Leadership’s influence on innovation and sustainability

8/12/2019 Leadership’s influence on innovation and sustainability

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/leaderships-influence-on-innovation-and-sustainability 1/25

Leadership’s influence oninnovation and sustainability

A review of the literature and implicationsfor HRD

Alina M. Waite Department of Human Resource Development and Performance Technologies,

Indiana State University, Terre Haute, Indiana, USA

Abstract

Purpose – The aim of this study is to review published articles within the HRD and related fields toidentify relationships between disparate streams of research (leadership and innovation and sustainability).

Design/methodology/approach – Academic research supports the complex relationships betweenleadership and innovation and leadership and sustainability. An integrative literature review of published articles is used to gain an understanding about effective leadership as an important linkbetween innovation and sustainability.

Findings – The analysis revealed the parallel research streams are rather isolated from one another.Central themes focused around leadership roles, orientations, practices, and influences; leadershipcapacity building; and (global) leadership development. Emergent themes with respect tosustainability included global mindset and concern for others. Servant leadership was brought forth.

Research limitations/implications – The literature review was drawn from the four Academy of Human Resource Development (AHRD) journals, as well as sources from the human resourcemanagement (HRM), business and management, and related fields.

Practical implications – The study discussed influences of leadership on innovation andsustainability, mindsets and competencies, and leadership development strategies for use in

understanding how to foster innovation and sustainable practices. Developmental activities includingexperiential learning, action learning, and service learning programs were considered.

Originality/value – This article is among the first to highlight leadership as a connection betweeninnovation and sustainability and provides a valuable platform for HRD scholars and practitionersinterested in enhancing leadership capacity and development in these areas.

Keywords Leadership, Innovation, Sustainability, Review, Creativity,Human resource development (HRD), Global mindset, Sustainable

Paper type Research paper

Introduction

The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at

when we created them (Albert Einstein).

Interest in innovation and sustainability has been substantially elevated in recentyears. As companies and nations have increasingly faced scrutiny to considersustainable development in light of social changes and environmental pressures, manyhave ratcheted up their innovation efforts in order to remain competitive and driveprofitable growth. Yet, economic expansion that ignites production, which in turnresults in greater consumption of materials, energy, food, and water, conflicts withpreservation of our vital natural resources. Globalization has accelerated this perpetual

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/2046-9012.htm

Influence oninnovation and

sustainability

15

Received 12 July 2013Revised 10 September 2013

Accepted 15 September2013

European Journal of Training and

Developmen

Vol. 38 No. 1/2, 2014

pp. 15-39

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

2046-9012

DOI 10.1108/EJTD-09-2013-0094



cycle and may in fact be the most significant socioeconomic trend in our lifetime.Traditional boundaries have given way to borderless societies and inherently,increased trade linkages worldwide have increasingly fueled the economic engine.Globalization has forever changed the business landscape, offering more mobility of

information, financial capital, and people. But, along with new opportunities broughtabout through innovation have come new risks and unintended consequences.

Though risks are sometimes rewarded, many have crippled companies and evennations around the world. One such example is the US financial crisis, which ultimatelyled in large part to the global economic downturn that began in 2008. The deepening of the credit crisis that followed the subprime crisis led to a rapid and widespreadoccurrence of devastating events considered one in 10,000-year events (ZurichFinancial Services Group, 2008). Another case in point is the earthquakes and tsunamiexperienced in Japan and New Zealand in early 2011. According to an online survey of supply chain professionals, these natural disasters affected 20 percent of respondingorganizations, headquartered in 18 different countries and across 12 different industrysectors (Glendon, 2011). Unfortunately, economic, political, cultural, and ecological

forces have increasingly become more powerful and threatening than ever. And,disturbances triggered by catastrophic events, such as man-made financial bubblesand natural disasters, will continue to confound us.

Innovation, widely recognized as the main driver of industrial growth, has been onestrategy organizations have employed especially in these turbulent times. Anorganization’s ability to adapt to change and innovate is paramount to thrive over timein today’s ever-changing business environment. Much of what has been written on thesubject of innovation highlights its importance as a necessary survival tactic to ensure afirm’s longevity. Nevertheless, many senior executives are puzzled and confused as tohow best to make sense of and manage innovation. Countless others struggle to re-thinktheir innovation strategies in order to meet inevitably complex and uncertain challengeswe and future generations will face. All the while leaders are contemplating creativity and

innovation, they are also facing calls to act responsibly and achieve triple-bottom-line(economic, social, and environmental) results. Opinions about whether to stay with thetraditional business paradigm of organizational success in terms of financial outcomes atthe expense of sustainability issues, either knowingly or not, are mixed. Many corporateofficials agree in theory with incorporating sustainability but are hesitant to move suchagendas forward for fear of sacrificing profits and forsaking shareholder value. Stillothers have begun to shift their focus and adopt an integrated approach.

The need to integrate profits, people, and the planet for the betterment of currentand future generations has given new meaning to innovation and sustainability.Innovation literature is rich and well established; sustainability literature is nascent bycomparison though increasingly becoming of interest to more and more researchersand practitioners alike. Though these two research streams are motivated byfundamentally different objectives and therefore rarely intersect, a common thread canbe found in both – leadership. Innovation and sustainability present great challengesand opportunities and it will take leadership to ease the inherent tension. Effectiveleadership is critical to “the performance of organizations in the twenty-first centuryeconomy” (Mumford and Gibson, 2011, p. 245), needed for steering creative effortstoward innovation (Mumford et a l., 2002; Mumford and Licuanan, 2004;Vinarski-Peretz and Carmeli, 2011), and essential in coping with social andenvironmental problems (Portugal and Yukl, 1994; Leach et al., 2012).

EJTD38,1/2

16



The purpose of this article is to identify relationships between disparate streams of research (leadership and innovation and sustainability) by using an integrativeliterature review that will help direct future human resource development (HRD) andmanagement (HRM) efforts in research and practice. The overarching research

question for this study is: according to the HRD and related literatures, what are theinfluences of leadership on innovation and sustainability? The paper is organized infour sections. First, historic context and definitions of the constructs are provided.Second, the method is described. Third, a synthesis of the findings with emergentthemes on leadership roles, orientations, practices, and influences; (global) leadershipcapacity building; and (global) leadership development is presented. Last, implicationsfor scholars and practitioners in HRD and related fields (e.g. HRM, business andmanagement) are identified, followed by concluding thoughts.

