administrative

sciences

Article
The Role of a Leader in Stimulating Innovation in
an Organization
Katarzyna Kozioł-Nadolna
Institute of Management, University of Szczecin, 70-453 Szczecin, Poland;
Katarzyna.Koziol-Nadolna@usz.edu.pl; Tel.: +48-9-1444-2016




Received: 30 May 2020; Accepted: 16 August 2020; Published: 20 August 2020


Abstract: Many organizations seek ways to stimulate and encourage staff innovation. One ofthese is
leadership that can boost staff innovation behavior. The aim of thisarticle is to reflect on leadership
and its contribution to stimulating innovation. To achieve the aim of the article—and to verify
the hypotheses—deductive inference, the analysis of the subject literature and the author’s own
questionnaire were used. The research was carried out with an original questionnaire to assess the
role of a leader in stimulating innovative activity. The questionnaire consists of 28 statements.The
analysis of the results of the empirical research has confirmed the research hypotheses that the role
of a leader is to stimulate the creativity of employees and reward their innovative behavior.The
analysis of the role of leadership in stimulating organizational innovation showed that the vast
majority of statements concerning the role of leadership achieved a mean score above 5.0 (86%)—an
average level. The research suggests that leaders should first and foremost play the following roles in
stimulating innovation (e.g., a performer/creator of employee creativity and a promoter of rewarding
the innovative behavior of employees).

Keywords: leader; leadership; innovation; innovation management; stimulating innovation

1. Introduction
In an unstable and competitive environment, organizations attempt to find different ways to gain
a competitive advantages. One of these ways is to introduce innovations. Technological progress,
changes in consumer behavior, increased competition, limited resources, short product lifecycles and
evolving business are only some of the factors that create the need for innovation in organizations.
Therefore, the scope and type of implemented innovations tend to undergo modifications as the
organization develops and business models change. Innovation is one of the most important sources
to gain a competitive advantage (Hansen 2014; Abidin et al. 2013; Gunday et al. 2011; De Jong and
Vermeulen 2006). While some organizations opt to innovate to stand out, others are forced to innovate
to survive. In general, innovation in different areas of a company’s activity improves productivity,
efficiency and quality of work, thereby increasing the quality of products and their competitiveness
and improving the overall efficiency and productivity of the company.
Various factors determine innovative activity in an enterprise. Determinants affect both companies
and individual units employed by them. Many factors determine innovative processes and, broadly
speaking, they can be divided into external and internal factors (Kozioł-Nadolna 2015). Internal
conditions create the innovative potential of an enterprise to innovate and these include tangible,
intangible and human resources. The theory of company resource development—popularized since
the 1990s—assumes that rare resources and skills guarantee extraordinary and outstanding profits and
additionally ensure rapid development and a considerable competitive advantage (Barney Jay 1991;
Prahalad and Hamel 1990; Grant 1991).

Adm. Sci. 2020, 10, 59; doi:10.3390/admsci10030059 www.mdpi.com/journal/admsci

Adm. Sci. 2020, 10, 59 2 of 18

Employees are one of anorganization’s most valuable resources—people create and introduce
innovations, and their attitude towards innovations is the most important. The leader plays a crucial
role in shaping innovative attitudes in the company. Leaders should be open to new ideas and
initiatives of employees; they should support them instead of undermining them. Moreover, they
ought to trust their employees by creating a favorable working atmosphere based on teamwork, loyalty
and trust. Employees must be aware of their real impact on innovation processes within the company.
The more managers themselves comprehend the essence and nature of innovation, the easier it is to
prepare and convince employees to do so (Janasz and Kozioł-Nadolna 2011).
Many organizations seek ways to stimulate and encourage staff innovation, one of which is
leadership that can boost staff innovation behavior. The above circumstances justify the need to
research the role of leadership in stimulating innovative activity. It is possible to look at leadership
from a broad perspective as both the influence of a leader on innovation and the innovative behavior
of employees can be studied (Jong and Hartog 2007; Wojtczuk-Turek 2012). Consideration may also be
given to the leadership style and its impact on innovation (Bass 1990; Aryee et al. 2012). To evaluate
the impact of leadership on organizational innovation, some researchers use the theory of leadership
based on two fundamentally different types of leadership behaviors—transactional leadership and
transformational leadership (Avolio et al. 1999). The literature emphasizes that effective leadership is
also one of the organization’s strategic resources (Eddleston et al. 2007). A leader’s task in the process
of stimulating innovation is to encourage members of an organization to learn or as Senge (1998) puts
it “to learn how to learn”. In this process, it is extremely important to guide the organization and its
members so that the learning proceeds in line with the needs, the challenges of the market, but without
hampering creativity. Leaders inspire and motivate staff to be positive in their work. Mintzberg argues
that “hidden leadership” is necessary to run a team of specialists efficiently. A “hidden leader” is
focused on the outcome of the work, not on the specific path that leads to it (Mintzberg 1998). The aim
of the article is to reflect on leadership and its contribution to stimulating innovation of organization.
This paper is organized as follows: first, the research context and literature analysis; the second part
describes the methods and materials and finally the results and discussion.

2. Research Context

2.1. Innovation and Innovativeness of Organizations

Innovation is one of the most crucial elements of the competitiveness of the economy in the
future. Innovation capability is one of the most important determinants of organizational performance
(Poznańska 2018; Świadek and Szajt 2018). Innovation means that there are an ability and motivation
to undertake a continuous search and to apply theresults of this research, new ideas, concepts and
inventions. Additionally, innovation encompasses boosting and developing production processes
and operating technologies also used in services, the application of new solutions in organization and
management, advances in the development of infrastructure, and most importantly, accessibility to
information (Janasz and Kozioł-Nadolna 2011).
According to the latest theories and practice, innovations are the result of numerous, complex
interactions among units, organizations and business environment. The development of innovation
theories and processes shows further evolution of these phenomena and together with all processes in
today’s economy it will result in the appearance of more complex and realistic models of the innovation
process (Kozioł-Nadolna 2019).
For Drucker (1985), innovation is an economic or social concept rather than a technical one. The
author considers that a systematic innovation is a deliberate and organized search for change and
systematic analysis of the opportunities for social or economic innovation that such a change could
facilitate. According to Tidd and Bessant (2019, p. 16) innovation is referred to as an idea of a product
or business that is often implemented commercially. Hüsig (2014) defines innovation as an iterative,
interactive, context-specific, multiactive, uncertain, path-dependent process and the result of a new
Adm. Sci. 2020, 10, 59 3 of 18

combination of ends and means from a certain perspective. From this perspective, someone must
perceive a difference concerning the qualitative newness of an object compared to a prior status in a
given context. This new combination must be realized and introduced into a specific context which is
the point of reference of the prior status.
In the last issue of OECD/Eurostat (2018) innovation is defined as a new or improved product
or process (or a combination thereof), that differs significantly from the unit’s previous products or
processes and that has been made available to potential users (product) or brought into use by the
unit (process). The generic term ‘unit’ describes the actor responsible for innovations. It refers to any
institutional unit in any sector, including households and their individual members.
Broadly understood innovation is one of the main factors behind achieving a competitive
advantage by organizations. Each type of organization has a different innovation potential determining
the type, scope and scale of introduced innovations, as well as the organization’s operating and
innovation strategy. Information on the characteristics of innovative enterprises can be found in the
subject literature. Their characteristics include a common vision, leadership, willingness to create an
innovative company, cooperation, constant involvement in innovative activities and an appropriate
system of motivation (Tidd and Bessant 2019). It is confirmed by research that companies that effectively
implement and manage innovations yield higher revenues and achieve better financial results than
their competitors on the market (Bessant and Tidd 2011).
An organization’s innovativeness largely depends on its employees. Employee innovativeness is
understood—by analogy to an organization’s innovativeness—as the ability, inclination and desire
to create and implement new solutions. It is revealed through innovative behaviors perceived as
deliberate creation, popularization and implementation of employees’ new ideas in the workplace,
in the organization. Innovative employees generate new ideas, but also find solutions to current
problems, contributing to the development of an organization (Moghimi and Subramaniam 2013).

