): 211–239.

13.

Campbell

Fiske

(1959) Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin 56: 81–105.

14.

Carsten

Bligh

(2007) Here today, gone tomorrow: Follower perceptions of a departing leader and a lingering vision. In: Shamir

Pillai

Bligh

Uhl-Bien

(eds) Follower-Centered Perspectives on Leadership: A Tribute to the Memory of James R. Meindl, Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing, pp. 211–241.

15.

Carsten

Bligh

(2008) Lead, follow, and get out of the way: Involving employees in the visioning process. In: Riggio

Chaleff

Lipman-Blumen

(eds) The Art of Followership: How Great Followers Create Great Leaders and Organizations, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, pp. 277–290.

16.

Carsten

Uhl-Bien

West

Patera

McGregor

(2010) Exploring social constructions of followership: A qualitative study. The Leadership Quarterly 21(3): 543–562.

17.

Conger

Kanungo

(1998) Charismatic Leadership in Organizations, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

18.

Conger

Kanungo

Menon

(2000) Charismatic leadership and follower effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior 21(7): 747–767.

19.

Crossan

Apaydin

(2010) A multi-dimensional framework of organizational innovation: A systematic review of the literature. The Journal of Management Studies 47: 1157–1191.

20.

de Vries

van Gelder

(2005) Leadership and need for leadership: An implicit theory. In: Schyns

Meindl

(eds) Implicit Leadership Theories: Essays and Explorations, Greenwich, CT: Information Age, pp. 237–263.

21.

de Vries

Roe

Taillieu

(1999) On charisma and need for leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 8(1): 109–133.

22.

de Vries

Roe

Taillieu

TCB

(2002) Need for leadership as a moderator of the relationships between leadership and individual outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly 13(2): 121–137.

23.

Deluga

(1998) American presidential proactivity, charismatic leadership, and rated performance. The Leadership Quarterly 9(3): 265–291.

24.

Den Hartog

House

Hanges

Ruiz-Quintanilla

Dorfman

(1999) Culture specific and cross-culturally generalizable implicit leadership theories: Are attributes of charismatic/transformational leadership universally endorsed? The Leadership Quarterly 10(2): 219–256.

25.

Dewar

Dutton

(1986) The adoption of radical and incremental innovations: An empirical analysis. Management Science 32(11): 1422–1433.

26.

Drucker

(1985) Innovation and Entrepreneurship, New York: Harper Collins.

27.

Edwards

(2003) Construct validity in organizational behavior research. In: Greenberg

(eds) Organizational Behavior: The State of the Science, 2nd edn. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 327–371.

28.

Eisenberg

Witten

(1987) Reconsidering openness in organizational communication. The Academy of Management Review 12(3): 418–426.

29.

Finegan

(2000) The impact of person and organizational values on organizational commitment. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 73: 149–169.

30.

Flight

Allaway

Kim

D’Souza

(2011) A study of perceived innovation characteristics across cultures and stages of diffusion. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 19(1): 109–126.

31.

Hamel

Prahalad

(1994) Competing for the Future, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

32.

House

(1977) (1976) A theory of charismatic leadership. In: Hunt

Larson

(eds) Leadership: The Cutting Edge, Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, pp. 189–207.

33.

Howell

Shamir

(2005) The role of followers in the charismatic leadership process: Relationships and their consequences. Academy of Management Review 30(1): 96–112.

34.

Bentler

(1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 6(1): 1–55.

35.

Hunt

Boal

Dodge

(1999) The effects of visionary and crisis-responsive charisma on followers: An experimental examination of two kinds of charismatic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly 10: 423–448.

36.

Jansen

George

Van den Bosch

Volberda

(2008) Senior team attributes and organizational ambidexterity: The moderating role of transformational leadership. The Journal of Management Studies 45(5): 982–1007.

37.

Javidan

Carl

(2005) Leadership across cultures: A study of Canadian and Taiwanese executives. Management International Review 45(1): 23–44.

38.

Joreskog

Sorbom

(1993) LISREL 8: User's Reference Guide, Chicago, IL: Scientific Software.

39.

Kennedy

Fiss

(2009) Institutionalization, framing, and diffusion: The logic of TQM adoption and implementation decisions among US hospitals. Academy of Management Journal 52: 897–918.

40.

Kirkpatrick

Locke

(1996) Direct and indirect effects of three core charismatic leadership components on performance and attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology 81(1): 36–51.

41.

Kohles

Bligh

Carsten

(2012) A follower-centric approach to the vision integration process. The Leadership Quarterly 23(3): 476–487.

42.

Larwood

Falbe

Kriger

Miesing

(1995) Structure and meaning of organizational vision. Academy of Management Journal 38(3): 740–769.

43.

Lee

(2011) A comparison of leadership behaviors in the financial industry in the United States and Taiwan. Journal of International Management Studies 6(2): 1–13.

44.

Levin

(2000) Vision revisited: Telling the story of the future. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 36(1): 91–107.

45.

Luthans

Baack

Taylor

(1987) Organizational commitment: Analysis of antecedents. Human Relations 40: 219–235.

46.

Maruyama

(1998) Basics of Structural Equation Modeling, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

47.

Mathieu

Zajac

(1990) A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin 108: 171–194.

48.

McGrath

Zell

(2001) The future of innovation diffusion research and its implications for management: A conversation with Everett Rogers. Journal of Management Inquiry 10: 386–391.

49.

Medsker

Williams

Holahan

(1994) A review of current practice for evaluating causal models in organizational behavior and human resources management research. Journal of Management 20: 439–464.