Historic contexts and definitionsOrigins of the two seemingly opposing phenomena (innovation and sustainability) aresummarized to position and highlight the divergence of their trajectories over time.

Against this backdrop definitions of leadership, innovation, and sustainability areoperationalized.

Historic context: innovation Joseph Alois Schumpeter, an Austrian-American scholar left a legacy in innovationstudies from both a macro- and a micro-economic view (Hospers, 2005). In the threeeditions of “Theory of Economic Development,” the first two in German (1911, 1926)and the third an English translation (1934), Schumpeter’s evolution of thinking aboutroutine, business cycles, and policy, is well researched and analyzed (Hospers, 2005;Kingston, 2006; Swedberg, 1995). Reinganum (1985) stated, “success does not implythat the successful firm reaps monopoly profits forever after, but only until the next,better innovation is developed” (p. 81). She went on to suggest Schumpeter’s definition

of innovation as “waves of creative destruction” infers an evolutionary process; “Thefundamental impulse that sets and keeps the capitalist engine in motion comes fromthe new consumers’ goods, the new methods of production or transportation, the newmarkets, the new forms of industrial organization that capitalist enterprise creates(Schumpeter, 1942, pp. 82-83)” (Reinganum, 1985, p. 81). In other words, replacement of existing technologies in favor of new ones spurs growth within a capitalistic systemand hence promotes consumption.

Despite Schumpeter’s genius at times, flaws in his thinking were found. One suchoversight was his dismissal of environmental forces; “it seems clear that legislativechanges are anything but ‘entirely immaterial’ to economic activity, and especially toinnovation” (Kingston, 2006, p. 103). Schumpeter also bet using both sides of a coin,whether big companies or small ones were the best catalysts of innovation. In 1909 he

suggested small companies were most inventive but in 1949 Schumpeter reversed hisargument and decided larger firms have greater incentive to invest in new products“because they can sell them to more people and reap greater rewards more quickly”(2011). Nonetheless, Schumpeter is credited for setting the stage of an “innovate or die”(Drucker, 1999) mindset that followed the industrial revolution and is still prevalenttoday. It is this mindset of equating more with better and achieving organizationalsuccess that will require leadership to overcome this inertia and embrace change infavor of the triple-bottom-line approach.


sustainability

17



Historic context: sustainabilityIn 1983 the Brundtland Commission was established following passage of Resolution38/161 by the United Nations (UN) General Assembly to focus on uniting countriesaround the globe to engage in sustainable development. Although the Brundtland

Commission was named after Gro Harlem Brundtland, the Prime Minister of Norwayat that time, it is more formally recognized now as the World Commission onEnvironment and Development (WCED). At its inaugural meeting in 1984 thiscommission agreed to meet its charge and later issued Our Common Future. Thisreport, which seeks balance between economic, social, and ecological goals, stronglyinfluenced the milestone Rio Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, June 3-14,1992. Progress has been slow to some, attributable to “the slow adoption of theparadigm to political resistance, limited financial resources, and such technical issuesas the absence of scientifically valid and credible indicator systems” (Evans andSteven, 2011). Nonetheless, a comprehensive action plan Agenda 21 put in placefollowing the 1992 Rio Earth Summit led to the UN Conference on SustainableDevelopment, Rio þ 20, June 20-22, 2012, where progress reports on research, policy,practice, and evaluation from participating countries were presented.

In her speech to the United Nations Environment Programme’s (UNEP’s) 14thGoverning Council Session, the former Prime Minister declared among many thingsthat all international organizations should be made responsible and held accountablefor ensuring their policies support sustainable development (Brundtland, 1987,pp. 10-11). In 2011 UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon rallied the global community bysaying, “We need a revolution. Revolutionary thinking. Revolutionary action” (Whiteand Baraldi, 2012, p. 87); however, White and Baraldi were quick to point out thecritical question of change agent was left unanswered. Such a revolution will takevision, leadership, and capacity by all entities at every level including global, national,regional, and even institutional. Multinational and transnational corporations (Heenan,

1977), in particular, have become the topic of spirited debate surrounding theirwillingness and ability to enact systemic change and realign their current makeup withsocietal needs. In summary, sustainability, like innovation, is a complex, multi-facetedphenomenon that necessitates leadership to drive needed change.

Definitions: leadership, innovation, sustainabilityResearch in the areas of leadership, innovation, and sustainability continues to evolveand be debated.

The literature underscores the challenges in providing single definitions for thesephenomena because of the number of ways they have been theorized andconceptualized. Nonetheless, it is important to define these terms as they are usedthroughout this study.

Leadership. Before proposing a definition for leadership, Northouse (2007) indicatedfour components are integral to the phenomenon: “(a) Leadership is a process, (b)leadership involves influence, (c) leadership occurs in a group context, and (d)leadership involves goal attainment” (p. 3). Using these components he definedleadership as “a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals toachieve a common goal” and as such, suggested leaders are people who engage inleadership and followers are those toward whom leadership is directed (Northouse,2007, p. 3). Leadership development is also of interest to HRD scholars and

EJTD38,1/2

18



practitioners and commonly used in this review. Leadership development is defined as“expanding the collective capacity of organizational members to engage effectively inleadership roles and processes (McCauley et al., 1998, p. 4)” (as cited in Callahan andRosser, 2007, p. 270). “The term training is typically used when the goal is development

of the workforce, while the terms management development and leadershipdevelopment are normally applied when the goal is development of theorganization’s management and executive talent” (Cummings and Worley, 2009,p. 466). Day (2001) differentiated between leader development and leadershipdevelopment, suggesting the former as building human capital at the individual leveland the latter as building social capital at the group and organizational levels.

Innovation. Innovation is often used interchangeably with other terms, such as newor novel idea, radical, change, and creativity. Generally, creativity is considered to be atthe front-end of the problem solving process (identifying the problem, generating ideas)and innovation is at the back-end (implementing a solution, focusing on its acceptanceby various stakeholders in the organization) (Waples and Friedrich, 2011). Further, ithas been suggested that requisites to innovation include commercialization and/or

implementation of an idea (Amabile et al., 1996; McLean, 2005).Sustainability. The report Our Common Future includes a definition of sustainable

development; that is, “paths of progress which meet the needs and aspirations of thepresent generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meettheir needs” (Brundtland, 1987, p. 4). This definition is widely adhered to even untiltoday, and the meaning of sustainability is often used synonymously with thedefinition of sustainable development.