2.2. Leadership as a Determinant of a Company’s Innovation

2.2.1. Theories and Concepts of Leadership

A number of studies have confirmed the growing importance of leadership in contemporary
organizations (Avery 2004; Hames 2007). There are many theories of the concept of leadership in the
area of management sciences, such as theories of qualities of an effective leader (Kirkpatrick and Locke
1991), behavioral theories of leadership (Blake and Mouton 1978; Tannenbaum and Schmidt 1973),
situational leadership theories (Fiedler 1967), visionary and charismatic theories (Bass and Avolio
1990), theories of power, influence and competence (Dulewicz and Higgs 2005; Paliszkiewicz 2019;
Müller and Turner 2005).
The views on the role and position of executives in organizations have changed as well. The
role of a manager in the classic sense of performing managerial functions (i.e., planning, organizing,
leading and controlling), including leadership tasks, such as motivating, inspiring, etc., is no longer
sufficient. Today’s organizations need leaders who will not only guide other people directly, but above
all will work with them to attain common goals, develop new risk-taking and responsibility skills.
Leaders should be more flexible and better prepared to immediately respond to change, thus shaping a
responsible relationship with the company’s immediate and remote environment. Nowadays, a leader
is a source of creative ideas that recognizes future opportunities and threats. Differences can also be
seen in the management style—“old date” managers versus “new generation” managers (Thomas
2007). Currently, leaders are required to be competent in supporting innovation, to take a new approach
to leadership and to abandon the traditional stereotypes of perceiving a leader and a manager (Table 1).
A modern leader’s role is broader than that of decades ago.
Adm. Sci. 2020, 10, 59 4 of 18

Table 1. Innovation-oriented and traditional leadership.

Innovation-Oriented Leadership Traditional Leadership

Long-term perspective Short-term perspective
Vision Plans and budgets
Risk-taking Riskavoidance
Discovering new territories Copying existing solutions
Initiating changes Stabilization
Building commitment Control and bureaucracy, formal procedures and instructions
Encouraging diversity Supporting uniformity
Passion invoking Rationality invoking
Innovation-oriented Routine-oriented
Employee as a strategic resource Employee substitutability
Source: (Sitko-Lutek 2013).

Ananalysis of the subject literature indicates that leadership is a very difficult concept to define,
as evidenced by the multitude of approaches and definitions. But there is a certain convergence of
views on certain aspects of the definition of leadership. Leadership refers to the unique qualities of a
person and is seen as a certain ability, skill or feature to influence and stimulate others. This aspect is
interesting due to the ability of a leader to stimulate innovation (Avery et al. 2004).
Another approach to leadership is authentic leadership—which emphasizes building aleader’s
legitimacy through honest relationships with followers that are built on ethical foundations and value
their contribution. In general, positive leaders are positive individuals with truthful self-concepts who
promote openness (Luthans and Avolio 2003; Walumbwa et al. 2008). Positive leadership is another
concept which emerged in management theory (Karaszewski and Lis 2013).
A relatively new category is innovative leadership. Not every leader influences the innovativeness
of an organization in the same way, and the leadership itself evolves and can be more or less innovative.
The literature shows an innovative leader as a person who not only constantly seeks for novelty, but also
instills this way of thinking in others. The best leaders in this field are characterized by an insatiable
curiosity for customer needs, high empathy and the ability to predict future needs. Deschamps (2008)
identifies five attributes of an innovative leader enabling modern solutions:

• Outstanding combination of creativity and discipline;

• acceptance of uncertainties, risks and failures, combined with the ability to teach teams to draw
conclusions and gain experience for the future;
• High degree of personal commitment to the mission of promoting innovation and the search for
technology and ideas from the outside;
• Readiness to experiment, the courage to discontinue projects—not only to initiate them—combined
with a sense of when and which to continue and which to finish;
• Talent to build and lead teams and a talent to attract and retain innovators.

The response to the growing demands of today’s managers may be the concept of innovative
leadership, which comes down to seeking an innovative approach in other adopted leadership concepts,
such as transformational leadership, transactional leadership, strategic leadership (Głód 2018). In
the adopted concept, innovative leadership is defined as “a process of social impact through which
leaders—by means of innovative personal qualities, shaping the role of innovation and building
innovative creative teams—affect individual and team-based innovation in the workplace and the
entire organization” (Zhu et al. 2016).
Innovative leadership has five dimensions: creative thinking, holding the willpower to be
innovative, being tolerant of different opinions and various risks, establishing mechanisms for
innovation and implementing innovative ideas.
Adm. Sci. 2020, 10, 59 5 of 18

2.2.2. The Impact of Leadership on Innovation

How leaders stimulate their employees, communicate with them and create the conditions for
them to take action, e.g., by motivating them, setting goals clearly—or giving them autonomy—either
facilitates or inhibits the ability and willingness of members to create and implement innovations.
Many researchers suggest that the best way to stimulate innovation in an organization is to promote
the creativity and innovation of its members (. Siguaw et al. 2006). Leadership which contributes
to creating an environment of openness for employees can significantly promote an organization’s
innovativeness (Tang 1999). Some researchers use a leadership theory based on two fundamentally
different types of leadership behavior—transactional leadership and transformational leadership—to
assess the impact of leadership on an organization’s innovation (Avolio et al. 1999).
Transformational and transactional leadership is probably best known in the field of leadership,
and these two styles are often viewed as opposing or competing approaches.
According to (Bass and Avolio 1993; Vaccaro et al. 2008; Pichlak 2011), transactional leadership does
not inspire internal motivation in employees to innovate, as opposed to transformational leadership,
which stimulates employees to generate and implement innovations. Transformational leaders benefit
from the inspirational motivation and intellectual stimulation, which are critical factors for innovation
(Elkins and Keller 2003; Srivastava et al. 2006; Zuraik and Kelly 2019). Jung’s research (Jung et al.
2003) shows that transformational leadership is significantly and positively linked to organizational
innovation. In addition, its impact on the organization’s readiness to innovate and on the market
success of innovations was confirmed. Another Vaccaro et al.’s research (Vaccaro et al. 2012) showed the
impact of transactional leadership on the implementation of management innovations. The subfactor
of contingent reward correlates positively with innovative behavior (Chang et al. 2015).
Furthermore, the literature review argues that innovative leaders influence innovation (Lesáková
et al. 2017; Bulinska-Stangrecka 2018). However, various leadership aspects were described in
different contexts.
As a result of the research, Nawrat (2013) presents the following characteristics of an innovative
manager: openness, a broad view of problems, the ability to solve problems and conflicts creatively,
adapting to changes, creativity. According to the respondents, an innovative manager isup-and-coming,
constantly searching and introducing changes and improvements, communicative and friendly, able
to inspire others, listen to their opinions and acknowledge good ideas. The two main factors that
influence the development of innovative competences are subjective conditions– such as predispositions,
features, abilities, personality type, personal and social competences, which are considered the most
important—and professional environment (Nawrat 2013).
Kanter (1985) survey of 165 managers of the five major corporations in the United States shows
that innovation managers should be characterized by:

• Ability to feel the needs of others, to anticipate changes and a positive mindset towards them;
• Determination, i.e., careful planning of actions and tenacity;
• Ability to combine a holistic vision with attention to every detail;
• Participative leadership;
• Persistencecombined with the ability to convince others and being tactful.

