Strategic Leadership and Executive Innovation Influence: An International Multi-Cluster Comparative Study Author(s): Detelin S.

Elenkov, William Judge, Peter Wright Source: Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 26, No. 7 (Jul., 2005), pp. 665-682 Published by: John Wiley & Sons Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20142257 . Accessed: 17/02/2011 15:16
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jwiley. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

John Wiley & Sons is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Strategic Management Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

Strategie
Published online inWiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).

Management
DOl:

Journal
(2005) 10.1002/smj.469

Strat. Mgmt.

J.. 26: 665-682

/ Z_

AND EXECUTIVE STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP AN INTERNATIONAL INNOVATION INFLUENCE: MULTI-CLUSTERCOMPARATIVESTUDY

DETELINS. ELENKOV,1* WILLIAM JUDGE1 and PETER WRIGHT2 1
College U.S.A. of Business Administration, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee,

Fogelman

College
U.S.A.

of Business

of Economics,

University

of Memphis,

Memphis,

Tennessee,

This

the relationship innova behaviors with executive study investigates of strategic leadership team (TMT)'s tenure heterogeneity and the moderating effects of top management influence on that relationship. and social six countries culture three survey data from Using comprising were found to have a strong positive social behaviors cultures, strategic leadership relationship tion executive tenure on both product-market In addition, and administrative innovations. influence the relationship moderated behaviors with heterogeneity of strategic leadership innovation while social culture moderated that types of innovation, influence for both in the case ? innovation. 2005 John Wiley & of administrative only Copyright

with TMT

executive relationship Ltd.

Sons,

strategy are Strategie leadership and innovation crucial for achieving and maintaining strategic in the 21st century (Ireland and competitiveness Hitt, edly leaders have been repeat Strategic for their critical role in recogniz and making decisions that affect ing opportunities innovation processes 1985; Finkelstein (Drucker, 1999). recognized 1985). Strategic lead and exploitation add 1998). (Yukl, leadership and inno have attracted increasing atten et al., studies (e.g., Halbesleben

on actual

strategic leaders (Antonakis and House, 2002; Yukl, 1999). there has been progress in explor Nonetheless, ing the linkage between strategic leaders' demo

and Hambrick, 1996; Quinn, ers' opportunity recognition considerable business value The interactions between vation

characteristics and innovation graphic strategy within the upper echelons perspective (e.g., Ban tel and Jackson, 1989; Enns, Huff, and Golden, 2003; Thong and Yap, 1995), but these studies have failed to directly study actual strategic lead ership behaviors and their effects on organizational innovation process (Cannella and Monroe, 1997). Furthermore, Papadakis, Lioukas, and Chambers that strategic (1998) and others have emphasized decisions and, by extension, organizational innova tion are substantially influenced by top managers
and the external environmental context. For exam

variables tion in empirical 2003; Kets De Vries, 1996; Sharma and Rai, 2003; Farmer, and Graen, 1999; West ?tal, Tierney, but most of these studies have not focused 2003),

so innovation influence; Keywords: strategic leadership; tenure heterogeneity TMT cial culture; * to: Detelin of Business S. Elenkov, Correspondence College The University of Tennessee, 405 Stokely Man Administration, TN 37996, U.S.A. agement Center, Knoxville, E-mail: delenkov@utk.edu

indicates that both leadership ple, behaviors and innovation processes are affected by context (Elenkov, 2002; Schnei the socio-cultural der the lack of 2003). However, about moderating effects of in-depth knowledge contextual variables on the relationship of lead with strategically ership important organizational and Barsoux,

recent research

Copyright ? 2005 JohnWiley & Sons,

Ltd.

Received
Final

26
revision received

February 2002
26 January 2005

666
outcomes

D.

S. Elenkov,
a

W. Judge
major weakness

and P. Wright
of leader

constitutes

THEORETICAL
Innovation research

BACKGROUND

and Sivasubra ship research (Antonakis, Avolio, maniam, 2003). this study attempts to open up the Therefore, team 'black box' within the top management to better understand how strategic lead dynamics In innovation processes in organizations. this study, we define strategic leadership as the process of forming a vision for thefuture, communi cating it to subordinates, stimulating and motivat and engaging in strategy-supportive ing followers, exchanges with peers and subordinates. The scope of the study includes 1095 respon dents from 223 companies located in six coun tries within three different socio-cultural clusters: and Eastern-Slavic. The main Anglo, Germanic, to investigate if and how purpose of this study is strategic leadership behaviors are related to a key innovation, aspect of organizational specifically executive influence on innovation across multiple social clusters.
In particular, three research questions are ad

ers affect

Innovation research during the 1980s and early 1990s established that innovation strategy is essen strategy (Burgel tially associated with business and Van den Poel, man, Kosnik, 1988; Maid 1988; Zahra and Covin, 1993). ique and Frevola, Therefore, basic types of innovation are inherently related with the main types of strategic changes. et al.'s (1978) conceptualization, Based on Miles execu the most fundamental strategic decisions tives make concern changes in product-market and construct mechanisms (structures and of their organizations. This conceptual has been followed development by a series of studies (e.g., Damanpour, 1987; Hoff empirical man and Hegarty, 1993) providing further support to the typology of product-market and admin istrative innovations. For example, Hoffman and (1993) have used Principal Components Hegarty domains processes) this typology. (PCA) corroborating Analysis on innovation strategy has also paid Research to the antecedents of inno increasing attention vation. A number of studies have indicated that
environmental factors, organizational characteris

dressed

in this study: (1) Do strategic leadership behaviors affect executive influence on innova tions, after controlling to affect organizational for other innovation? known Given our (2) does social cul factors

economy, increasingly globalized ture affect the relationship of strategic leadership with executive innovation influence? (3) Given the teams, does TMT importance of top management tenure Figure explore this relationship? influence heterogeneity 1 includes the theoretical model used to these three questions.

tics, and managerial-level factors, including lead represent the main antecedents of organiza ership, tional innovation (Damanpour, 1991; Hadjimano lis, 2000; Wolfe, 1994). Focusing on the impact of leadership on innova tion strategy, several theories emerged during the the componential theory of Amabile 1990s?e.g.,

SOCIALCULTURE

STRATEGIC LEADERSHIPBEHAVIORS

EXECUTIVE INFLUENCE ON INNOVATION

TMTTENURE HETEROGENEITY

SIZE ORGANIZATIONAL AND PERSONALITY FACTORS

Figure Copyright ? 2005 John Wiley 1. Strategic & Sons. leadership behaviors Ltd. St and executive rat. innovation Mgmt. influence J.. 26: 665-682 (2005)

Strategie (1997)

Leadership

and Executive

Innovation

Influence

667

and the interactionist theory of Woodman, and Griffin (1993). Those theories offered Sawyer, of plausible means for specific conceptualizations to influence innovation variables. For leadership the componential theory has provided example, a model whereby 'positive' leadership behaviors affect subordinate perceptions of leader support, in turn stimulates creativity, a key factor in which the innovation process (Burgelman et al., 1988).

on in between, often are somewhere depending how much discretion?or latitude of action?is and Finkelstein, afforded to them (e.g., Hambrick exists when there is an absence 1987). Discretion to decision making of constraints and when there are many plausible courses of strate alternative are top managers gic action. With more discretion, more
vice

likely
versa.

to realize

their original

intentions

and

Strategic A

leadership

great deal of the attention of early leadership researchers was focused on what lower-level man agers did, or should do, as they attempted to pro

While the upper echelons perspective expanded our understanding of strategic leadership, it has been criticized for not directly actual studying (Cannella and Mon strategic leadership behavior roe, 1997). Instead, it has used demographic prox ies and inferred strategic leadership behaviors. of these studies have been also conducted Most inWestern, the United developed (predominantly States) and such, it is unknown how strategic leader relatively just unexplored ship behaviors vary throughout the world. In sum, the upper echelons perspective has provided good theoretical and some empirical arguments for the economies. role of strategic leadership, but our under standing is still lacking in significant ways. In parallel with the upper echelons perspec As

to subordi vide guidance, support, and feedback nates (Yukl, 1998). However, in the 1970s and con 1980s there was considerable disagreement the impact of leadership on performance, cerning as skeptics from the field of organizational sociol contended that leadership behaviors influenced ogy less than did environ organizational performance mental or organizational factors (e.g., Hannan and Freeman, 1977; Salancik and Pfeffer, 1977), while that leaders had a major impact proponents argued on the performance of organizations (e.g., Child, and Lord, 1988; Thomas, 1972; Day 1988). Nonetheless, leadership skeptics pointed to sit uations in which top managers had little influence on organizational due to constraints outcomes, his imposed by internal coalitions, organizational eco and variable external tories, stakeholders, nomic conditions. Meindl, Ehrlich, and Dukerich even argued that management scholars had (1985) a 'romance' with the notion of leadership when the empirical evidence simply didn't support this belief. In response to this skepticism about the impact of leaders, three streams of leadership research have emerged. First, Hambrick articulated an ambi tious research agenda set out to provide stronger and empirical support for the impact of the strategic manage strategic leadership within ment literature (Hambrick and Mason, 1984). He called this the 'upper echelons perspective' and it on our understanding has had a profound impact of organizational (Finkel processes and outcomes stein and Hambrick, 1996). to leadership skeptics, the upper ech Bowing elons research has also recognized that some matter a great deal to orga times top managers not at all, and nizational sometimes outcomes,
Copyright ? 2005 JohnWiley & Sons, Ltd.