MethodIntegrative literature review was used as the method for this study (Torraco, 2005).Characteristics distinct to this form of research are identification and selection of data

points from representative literature on a topic, followed by a review, critique, andsynthesis in an integrated way such that new understandings of the topic are generated.Because research strands on leadership and innovation and sustainability are largelyindependent of one another, an integrative literature review was conducted to answer theresearch question. This section explains the following: determination of data sources andsearch criteria to identify pertinent articles, completion of a staged review to select datapoints, and discussion of analysis. For purposes of this study, data points were initiallylimited to all four Academy of Human Resource Development ( AHRD ) peer reviewed

journals as representative of the HRD field. Preliminary results were scant with respectto sustainability; accordingly, additional data sources were subsequently searched toextend the integrative analysis and thereby lend additional insights.

Article identificationThe initial review examined articles including theoretical and empirical literature in Advances in Developing Human Resources ( ADHR ), Human Resource Development International ( HRDI ), Human Research Development Quarterly ( HRDQ ), and Human Resource Development Review ( HRDR ) over the last 23 years. An expanded review of sustainability outside these representative HRD journals covered articles frombusiness and management, human resource management (HRM), and related fields. Atotal of 11 additional data sources with prominence in their associated disciplines were


sustainability

19



included in the study. Full text articles were searched in the databases AcademicSearch Complete, Business Source Complete, ERIC, and PsycINFO using EBSCOhost.

Preliminarily, a search was conducted using the key words “leadership,”“innovation,” and “sustainability” to gain a broad conception of the extent of

research on these constructs and demonstrate in part the scarcity of the study of theirrelationships in the literature. Results of 313 searched items for all constructs combinedare displayed (see Table I).

In the final searches, data sources were similarly abstract queried but with the keyphrases “(leader * AND innovate * ),” “(leader * AND sustainab * ),” “(innovat * ANDsustainab * ),” and “(leader * AND innovate * AND sustainab * ).” The truncated versionsof leadership, innovation, and sustainability were used for searching abstracts tocapture variations (e.g. leaders, innovative, sustainable) that may otherwise have ledme to overlook relevant articles.

Article selectionA staged review of the literature was conducted for selection purposes. A staged reviewgenerally entails two rounds, a first look at abstracts to determine relevancy and then athorough review of selected articles in their entirety (Torraco, 2005). In a few instances myinitial review moved beyond abstracts before determining final disposition of items.

In the initial review, round one, a total of 31 searched items met the review’sscreening criteria, a significant drop from the number of items found using key wordsrather than key phrases. Papers using key terms as merely adjectives (e.g. innovativeleaders, innovative approach, and innovative solutions), definitions not in keeping withthose provided herein (e.g. sustainability to imply ability to endure rather thansustainable development), or superficial mentions of the terms within a broader contextwere eliminated. Any duplicates, editorials, or book reviews were also omitted. Paperswith key phrases albeit a tangential focus to the originators’ study aims were included

in this study so long as all acceptance criteria were met. In round two, final selectionresulted in nine reviews/discussion papers and five methodological studies (threequantitative, one multiple approach, and one qualitative) ( n ¼ 14), and representedthree of the four AHRD journals (see Table II).

The expanded systematic review of non-AHRD journals using the same key phraseswith “sustainab*” originally yielded 20 items. This total dropped to eight articles followingthe same screening procedure ( n ¼ 8), and included a study on instrument development, a

Key wordADHR(2001-2013)

HRD International(1998-2013)

HRD quarterly(1990-2013)

HRD review(2002-2013)

Leadership 82 54 87 17

(2002-2013) (1998-2013) (1990-2013) (2002-2012)

Innovation 17 16 23 4(2002-2011) (1999-2012) (1990-2010) (2004-2009)

Sustainability 7 3 1 2(2003-2012) (2009-2012) (2000) (2007-2010)

Notes: ADHR ¼ Advances in developing human resources, and HRD ¼ Human resourcedevelopment

Table I.Total number of searcheditems by data source

EJTD38,1/2

20



narrative analysis, a multiple-case study, and literature reviews (see Table III). Several

articles were eliminated upon examination given their reference to Porter’s (1996)interpretation of sustainable competitive advantage, which although an important topic inbusiness and management realms lies outside the present study’s scope.

AnalysisThe articles were initially read to develop a logical approach in grouping key concepts.A concept matrix was then created and compiled as I examined all 22 articles in depth(Torraco, 2005). Though not always reported, it should be noted the levels of analysisvaried among the different articles and ranged from individual traits/characteristics of leaders, group and organizational levels on creativity and innovation, and asocietal/global level for sustainability related issues. From here forward, the terms

Key phraseADHR(2001-2013)

HRD International(1998-2013)

HRD Quarterly(1990-2013)

HRD Review(2002-2013)

Leader * and innovat * 6 4 2 0

(2011) (2007-2012) (2008)

Leader * and sustainab * 2 0 0 0(2003-2010)

Innovat * and sustainab * 0 0 0 0

Leader * and innovat *

and sustainab * 0 0 0 0

Notes: ADHR ¼ Advances in developing human resources, and HRD ¼ Human resourcedevelopment

Table IITotal number of selected

articles by data source

Key phrase

Data sourceLeader * andsustainab *

Innovat *

andsustainab *

Leader * andinnovat *

andsustainab *

Academy of Management Journal (1963-2013) 0 0 0Group and Organization Management (1976-2013) 0 0 0

Human Resource Management (1972-2013) 2 (2005-2012) 0 0 Human Resource Management Review (1991-2013) 0 0 0 Journal of Management (1975-2013) 1 (2011) 0 0 British Journal of Management (1990-2013) 0 0 0

Journal of European Industrial Training a

(1977-2011) 0 0 0 European Journal of Training and Development a

(2012-2013) 1 (2012) 0 0The Journal of Leadership Studiesb (1993-2001) 1 (1999) 0 0

Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies b

(2002-2013) 0 0 0The Leadership Quarterly (1990-2013) 3 (2011-2012) 0 0

Notes: aChange in name of journal in 2012; b

change in name of journal in 2002

Table IIITotal number of selected

articles by data source


sustainability

21



leader and leadership will be used as defined earlier to the extent possible; however,these terms were often used interchangeably and hence difficult to decipher.

A total of 12 of the 22 articles were found using the key phrase “(leader * ANDinnovate * )” and focused on leadership and innovation as either a main objective or

otherwise. Six of these studies were included in ADHR as part of a 2011 special issue.The other ten articles were drawn by using the key phrase “(leader * ANDsustainab * )”. Several papers proposed frameworks/models.