D. Nawrat researched the creative attitudes and innovative competences of managers in seven
Polish companies in the years 2008–2009. She conducted in-depth biographical and narrative interviews
with innovative managers (15 interviews). The scale was not used in the research.
Kanter surveyed 165 managers in five corporations: Hewlett–Packard, General Electric, Polaroid,
General Motors, Wang Laboratories and Honeywell. The scale was not used in the research. Her
research described their organizational structures, their corporate cultures and their specific strategies.
The research questionnaire used by the author together with the Likert scale in the study of the role
of a leader in stimulating innovation of an organization significantly complements the subject literature.
Adm. Sci. 2020, 10, 59 6 of 18

Other studies (Zhang and Bartol 2010; Juchnowicz 2012) emphasize that it is crucial for leaders to
stimulate the creative behaviors of their followers by shaping their engagement. Involved people work
with passion and exceed the employer’s expectations.
Hill et al. (2014), in their research on leadership roles in driving innovation, conclude that
innovative organizations need leaders who can abandon conventional leadership and management
styles to build organizations capable of ongoing innovation, developing creative teams and establishing
relationships based on mutual trust. Taking into account the above-mentioned literature data, the
following partial hypotheses were formulated:

Hypothesis 1 (H1). Leaders agree that part of their role is to stimulate employee creativity.

Hypothesis 2 (H2). Leaders agree that part of their role is to reward employees’ innovative behavior.

3. Methods and Materials

To achieve the aim of the article and to verify the hypotheses, deductive inference, the analysis of
the subject literature, and the author’s own questionnaire were used. Acritical overview of Polish and
international literature was based primarily on the articles from the Google Scholar database. The
search process served to analyze leadership that stimulates innovation.
The research was carried out with an original questionnaire to assess the role of a leader in
stimulating innovative activity. The questionnaire consists of 28 statements. It is the leaders’ subjective
assessment of their own role in stimulating innovation, their own behavior or their leadership style.
The respondents ranked all the statements on the 7-point Likert numeric scale based on their level of
agreement (from 1—“I strongly disagree” to 7—“I strongly agree”). Cronbach’s alpha for the scale
used was 0.757, which proves the good reliability of the research tool used.
The participants referred, among other things, to opinions and statements concerning:

• Behavior and approach to change, problem-solving and communication skills, working under
conditions of uncertainty and setting goals (questions number: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7);
• Style of employee management (questions number: 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13);
• Approach to employees: stimulating their creativity, encouraging learning, teamwork, promoting
and rewarding innovative behavior (questions number: 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21).

The last seven questions were adapted from Rybiński’s study (Rybiński 2015), which were
proposed to diagnose whether the changes in the leadership style are necessary for the implementation
of the innovation strategy.
The results were statistically analyzed using the following methods: correlation analysis with
Pearson’s linear correlation coefficients, Wilcoxon test (for data on weaker scales), the test for two
means and Ward method. Excel and Statistica were used for the calculations.
The research supplements and broadens the existing research. The aim of the research is to analyze
the role of a leader in stimulating the innovation of an organization. It can be considered innovative to
include in the research questionnaire three perspectives concerning the role of a leader in stimulating
innovation of an organization:

• Behavior of the leader and approach to change, problem-solving and communication skills,
working under conditions of uncertainty and setting goals;
• Style of employee management;
• Approach to employees: stimulating their creativity, encouraging learning, teamwork, promoting
and rewarding innovative behavior.

This study differs from previous studies in that, among other things, no leadership theory was
adopted in the study to estimate the impact of leadership on organizational innovation (for example
Adm. Sci. 2020, 10, 59 7 of 18

(Bass and Avolio 1993; Vaccaro et al. 2008; Pichlak 2011)—the transactional leadership perspective
was adopted; (Elkins and Keller 2003; Srivastava et al. 2006; Zuraik and Kelly 2019; Jung et al. 2003)
transformational leadership perspective was adopted).
The research was carried out with an original questionnaire to assess the role of a leader in
stimulating innovative activity. No previous study has used such a set of statements to determine the
leadership role in stimulating innovation.

Research Sample Characteristics

The survey was conducted on a sample of 86 leaders. The selection of the sample was targeted,
and the respondents represented different organizations. The survey was conducted from 4 to 13 May
2020. A computer assisted web interview (CAWI) was used because of its versatility and efficiency.
The research sample was dominated by persons employed as directors (40.7%) and managers
(26.7%). As for the seniority in a given position, the largest percentage of the sample was represented
by people employed in a given position between 10 and 15 years (41.9%). The leaders who had worked
in a given position for up to 3 years account for 9.3% of the research sample. An analysis of the
respondents’ educational background showed that 98.8% had higher education (especially master’s
degree—76.7%) and only one person had secondary education. The largest percentage in the research
sample were the people employed in manufacturing companies (55.8%), followed by 41.9% of those
working in the services. The respondents were employed mainly by medium-sized enterprises (50–249
employees)—82.6%, in large enterprises—8.1%, none of the respondents workedin a microenterprise
(Table 2).

Table 2. Structureof the research sample.

Position Owner Director Manager Supervisor/Expert

Number of employees 13 35 23 15
Percentage 15.1% 40.7% 26.7% 17.4%
Seniority (in years) 1–3 4–9 10–15 16 ormore
Number of employees 8 22 36 20
Percentage 9.3% 25.6% 41.9% 23.2%
Education vocational secondary bachelor’s or engineering degree master’s degree
Number of employees 0 1 19 66
Percentage 0% 1.2% 22.1% 76.7%
Organization profile production service commercial Other
Number of employees 48 27 9 2
Percentage 55.8% 31.4% 10.5% 2.3%
Number of employees in
1–9 10–49 50–249 250 ormore
the organization
Number of employees 2 12 63 9
Percentage 2.3% 14% 73.2% 10.5%
Source: author’s study.

4. Results and Discussion

For a more practical dimension of the above theoretical considerations, the results of the study
carried out on a sample of 86 leaders are presented below. The aim of the study wasto analyze the role
of leadership in stimulating innovation in organizations. As shown in Table 3, the vast majority of
statements on the role of leadership received a mean score above 5.0 (86%).
Adm. Sci. 2020, 10, 59 8 of 18

Table 3. Descriptive statistics of individual statements defining the role of a leader in stimulating
innovation of an organization.

No. Statements Mean Median Std Dev Max Min

I am characterized by an unconventional
1 5.44 6 1.01 7 2
approach to solving problems.
I can introduce strategic changes in the
2 5.42 5 1.05 7 2
organization, I am not afraid of changes.
3 I can work under conditions of uncertainty. 5.63 6 1.15 7 2
I set goals and clearly communicate my
4 6.07 6 0.84 7 4
expectations to others.
I am open to new ideas and ways of doing
5 6.02 6 0.83 7 3
things.
I am familiar with digital, cognitive and
6 4.55 5 1.31 7 2
artificial intelligence technologies.
My innovative behavior is an example to
7 5.27 5 0.94 7 3
my employees.
I give my employees a chance to manage
8 their own work, I trust them, I give them 5.66 6 0.93 7 3
freedom of action, I delegate powers.
I use facts (measurable data) to make
9 5.55 6 0.97 7 3
decisions on employee development
Company processes are standardized and
10 5.15 5 1.30 7 2
described.
Employees are aware of the mission,
11 5.22 5 1.41 7 3
vision and strategic objectives.
When making decisions, I consider the
12 opinions of other employees, I involve 5.73 6 0.93 7 3
employees in making decisions.
When making decisions, I consider the
13 4.87 5 1.29 7 1
opinions of the youngest employees.
I stimulate the creativity of my employees
14 5.42 5 0.88 7 3
in various ways.
I encourage employees to broaden their
15 5.57 6 0.97 7 3
knowledge beyond their area of expertise.
I encourage employees to work as a team,
16 cooperate within the group and build 5.97 6 0.90 7 3
interdepartmental networks.
I reward the innovative behavior of my
17 5.48 6 1.01 7 3
employees.
I promote the innovative behavior of
18 employees; I encourage them to express 5.83 6 0.86 7 4
their own ideas.
I initiate and encourage employees to
19 5.22 5 1.22 7 2
participate in team-building activities.
Employees are a source of innovation in
20 5.67 6 1.06 7 2
the organization.
21 My organization is innovative 5.56 6 1.04 7 3
Employees know the values that guide me
22 5.18 5 0.92 7 2
in my life and share these values.
Adm. Sci. 2020, 10, 59 9 of 18

Table 3. Cont.