50.

Meindl

(1990) On leadership: An alternative to the conventional wisdom. Research in Organizational Behavior 12: 159–203.

51.

Meindl

(1998) The romance of leadership as a follower-centric theory: A social construction approach. In: Dansereau

Yammarino

(eds) Leadership: The Multiple-Level Approaches – Part B: Contemporary and Alternative, Stamford, CT: Jai Press, pp. 285–298.

52.

Meindl

Ehrlich

Dukerich

(1985) The romance of leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly 30: 78–102.

53.

Nanus

(1992) Visionary Leadership: Creating a Compelling Sense of Direction for your Organization, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

54.

O'Reilly

Chatman

(1986) Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology 71(3): 492–499.

55.

Pfeffer

(1981) Management as symbolic action: The creation and maintenance of organizational paradigms. In: Staw

Cummings

(eds) Research in Organizational Behavior (Vol. 3), Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 1–52.

56.

Pondy

(1978) Leadership is a language game. In: Lombardo

McCall

(eds) Leadership: Where Else Can we Go?, Durham, NC: Duke University Press, pp. 87–99.

57.

Podsakoff

MacKenzie

Moorman

Fetter

(1990) Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers' trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly 1: 107–142.

58.

Putnam

Pacanowsky

(1983) Communication and Organizations: An Interpretive Approach, Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE Publications.

59.

Rogers

(2003) [1962) Diffusion of Innovations, 5th edn. New York: Free Press.

60.

Salancik

(1977) Commitment and the control of organization behavior and belief. In: Staw

Salancik

(eds) New Directions in Organizational Behavior, Chicago, IL: St. Clair Press, pp. 1–54.

61.

Schumacker

Lomax

(1996) A Beginner's Guide to Structural Equation Modeling, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

62.

Schyns

Felfe

Blank

(2007) Is charisma hyper-romanticism? Empirical evidence from new data and a meta-analysis. Applied Psychology 56(4): 505–527.

63.

Senge

(1990) The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, New York: Doubleday.

64.

Shamir

Pillai

Bligh

Uhl-Bien

(2007) Follower-Centered Perspectives on Leadership, Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

65.

Shipman

Byrne

Mumford

(2010) Leader vision formation and forecasting: The effects of forecasting extent, resources, and timeframe. The Leadership Quarterly 21(3): 439–456.

66.

Shung-Jae

Jing

(2003) Transformational leadership, conservation, and creativity: Evidence from Korea. Academy of Management Journal 46(6): 703–714.

67.

Slack

Orife

Anderson

(2010) Effects of commitment to corporate vision on employee satisfaction with their organization: An empirical study in the United States. International Journal of Management 27(3): 421–436.

68.

Snow

Thomas

(1994) Field research methods in strategic management: Contributions to theory building and testing. Journal of Management Studies 31(4): 457–480.

69.

Sosik

Kahai

Avolio

(1999) Leadership style, anonymity, and creativity in group decision support systems: The mediating role of optimal flow. The Journal of Creative Behavior 33: 227–256.

70.

Stam

van Knippenberg

Wisse

(2010) Focusing on followers: The role of regulatory focus and possible selves in visionary leadership. The Leadership Quarterly 21(3): 457–468.

71.

Strange

Mumford

(2002) The origins of vision: Charismatic versus ideological leadership. The Leadership Quarterly 13: 343–377.

72.

Strange

Mumford

(2005) The origins of vision: Effects of reflection, models, and analysis. The Leadership Quarterly 16(1): 121–148.

73.

Suki

(2010) An empirical study of factors affecting the internet banking adoption among Malaysian consumers. Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce 15(2): 1–12.

74.

Tanakinjal

Deans

Gray

(2010) Third screen communication and the adoption of mobile marketing: A Malaysia perspective. International Journal of Marketing Studies 2(1): 36–48.

75.

Taylor

Todd

(1995) Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing models. Information Systems Research 6: 144–176.

76.

Tornatzky

Klein

(1982) Innovation characteristics and innovation adoption implementation: A meta-analysis of findings. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 29(1): 28–44.

77.

Van de Ven

Angle

Poole

(1989) Research on the Management of Innovation: The Minnesota Studies, New York: Ballinger/Harper and Row.

78.

van Riel Berens

Dijkstra

(2009) Stimulating strategically aligned behavior among employees. The Journal of Management Studies 46(7): 1197–1227.

79.

Waldman

Siegel

Javidan

(2006) Transformational leadership and corporate social responsibility. The Journal of Management Studies 43(8): 1703–1725.

80.

Weick

(1979) The Social Psychology of Organizing, 2nd edn. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

81.

Westley

Mintzberg

(1989) Visionary leadership and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal 10: 17–32.

82.

Zhang

Cao

Tjosvold

(2011) Linking transformational leadership and team performance: A conflict management approach. The Journal of Management Studies 48(7): 1586–1611.

83.

Zorn

(1991) Construct system development, transformational leadership, and leadership messages. Southern Communication Journal 56(3): 178–193.

The vision integration process: Applying Rogers’ diffusion of innovations theory to leader–follower communications

Abstract

Keywords

A diffusion of innovations perspective: the vision integration process

Methodology

Sample and procedures

Pilot test

Research site

Sample

Measures

Two-way vision communication

Vision knowledge

Innovation characteristics of the vision

Vision integration

Organizational commitment

Leadership with vision

Demographic variables

Data analysis

Results

Discussion

Limitations and practical implications

Footnotes

References