Synthesis of the findingsI uniquely contribute to the literature on leadership and innovation and sustainability (seeFigure 1) by answering the research question: what are the influences of leadership oninnovation and sustainability based on results of prior studies? Concepts identified in myreview are largely organized by two supporting structures of leadership and innovation(Gilley et al., 2011; Hunter and Cushenbery, 2011), and include leadership roles, practices,and influences; leadership capacity building; and leadership development.

Leadership and innovationThis section is represented by letter A in Figure 1 and synthesizes the results of 12articles.

Organizing structures. A developmental leadership framework was created througha HRD lens for scholars and practitioners to embrace and apply in leading creative andinnovative efforts in research and practice. The theoretical framework included apurpose, core values, characteristics, and roles of developmental leadership, overlaidwith eight practical applications (Gilley et al., 2011). Developmental leadership wasposited as a hallmark of change and innovation (Gilley et al., 2011). According toHudson (1999), “developmental leadership is the process of equipping people with the

knowledge, skills, and opportunities they need to grow, develop, change, and becomemore effective” (as cited in Gilley et al., 2011).

A leading for innovation model, suggestive of the significant roles leaders play inoverseeing creativity and innovation and how their responsibilities shift as workprogresses along the creative/innovative pathway, was offered (Hunter and Cushenbery,2011). Their model depicted the interrelated phases of the creative and innovativeprocesses from a multi-level perspective (individual, team, and organization), emphasizingleadership’s influence, creative activities, and a work climate conducive for such.

Figure 1.Leadership’s influence oninnovation andsustainability

EJTD38,1/2

22



Leadership roles, practices, and influences. Leadership roles, practices, and influencesresponsible for driving creativity and innovation in organizations are presented inTable IV. In reviewing the literature, the terms roles, practices, influences, jobresponsibilities, and characteristics were often used interchangeably. These differences

presented difficulties at times in determining the levels of analysis and nature of influence across boundaries, forward (lower-level) influences on organizationalinnovation and backward (high-level) influences on creativity and performance of teams and individuals. One of four primary roles within the theoretical framework of developmental leadership, albeit perhaps understated, was that of servant leadership(Van Dierendonck, 2011). Gilley et al. (2011) described servant leaders as equal partnerswho through a participatory approach, work alongside employees to promoteindividual and organizational success. Greenleaf (2003) even espoused true servantleaders also lead from behind when appropriate. Nonetheless, the studies in my reviewlargely reflected a hierarchical orientation of leadership, whether from a powerperspective or not. Taking servant leadership a step further, Greenleaf’s first essaydescribed a servant leader as one who puts others’ needs first (Robert K. Greenleaf

Center for Servant Leadership, n.d., para. 5); his second essay focused not onindividuals but on organizations as servant-leaders within the broader context of society (Robert K. Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership, n.d., para. 7).

From the time ideas are first imagined or conceived by individuals to the time they aremidway along the creative/innovative pathway, research indicates leaders are able toindirectly influence results. Indirect influences that foster creativity include rolemodeling, rewards and recognition, and hiring (Hunter and Cushenbery, 2011).Individuals who are admired, respected, or looked up to and are known to take risks oract unconventionally, for example, can elicit creative behaviors in others. Leaders whoreward and recognize ideas, or otherwise value creative works, also tend to regulateacceptable behaviors. Rewards and recognition were reportedly seen as helpful toencourage submission of ideas through the use of an electronic forum where they could

be shared (Khandelwal and Moving, 2007) and reinforce implementation of ideas viaaction learning (Simmonds and Tsui, 2010). Leaders additionally play a key role inoverseeing workforce development; equally important are how individuals with varyingskills are chosen and which individuals are placed on teams (Gilley et al., 2010).

As ideas are refined and progress to testing and evaluation near the end of thecreative/innovative pathway, Hunter and Cushenbery (2011) suggested leaders have amore direct influence on innovative outcomes. This is because their focus shifts fromone of encouragement at the individual and team levels to generate lots of ideas, to thatof discretion at the organizational level to choose the most promising products andservices to bring to market. Leaders continually find themselves having to manageresistance to change and balance the needs and expectations of diverse stakeholdergroups (Hunter and Cushenbery, 2011). Influencing stakeholders also involvessecuring resources and selling ideas (Ligon et al., 2011; Antes and Schuelke, 2011).Buffering and rain-making were practices with an external focus that explainprotecting staff time, facilitating communication across all levels, and reaching out tointernal and external stakeholders so they could promote their teams and makeimportant connections (Zheng et al., 2010). Communication being critical, was also tiedto leadership effectiveness. Survey results indicated “Communicating appropriatelyand motivating employees are each highly and significantly associated with effectiveimplementation of change and innovation” (Gilley et al., 2008, p. 165).


sustainability

23



L e a d e

r s h i p ’ s i n fl u e n c e o n i n n o v a t i o n

G i l l e y e t a l . ( 2 0 1 1 )

H u n t e

r a n d

C u s h e

n b e r y ( 2 0 1 1 )

W i l l i a m s a n d F o t i

( 2 0 1 1 )

L i g o

n e t

a l . ( 2 0 1 1 )

A n t e s a n d

S c h u e l k e ( 2 0 1 1 )

Z h e n g e t

a l .

( 2 0 1 0 ) *

S i m m o n d s a n d

T s u i ( 2 0 1 0 ) *

K h a n d e l w a l

( 2 0 0 7 )

P r i m a r y r o l e s :

L e a r n i n g

f a c i l i t a t o r

M o t i v a t o r

P e r f o r m a n c e c o a c h

S e r v a n t l e a d e r

P r a c t i c e s :

C a r e e r

d e v e l o p m e n t

E m p l o y e e g r o w t h

a n d d e v e l o p m e n t

P r o b l e m s o l v i n g

S e l f - e s t e e m

G o a l s e t t i n g a n d

d e c i s i o n m a k i n g

D e l e g a t i n g

P e r f o r m a n c e

i m p r o v e m e n t

D e v e l o p m e n t a l

e v a l u a t i o n s

I n d i r e

c t i n fl u e n c e s :

R o l e m

o d e l l i n g

R e w a r d s a n d

r e c o g n i t i o n

H i r i n g

a n d t e a m

c o m p o s i t i o n

C l i m a t e f o r

c r e a t i v i t y

D i r e c t i n fl u e n c e s :