No. Statements Mean Median Std Dev Max Min

I have a clear vision of what the company
23 5.30 5 1.04 7 2
will look like in a few years’ time
24 Employees know and share this vision 4.79 5 1.08 7 2
People I employ can make an important
25 contribution to the development of the 5.90 6 0.86 7 4
company
A person who comes up with a great
project idea for the development of the
26 5.09 5 1.06 7 2
company is rewarded and promoted and
is given the opportunity to run the project.
Over the past 30 days, an employee has
27 approached me with a suggestion to 5.35 6 1.32 7 2
improve the company’s performance
Employees share my passion for company
28 4.74 5 0.88 6 2
development.
Source: author’s study.

For the entire sample, the leaders rated highest the statements that concerned setting goals and
clear communication of expectations (mean of 6.07) as well as being open to new ideas and ways
of doing things (mean of 6.02). The statements that they encourage employees to work as a team,
cooperate within the group and build interdepartmental networks (mean of 5.97) and that they promote
innovative behavior among employees and encourage them to express their own ideas (mean score
of 5.83) also rated high. Moreover, the fact that people hired by the leaders are seen as those who
can make a significant contribution to the company’s development was rated high (mean of 5.90).
The results show that leaders highly regard their role in stimulating innovative activity. They are
open to new ideas, encourage employees to express them and promote innovative behaviors among
employees. Equally important is the awareness of teamwork and cooperation within the group as
factors stimulating innovation. Such roles of leaders in stimulating innovative activity are confirmed
by other studies. Zhang and Bartol (2010), for instance, stated that it is crucial for leaders to stimulate
the creative behavior of their employees. While in Hill’s research (Hill et al. 2014) the role of a leader is
to build creative teams.
The respondents rated the knowledge of digital, cognitive and artificial intelligence technologies
the lowest (mean of 4.55). Nowadays, however, in the era of technological progress, it is extremely
important tounderstand how digital technologies or artificial intelligence can help in communication,
creativity and innovation; such digital competences and skills are essential for innovative activity and
to stimulate it.
This part of the study was followed by an analysis of the correlation between seniority, education,
the size of the organization, the position, the type of an organization and the selected variables.
Tables 4–8 present the selected results of the correlation analysis. Only statistically significant
correlations are presented (p < 0.05).
Adm. Sci. 2020, 10, 59 10 of 18

Table 4. The values of correlation coefficients between seniority and the selected variables.

Variable Measure χ2 Measure ϕ Measure p

I am familiar with digital, cognitive and artificial intelligence
7.700 * −0.194 0.006
technologies
My innovative behavior is an example to my employees
3.989 * 0.139 0.046
Employees are aware of the mission, vision and strategic
4.714 * 0.152 0.030
objectives
*—statistically significant values at α = 0.05.

Table 5. Values of correlation coefficients between the organization’s business profile and the
selected variables.

Variable Measure χ2 Measure ϕ Measure p

I stimulate the creativity of employees in various ways. 4.457 * −0.147 0.035
I reward the innovative behavior of my employees. 4.784 * 0.236 0.029
I have a clear vision of what the company will look like in
6.373 * −0.176 0.012
a few years’ time.
Over the past 30 days, an employee has approached me
4.508 * −0.148 0.034
with a suggestion to improve the company’s performance.
*—statistically significant values at α = 0.05.

Table 6. Values of correlation coefficients between the education of the respondents and the
selected variables.

Variable Measure χ2 Measure ϕ Measure p

I am open to new ideas and ways of doing things. 7.824 * 0.195 0.005
When making decisions, I consider the opinions of the
6.423 * 0.177 0.011
youngest employees.
I stimulate the creativity of my employees in various ways. 10.725 * 0.229 0.001
*—statistically significant values at α = 0.05.

Table 7. Values of the correlation coefficients between the size of the company and the selected variables.

Variable Measure χ2 Measure ϕ Measure p

Company processes are standardized and described. 4.297 * 0.145 0.038
I reward the innovative behavior of my employees. 6.391 * 0.177 0.011
Employees know the values that guide me in life and
6.391 * 0.177 0.011
share these values.
Employees know and share this vision. 13.789 * 0.259 0.000
*—statistically significant values at α = 0.05.

Table 4 presents the results of the correlation analysis between seniority and the selected variables.
There was a moderate, statistically significant correlation between seniority and the familiarity with
digital, cognitive and artificial intelligence technologies (χ2 = 7.700; ϕ = −0.194; p = 0.006); people whose
seniority was shorter (less than 10 years) were significantly better acquainted with these technologies.
The age of the young leaders to whom the new technologies were dedicated was probably linked to
this result. Generation Y or Z were known as the generations of networks made up of people growing
up in the world of the new media. Computers and the Internet were their daily life and due to their
high level of digital competence were not a major challenge (Tapscott 2009). There was a statistically
significant correlation between seniority and setting an example to employees with innovative behavior
(χ2 = 3.989; ϕ = 0.139; p = 0.046) as the leaders with longer seniority were significantly more likely
to set an example. This was probably due to the fact that they had more experience in stimulating
innovation and, consequently, their behavior was more innovative. The same applies to the assessment
Adm. Sci. 2020, 10, 59 11 of 18

of awareness of visions and strategic objectives—longer seniority translates into a better knowledge of
these issues (χ2 = 4.714; ϕ = 0.152; p = 0.030). Table 5 presents the results of the correlation analysis
between the organization’s business profile and the selected variables. Only statistically significant
correlations are presented (p < 0.05) below.

Table 8. Values of the correlation coefficients between the position and the selected variables.

Variable Measure χ2 Measure ϕ Measure p

Company processes are standardized and described. 4.430 * −0.147 0.035
When making decisions, I consider the opinions of the
30.066 * −0.383 0.000
youngest employees.
I stimulate the creativity of my employees in various
8.311 * −0.311 0.004
ways.
I reward the innovative behavior of my employees. 4.388 * −0.146 0.036
I initiate and encourage employees to participate in
6.299 * −0.175 0.012
team-building activities.
Employees know the values that guide me in my life and
4.388 * −0.146 0.036
share these values.
Employees know and share this vision. 5.317 * −0.161 0.021
A person who comes up with a great project idea for the
development of the company is rewarded and promoted 6.299 * −0.175 0.012
and is given the opportunity to run this project.
Over the past 30 days, an employee has approached me
with a suggestion to improve the company’s 8.431 * −0.203 0.004
performance.
*—statistically significant values at α = 0.05.