central

tive, other leadership studies have made important a deeper understand advances towards developing of leadership factors and their effects within the ing behavior literature. This represents organizational the second stream of leadership research explored in this study. In his seminal work on leadership, introduced the concepts of trans transformational leadership styles. While transactional leaders cater to their followers' immediate leaders transformational self-interests, the moral, motivation, and morals of their uplift Burns actional (1978) and followers. been power A considerable amount of research has since that time supporting the and utility of these two styles of lead 1985, 1998; Can 1999; Bass, (Avolio, ership nella and Monroe, 1997; Hunt, 1991; Podsakoff, and Bommer, MacKenzie, 1996; Shamir, House, et al, 2001; Yukl, and Arthur, 1993; Waldman conducted

theoretical

1998).
Transactional relationship are There leadership refers to the exchange between the leader and the follower. forms

transactional by which itself: (1) contingent reward leadership behavior where the leader clarifies for the follower what the follower needs to do to be rewarded for manifests the effort;
Strat.

three

(2) management
Mgmt. J.,

by exception

behavior,
(2005)

26: 665-682

668 where mance fails action

D.

S. Elenkov,

W. Judge

and P. Wright While this full-range tional and transformation led to many interesting perspective on transac

the followers the leader monitor's perfor and takes remedial action if the follower to meet expected standards; and (3) laissez

faire behavior, where the leader avoids taking any at all times (Bass, 1998). Transformational leadership refers to the leader immediate self-in transfor by which itself: (1) Managers

the follower beyond moving terests. There are four forms mational exercise

leadership manifests or charismatic, influence by idealized, for their followers role models (Shamir becoming et ai, seek to identify with 1993). Followers charismatic Such leaders leaders and want are endowed by to emulate their followers them. as

leadership behaviors has and intuitively appeal much of this literature has focused ing insights, on students and/or lower-level leaders (Antonakis and House, 2002; Yukl, 1999). Also, the apparent influence of social culture on the effects of leader ship behaviors has rarely been explored, and when results they have there have been contradictory Schneider and Barsoux, 1998; (Elenkov, 2003). Finally, most of this research has focused on the individual level of analysis and has not explored how factors relate to organizational leadership et al., level processes and outcomes (Waldman 2001). As such, the power and implications of this need to be refined and extended. perspective A third stream of leadership research emphasizes the importance of vision and its effects on orga nizational and outcomes processes (Judge, 1999; and Mintzberg, 1995; Westley researchers have 1989). Strategic management stressed the crucial role of vision by defining lead ership itself as a management activity through which the leader secures the cooperation of oth ers in pursuit of a vision (e.g., Hambrick, 1989; Larwood and Parnell, Kroll, 1998). Leadership Wright, researchers have also argued that corporate man agers who want to change the status quo should a shared and inspiring formulate and articulate vision of the future (Bennis and Nanus, 1985). as Visionary leadership has gradually emerged a crucially important, but relatively underempha sized, aspect of leadership research (Baum, Locke, and Kirkpatrick, 1998). to refers to the ability Visionary leadership a realistic, create and articulate and credible, attractive vision of the future for an organiza unit (Nanus, 1992; Sashkin, tion or organizational from intuitive perception and 1988). It originates of the characteristics of the calculative analysis present situation, and it directs attention towards achieving desirable, but realistic, future outcomes. the interaction of personal Researchers emphasize and environmental characteristics in experiences vision (Can creating and articulating a compelling nella and Monroe, 1997). that ef leadership studies underscore Visionary are able to develop and com fective top managers some clear and compelling to followers municate imagery, which recognizes and draws on traditions and that offers their organizations innovative ways to improve by bringing energy and commitment to
Strat. Mgmt. J., 26: 665-682 (2005)

and other im having greatly superior capabilities characteristics portant personal (e.g., persistence and determination). (2) Leaders who practice inspi behave in ways that motivate rational motivation and inspire those around them by providing mean to their work. Such leaders com ing and challenge that municate clear and challenging expectations followers want to meet. (3) Leaders who engage in intellectual followers' efforts stimulation provide support to their to be creative. Such leaders ques

et al.,

tion existing and approaches. assumptions They in reframe issues important to their organizations new ways. Leaders exhibit individual consid (4) eration by providing followers with support, men Such leaders pay special toring, and coaching. attention to each individual follower's needs for and growth. New achievement learning personal are created along with a supportive opportunities of indi climate. Leaders demonstrate acceptance in terms of needs and desires. vidual differences Leaders' interactions with each of their followers are personalized (Bass, 1998). The distinction between transactional and trans formational leadership does not mean that the two sets of behaviors are unrelated. The two leadership differ in relation to the process by which styles subordinates as well as in the the leader motivates

both sets of behav types of goals set. Nonetheless, iors have been found to influence performance, except for laissez-faire leadership behaviors. While and transac distinct, transformational conceptually tional leadership may both be utilized by the same in different amounts and intensities while manager each other (Bass, 1985, 1998; also complementing et al., 2001). Howell and Avolio, 1993; Waldman This stream of research is known as the 'full range of leadership'
Copyright ?

perspective

(Avolio,
&

1999).
Sons, Ltd.

2005 John Wiley

Strategie

Leadership

and Executive

Innovation

Influence

669

the workplace (Nutt and Backoff, 1997). Vision ary leaders are also able to articulate attractive that visions, which focus attention on possibilities are inspirational, unique, and attainable, and offer a new order that can result in organizational dis to followers tinction. The imagery communicated if it is challenging is more effective and powerful, a vision but also clear and realistic. Alternatively, to be likely to fail if it doesn't convey is believed a view of the future that is perceived to be clearly and convincingly better for the organization and
its members.

the visionary per problem with major is that most of the empirical work in spective this area has been anecdotal in nature. Further it is unknown if visionary more, leadership has the same or a different impact on organiza and outcomes, tional processes like its conceptual cousin?transformational leadership behaviors. As research is needed to better under such, systematic stand the role and impact of strategic leadership
vision.

The

1998; Thong and Yap, Papadakis and Bourantas, of the top man 1995) have shown that members team (TMT) play a critical role in inno agement as well. in organizations vation processes is a difficult process. innovation Organizational It requires the examination of hidden assumptions, and overcoming behaviors, previous unlearning considerable obstacles (Senge, 1990). The innova tion process tends to exacerbate conflicts between and manufacturing R&D, engineering, marketing, at the operational and managers level departments, have no clear idea at the outset which innova as tion project may be viable in the corporation a whole 1984, Henry, 2001). Often, (Burgelman, these are likely to slow down and halt the innovation process, unless there is an active intervention by strategic leaders. conflicts
Furthermore, previous research has demonstra

ted that there are two primary, but distinct ways that innovation occurs within organizations. One source of innovation occurs in the development of
new product-markets. Another source of innova

In sum, there are three streams of leadership research that assert that strategic leadership behav iors should have a systematic impact on strate and outcomes. The three streams gic processes are the upper echelons perspective, the full range of leadership perspective, and the visionary lead is Each of these perspectives ership perspective. further for their influence on the inno explored across many vation process within corporations to different social cultures and national boundaries their impact above and beyond better understand established determinants of organiza previously
tional innovation.

in the development of new and more new systems efficient administrative mechanisms: new systems for strategic planning and control, or promoting managers, for training, development or managerial and new departments for positions coordination (Hoff improving intraorganizational man and Hegarty, 1993). strate There are a number of ways by which innovation gic leaders can influence organizational processes. By virtue of their prominent position within the firm, strategic leaders are more capa ble of seeing environmental trends that affect the future and providing more effective organization's to the rest of the organization, communication and this leads to higher levels of organizational inno vation (Papadakis and Bourantas, 1998). A sec ond potential way that effective strategic leaders can positively influence organizational innovation is through the creation of an exciting vision of the future about successfully conducted innovation 1997). A third activity (Hansen and Kahnweiler, potential way that strategic leaders can influence innovation is through the selection, organizational and ongoing support of change cham promotion, pions (Kanter, 1985). A fourth potential way is for cul strategic leaders to create an organizational ture in which productive work is done, productive workers are rewarded, and productive relationships are built and enhanced 1999; Podsakoff (Avolio, et ai,
Strat.

tion occurs

RESEARCH HYPOTHESES
Strategic influence leadership behaviors and innovation

More than two and a half decades ago, Cooper and Schendel (1976) showed that executive deci sions and ensuing organizational actions regard had important strategic ing innovation implica tions. Both theoretical discussions and empiri cal investigations have indicated that organiza tional acceptance and promotion of innovation require top management support and involvement 1985; Ireland and Hitt, 1999; Jas (e.g., Drucker, sawalla and Sashittal, 2000). A few studies (e.g., Enns et al., 2003; Hansen and Kahnweiler, 1997;
Copyright ? 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

1996; Shamir
Mgmt.

et al.,
7.,

1993).
26: 665-682 (2005)

670

D.