C r e a t i v e i n p u t a n d

i d e a s

u g g e s t i o n

V i s i o n

a n d

s t r a t e g y

R e s o u

r c e

a l l o c a t i o n

D e c i s i o n m a k i n g

P r a c t i c e s

( d i v e r g e n t

t h i n k i n g ) :

D e f e r r i n g

j u d g m e n t

G o i n g f o r q u a n t i t y

M a k i n g

c o n n e c t i o n s

S e e k i n g n o v e l t y

P r a c t i c e s

( c o n v e r g e n t

t h i n k i n g ) :

A p p l y i n g

a f fi r m a t i v e

j u d g m e n t

K e e p i n g n o v e l t y

a l i v e

C h e c k i n g y o u r

o b j e c t i v e s

S t a y i n g f o c u s e d

P r a c

t i c e s ( j o b

r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s ) :

M a n

a g i n g t h e

w o r k

L e a d

i n g c r e a t i v e

t e a m

s

I n fl u

e n c i n g

s t a k e h o l d e r s :

s e c u

r i n g r e s o u r c e s ;

s e l l i n g i d e a s

P r a c t i c e s ( j o b


M a n a g i n g t h e

w o r k

L e a d i n g c r e a t i v e

t e a m s

I n fl u e n c i n g

s t a k e h o l d e r s :

s e c u r i n g

r e s o u r c e s ; s e l l i n g

i d e a s

S e e a r t i c l e f o r

s p e c i fi c a c t i v i t i e s

L e a d

e r s h i p

c h a r

a c t e r i s t i c s

( i n t e

r n a l f o c u s ) :

S t e e r i n g

T a k i n g a h a n d s -

o f f a

p p r o a c h

F o c u

s i n g o n t h e

i n d i v i d u a l

L e a d

e r s h i p

c h a r

a c t e r i s t i c s

( e x t e r n a l f o c u s ) :

B u f f

e r i n g

R a i n

- m a k i n g

I n d i r e c t

i n fl u e n c e s :

R o l e m o d e l l i n g

R e w a r d s a n d

r e c o g n i t i o n ( t o

r e i n f o r c e a c t i o n

l e a r n i n g w i t h

r e s p e c t t o

i m p l e m e n t a t i o n

o f i d e a s )

I n d i r e

c t

i n fl u e n c e s :

R e w a r d s a n d

r e c o g n i t i o n ( t o

e n c o u

r a g e u s e o f

e l e c t r o n i c f o r u m

f o r s u

b m i s s i o n o f

i d e a s )

N o t e : * E m p i r i c a l s t u d y

Table IV.Leadership’s influence oninnovation

EJTD38,1/2

24



As anticipated, visioning, decision making, and influencing stakeholders were amongthe common threads I found in my review of the literature. A developmental leadercommunicates a vision and understands its organization’s long-range goals andobjectives, has and shares technical expertise, and often times possesses a personal

charisma (Gilley et al., 2011). These are in keeping with the direct influences outlinedby Hunter and Cushenbery (2011): responsible for creative input, articulating a clearvision of the future state of the organization, resources allocation, and decision making.In their multi-case study following a grounded theory approach to examineleadership’s influence on R&D team innovation, Zheng et al. (2010) reported on steeringas a practice with an internal focus that describes channeling individual teammembers’ efforts toward a unified direction by communicating a vision to the team,helping individuals make connections between the team vision and their work, andinjecting enthusiasm and excitement into their work.

Leadership capacity building . Organizations that focus on current performance andfuture potential of employees are purposeful in how they source, attract, select, train,develop, retain, promote, and otherwise move employees about the organization inlight of planned and unplanned losses. Since studies on the “The War for Talent”began showcasing talent issues (Chambers et al., 1998; Axelrod et al., 2001), interest intalent management has grown exponentially and surfaced in HRD and human resourcemanagement (HRM) publications (Lewis and Heckman, 2006; Garavan et al., 2012).This attention combined with new technologies have advanced recruiting andselecting processes, which many argue can be linked to a talent pool strategy as asource of competitive advantage. In their literature review, which was prefaced by aneed to fill key leadership positions in already innovative, learning-orientedorganizational cultures, McEntire and Greene-Shortridge (2011) shared sources fordiscovering top executives, mid-level managers, and high-potential successors: peerreferrals, professional societies, alumni lists, and social networking sites. HR

professionals and recruiters were also tasked with becoming members of the samesocial networks to which mid- to high-level employees belong.

As regards screening the recruited group to determine the highest potentialcandidates capable of leading for innovation, best practices and recommendationswere given. These included a host of psychometrics and behavioral assessments, suchas ones that measure cognitive ability, motivation, and one’s history in innovation,among others. Selecting for innovation in the workplace also involved determining thecompatibility between a particular candidate and the organizational culture or values.Deal and Kennedy (1982) described organizational culture as “the way we do thingsaround here” (as cited in Burke and Litwin, 1992). Lastly, behaviorally based interviewquestions based on competencies specific to the job level of the leadership position of interest should be asked of candidates. Zheng et al. (2010) found leadership practices

shared among four highly innovative teams from different disciplines varied in theirintensity and demonstration based upon the context in which they operated. Fundingmodel, nature of tasks, and team structure could potentially promote or hindercreativity and innovation and thus should be considered when determining selectioncriteria to fill key leadership positions.

Lastly, a proposition to leverage technology was made to develop creative/innovativeleadership capacity (Antes and Schuelke, 2011). Technological approaches include:simulation, e-mentoring, multi-source feedback, social media, and succession planning


sustainability

25



software. Technology can aid with collecting, presenting, and archiving performancedata, which can be used to expand a person’s leadership capacity. Readers may follow upwith the authors’ review on technology-based tools and their uses.

Leadership development . Aspects of training and development that are discussed in

Table V include targeted knowledge and skills and developmental learning opportunitiesand tools. Leadership development is a popular OD intervention; programs aim attraining and developing managers and leadership so that an organization’s strategicagendas and change initiatives may be successfully carried out (Cummings and Worley,2009). Leadership development focuses on changing the knowledge and skills of a group;while reviewing the literature, I found the level of capital building as reported by Day(2001) sometimes difficult to discern because the terms leader and leadership were usedinterchangeably or discussed generally without context.

Jeon and Kim (2012) analyzed 10,169 surveys to research the relationship betweenorganizational and task factors and their influence on peer interaction and learning bydoing in the workplace. Michaels et al. (2001) reported on-the-job experiences accountfor as much as 70 percent of workplace learning (as cited in Jeon and Kim, 2012) asopposed to formal developmental activities.