There was a moderate, statistically significant correlation between the business profile and the
stimulation of employees’ creativity (χ2 = 4.457; ϕ = −0.147; p = 0.035); in manufacturing companies,
the creativity of employees was significantly more often stimulated. This confirmedthe first hypothesis
that leaders agree that part of their role is to stimulate employee creativity.
There was a moderate, statistically significant correlation between the business profile and
rewarding the innovative behavior of employees (χ2 = 4.784; ϕ = 0.236; p = 0.029); in non-manufacturing
enterprises, the leaders were more likely to reward the innovative behavior of employees. It should
be noted that this was transactional leadership with a conditional reward, which was expressed by a
specific “contract” between the leader and the employees (a reward for meeting the requirements of the
leader). The analysis of the subject literature showed that in most studies leaders used transformational
leadership to stimulate innovation (Bass and Avolio 1993; Pichlak 2011; Jung et al. 2003), however,
Jung et al. (2003) demonstrated the impact of transactional leadership on the implementation of
management innovations.
The sample of leaders employed in the services showed a transactional management style. This
confirms the second hypothesis that leaders agree that part of their role was to reward employees’
innovative behavior.
There was a moderate, statistically significant correlation between the business profile and a clear
vision of what the company will look like in a few years’ time (χ2 = 6.373; ϕ = −0.176; p = 0.012). There
was a moderate, statistically significant correlation between the business profile and an employee’s
suggestion to improve the company’s performance (χ2 = 4.508; ϕ = −0.148; p = 0.034); in manufacturing
companies, employees were significantly more likely to made suggestions to leaders for improvements.
Table 6 presents the results of the correlation analysis between the education of the respondents
and the selected variables. There was a moderate, statistically significant correlation between the
education of the respondents and their openness to new ideas and ways of doing things (χ2 = 7.824;
Adm. Sci. 2020, 10, 59 12 of 18

ϕ = 0.195; p = 0.005); the higher the education of the leader, the more open they were to new ideas and
ways of doing things. To encourage employees to learn and to innovate, leaders themselves need to
be open to learning, to change, to new ideas and ways of doing things. Educated leaders were more
aware and open to new ideas. Giles’ study (Giles 2016) also indicates that openness to new ideas was
one of the most important leadership skills.
There was a moderate, statistically significant correlation between the education of the respondents
and considering the opinions of the youngest employees when making decisions (χ2 = 6.423; ϕ = 0.177;
p = 0.011); people with higher education significantly more often consider the opinions of the youngest
employees when making decisions. Educated leaders were likely to be more aware that young workers
could introduce creativity or new insights into the organization. Moreover, they were not afraid to listen
to the opinions of the youngest employees on account of, for instance, the loss of authority in the eyes of
employees. They could encourage intergenerational cooperation by bringing together the experiences
of employees with longer experience and the new perceptions brought into the organization by the
younger employees.
There was a moderate, statistically significant correlation between the education of the respondents
and the stimulation of employees’ creativity (χ2 = 10.725; ϕ = 0.229; p = 0.001); people with higher
education were significantly more likely to stimulate the creativity of employees. This confirms the
first hypothesis that leaders agree that part of their role was to stimulate employee creativity. In this
case, leaders with higher education were more likely to stimulate employees’ creativity because they
were better acquainted with different methods and techniques for stimulating creativity.
Table 7 presents the results of the correlation analysis between the size of the enterprise and
the selected variables. There was a moderate, statistically significant correlation between the size of
the enterprise and the perception of company processes as standardized and described (χ2 = 4.297;
ϕ = 0.145; p = 0.038); people from enterprises with 50 ormore employees were significantly more likely
to perceive company processes as standardized and described. This was probably due to the size of the
company as in larger companies the processes were identified, described, classifiedand standardized.
The aim of the standardization was to apply uniform practices enabling repeatability of processed.
There was a moderate, statistically significant correlation between the size of the enterprise
and rewarding the innovative behavior of employees (χ2 = 6.391; ϕ = 0.177; p = 0.011); the leaders
from enterprises with 50 or more employees significantly more often reward innovative behavior of
their employees. This confirms the second hypothesis that leaders agree that part of their role is to
reward employees’ innovative behavior. This was likely due to the fact that medium-sized and large
companies were highly motivated to innovate, while at the same time there was some competition
between employees. Therefore, to strengthen the innovative attitudes of employees, leaders were more
prone to reward them.
There was a moderate, statistically significant correlation between the size of a company and
sharing the values that guide the leader’s life (χ2 = 6.391; ϕ = 0.177; p = 0.011); the leaders from
medium and large companies significantly more frequently think that employees know and share the
values that guide their lives.
There was a moderate, statistically significant correlation between the size of a company and
sharing the leader’s vision in life (χ2 = 13.789; ϕ = 0.259; p = 0.000); people from companies with 50 or
more employees significantly more often think that employees know and share their vision. In both
cased, it can be assumed that in larger organizations there was a higher organizational culture with
clear and transparent values and the vision that the leader was guided in life. Employees know and
share the leader’s values and vision.
Table 8 presents the results of the correlation analysis between the leader’s position and the
selected variables. There was a moderate, statistically significant correlation between the type of
a position and the perception of company processed as standardized and described (χ2 = 4.430;
ϕ = −0.147; p = 0.035); owners and directors significantly more often perceive company processed as
Adm. Sci. 2020, 10, 59 13 of 18

standardized and described, which may mean that the importance of standardization, management
and responsibility for it was more apparent to them.
There was also a statistically significant correlation between the position and the consideration
of opinions of the youngest employees (χ2 = 3.066; ϕ = −0.383; p< 0.001), stimulation of employees’
creativity (χ2 = 8.311; ϕ =−0.311; p = 0.004), rewarding innovative behavior (χ2 = 4.388; ϕ = −0.146;
p = 0.036), encouraging and initiating team-building activities (χ2 = 6.299; ϕ = −0.175; p = 0.012),
employees’ knowledge of the values that guide leaders in their lives and sharing these values (χ2 = 4.388;
ϕ = −0.146; p = 0.036), employees’ awareness of the vision and mission (χ2 = 5.317; ϕ = −0.161;
p = 0.021), rewarding creative people and enabling them to manage projects (χ2 = 6.299; ϕ = −0.175;
p = 0.012) and employees’ suggestions for improvements (χ2 = 8.431; ϕ = −0.203; p = 0.004). In
all these cases,
Adm. Sci.owners and
2020, 10, x FOR PEERdirectors
REVIEW were significantly more likely to react to them 13 of 19than managers.