S. Elenkov,

W. Judge

and P. Wright Bantel, 1992), brick and Cho, moves (Ham competitive and comprehensiveness of 1996), recent Another (Bantel, 1993). strategic planning study has provided empirical evidence indicating moderates that TMT heterogeneity the effective ness of innovation strategy (Lyon and Ferrier, firms' 2002). When a relatively the TMT possesses diverse of tenures, it is likely that they collec range in very different ways and tively view the world that this leads to diversity of behaviors. Gener argued related

There is some limited, but encouraging empir ical support for the notion that leadership behav innovation processes. iors influence organizational For example, transformational leadership behav iors have been found to have strong positive effects on the levels of innovation, risk taking, and creativ and Avolio, ity within business units (e.g., Howell like serv behaviors 1993). Similarly, leadership as a good work model charis (i.e., exercising ing to new ideas (i.e., matic influence), being open intellectual stimulation), or providing constructive and valuing individual contributions (i.e., contingent reward) have also been reported to posi tively affect subordinate perceptions of leader sup in turn stimulates creativity and inno port, which feedback (Amabile, 1997). with fol and relationships behaviors to be associated with lowers have also been found enhanced 1999). West creativity (Tierney et al, et al. (2003) have concluded that without an iden innovation suffers. tifiable leader organizational the reported impact of leadership on Moreover, standard creativity was sizable, as the exhibited ized regression coefficients were above 0.50 (West et al, 2003). Therefore, we propose that strategic are responsible for fostering leadership behaviors innovation activity related to both product-market (ADM). innovations (PM) and administrative In formal terms: la: innovations vativeness Leaders'

that team hetero to social integra tion and communication (e.g., Smith et al., 1994; and Bantel, Wiersema 1992). In addition, Pitcher and Smith (2001) recently found that more het TMTs have more cognitive erogeneous diversity researchers have is negatively geneity ally, these teams. This suggests that operating within ismore critical for diverse effectiveness leadership TMTs than for relatively homogeneous TMTs, and that tenure heterogeneity may moderate the leader behavior-innovation influence process. This ship two the following suggest theory and research moderation hypotheses:

2a: The relationship Hypothesis of strategic to executive behaviors leadership influence on is moderated innovations product-market by TMT tenure heterogeneity. 2b: The relationship Hypothesis of strategic to executive behaviors leadership influence on administrative innovations ismoderated by TMT
tenure heterogeneity.

Hypothesis positively
uct-market

leadership Strategic influence affect executive

innovations.

behaviors on prod

Hypothesis positively
trative

lb: Strategic affect executive

leadership behaviors influence on adminis

Social

culture

innovations.

Moderators

leadership-innovation

of the strategic influence

relationship

research has recognized that Strategic management the concurrent of factors at envi investigation and man ronmental/institutional, organizational, to under levels is a critical prerequisite agerial and, (Cannella and by extension, strategic leadership et al. Monroe, 1997). In a recent study, Antonakis context have suggested that socio-cultural (2003) strategic may leadership with outcomes. strategically important organizational an important observation: Shane (1992) makes why is it that some social cultures are more inno vative than others? In general, researchers from various perspectives that societies have evolved have recognized into relationship
Strat. Mgmt. J., 26: 665-682 (2005)

TMT tenure heterogeneity A number of researchers suggested that TMT interact in a complex demographic way with a host of other leadership factors in shap and outcomes of executive deci ing the processes in particular, has sions. TMT tenure heterogeneity, been shown to influence interpersonal dynamics of have characteristics strategic national 2000), issue processing 1992), inter (Jackson, diversification strategy (Tihanyi et al, corporate strategic change (Wiersema and
2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

stand

the innate nature

of

choices

affect

the

of

Copyright ?

Strategie

Leadership

and Executive

Innovation

Influence

671

characteris groups of people with distinguishable tics that set them apart from other groups of people (House et al., 2002). Each one of these distinct groups of people represents a different social cul ture. A social culture can be defined as a system of values, norms, attitudes, rituals, and elements of mental programming that are common for mem bers of a social group (Hofstede, 2001; Schneider and Barsoux, 2003). Social cultures vary along that reflect value orienta identifiable dimensions the norms tions (e.g., Hofstede, 2001). Similarly, in society differ from one culture for behavior to another. Empirical evidence indicates that cul tural norms exhibit both resilience (Holt, Ralston, to change and Terpstra, 1994) and susceptibility (Ralston et al., 1999). Recognizing of social culture characteristics these complex is an important for leader its importance step in understanding In this and innovation processes. ship behaviors
study, we focus on socio-cultural clusters that tran

3a: The relationship Hypothesis of strategic behaviors with executive influence leadership on product-market innovation is moderated by
social culture.

3b: The relationship Hypothesis of strategic behaviors with executive leadership influence on administrative innovations is moderated by
social culture.

RESEARCH METHODS
Research The design the current study were collected and ongoing multinational research sources were first stage, public con at a cluster sample, which firms or business single-business

data for through a large study. At the used to arrive

scend

national

boundaries

role of socio-cultural

similarities

(Ronen and Shenkar, soux, 2003). Innovation processes within organizations have been shown to be affected by the socio-cultural and Barsoux, (Elenkov, 2002; Schneider has also been 2003; Shane, 1992). Leadership shown to be affected by social culture (Ardichvili context

capture the and differences and Bar 1985; Schneider

to better

sisted of 290 units located in six countries: United States (south eastern United States), United Kingdom (England), and the Ukraine. The Germany, Austria, Russia, or titular heads (presidents, managing directors, of each one of the firms or business units CEOs) to included in the initial sample were requested to in the study and, upon agreement, participate to the Top Executive and respond Survey (TES) to provide contact information for up to five more team. The TES members of their top management included items measuring executive tenure, per as an open-ended item traits, as well sonality to investigate intended vision development, fol introduced by Baum et al. lowing the methodology or The presidents, directors, (1998). managing units formally CEOs of 227 firms or business agreed to participate and returned their responses to the TES together with the requested contact information. At the next stage, 1340 surveys were mailed out to the previously identified managers. Those had two versions: the first one, designed surveys for titular heads, included only items measuring executive innovation influence, but did not include items measuring strategic leadership behaviors; and the second one, prepared for the other mem bers of the top management teams, included items ?Form (MLQ) Leadership Questionnaire 6S, but did not include items measur innovation influence. The second ing executive 'subordinate' members group of respondents?the of TMTs?were also asked to complete the TES
Strat. Mgmt. J., 26: 665-682 (2005)

and Kuchinke, 2002; Chong and Park, 2003; Hof stede, 2001; Judge, 2001). Most recently, resear chers have started paying increasing attention to among leadership, innovation, and and Zahra, 2002; (Hayton, George, 2000; Thomas and Mueller, 2000). Hadjimanolis, that stra Papadakis et al. (1998) have emphasized are and by extension innovations, tegic decisions, the interactions culture social and external envi by both top managers context, including social culture (Hadji national (social) culture manolis, 2000). Moreover, as a contextual has been conceptualized variable tomoderate the effects of leadership (Anton likely ronmental akis et al, 2003). In brief, prior research has demonstrated that social culture may influence strategic processes in their relation with certain types of innovation. as to not much has been discovered However, the specific effects of social culture on the link age between strategic leadership and innovation processes. This leads to the following exploratory hypotheses:
Copyright ? 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

influenced

from Multifactor

672

D.