Informal learning is therefore vital in today’s knowledge economy (Lundvall, 2010)and a precursor to individual and organizational performance. In conclusion, a role of leadership involves creating an environment conducive to informal learning as apredominant learning method. Formal learning opportunities may also be consideredto enhance employees’ communication and problem-solving skills. Additional detailsabout the measures, hypotheses, and results can be found in Jeon and Kim (2012).

A number of authors examined formal learning activities and associated tools alongwith requisite competencies for leadership development. In their reporting of level 3evaluation findings from a global financial institution, Simmonds and Tsui (2010)concluded senior-executive taught workshops accounted for positive changes in five

behavioral categories but were notably said to be the sole contributor to innovationmanagement; action learning and book reviews as learning elements showed no impact.Ligon et al. (2011) theorized a relational model between experiential development andexpected learning outcomes as facilitated by mentoring. Inherent in this model are twocognitive processes, developing identity and sense making, “that mediate experiencesand learning via mentoring” (Ligon et al., 2011) to prepare early career and/or creativenovices in leading others toward innovation. Antes and Schuelke (2011) discussedcompetencies similar to those described by Ligon et al. (2011), as knowledge of one’stechnical area, organization, and profession; cognitive skills; and social skills; and thenoutlined associated learning objectives in an eloquent table with guided questionscreated for practical use. Williams and Foti (2011) reviewed the literature on creativeproblem solving (CPS) as a way to enhance a leader’s potential to think creatively and

address complex organizational issues. They described critical skills associated withCPS and distinguished them between divergent (creativity) and convergent (problemsolving) thinking. Egan (2008) employed a cross-sectional survey design in a healthcaresetting to investigate three subculture dimensions (innovative, supportive, andbureaucratic) related to employee motivation to transfer learning. Overall his proposedmodel and the fourth hypothesis, related to the mediating effects of innovativesubculture on the relationship between leadership behavior and employee motivation totransfer learning on the job, were substantiated by structural equation modeling.

EJTD38,1/2

26





Antes and Schuelke (2011) looked at the use of IT technologies to facilitate mentoringand succession planning efforts. McEntire and Greene-Shortridge (2011) also reviewedsuccession planning and proposed an approach organizations without successionplans already in place may take to train and develop potential suitors for jobs. Thoughsuccession planning generally refers to “special efforts to invest in the best, highestperforming, or highest potential talent at any organizational level or function, butparticularly at or near the top” (Barnett and Davis, 2008, p. 721), it seems emphasisshould also be placed at the team level since the instantiation of creative thinkingrequires us to consider a team context (Hunter and Cushenbery, 2011). McEntire andGreene-Shortridge (2011) cautioned that developing a plan is not the same as executingone; organizations must not only commit to providing candidates with opportunities togain experience and develop their leadership skills but do so in situations where

innovation is needed or likely to occur.

Leadership and sustainabilityThis section, represented by letter B in Figure 1, synthesizes the results of ten articles.Eight of them were published in 2011 onwards but surprisingly, two date back as faras 1999 and 2005.

Leadership orientations, practices, and influences. Leadership orientations,practices, and influences said to be essential for leading sustainability are presented

Leadership development for innovation (developmental activities and tools to build/assess innovative

leadership capacity)

Article

Competencies

(target knowledge and skills) Activities and tools (informal and formal)

Simmonds and Tsui

(2010) *Target behaviours:

Innovation management

Formal activities (positive effect on

innovation management):

Sr. executive led workshops

Formal activities (no effect):

3608 feedback and personal development

plan

Action learning

Book reviews

Jeon and Kim (2012) * Target knowledge and skills:

Communication

Problem-solving

Formal activities:

Activities that require teamwork

Gilley et al. (2008) * Target skills and abilities:

Ability to coach

Ability to rewardAbility to communicate

Ability to motivate

Ability to involve and support others

Ability to promote teamwork and

collaboration

Formal activities:

Activities that require teamwork

Egan (2008) * Target behaviours:

Leadership: consideration

Leadership: initiating structure

Note: *Empirical studyTable V.

EJTD38,1/2

28



in Table VI. These and other terms, such as behaviors, processes, and responsibilities,were presented in various contexts among the articles I reviewed. Not surprising, anorientation towards sustainability was a common theme. Kalshoven et al. (2011)developed and validated an instrument to measure multiple dimensions of ethical

leadership, and environment orientation as an ethical leader behavior was one.Environment orientation describes concern for sustainability. Eisenbeiss (2012)defined responsibility and sustainability orientation as “leaders’ long-term views onsuccess and their concern for the welfare of society and the environment” (p. 796).Contrary to proximal leadership, which addresses the leader-follower interaction andengenders influencing others, responsibility and sustainability orientation reflectsmore indefinite and distal targets. That is, it involves goal setting, strategic decisionmaking, and guiding ethical conduct and is characterized by concern for long-termsuccess of an organization, society, the environment, and generally the common good.The author indicated leader expressions of responsibility and sustainabilityorientation are likely to occur when leaders shift their mindset to think in global terms.

In a comparison between ethical leadership and other approaches, Eisenbeiss (2012)mentioned servant leadership and its emphasis on a strong sense of responsiblemorality. Van Dierendonck (2011) developed a conceptual model of servant leadership,which included several leadership characteristics: empowering and developing people,humility, authenticity, interpersonal acceptance, providing direction, and stewardship.The author indicated servant leadership was relatively new to the field of managementresearch and therefore suggested exploring whether or not it may enhance a broaderperspective on corporate social responsibility (CSR). “CSR is defined as involvement insome social good not required by law, which goes beyond the immediate interest of thefirm and its shareholders” (Van Dierendonck, 2011, p. 1250). The CSR literature, likethat of ethical (Kalshoven et al., 2011) and servant leadership literatures, calls for abroader view on others in a firm, the wider community, and the environment.

Moreover, Pless et al. (2012) envisaged promoting CSR and sustainable developmentthrough management development, requiring collaboration with a broader group of stakeholders. Offering an ecological approach, Allen et al. (1999) argued the case forchange in our conceptualization of leadership based on the then pressing concerns of achanging world. She proposed four leadership characteristics: taking individualresponsibility, having a long-term perspective, being in harmony with nature, anddeveloping capacities of individuals within organizations.