This demonstrated a high management culture in this studied group2 of owners and directors. Both
4.388; φ = −0.146; p = 0.036), employees’ awareness of the vision and mission (χ = 5.317; φ = −0.161; p
hypotheses= 0.021),
have rewarding
also beencreativeconfirmed,
people andwhich shows
enabling them that owners
to manage and
projects (χ2directors
= 6.299; φ = stimulate
−0.175; p = the creativity
of their employees, as they care
0.012) and employees’ most about
suggestions the innovativeness
for improvements (χ = 8.431; φ of
2
the organization
= −0.203; p = 0.004). In alland
theseits branches. In
the case ofcases, owners and directors were significantly more likely to react to them than managers. This
rewarding employees’ innovative behavior, owners and directors had the tools available to
demonstrated a high management culture in this studied group of owners and directors. Both
them to reward employees
hypotheses have alsowhich they coulduse
been confirmed, freely.
which shows that owners and directors stimulate the
The analysis oftheir
creativity of theemployees,
tree diagrams of most
as they care the links
about theshows a breakdown
innovativeness into two
of the organization anddistinct
its groups at
the cutoff branches.
at level In20theand case of rewarding employees’ innovative behavior, owners and directors had the
three groups at the cutoff at level 15 (Figure 1). A clear similarity can be
tools available to them to reward employees which they coulduse freely.
observed in some grouping
The analysis of thelevels, however,
tree diagrams of the due to thea number
links shows breakdownof variables,
into two distinct this is not
groups easy. The fewest
at the
similaritiescutoff
are seen in 20
at level theandfirst cluster
three groupsofatowners
the cutoffand directors,
at level which
15 (Figure 1). A corresponds
clear similarity to
canthe
be third cluster of
observed in some grouping levels, however, due to the number of variables, this is not easy. The
managers and supervisors. There are only three variables common to both approaches, i.e., employees
fewest similarities are seen in the first cluster of owners and directors, which corresponds to the
know the third
organization’s
cluster of managers mission, and vision andThere
supervisors. strategic
are only goals,
threethe leaders
variables consider
common to both the opinions of
the youngest employees
approaches, when know
i.e., employees making decisions, mission,
the organization’s and employees share goals,
vision and strategic the leaders’
the leaderspassion for the
consider the opinions of the youngest employees when making decisions, and employees share the
development of the company. This cluster is, therefore, to a certain extent related to interpersonal
leaders’ passion for the development of the company. This cluster is, therefore, to a certain extent
contacts between
related tothe supervisor
interpersonal andbetween
contacts the staffthein terms of
supervisor andpreparing
the staff in and
termsimplementing
of preparing and the company’s
strategy inimplementing
line with the the management’s
company’s strategyplans in line and
with considering
the management’s theplans
staff’sandideas.
considering the
staff’s ideas.

Diagram drzewa
Metoda Warda
Odległ. euklidesowa
22

20

18

16
Odległość wiąz.

14

12

10

4
20 12 21 13 28 22 11 6 19 23 7 3 26 17 10 24 15 2 16 9 8 5 25 18 14 4 27 1

Figure 1. Tree diagram for owners and directors’ evaluations of individual variables. (figures
Figure 1. Tree diagram for owners and directors’ evaluations of individual variables. (figures
correspond to the individual statements in the questionnaire, the statements and numbers are shown in
correspond to the individual statements in the questionnaire, the statements and numbers are shown
Table 3). in Table 3).
 Adm. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 19

Much more similar is the second cluster, in which there are six similar variables (Figure 2). They
are mainly concerned with a pragmatic approach to staff management that includes and promotes
Adm. Sci. 2020, 10, 59 14 of 18
their involvement in implementing new original ideas.
The last cluster is very similar to both groups. Six out of seven variables indicated by the
supervisors and managers overlap with those indicated by the owners and directors. These
Much more similar
indications is the
refer to the second of
assessment cluster, in which
managers’ there areand
own knowledge six self-assessment
similar variables (Figure 2). They
of proper
are mainly concerned
response with a pragmatic approach to staff management that includes and promotes
to changes.
The analysis
their involvement clearly shows thenew
in implementing existing ‘trends’ideas.
original in the way management is directed at all levels
of management, but also the differences between them.

Diagram drzewa
Metoda Warda
Odległ. euklidesowa
30

25

20
Odległość wiąz.

15

10

0
15 23 9 21 25 5 20 12 4 18 17 16 2 19 6 10 8 22 7 3 27 26 24 28 14 13 11 1

Figure 2. Tree diagram for owners and directors’ evaluations of individual variables. (figures
Figure 2. Tree diagram for owners and directors’ evaluations of individual variables. (figures
correspond to the individual statements in the questionnaire, the statements and numbers are shown in
correspond to the individual statements in the questionnaire, the statements and numbers are shown
Table 3).in Table 3).

The last Thecluster

analysisisof very
the results of thetoempirical
similar research confirms
both groups. Six outtheofresearch
sevenhypotheses
variablesthat the
indicated by the
leaders agree that part of their role is to stimulate the creativity of employees and reward their
supervisors and managers
innovative behavior.
overlap with those indicated by the owners and directors. These indications
refer to the assessment
The stimulation of managers’
of employees’own knowledge
creativity in variousand self-assessment
ways is in line with theof proper response
conclusions of other to changes.
Theresearchers
analysis (Juchnowicz
clearly shows and the existing
Kinowska ‘trends’
2018) as theyin the way
indicate thatmanagement
the best way toisstimulate
directedtheat all levels of
innovativeness of an organization
management, but also the differences between them.is to promote the creativity and innovation of its members.
Zhang and Bartol (2010) stated that it is crucial for leaders to stimulate the creative behavior of
Thetheir
analysis of the results of the empirical research confirms the research hypotheses that the
employees. Deschamps (2008) emphasizes in his research a high degree of personal
leaders commitment
agree thatofpart of their
the leader to therole
missionis to stimulateinnovation.
of promoting the creativity of employees and reward their
innovative behavior.
The analysis of Seidel’s (2011) and Skrzypek’s (2014) works gave rise to the conclusion that
there is a direct relationship between the employees’
The stimulation of employees’ creativity in various ways creativity and the company’s
is in line with innovativeness.
the conclusions of other
researchers (Juchnowicz and Kinowska 2018) as they indicate that the best way to stimulate the
innovativeness of an organization is to promote the creativity and innovation of its members.
Zhang and Bartol (2010) stated that it is crucial for leaders to stimulate the creative behavior of
their employees. Deschamps (2008) emphasizes in his research a high degree of personal commitment
of the leader to the mission of promoting innovation.
The analysis of Seidel (2011) and Skrzypek (2014) works gave rise to the conclusion that there is a
direct relationship between the employees’ creativity and the company’s innovativeness.
According to the research conducted by Szczepańska-Woszczyna (2014), the managers’ task is to
create such working conditions and a way of managing employees that their potential for creative
thinking and performance becomes a fully useful company resource.
Williams points to the main features of effective leadership in an organization, such as setting an
example and inspiring people to act effectively (Williams 2005).
Adm. Sci. 2020, 10, 59 15 of 18

Leaders raise awareness of the goal, i.e., they address questions about the reason for their actions
and the benefits they bring. They also indicate the direction and give the clues for finding innovative
solutions. With leaders, innovation can become an organization’s strength and value at the same time.
The research suggests that leaders should first and foremost play the following roles in stimulating
innovation:

• Performer/creator of employees’ creativity;

• Promoter of rewarding the innovative behavior of employees;
• Inspirer who sets goals and clearly communicate the expectations towards others;
• Innovator who is open to new ideas and ways of doing things;
• Animator of teamwork, intra-group cooperation and interdepartmental networking;
• Propagator of innovative behavior among employees and their own idea;
• an inspirer whose innovative behavior sets an example to employees.

It can be assumed that such leaders will contribute to building an organization that is flexible and
open to innovation. The analysis of the role of leadership in stimulating organizational innovation
showed that the vast majority of statements concerning the role of leadership achieved a mean score
above 5.0 (86%)—an average level. For the entire sample, a leader’s role in defining goals and clear
communication of expectations towards others was rated highest (6.07), which indicates the importance
of communication and goal setting. Openness to new ideas and ways of doing things was equally
highly valued by the leaders (6.02), which is a sign of a shift away from routine activities and schemes.
The leaders, when evaluating their roles, rated the lowest (between 4 and 5) only four of them.
The analysis of the obtained results leads to the conclusion that there are significant managerial
and research implications. It remains a challenge for business practice to develop effective
mechanisms/factors to stimulate innovation in an organization. One of them is leadership and
its roles. As indicated by the author, the roles of a leader in stimulating innovative activity may
contribute to innovation. To stimulate innovation in the company, it is worth considering the
introduction of mechanisms for encouraging creative employees, e.g., through promotion, a raise
and the possibility to manage a project that is to implement a specific innovation. It is important
to make employees aware that not only a formal leader can manifest innovative behavior, but also
employees should take the initiative, take action and become leaders of some area of a team project.
Therefore, a leader should, first of all, facilitate his employees’ development and self-fulfillment
through work and satisfaction, which can positively influence innovation. One of the most current
challenges is the ongoing digital transformation. Therefore, leaders should be required to be fluent in
digital technologies.