S. Elenkov,

W. Judge

and P. Wright 6S. The MLQ literature has been found to be one of the best instruments and most utilized set of measures of all leadership studies (Lowe and Galen, 1996). This MLQ instrument includes 21 items mea leadership suring only can be divided into Influence, Stimulation,
Reward,

This way, (provided separately from the MLQ). the survey design resolved one of the most serious problems associated with leadership research: mea suring both leadership behaviors and the effects of leadership by the same instrument. All question and Russian naires were translated into German the working because these languages represented from the non languages of the surveyed managers clusters. Comparability among the trans English tried lated versions was verified using procedures and endorsed in prior research. A total of 1095 top managers (223 presidents, or CEOs, and 872 subordi directors, managing of the respective nates, who were also members strate and were directly involved inmaking gic decisions) provided data for the current study. an 81.7 per As such, our survey data constituted cent usable response rate. The 223 firms and busi coun ness units were located in the following in the United tries: 47 in the United States, 35 47 in 43 in Germany, 28 in Austria, Kingdom, in the Ukraine. These were either Russia, and 23 firms (58%) or divisions (42%) of single-business in the manufac diversified companies engaged ture of (1) computers, (2) industrial electronics, consumer electronics, (4) electronic (3) compo TMTs nents, (5) communication (6) apparel, equipment, (7) food products, or (8) chemicals. We conducted a series of ANOVAs using indus and level of education age group, try affiliation, of the respondents as predictor variables and exec
utive influence on, respectively, product-market

Inspirational Individual Consideration,

behaviors. These items seven factors: Idealized Intellectual Motivation, Contingent

and Laissez

Management-by-Exception,

Faire. The first four factors were in included set of behav the Transformational Leadership iors. Contingent and Management-by Reward factors represented the Transactional Exception mea set of behaviors. Laissez-Faire, Leadership suring whether respondents require little of others, are content to let things ride, and let others do their own thing, forms a set of behaviors of its own. As this leadership behavior defies the very essence of strategic leadership, we have not included Laissez Faire in the list of strategic leadership behaviors.
Laissez-Faire was, however, used as a control vari

and administrative innovations as dependent vari in order to examine the potential generaliz ables, ability of the results. In particular, we evaluated the information about the main product(s) of the busi ness units in our study, and we found that each of them can be placed in one of the eight indus (listed above) at the 3-digit North try categories American Industry Classification System (NAICS) level. None of the six ANOVAs (two for industry two for age group, and two for level affiliation, showed any significant of education) the groups of respondents. between Variables Strategic These and measures leadership behaviors behaviors measured difference

able for the purposes of statistical analysis. Cronbach's of alphas, measuring reliability, the MLQ-Form 6S scales were (a) Ideal ized/Charismatic Influence (a = 0.78), (b) Inspira = tional Motivation (a 0.81), (c) Intellectual Stim = ulation (a 0.75), (d) Individual Consideration = = Reward (a 0.74), (e) Contingent (a 0.73), = and (f) Management-by-Exception (a 0.72). an additional Vision development, representing transformational behavior, was measured by focus leader's vision possessing ing on the strategic our essential attributes. Hence, we concentrated on seven attributes?clarity, attention brevity,
challenge, abstractiveness, future orientation, sta

bility, and desirability or ability to inspire?which were and found to be significantly investigated, in one related effectiveness to, organizational of the most studies of comprehensive empirical (Baum et al, 1998). For visionary leadership our data, the transformational-visionary leader = behavior showed satisfactory reliability (a ship 0.76).

TMT Tenure Heterogeneity was measured by using TMT Tenure Heterogeneity the following formula (Finkelstein and Hambrick,

the by using Baum et al (1998) in methodology presented by (1992) Mul conjunction with Bass and Avolio's tifactor Leadership (MLQ)?Form Questionnaire
Copyright ? 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

were

1996):
TMT Ten Het =
Strat. Mgmt. J.,

<ttmt/Mtmt
26: 665-682 (2005)

Strategie where

Leadership

and Executive Miles et al. (1978)

Innovation

Influence

673

is <rTMT the standard deviation of executives' team respective job tenures on the top management and /xTMT is the mean of executives' respective
tenures on the same top management team. The

higher the resulting score, the greater TMT Tenure These data were obtained from self Heterogeneity. tenure information provided by the reported job
respondents.

and supported through princi analysis (PCA). In order to exam pal components we of those measures, ine the content validity factor analysis (CFA) with performed confirmatory LISREL VIII (Joreskog and Sorbom, 1996) using a sample of 138 managers for compa working nies in the southeastern United States. The results from CFA provided evidence for content validity for executive of the measures influence on innova
tion.

Social

Culture by cul

This moderator variable was operationalized a nominal variable within the three using tural clusters These

The measure for executive influence on PM included three items: (1) new products or services (for existing markets); (2) new markets (for exist and (3) new products or ing products/services);
services for new markets. The measure for execu

Slavic). variables dichotomous through dummy coding of 0 or 1 for use in regression analyses (Cohen and culture was represented by a Cohen, 1983). Anglo 0 score on the other two cultures. These data were obtained from self-reports by the respondents.

and Eastern (i.e., Anglo, Germanic, to three clusters were converted

tive influence on ADM also comprised three items: and control (2) new (1) new planning system; or permanent and (3) new position; department system
managers.

for we

training,

development,

or promoting

Executive There

influence on innovation variables

used CFA to investigate the construct of those scale measures. For this purpose, validity the average variance (R2) extracted by all the items to the loading on PM and ADM was compared Next, R2 the for In 0.50 threshold (Carr, 2002). The average for both PM (0.57) and ADM (0.60) exceeded minimum thus providing evidence threshold, of the respective measures. convergent validity a test for discriminant the squared validity, correlation between PM and ADM was compared critical

in this study: Product-Market (PM) influence on Admin Innovations and executive each istrative (ADM) Innovations. We measured construct of the titular through the perceptions

are two dependent on influence executive

heads of each organization regarding the extent of influence on recent or shortly anticipated executive of the innovation process. This approach the presence of a time lag between when take actions on innovation and when the managers results of the respective innovation process mate rialize (Burgelman, 1984; Henry, 2001). Specifi titular heads (the presidents, cally, the participating directors, or CEOs of each organiza managing tional unit included in the study) rated the amount of influence (1 = no influence to 5 = a dominant influence) that their TMT had on a list of specific reflects
innovations.

outcomes

to the average R2 for PM and the average R2 for ADM. The squared correlation between PM smaller than the average and ADM (0.41) was evidence thus providing for R2 in both cases, for executive discriminant validity of the measures influence on PM and executive influence on ADM (Carr, 2002). The reliability (Cronbach's alpha) of the scales measuring executive influence on PM and ADM was 0.78 and 0.80, respectively.

Control

variables indicated that organiza 1991) can affect inno (Damanpour, size was opera processes. Organizational size research has

Innovation tional vation

the pioneering Following approach of Jemison a multi-item instrument to measure (1981) using influence on strategic decision mak managerial has the executive influence on innovation ing, been We two multi-item scales. assessed by using took advantage of Hoffman and Hegarty's for Product-Market Innovation (1993) measures which were con and Administrative Innovation, ceptually
Copyright ?

tionalized as the natural logarithm of the number a standard measure in management of employees, research. These data were obtained from Top Exec utive Surveys returned by the titular heads of the participating Personality to influence
Strat.

based on strategic
2005 John Wiley

typology
&

developed
Sons,

by
Ltd.

organizations. variables have creativity, which

Mgmt. J.,

also been shown in turn has been

26: 665-682 (2005)

674

D.

S. Elenkov,

W. Judge

and P. Wright analyses. We found through the above-mentioned close to 1. that none of the SMCs were dangerously the largest SMC among the variables Specifically, for executive influence on PM was 0.74 and for executive influence on ADM was 0.77. These val ues are not particularly worrisome, to according Tabachnick and Fidell (1983). Hence, it was con cluded
our data

to be related to organizational innova shown tion (Ormel and Rijsdijk, 2000; Reilly, Lynn, and San and Aronson, 2002; Yellen, Winniford, of person ford, 1995). The 'Big Five' model as a mea has become widely accepted ality sure of psychological
ent countries, occupations,

profile
and

of people
socio-cultural

in differ
con

texts
in ence, this

(Judge and Bono,

model?extraversion, agreeableness,

2000).

All
openness

traits included
to experi neu and

that multicollinearity
set.

was

not a problem

in

conscientiousness,

roticism?have

been

shown

to correlate with

lead

2000; Judge (Judge and Bono, ership behaviors et al, 2002). The Big Five model of personal by using NEO Personality ity was operationalized 1992). In (Costa and McCrae, Inventory-Revised this study, the titular heads of the business units of their own personality self-assessment provided
traits.