Global leadership capacity building . Nearly a decade ago Boudreau and Ramstad (2005)shed light on the changing definition of organizational success, from that of achievingfinancial returns and maximizing shareholder value to sustainability. They focused theirdiscussion on talentship, considering pivotal talent pools where quality and/oravailability of human capital could be most impactful. In so doing, the authors shared a

decision-based framework anchored by efficiency, effectiveness, and impact, which theycreated to identify such pools within the traditional and emerging definitions of success.

Global leadership development . It is important to note the mindsets, behaviors, andliteracies in Table VII are largely unmatched to any of the mentions for innovation. A callfor a shift in mindset was made to increase awareness of sustainability issues, create valueon the triple-bottom-line, and engage a wide array of stakeholders (Ardichvili, 2012; Plesset al., 2012). This finding is consistent with 2013 special issue articles in ADHR related tonew paradigms in evaluating leadership development. Rhinesmith (1992) defined mindset


sustainability

29



L e a d e r s h i p ’ s i n fl u e n c e o n s u s t a i n a b i l i t y

A l l e n e t

a l . ( 1 9 9 9 )

E i s e n b e i s s ( 2 0 1 2 )

K a l s h o v e n e t a l . ( 2 0 1 1 ) *

P l e s s e

t a l . ( 2 0 1 2 ) *

V a n D i e r e n d o n c k

( 2 0 1 0 )

H i n d e t

a l . ( 2 0 0 9 )

( a s c i t

e d i n V a n

D i e r e n d o n c k

( 2 0 1 0 )

)

L e a d e r s h i p c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s :

T a k i n g i n d i v i d u a l

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y

H a v i n g a l o n g t e r m

p e r s p e c t i v e

B e i n g i n h a r m o n y w i t h n a t

u r e

D e v e l o p i n g c a p a c i t i e s o f

i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h i n

o r g a n i z a t i o n s

P r a c t i c e s ( o p e n l e a d e r s h i p

p r o c e s s e s ) :

C o n n e c t i n g a n d

c o m m u n i c a t i n g

A l l o w i n g t e n s i o n b e t w e e n

d i f f e r e n t p e r s p e c t i v e s t o e x

i s t

R e fl e c t i n g o n t h e p r o c e s s a

n d

l e a r n i n g f r o m o u r i n t e r a c t i o n s

A r t i c u l a t i n g t h e c o r e p u r p o s e

a n d v a l u e s o f t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n

A t t a c h i n g s t r u c t u r e t o

p u r p o s e

R e w a r d i n g r i s k - t a k i n g

F a c i l i t a t i n g a n e n v i r o n m e n

t

t h a t f o s t e r s g r o w t h , t r u s t , a n d

o r g a n i z a t i o n a l l e a r n i n g

R e s p o n s i b i l i t y a n d

s u s t a i n a b i l i t y

o r i e n t a t i o n :

G o a l s e t t i n g

S t r a t e g i c d e c i s i o n

m a k i n g

G u i d i n g e t h i c a l c o n d u c t

L e a d e r s h i p

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s :

C o n c e r n f o r l o n g - t e r m

s u c c e s s

C o n c e r n f o r t h e w e l f a r e

o f t h e w i d e r c o m m u n i t y

( i . e . s o c i e t y )

C o n c e r n f o r

e n v i r o n m e n t a l

p r o t e c t i o n

P r a c t i c e s :

C h o o s i n g a c t i o n s t h a t

p r o t e c t

U s i n g r e s o u r c e s s e n s i b l y

A c t i n g s o c i a l l y

r e s p o n s i b l e

R e fl e c t i n g o n i m p a c t o f

b e h a v i o u r ( o n s o c i e t y

a n d t h e e n v i r o n m e n t )

E n v i r o n m

e n t o r i e n t a t i o n ( a s a n e t h i c a l

l e a d e r b e

h a v i o u r ) :

C o n c e r n

f o r s u s t a i n a b i l i t y

L e a d e r s h

i p c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s :

E t h i c a l a

w a r e n e s s :

C o n c e r n

a b o u t s t a k e h o l d e r s

C o n c e r n

a b o u t s o c i e t y

P r a c t i c e s

( j o b r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s ) :

P r o t e c t i n

g a n d p r o m o t i n g t h e i n t e r e s t s

o f s t a k e h

o l d e r s

T a k i n g t

h e e f f e c t o f o n e ’ s b e h a v i o u r o n

t h e s u r r o

u n d i n g s i n t o a c c o u n t , i n c l u d i n g

s o c i e t y a

n d t h e e n v i r o n m e n t

F o c u s i n g

o n t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f o t h e r s

i n t h e e n

v i r o n m e n t

F o c u s i n g

o n d i s t r i b u t i o n o f

r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s

F o c u s i n g

o n e n d u r a n c e o v e r t i m e

P r a c t i c e s ( j o b


W o r k i n

g i n

c o l l a b o r a t i o n w i t h a

b r o a d e r g r o u p o f

s t a k e h o

l d e r s

S e r v a n t

l e a d e r s h i p


E m p o w e r i n g

a n d d e v e l o p i n g

p e o p l e

H u m i l i t y

A u t h e n t i c i t y

I n t e r p e r s o n a l

a c c e p t a n c e

P r o v i d i n g

d i r e c t i o n

S t e w a r d s h i p

L e a d e

r s h i p


I n t e g r

i t y

O p e n - m i n d e d n e s s

L o n g - t e r m

p e r s p e c t i v e

E t h i c a

l b e h a v i o u r

C a r e f

o r p e o p l e

R e s p e

c t f u l

c o m m

u n i c a t i o n

M a n a g i n g

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y

o u t s i d

e t h e

o r g a n i z a t i o n

N o t e : * E m p i r i c a l s t u d y

Table VI.Leadership’s influence onsustainability

EJTD38,1/2

30



Global leadership development for sustainability (developmental activities and tools to build/assessglobal leadership capacity)

ArticleMindset and competencies (targetknowledge and skills)

Activities and tools (informal andformal)

Ardichvili (2012) Target mindset, knowledge, and skills:Increased awareness of sustainabilityissues

Instructional and developmentalstrategies:Individual level:Foster reflectionFoster creativityFoster continuous learningOrganizational level:Foster learning cultureActivities:Action learningField projectsKnowledge management

Global service learning projectsPless et al. (2012) * Target mindset:

Create value on the “triple- bottom-line”Receptive stakeholder engagementProgram goals (target learningdimensions):SustainabilityDiversityLeadershipProgram objectives (target knowledgeand skills):Global leadership:Intercultural issuesGlobal issues

Diversity issuesResponsible leadership:SustainabilityCitizenshipSocial responsibilityEthicsSelf-leadership:Self-awarenessSelf-managementPersonal growth