5. Conclusions
The results and conclusions of this study pave the way for future scientific research. The results
of the research may broaden the knowledge on the roles of leaders in stimulating the organization’s
innovative activity. The employees’ opinions on the leadership role in stimulatinginnovation in the
organization should be further examined. It also seems important to investigate the impact of leadership
(specific roles) on the organization’s innovativeness. Apart from leadership, the organizational climate
(culture) also ought to be explored as a factor conducive to innovation. The results of the conducted
analyses can also significantly contribute to the discussion on the influence of soft aspects of management
on the innovativeness of contemporary organizations.
The main limitation of the study presented in this article is the fact that it was conducted on a
relatively small research sample, which excludes the possibility of generalizations for the formulated
conclusions. Thus, it is advisable to extend future research to a larger number of leaders from different
organizations. The subjectivity of the respondents’ assessments is also a limitation, as well as the
multidimensional nature of the questions asked (some of questions are double-barreled), which may
have made it difficult to provide answers.
Adm. Sci. 2020, 10, 59 16 of 18

Funding: This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
Abidin, Suriati Z., Sany S. Mohtar, and Rushami Z. Yusoff. 2013. Innovation process from the perspective of
measurement. International Journal of Innovation and Applied Studies 3: 255–61.
Aryee, Samuel, Fred O. Walumbwa, quin Zhou, and Chad A. Hartnell. 2012. Transformational leadership,
innovative behavior, and task performance: Test of mediation and moderation processes. Human Performance
25: 1–25. [CrossRef]
Avery, Gayle C. 2004. Understanding Leadership: Paradigms and Cases. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Ltd.
Avery, Gayle C., Andrew Bell, Martin Hilb, and Anne E. Witte. 2004. Understanding Leadership: Paradigms and
Cases. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Avolio, Bruce J., Bernard M. Bass, and Dong I. Jung. 1999. Re-Examining the Components of Transformational
and Transactional Leadership Using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Journal of Occupational &
Organizational Psychology 72: 441–62.
Bass, Bernard M. 1990. Bass and Stogdill’s Handbook on Leadership: Theory, Research, and Managerial
Applications. New York: Free Press.
Barney Jay, B. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management 17: 99–120.
[CrossRef]
Bass, Bernard M., and Bruce J. Avolio. 1990. Transformational Leadership Development: Manual for the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Bass, Bernard M., and Bruce J. Avolio. 1993. Transformational Leadership and Organizational Culture. Public
Administration Quarterly 17: 112–21. [CrossRef]
Bessant, John, and Joe Tidd. 2011. Innovation and Entrepreneurship. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, p. 5.
Blake, Robert R., and Jane S. Mouton. 1978. The New Managerial Grid. Houston: Gulf Pub.
Bulinska-Stangrecka, Helena. 2018. The Role of Leadership in Developing Innovative Potential. International
Journal of Economics, Business and Management Research 2: 270–89.
Chang, Jeanine, Xuan Bai, and Julie J. Li. 2015. The influence of leadership on product and process innovations in
China: The contingent role of knowledge acquisition capability. Industrial Marketing Management 50: 18–29.
[CrossRef]
De Jong, Jeroen. P., and Patrick Vermeulen. 2006. Determinants of product innovation in small firms: A comparison
across industries. International Small Business Journal 24: 587–609. [CrossRef]
Deschamps, Jean-Philippe. 2008. Innovation Leaders: How Senior Executives Stimulate, Steer and Sustain Innovation.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Drucker, Peter F. 1985. Innovation and Entrepreneurship: Practice and Principles. New York: Harper @Row.
Dulewicz, Victor, and Malcolm Higgs. 2005. Assessing leadership styles and organisational context. Journal of
Managerial Psychology 20: 105–23. [CrossRef]
Eddleston, KimberlyA., Franz W. Kellermanns, and Ravi Sarathy. 2007. Resource Configuration in Family
Firms: Linking Resources, Strategic, Planning and Technological Opportunities to Performance. Journal of
Management Studies 45: 26–50. [CrossRef]
Elkins, Teri, and Robert. T Keller. 2003. Leadership in Research and Development Organizations: A Literature
Review and Conceptual Framework. Leadership Quarterly 14: 587–606. [CrossRef]
Fiedler, Fred Edward. 1967. A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Giles, Sunnie. 2016. The Most Important Leadership Competencies, According to Leaders around the World. Harvard
Business Review: Available online: https://hbr.org/2016/03/the-most-important-leadership-competencies-
according-to-leaders-around-the-world (accessed on 5 May 2020).
Głód, Wojciech. 2018. Wpływinnowacyjnegoprzywództwanakonkurencyjnośćprzedsi˛ebiorstwrodzinnych.
Przedsi˛ebiorczośćiZarzadzanie,
˛ Konkurencyjnośćwspółczesnychprzedsi˛ebiorstw—Modele, Koncepcjeiuwarunkowania
19: 281–95.
Grant, Robert M. 1991. The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: Implications for strategy formulations.
California Management Review 33: 114–35. [CrossRef]
Adm. Sci. 2020, 10, 59 17 of 18