To test for normality, linearity, and homoscedas of residuals, initial run with standard mul ticity Those analyses tiple regressions was performed. R = 0.59, p < 0.001 for PM innovations yielded and R = 0.68, p < 0.001 for ADM innovations. The shape of each of the scatter plots of resid scores uals against predicted variable dependent satisfied the rectangularity ate outliers were tested variables using BMDP4M. tified requirement. Multivari among the independent Five outliers were iden following and Fidell

DATA ANALYSIS
statistics and pair Table 1 provides descriptive for all independent and depen wise correlations the set of independent vari dent variables. Among ables, the largest correlation was found between idealized influence and inspirational motivation = 0.52, < 0.001), followed (r p by the correla and vision inspirational motivation = 0.37, p < 0.001) and the asso (r development ciation between intellectual stimulation and vision = 0.35, p < 0.001). Other leader (r development studies (e.g., Avolio, Bass, and Jung, 1999) ship of high intercorrela also indicated the presence tions among leadership factors, so our data are not particularly worrisome. the issue Addressing on a theoretical of multicollinearity level, Bass tion between (1998) has argued that the various leadership fac et al tors should be highly interrelated. Antonakis for that argu (2003) provided support empirical ment in order to verify the dis using CFA, each of the leadership fac criminant validity of
tors.

from the analysis and deleted the procedure described by Tabachnick

(1983).

Strategic leadership on innovations

behaviors

and

influence

to deter Hierarchical regressions were performed strate mine if additional information regarding of executive gic leadership improved predictions PM and ADM beyond influence on, respectively, that afforded by social culture, organizational size, TMT tenure heterogeneity, and the personality traits of the strategic leader. The overall results la. Specif for PM strongly supported Hypothesis seven measures of strategic leadership ically, all related to PM innova behavior were significantly the explained variance tion influence. Moreover, for strategic leadership behaviors was significant = 0.47; p < 0.001). (AR2 the effect lb, which investigated Hypothesis on ADM, also of strategic leadership behaviors support from our data, as only was not a significant management-by-exception received empirical all other strategic leadership predictor. However, were and positive behaviors predic significant as indicated by their ?s (refer to Table 2). tors, explained Notably, strategic leadership behaviors = in ADM the largest change in variance (AR2 < 0.001), followed a great distance by at 0.52, p = 0.10, CEO personality characteristics p < (AR2
Strat. Mgmt. J., 26: 665-682 (2005)

for overall investigate systematically we performed multiple regres multicollinearity, in each of those variables sion analyses, with turn serving as a dependent variable. Following and Fidell the approach advocated by Tabachnick correlations (SMCs) bet (1983), squared multiple ween each of the so designated dependent variables of all of the other indepen and the combination dent variables included in Table 1 were obtained
Copyright ? 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

To more

Strategie

Leadership

and Executive

Innovation

Influence

675

CO CN ? ? d
IT) <N *?' ^f r- T-i in (N co en co

? ? d ?
0(N-hOO

d d d d d
.o On CN en on oo O O O O O O O ?-i cNO ^ M(N ^^ <N rt On -*0

d d d d d d d
^cNOcNcncncncN

dddddddd
MO^OMrOOOOOOOOO M M (N

cn(N(N'-HOCN(NCN(N(N

dddddddddd
in(N00rHTtO(NOO^t^ IOOOOOOOOOOO

II

I I I I I

TfcNO^roor--'-*oc^roo^j-<N I -hcN^OOO^'-h^OOCnI I000000000000

I I
(Ncn^OcnONcn^Ocn^t^ocnoo^ I^OOOOOOO-hOO-h-^ I0000000000000

'

0^^<N^<N<N<N^<N<NcOCN<N 1 00000000000000 fNOO?^CNOcn^cNTfr-^cNTtih CNO(N(NCN(N(N(N(N'?* (N (N (N (N (N

????????o

o d dodo

^!-OI>OOT-HOT-iO>(NOO>CNr-^r-HCN 0000000000000000 oocNO^,00>cnON'-^vOooocN'-HcncNoo ^r^u^TtcN^u^^ir)inr^r--wnoor~-oor d o o o o o o o d ???????? ?HONin^t^oc^-ooo-ONCNincnr^ON^^ vor^TtTj-inqosoq^q'-^t^ON^oortv? (NtNOddrn^i-'^'inri^riri?NrNri .ON w,

C .2

cd C o <L> - X , !c P , o J3 g

c
_ o c g VS O O ci rj

1i ?s
Cu <
c o c o O OU C ? C

T3 X c

f?\

t?
.5 c/2?2 > c

O. X

> ^ CU D o> -? o =J

;
S.2 O 0)

^ e >? c S <D

S?f5 ? 3
3 "I 8
?

'i11

X^ 00 o t? O < U

uS?2

*? 2 O '^ ?? c c? ?i n S -^ d? va T3 4?3 C C C

^(Nfn^in^t^xoNO^-?Nfn^-io^or^

5?rar.Mgm?. 7., 26: 665-682

(2005)

676
Table 2.

D.

S. Elenkov,
of

W. Judge

and P. Wright
analyses for executive influence on product/market and administrative

Result

hierarchical

innovation (N = 223)
Predictor variables

regression

Product-market

innovations

Administrative

innovation

AR2
I. Social Culture 0.05* Slavic Culture Size Heterogeneity Characteristics 0.08 0.09 0.02 0.04* 0.08* 0.22** 0.23** to Experience 0.20* 0.20* 0.17* 0.21** ?0.06 0.07 Behaviors 0.47*** 0.20* 0.21** 0.29*** 0.28*** 0.21** 0.22** 0.32*** 0.29** 0.19* 0.26** Exception 0.11* ?0.06

R2
0.05 0.06 0.06*

AR2

Germanie Culture 0.11*

Eastern II. III. IV. Organization TMT Tenure 0.07 0.02 0.08 0.14 0.11 0.06* 0.10** 0.19 0.24

0.12*

Personality

Neuroticism
Extraversion Openness Agreeableness Consciousness V. Strategic Idealized

-0.19*

-0.25**

Leadership Influence

0.52*** 0.66 0.76

Vision Development
Motivation Inspirational Individual Consideration Intellectual Contingent Management * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; Stimulation Reward By

0.21**

0.34***

*** p < 0.001

0.01) and TMT p < 0.05).

tenure heterogeneity

(AR2

0.06,

Moderating heterogeneity

effects of TMT tenure and social culture

2a and 2b concern the moderating Hypotheses on the rela impact of TMT tenure heterogeneity with behaviors leadership tionship of strategic executive innovation influence. The strategic lead entered first in each of ership variables were the moderated followed by the TMT regressions, tenure heterogeneity variable and items for the interaction between strategic leadership and TMT tenure heterogeneity. The results ses, displayed heterogeneity behaviors

of the moderated analy regression in Table 3, showed that TMT tenure the relationship of did moderate

3a and 3b proposed that the execu Hypotheses tive innovation influence process varies by socio cultural clusters. The results, displayed in Table 4, effect of social culture supported the moderating for ADM but not for PM innovations. Specifically, the interaction of social culture with the indepen = = dent variables 0.01, F 0.65) was not (AR2 in the case of PM innovations. Thus, significant 3a was not supported. Hypothesis For influence on ADM the inter innovations, action of social culture with the independent vari ables explained a significant amount of variance in executive innovation influence (AR2 = 0.09; F = < 0.01), providing 7.51; p support for Hypothesis 3b. Betas for ADM innovations and the indepen dent strategic leadership variables having a signif icant cultural interaction were in Table 4(a). obtained and shown

influ strategic leadership behaviors with executive ence on PM (AR2 = 0.11, F = 7.01, p < 0.01) = 0.12, F = 8.97, and ADM p < 0.01), (AR2 to Hypotheses 2a and providing empirical support 2b. Betas for PM and ADM and the independent strategic leadership variables having a significant were interaction with TMT tenure heterogeneity extracted regression through moderated and displayed in Table 3(a, b).
Copyright ? 2005 John Wiley & Sons,

DISCUSSIONAND CONCLUSIONS
In this study, we found that strategic leadership are positively with execu behaviors associated tive influence on innovation processes, beyond the effects of organizational size and the CEO's per sonality traits. These results are consistent with the
Strat. Mgmt. J., 26: 665-682 (2005)

analyses

Ltd.

Strategie
Table 3. Moderated regression analyses for

Leadership
influence

and Executive
on product-market

Innovation
and

Influence

677
innovation:

executive

administrative

TMT Tenure Heterogeneity

Variables Step

(N = 223)
entered

Product-market

innovations

Administrative

innovation

R2
1. Strategie (Vision Leadership Development, Behaviors Idealized Influ 0.48

AR2
0.48

F
37.23**

R2
0.53

AR2
0.53

F
46.21*

ence,
Individual Stimulation, 2.

Inspirational
Consideration, Contingent by Exception) Heterogeneity

Motivation,
Intellectual Reward and 0.51 Terms 0.62 0.03 0.11 3.18* 7.01* 0.55 0.67 1.35 0.02 0.12 8.97**

Management TMT Tenure Interaction 3.

ership

TMT Tenure (a) Significant Heterogeneity influence behaviors for executive

interactions on

of

strategic

lead innova

product-market

tion?PM
Interaction TMT TMT TMT TMT Tenure Tenure Tenure Tenure

(from Step 3 above)

? x Vision x x x Idealized 0.22* ?0.20 0.23* ? Management by Exception 0.17|

Heterogeneity Heterogeneity Heterogeneity Heterogeneity

Development Influence Stimulation

Intellectual

ership

tenure heterogeneity TMT (b) Significant influence behaviors for executive

interactions on

of strategic lead administrative innova

tion?ADM
Interaction TMT TMT TMT TMT Tenure Tenure Tenure Tenure * ?

(from Step 3 above)

Heterogeneity Heterogeneity Heterogeneity Heterogeneity p <0.05: **

x Vision x x x Idealized

Development Influence Reward

0.24* ?0.26f

TMT Tenure Heterogeneity

x Intellectual Stimulation
Contingent Management 0.15f by Exception

0.17f
?0.18f

t p <().!();

p < 0.01

findings of prior research on the full range of lead ership and the visionary leadership perspectives. Yet, the results of the current study have gone beyond the findings of each of these two research streams by looking at them collectively and com with currently active CEOs across prehensively we found social cultures. Furthermore, multiple are associated that strategic leadership behaviors as well as administra with both product-market tive executive innovation influence, suggesting that effective strategic leadership has a pervasive effect on an organizational innovation. A second important finding of this research is that TMT leadership ence relationship
Copyright ?

administration innovations. As such, the top man were found to have team characteristics agement influences on the leadership dynamics important within the firm. This research refines and extends our understanding of the upper echelons perspec tive by looking at the relationship between actual and the tenure heterogeneity leadership behaviors team. As such, our data within the top management suggest that effective strategic leaders can chan nel the disparate viewpoints a diverse top management of innovation' 1996). (Kalwait, team and perspectives of into an 'engine and

1992; Rosenbloom

tenure heterogeneity moderates the behavior-executive innovation influ for both product-market
& Sons,

Spencer, A third important contribution of this study is the finding that social culture moderates the lead ership
Strat.

and
Ltd.

behavior-executive
Mgmt. J.,

innovation

influence
(2005)

2005 John Wiley

26: 665-682

678
Table 4.

D.

S. Elenkov,

W. Judge
analyses

and P. Wright
for executive influence on product/market and administrative innovation:

Moderated

Social Culture (N = 223)

regression

Variables Step

entered

Product-market

innovations

Administrative

innovation

R2
1. Strategie (Vision Leadership Development, Behaviors Idealized Influ 0.48

AR2
0.48

F
37.23**

R2
0.53

AR2
0.53

F
46.21*

ence,
Individual Stimulation,

Inspirational
Consideration, Contingent

Motivation,
Intellectual Reward and 0.51 Terms 0.52 0.03 0.01 3.24* 0.65 0.57 0.66 0.04 3.97* 0.09 7.51*'

Management
Social 2. Interaction 3.

by Exception)
Culture

(a) Significant ership behaviors

socio-cultural for executive

interactions influence

of strategic lead on administrative

innovation?ADM
Interaction Eastern Eastern Eastern Eastern Germanic Germanic Germanic Germanic Germanic ? Slavic Slavic Slavic Slavic x x x x

(from Step 3 above)

x Vision x x x

Development Individual Consideration Reward 0.21*

0.17f 0.15t 0.20*

Contingent

Management x Vision Development Idealized Inspirational Intellectual Contingent * p < 0.05; Influence

by Exception 0.24* 0.17f 0.25* 0.26* 0.18t

Motivation Stimulation Reward ** p < 0.01

f p < 0.10;

for administrative
uct-market

innovations,
As

but not
such, our

for prod
data sug

innovations.

gest that product-market socio-cultural differences, innovations might tural characteristics. that product-market than administrative

innovations transcend but that administrative on specific cul be contingent Previous innovations research has shown are adopted faster and for the

Some important implications for business prac tice could also be outlined by taking advantage of the research findings. First and foremost, senior to influence innovations should executives wishing not rely on their hierarchical position alone. Pos sessing relevant strategic leadership skills appears to be critical to one's capacity to influence inno vation strategy and its outcomes. Since most orga are 'overmanaged and underled' (Kotter, 2001), perhaps this partially explains why organi zational innovation is so difficult, yet so strategi cally important (Hamel, 2000). In addition, TMT tenure heterogeneity proved to moderate the relationship of strategic leadership behaviors with executive influence on both prod nizations uct-market innovation and administrative innova we can infer diversity within tion. Consequently, a TMT to be an important factor influencing the effectiveness of strategic behav leadership iors. A closer look at Table 3 (parts a and b) that strategic leaders working with rela TMTs will be more effective tively heterogeneous suggests
Strat. Mgmt. J., 26: 665-682 (2005)

innovations (Damanpour Evan, 1984). Hence, one possible explanation our results is that social culture accentuates

innovations. lag' of administrative 'organizational Another possible explanation for our result is that the state apparatus has a considerable impact on administrative innovations within a social culture (Gran, 1999). As such, our social culture variable could be a proxy for the degree to which the coun try has embraced global capitalism. Either way, our study reinforces the long-held notion that the orga nizational innovation process varies considerably 1987). Clearly, type (Damanpour, by innovation this finding merits additional study to understand it more fully.
Copyright ? 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Strategie

Leadership

and Executive top management

cross-sectional

Innovation team. Finally,

in nature, so

Influence

679

if they empha influencing the innovation process stimu size vision development and intellectual lation to promote innovations, product-market and if they focus their efforts on vision devel opment, reward
innovations.

these data were

is theoret

causality

future research needs to ically inferred. Clearly, examine these same relationships in a time-lagged
fashion.

intellectual leadership

and contingent stimulation, to bring about administrative

Importantly, the results of the study have brought forth the idea that each strategic leadership behav and ior could, and should, be viewed independently as each has its own effects on organi separately, and each may have zational innovation processes, In different interactions with contextual variables. is each strategic behavior leadership particular, to be associated with different organizational likely in terms of the magnitude outcomes, especially of in different social cultures. This represents a radical departure from prior approach leadership research approaches, which essentially actual individual leadership ignored investigating behaviors and the strategic effects of each of those the results,
behaviors.

The present variables and relationships also need to be tested for their relationships to actual orga nizational innovations. While this is beyond the be fasci study, it would to learn how these seven nating important strategic leadership behaviors relate to actual prod and administrative uct-market innovations. Now set of that we have identified a comprehensive we behaviors and moderators, strategic leadership are well positioned to refine and extend our find scope and ings in future research projects. In sum, we believe that this study has concep refined and empirically extended previous tually work on strategic and the outcomes leadership of innovation data within strategy. By collecting social cultures, we have extended strate multiple the typical North gic leadership research beyond American of executives and organizations. sample Overall, we believe that this is a modest but impor effort to help leadership theorists and strategic leaders grapple with the enormous posed by a varied and competitive complexities actual global marketplace. tant research of the present

implication of the present study is that leaders can increase the efficiency of their strategic actions, if they devote their scarce time to engag ing in those strategic leadership behaviors which hold the greatest promise to lead to most positive outcomes in the context of the respective social Another For example, strategic leaders from Ger many are most likely to promote administrative if they devote their time and energies innovation to vision development, inspirational moti mainly to stimulation, vation, and intellectual according our data. In contrast, strategic leaders from Russia are most likely to effectively influence administra culture. tive innovation if they focus their time and efforts on contingent reward leadership and the practice
of management-by-exception.

REFERENCES
Amabile tions: do. TM. on 1997. doing Motivating what you in organiza creativity and loving what you Review 40: 39-58. An of analysis forward. the In The

love

Management California Antonakis RJ. 2002. J, House leadership and Transformational Road Avolio Ahead, Science: Amsterdam; J, Avolio and full-range

the theory: Charismatic

way

This study should be interpreted in light of its this is common for cross key limitations. While
cultural studies, the non-random nature of the sam

BJ, Yammarino 3-33. BJ, an leadership Questionnaire.