Gunday, Gurhan, Gsunduz Ulusoy, Kemal Kilic, and Lutfihak Alpkan. 2011. Effects of Innovation Types on Firm
Performance. International Journal of Production Economic 133: 662–76. [CrossRef]
Hames, Richard D. 2007. The Five Literacies of Global Leadership:What Authentic Leaders Know and You Need to Find
Out. West Sussex: Jossey-Bass A Wiley Imprint, pp. 41–54.
Hansen, Eric. 2014. Innovativeness in the face of decline performance implication. International Journal of Innovation
Management 18: 1–20. [CrossRef]
Hill, Linda A., Brandeau, Greg, Emily Truelove, and Kent Lineback. 2014. Collective Genius, the Art and Practice of
Leading Innovation. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press.
Hüsig, Stefan. 2014. A typology for Radical Innovation Projects Based on an Innovativeness Framework.
International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management 11: 1–24. [CrossRef]
Janasz, Władysław, and Katarzyna Kozioł-Nadolna. 2011. Innowacje w organizacji. Warszawa: PWE, pp. 11–13.
Jong, Jeroen de, and Deanne den Hartog. 2007. How leaders influence employees’ innovative behavior. European
Journal of Innovation Management 10: 41–64. [CrossRef]
Juchnowicz, Marta. 2012. Zaangażowaniepracowników. Sposoby Oceny i Motywowania. Warszawa: PWE.
Juchnowicz, Marta, and Hanna Kinowska. 2018. Proinnowacyjnekompetencjepolskichmenadżerów. Studiai Prace
Kolegium Zarzadzaniai
˛ Finansów 161: 41–54.
Jung, Dong I., Chee W. Chow, and Anne Wu. 2003. The Role of Transformational Leadership in Enhancing
Organizational Innovation: Hypotheses and Some Preliminary Findings. Leadership Quarterly 14: 525–44.
[CrossRef]
Kanter, Rosabeth Moss. 1985. Change Masters: Innovation and Entrepreneurship in the American Corporation. New
York: Simon & Schuster.
Karaszewski, Robert, and Andrzej Lis. 2013. The role of leadership to stimulate peo-developmental Positive
Organisational Potential. In Positive Management: Managing the Key Areas of Positive Organisational Potential
for Company Success. Edited by Marek Jacek Stankiewicz. Toruń: Dom Organizatora, pp. 59–87.
Kirkpatrick, Shelley A., and Edwin A. Locke. 1991. Leadership: Do traits matter? Academy of Management Executive
5: 48–60.
Kozioł-Nadolna, Katarzyna. 2015. Innovative activityand itsdeterminantsindomestic and foreign enterprisesin
Poland. In EntrepreneurshipManagement Functioning and Development of an Organization. Kraków: Wyd. UE w
Krakowie.
Kozioł-Nadolna, Katarzyna. 2019. Innovation and internationalization of companies: A theory and practice.
Studia i Prace WNEiZ 56: 81–95. [CrossRef]
Lesáková, L’ubica, Petra Gundová, Pavol Král’, and Andrea Ondrušová. 2017. Innovation Leaders, Modest
Innovators and Non-Innovative Smes In Slovakia: Key Factors And Barriers of Innovation Activity.
Organizacija 50: 325–37. [CrossRef]
Luthans, Fred, and Bruce Avolio. 2003. Authentic leadership development. In Positive Organizational Scholarship.
Foundations of a New Discipline. Edited by Kim S. Cameron, Jane E. Dutton and Robert E. Quinn. San
Francisco: Berrett-Koahler Publishers.
Mintzberg, Henry. 1998. Covert Leadership: Notes on Managing Professionals. Harvard Business Review.
November–December. Available online: https://hbr.org/1998/11/covert-leadership-notes-on-managing-
professionals (accessed on 5 May 2020).
Moghimi, Solmaz, and Indra D. Subramaniam. 2013. Employees’ Creative Behavior: The Role of Organizational
Climate in Malaysian SMEs. International Journal of Business and Management 8: 1–12. [CrossRef]
Müller, Ralf, and Rodney Turner. 2005. The Project Manger’s Leadership style as a success factor on projects: A
literature review. Project Management Journal 36: 49–61.
Nawrat, Dorota. 2013. Kształtowaniekompetencjiinnowacyjnych w świetlebadańbiografiimenedżerów.
Przedsi˛ebiorczość i Zarzadzanie
˛ 14: 21–42.
OECD/Eurostat. 2018. OSLO MANUAL 2018: Guidelines for Collecting, Reporting and Using Data on Innovation,
4th ed. The Measurement of Scientific, Technological and Innovation Activities. Paris and Luxembourg:
Eurostat.
Paliszkiewicz, Joanna. 2019. Przywództwo, zaufanieizarzadzaniewiedz
˛ a˛ w innowacyjnychprzedsi˛ebiorstwach. Warszawa:
Cedewu.
Pichlak, Magdalena. 2011. Przywództwo a innowacyjnośćorganizacji. Organizacjaikierowanie 4: 143–55.
Poznańska, Krystyna, ed. 2018. Noweformyinnowacji. Warszawa: Oficyna Wydawnicza SGH.
Adm. Sci. 2020, 10, 59 18 of 18

Prahalad, Coimbatore K., and Gary Hamel. 1990. The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review
68: 78–90.
Rybiński, Krzysztof. 2015. Królowieinnowacji w Usługachfinansowych. Gliwice: Wydawnictwo HELION.
Seidel, Stefan. 2011. Toward a Theory of Managing Creativity-intensive Processes: A Creative Industries Study.
Information System and e-Business Management 9: 407–46. [CrossRef]
Senge, Peter M. 1998. Piatadyscyplina.
˛ Teoriaipraktykaorganizacjiuczacychsi˛
˛ e. Warszawa: Dom Wydawniczy ABC.
Siguaw, Judy A., Penny M. Simpson, and Cathy A. Enz C. 2006. Conceptualizing Innovation Orientation: A
Framework for Study and Integration of Innovation Research. The Journal of Product Innovation Management
23: 556–74. [CrossRef]
Sitko-Lutek, Agnieszka. 2013. Kompetencjemenedżerskie w kontekścieinnowacyjnościprzedsi˛ebiorstw.
AnnalesUniversitatisMariae Curie-Skłodowska, Sectio H, Oeconomia 47: 142.
Skrzypek, Elżbieta. 2014. Kreatywność a zarzadzaniewiedz
˛ a.˛ Zeszyty Naukowe Małopolskiej Wyższej Szkoły
Ekonomicznej w Tarnowie 24: 176.
Srivastava, Abhishek, Kathryn M. Bartol, and Edwin A. Locke E. 2006. Empowering leadership in management
teams: Effects on knowledge sharing, efficacy, and performance. Academy of Management Journal 49: 1239–51.
[CrossRef]
Świadek, Arkadiusz, and Marek Szajt. 2018. Impact of Innovation Expenditures on Manufacturing in Poland in
2006–2015—Regional Diversification. Studies of the Industrial Geography Commission of the Polish Geographical
Society 32: 54–68. [CrossRef]
Szczepańska-Woszczyna, Katarzyna. 2014. Kompetencjemenedżerskie w obszarzekreatywnościiinnowacyjności.
ZS WSH Zarzadzanie
˛ 1: 101–10.
Tang, Hung K. 1999. An Inventory of Organizational Innovativeness. Technovation 19: 41–51. [CrossRef]
Tannenbaum, Robert, and Warren Schmidt. 1973. How to Choose a Leadership Pattern. Boston: Harvard Business
Review, pp. 3–12.
Tapscott, Don. 2009. Grown up Digital: How the Net Generation is Changing Your World. New York: McGraw-Hill
Education.
Thomas, Mark. 2007. Mastering People Management: Build a Successful Team—Motivate, Empower and Lead People.
London: Thorogood.
Tidd, Joe, and John Bessant. 2019. Managing Innovation: Integrating Technological, Market and Organizational Change.
Chichester: John Wiley, pp. 16–17.
Vaccaro, Ignacio G., Justin J. P. Jansen, and Frans A. J. van den Bosch. 2008. Management Innovation and
Leadership. Paper presented at the American Academy of Management Conference, Anaheim, CA, USA.
Vaccaro, Ignacio G., Henk W. Volberda, and Frans A. J. van den Bosch. 2012. Management innovation in action:
The case of self-managing teams. In Handbook of Organizational and Managerial Innovation. Edited by Tyrone
S. Pitsis, Ace Simpson and Erlend Dehlin. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 138–62.
Walumbwa, Fred O., Bruce Avolio, William L. Gardner, Tara S. Wernsing, and Suzanne J. Peterson. 2008. Authentic
leadership: Development and validation of a theory-based measure. Journal of Management 34: 89–126.
[CrossRef]
Williams, Michael. 2005. Leadership for Leaders. London: Thorogood Publishing Limited.
Wojtczuk-Turek, Agnieszka. 2012. Zachowaniainnowacyjne w Pracy. Wybrane Zagadnienia Teoretycznei Praktyczne.
Warszawa: Difin.
Zhang, Xiaomeng, and Kathryn M. Bartol. 2010. Linking Empowering Leadership and Employee Creativity: The
Influence of Psychological Empowerment, Intrinsic Motivation, and Creative Process Engagement. Academy
of Management Journal 53: 107–28. [CrossRef]
Zhu, Weichun, Hao Yang, and Baiyin Yang. 2016. Innovative leadership in organizations: Dimensions,
Measurementand Validation. Academy of Management Annual Meeting 16: 1–44. [CrossRef]
Zuraik, Abdelrahman, and Louise Kelly. 2019. The role of CEO transformational leadership and innovation
climate in exploration and exploitation. European Journal of Innovation Management 22: 84–104. [CrossRef]

© 2020 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).