Leadership: F (eds). Elsevier N. of using Leadership

Antonakis Context nine-factor Multifactor

Sivasubramaniam examination theory

2003. the the

leadership: full-range Leadership

firms poses limitations on the ple of participating of the results. As such, caution generalizability our findings for an should be used to generalize entire social culture and further research is clearly needed. Also, there may have been some response bias due to the procedures used to identify mem teams who might provide bers of top management information on strategic leadership behaviors. We if there was any system simply do not know atic bias on the part of the strategic leaders in of surveys to members their distribution of their
Copyright ? 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Quarterly 14: 261-295. Ardichvili A, Kuchinke KP. 2002. Leadership styles and
cultural values comparative Soviet Union, Development the Vital study and among managers of four countries and the US. 5( 1 ): 99-118. Thousand subordinates: of the former a

Germany, International

Human

Resource

Avolio BJ. 1999. Full Leadership Development: Building

Forces in Organizations. Sage: CA. Oaks, Avolio BJ, Bass components Strat.

1999. BM, Jung D. of transformational Mgmt. J.,

the Re-examining and transactional 26: 665-682 (2005)

680

D.
leadership tionnaire.

S. Elenkov,
using Journal

W. Judge

and P. Wright
Damanpour analysis F. of 1991. effects Organizational of determinants innovation: and a meta

the Multifactor of Occupational

Ques Leadership and Organizational

moderators.

Psychology
Bantel ning: Bantel K, team K. 1993. the

72: 441-462.
of Comprehensiveness of heterogeneity importance strategic of a top plan team.

Psychological
innovations top

Reports 73(1): 35-49.

S. 1989. Top the management composition of and the

555-590. Journal 34(3): Academy of Management innovation 1984. Organizational F, Evan W. Damanpour and performance: the problem of organizational lag. Administrative 29: 392-409. Science Quarterly

Jackson

Day DV,

Lord RG

1988. Executive

leadership
a

and
new 14:

in banking: does a difference? make Summer 1985. Special

Journal, Bass BM.

Issue and New

Management Strategic 10: 107-124. Performance York. Beyond

for organizational performance: suggestions and methodology. Journal of Management theory 453-464. Drucker Practice PF. 1985. Innovation and Entrepreneur & Row: New

Expectations. BM. Bass 1998. Military, NJ.

Leadership Free Press:

Transformational Leadership: Erlbaum: and Educational Impact.

Industry, Mahwah,

Elenkov work

and Principles. Harper DS. 1998. Can American in Russia? A cross-cultural Review of

ship: York. concepts study.

management

Bass BM,

Avolio BJ.

1992. Multifactor
Form NY. 6S. Center

Leadership
for Leadership

California Elenkov D.

Management 2002. Effects

comparative 133-156. 40(4):

leadership companies. 467-480.

Questionnaire?Short Studies: Binghampton, dinal

in performance Business Research

Russian 55(6):

on organizational Journal

of

Baum JR, Locke EA, Kirkpatrick SA.

1998. A

longitu
of

Enns H,

Huff S,
the

Golden B.
impact of

2003.
technical 40(5): on

CIO

influence

of vision communication study of the relation to venture in entrepreneurial firms. Journal growth

behaviors: Information

and Management and MN. their

background. 467-485.

Applied Psychology
Bennis WG, Nanus B. Taking Burgelman

83(1): 43-54.
1985. Leaders: New The & Row: Strategies York. for

Finkelstein S, Hambrick DC.

Top Executives West: St Paul,

1996. Strategic Leadership:

Effects Organizations.

Charge. Harper R. 1984. Managing some

the internal

turing process: Sloan Management R, Kosnik Burgelman an innovative

recommendations

ven corporate for practice. Toward In

Gran T.
203-218.

1999. A
Essays A.

political

theory of

administrative
9:

innovation.

in Economic

Globalization of innovation of 30(3):

Review T, Van capabilities

33-48. 25(2): den Poel M. 1988. audit

framework.

Hadjimanolis antecedents small 235-245.

2000. in small

An

investigation in the firms R&D

context

Strategic Burgelman Homewood, Burns Cannella tives view IM.

Management R, Maidique IL; 31-44. 1978. Leadership. Monroe MJ.

and of Technology M (eds). Richard

Innovation, D. Irwin:

developing

country.

Management

Halbesleben
2003. of

J, Novicevic M,
of and

Harvey M,

Buckley M.

AA, on of

strategic top managers. A

York. & Row: New Harper 1997. perspec Contrasting a more realistic leaders: toward Journal of Management of 23(3): the expec generated

Awareness creativity D.

in leadership temporal complexity a competency-based innovation:

model. Leadership Quarterly

Hambrick 1989. Guest in editor's the top managers back Journal,

14(4-5):

433-454.
putting Strategic Issue 10:

introduction:

213-237. Carr CL. tations, Sciences Child 2002. evaluation psychometric and difference-scores

perceptions, 33:

Management 5-15.

strategy picture. Summer Special

by the IS-Adapted SERVQUAL

281-296. J. 1972. Organizational the role of

Instrument. Decision
environment, choice. Sociology and 6:

Hambrick D,

Cho T.
team

1996.

The
on

influence
firms' Quarterly

of

top

structure, strategic

management heterogeneity moves. Administrative Science 659-674. Hambrick a D, Finkelstein between In Research S. polar

competitive 41(4):

performance: 1-22.

Chong JKS, Park J. 2003. National culture and classical

principles of planning. Cross Cultural Management

bridge outcomes.

discretion: 1987. Managerial views of organizational in Organizational Behavior,

10(1): 29-40. Cohen J, Cohen P.

sion/Correlation

Vol. 1983. Applied Multiple

Analysis D. for 1976. the Behavior

9, Cummings L,
CT; as 369-407.

Staw B

(eds).

JAI Press: the

Regres
Sciences

Greenwich,

Hambrick D, Mason P.
organization Academy a of Management

1984. Upper
of 9: its Review

echelons:
top managers. 193-206.

(2nd edn). Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ.

Cooper A, Schendel technological 61-69. Costa P, McCrae threats. to responses Strategic Business Horizons 19(1): Revised NEO

reflection

Hamel G
Business Hannan of M,

2000.
School Freeman

Leading
Press: J.

the Revolution.

Harvard
ecology 82: man about

R.

1992.

Personality Inventory FL. Odessa,

MA. Boston, The 1977. population Journal of Sociology Executive stories

Inventory (NEO-FFI)

(NEO-PI-R) F.

and NEO

Five-Factor

PAR: Manual. Professional of The 1987. technological, adoption Damanpour of innovations: and ancillary administrative, impact Journal factors. 13(4): of Management organizational 675-688. Copyright ? 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

organizations. 929-964. Hansen agers: 117-138. Strat. CD,

American

Kahnweiler cultural

WM.

1997. through

expectations

work. Journal of Applied Management

Studies 6(2):

Mgmt.

J.,

26: 665-682

(2005)

Strategie
Hayton J, George G. Zahra a ship S. 2002. of National behavioral 26:

Leadership
and Kets

and Executive
De Vries M.

Innovation
1996. Leaders

Influence
who make

681
a difference.

culture 33-52.

entrepreneurship: Henry Entrepreneur J. 2001. Creativity London.

review

research.

and Practice Theory and Perception

inManagement.

Journal Management European J. 2001. What Kotter leaders really Review 85-91. 79(11): Larwood L, Falbe and CM, meaning Kriger of MP, Structure

486-493. 14(5): do. Harvard Business P.

Sage: Hoffman ence tics Hofstede

Miesing

1995. vision.

influ 1993. Top management HW. RC, Hegarty on innovations: characteris effects of executive and G. social 2001. culture. Culture's Journal of Management Comparing Organizations CA. on social 19:

Academy of Management Lowe K. 1996. K, Galen transformational and of review

organizational Journal 38: 740-769. Effectiveness correlates

of

549-574. Consequences: and

transactional the MLQ 2002.

analytic

a meta leadership: literature. Leadership

Values, Behaviors, Institutions, across Nations. Sage: Thousand Ralston R. Holt D, D, Terpstra

Quarterly 7(3): 385-426.

Ferrier WJ. Lyon DW, with product-market top management team. Enhancing innovation: the Journal performance influence of the Issues

Oaks, Constraints 1994. psyche,

in Russia: the managerial capitalism and infrastructure, California ideology.

of Managerial

Management P. 2002.

Review 36(3):
House R, Javidan Understanding across theories GLOBE. Howell

124-141.
M, P, Hanges cultures and the globe: of World an Dorfman implicit introduction leadership to project

14(4): 452-469.
Maidique Strategic M, Frevola Management A. 1988. Technological and of Technology M (eds). Richard JM. strategy. In Innovation, D. Irwin: romance 30:

3-10. Journal Business 37(1): leader BJ. 1993. Transformational JM, Avolio locus of control, and transactional ship, leadership, of consolidated for innovation: support key predictors performance. Leadership: Park, CA. Hitt MA. 1999. competitiveness strategic 13(1): 1992. Consequences leadership. 43-57. Journal A New of Applied Synthesis. Psy

R, Maidique Burgelman IL; 233-235. Homewood, Meindl JR, Ehrlich SB, Dukerich of Administrative leadership. 78-102. Miles R, Snow

1985. The

Science

Quarterly

business-unit Hunt JG. 1991.

chology 78(6): 891-902.

Sage: Newbury Ireland RD, strategic role of Executive Jackson S.

H. 1978. Organi C, Meyer A, Coleman and process. structure, strategy, of Academy Review 546-562. 3(3): Management Nanus San B. 1992. Visionary Leadership. Jossey-Bass: zational Francisco, CA. RW. Inquiry? 1997. Crafting 6: 308-328. vision. Journal of PC, Backoff

Achieving in the Academy of

and maintaining 21st century: of Management group composition of issue strategic the Nutt

Management neuroticism a 16-year, V, as

Ormel J, Rijsdijk F.
during 5-wave

2000.
adulthood: community D.

Continuing
structural study. The

change
modeling

in
of and

for the dynamics interpersonal In Advances in Strategic Management, processing. J (eds). JAI Vol. P, Huff A, Dutton 8, Shrivastava Press: Greenwich, CT; 345-382. of effec Sashittal HC. 2000. Jassawalla AR, Strategies tive ment Jemison sources Strategic JoreskogKG, Reference new product Review 42(2): DB. team 34-51. leaders. California Manage

Personality Chief of

Individual Differences
Papadakis Officer Bourantas corporate an empirical

28(3): 461-478.
1998. champion investigation. Executive technological

innovation: Analysis and

versus environmental 1981. Organizational in strategic decision of influence making. Management Sorbom Guide. Journal D. Scientific Five-factor leadership. 77-89. 2(1): LISREL 1996. Software model Journal 8: User's

Management Strategic V, Lioukas S, Chambers Papadakis the processes: decision-making and context. Strategic A. 2001. Management 115-148. Pitcher P, Smith

Technological 89-109. 10(1): D. 1998. Strategic role of management Journal team 19(2): hetero

International: of personality of Applied

IL. Chicago, J. 2000. Judge T, Bono transformational and

geneity: Science Podsakoff

personality, 1-18. 12(1):

power

Top management and proxies.

Organization

Psychology

85(5): 751 -765.

M. 2002. J, Hies R, Gerhardt Personality Judge T, Bono a qualitative review. and leadership: and quantitative

WH. MacKenzie Bommer 1996. SB, PM, behaviors and substitutes Transformational leadership as determinants for of employee satis leadership faction, behaviors. commitment, Journal trust, of Management innovation: 1985. Managing Business Review 53(3): organizational 22: citizenship 259-298. chaos.

Journal of Applied Psychology

Judge W. 1999. The Leader's Developing CA. Oaks, 2001. Judge W. or culture-free? 63-78. Kalwait Kanter H. RM. 1992. 1985. Small is Executive Is a Character. leader's

87(4): 765-780.
Shadow: and Exploring Thousand Sage: culture-bound Studies 8(2):

JB. Quinn Harvard Ralston D,

controlled 73-84.

character

Journal

of Leadership better.

R. 1999. Doing S, Terpstra Egri C, Stewart in the 21st century with the new generation a study of generational of Chinese shifts managers: business in work values Studies Lynn G, in in China. Journal of International 415-427. 30(2): Aronson Z. new product of Engineering 39-58. J.,

Harvard and

Business venture of

Business Reilly R,

Review 70(6):

159-165.
Supporting established 1: 47-60. & Sons, Ltd. innovation companies. Journal

2002.

The

role

of team

personality performance. Management Strut.

in development Business Venturing Copyright ?

Journal 19(1): Mgmt.

development and Technology

2005 John Wiley

26: 665-682

(2005)

682
Ronen

D.

S. Elenkov,

W. Judge

and P. Wright
countries and synthesis. 435-454. on Tierney of of P, Farmer G. examination 1999. An S, Graen and employee the relevance creativity: 52: Personnel Psychology relationships. A, Daily D. 2000. Com C, Dalton team and firm inter of Management P. 26(6): 2001.

O. Shenkar 1985. S, Clustering a review dimensions: attitudinal of Management R, Spencer W. Research Industrial School Press: J. Review

Academy Rosenbloom U.S. Salancik Business

10(3): 1996. Engines of Innovation: at the End of an Era. Harvard MA. Boston, 1977. Constraints on of admin may

leadership traits and

591-620. Tihanyi L, Ellstrand of the

Pfeffer GR, istrator's discretion:

position national 1157-1177. Waldman Does D,

top management diversification. Journal Ramirez

the

limited

influence

ors on city budgets', Urban Affairs Quarterly

475-496. Sashkin M. 1988. The The

12(4):

leadership

Leadership: Effectiveness, San Bass:

In Charismatic leader. visionary in Organizational Factor Elusive RN JA, Kanungo (eds). Jossey Conger West across Double

and profitability environmental uncertainty.

Puranam R, G, House matter? CEO leadership of under conditions Academy

attributes perceived

of Management

Journal 44(1):

134-143.

122-160. Francisco, CA; 2003. Barsoux JL. Schneider SC, Managing UK. Pearson Education: Cultures. Harlow, P. 1990. The Fifth Discipline. Currency Senge York. day: New Shamir RJ, Arthur MB. B, House of charismatic effects leadership: theory. Organizational SA. 1992. Why Shane Journal others? than 29-46. Sharma Science do of some

Borrill MA, C, Dawson J, Brodbeck F, Shapiro team B. 2003. and Haward DA, clarity Leadership care. Leadership 14: in health innovation Quarterly 393-410.

Westley
1993. The motivational a self-concept-based 4: 577-594. societies invent more 7(1): and

FR, Mintzberg H.

1989. Visionary

leadership

management. strategic Summer Journal, Special Wiersema M, Bantel and K. demography of Management R. Wolfe 1994. critique Woodman a and

Management Strategic Issue 10: 17-32. Top management change. team Academy review, directions. Toward of

1992.

Business

Venturing

corporate strategic Journal 35: 91-121. for Griffin

Organizational suggestions Sawyer J,

innovativeness: research RW. 1993.

of the relationship S, Rai A. 2003. An assessment and IS characteristics ISD between leadership and in organizations. innovation Information adoption D, H, O'Bannon team demography and integration Quarterly 39:

Journal ofManagement
RW, theory of

Studies 31(3): 405-431.

creativity. 293-321. 1998. (4th Academy

391-401. 40(5): Management Olian Smith KA, Smith KG, J, Sims J. 1994. Top management Scully of the role social and process: communication. 412-438. Administrative

Management P, Kroll Wright ment: Yellen Concepts

organizational Review 18(2): M, Parnell and Cases J.

edn).

Manage Strategic Prentice-Hall: Extraversion meetings. (4th edn).

Science

Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

and R, Winniford introversion Sanford C. 1995. M, in electronically-supported 28(1): in Organizations NJ. Cliffs,

Tabachnick BG,
Statistics. Thomas AS.

Fidell LS.
& Row: Does

1983. Using Multivariate

New York.

Harper 1988.

to organizational 33: Quarterly Thomas tive ture. AS,

performance? 388-400. S.

a difference make leadership Administrative Science A case the for

Information 1998. Yukl G. Prentice-Hall: Yukl G

and Management Leadership

63-74.

Englewood 1999. An evaluation and J. firm 1993.

Mueller

2000.

assessing entrepreneurship: Journal of International C. 1995. CEO and

compara of cul relevance Studies 31:

transformational Zahra Covin and

of conceptual in weaknesses charismatic theories. leadership

Leadership Quarterly
S, policy

10(2): 285-305.
Business strategy, Strategic technology Management

Business

287-301. J, Yap Thong nizational characteristics ogy adoption 429-442. in small characteristics, information Omega orga technol 23(4):

performance.

Journal 14(6): 451-478.

businesses.

Copyright ?

2005 John Wiley

&

Sons,

Ltd.

Strat.

Mgmt.

/.,

26: 665-682

(2005)