Integration of sustainable developmentinto management developmentactivities:1. Phase 1 – Nomination2. Phase 2 – Preparation:

3608 feedback and personaldevelopment planExecutive coachingYoga and meditationTeam building

3. Phase 3 – Induction4. Phase 4 – International:

Service learning projects (in

developing countries)5. Phase 5 – Debriefing

Learning stories6. Phase 6 – Networking

Rosen and Digh(2001) (as cited inMarquardt and

Berger, 2003)

Literacies:PersonalSocial

BusinessCultural

Garavan andMcGuire (2010)

Target behaviour:Leadership that is more in tune withsocietal issues (social awareness)

Kalshoven et al.(2011) *

Target behaviour:Concern for sustainability

( continued )

Table VIIGlobal leadership

development forsustainability


sustainability

31



as “A predisposition to see the world in a particular way [. . .] a predisposition to perceive

and reason in certain ways” (p. 63; as cited in Kennedy et al., 2013, p. 13).

Marquardt and Berger (2003) urged HRD to consider moving organizations towards

a global mindset to facilitate our gaining an understanding of and dealing with

globalization. Garavan and McGuire (2010) expanded the conversation of globalization

to include CSR, sustainability, and ethics in organizations and considered leadership

and leadership development in multiple contexts related to HRD, strategic HRD, and

societal HRD. In essence, they reinforced the need for these fields to contribute to the

triple-bottom-line so as to balance an organization’s negative and positive impacts onsociety. Accordingly, these fields are positioned to positively affect societal issues by:

. engaging employees and leaders in societal issues;

. providing them with requisite skills to drive positive change and build

relationships with external stakeholders;

. increasing an organization’s repertoire of leadership practices to integrate

socially responsible activities and organizational performance; and

Global leadership development for sustainability (developmental activities and tools to build/assessglobal leadership capacity)

ArticleMindset and competencies (targetknowledge and skills)

Activities and tools (informal andformal)

Taylor et al.(2011) *

Example target behaviours (of projectchampion):Initiation phase:Undertakes scanning behavioursQuestions the status quoGenerates new ideasDevelops/communicates visionEndorsement phase:Builds support coalitionsGains endorsementsBuilds strategic networksBuilds compelling casesImplementation phase:Uses social networksFosters innovationForms and manages multi-disciplinaryteamsDemonstrates strong-interpersonalskillsSee article for full listing

Eisenbeiss (2012) Target behaviour:Ethical leadership that widensperspective of society and theenvironment and starts thinking inglobal terms

Note: *Empirical studyTable VII.

EJTD38,1/2

32



. enabling employees to work in teams that are multi -cultural andcross-functional.

Eisenbeiss (2012) shared similar sentiments about broadening our perspective in

global terms.Marquardt and Berger (2003) discussed HRDs role in the context of globalization

and suggested attention be given to enhancing global leadership development. Theauthors’ identified four competencies or “literacies” pertinent to global leaderdevelopment: personal, social, business, and cultural (Rosen and Digh, 2001). They alsoraised awareness of the need for leaders to not only focus outside the organization butalso interact with external stakeholders outside the business arena (e.g. UN agencies).Taylor et al. (2012) conducted a multiple-case study of sustainable water initiatives andsubsequently developed a conceptual model related to champion-driven leadership.Three distinct phases were depicted (initiation, endorsement, and implementation);these characterized various leadership roles, involved many leaders, and were heavilyaffected by context. Importantly, the model, which reflected emergent leadership

processes, showed change was initially driven from the bottom up rather than from thetop down as tradition would suggest. Leadership activities of champions, or emergentleaders, largely resulted from intrinsic motivation and commitment so long as issues orprojects were aligned with personal values.

Ardichvili (2012) argued leadership development is pivotal for a shift to occurtowards sustainability in organizations. Instructional and developmental strategieswere listed, including fostering reflection, creativity, and continuous learning at theindividual level and learning culture at the organizational level. Activities, such asaction learning, field projects, and knowledge management, were also included in theliterature review. To address this new focus on global leadership mindset, Pless et al.(2012) proposed integrating sustainable development through international servicelearning projects in developing countries. A six-phase program to support an

organization’s global sustainability and CSR efforts was outlined, with key learningoutcomes targeted around global, responsible, and self-leadership. A narrative analysisof participants’ experiential learning accounts reflected improvements in the areas of global leadership and cultural intelligence; responsible leadership and ethical literacy;and self-leadership with respect to self-awareness, self-management, and personalgrowth. A two-year post intervention survey showed long-term gains related tointercultural competence development, non-judgmentalness, empathy, moral reflection,and self-awareness. However, examination of learning transfer to participants’ workenvironments was not conducted.

Innovation and sustainabilityThis section is represented by letter C in Figure 1; no articles met the acceptance

criteria for the study. Leadership and innovation and sustainabilityThis section is represented by letter D in Figure 1; again, no articles met the acceptancecriteria for the study.

LimitationsThe present study was drawn from select journals representing HRD, HRM, businessand management, and related fields. The search did not consider alternative words and


sustainability

33



phrases (e.g. “creativity”; “performance”; “corporate social responsibility,” or “CSR”;and various leadership approaches, such as “responsible” and “ethical”) and as such,may have overlooked relevant articles.

Implications for HRD and related fields: research and practiceTimes are undeniably changing. How individuals and organizations choose to addressthe complexities of the world and move forward from here will profoundly shapesociety. As organizations increasingly pay particular attention to innovation tomaintain competitive advantage, the very nature of their success is shifting toencompass sustainability. Effective leadership may well be a critical link forsustainable innovation, allowing us and future generations to live our lives as wedesire. Implications for research and practice are presented.

Implications for researchThough separate research strands for leadership and innovation and sustainability

exist, study of their interactions is limited (Mumford et al., 2007; Mumford andLicuanan, 2004; McGuire and Garavan, 2010) and takes place outside the humanresource development (HRD) and related fields (Waples et al., 2011). HRD scholars areencouraged to draw on leadership research from other disciplines and considercombining different theories and frameworks that address innovation andsustainability. Companies have begun revisiting their business models to integratenew innovation strategies and sustainable practices in light of societal concerns;testing of these new policies and practices could be value added.

Leading for innovation has traditionally delivered goods and services for profit in amarket economy, taking a comparatively shortsighted view to satisfy customers andshareholders. Leading for sustainability, on the other hand, necessitates considerationof the triple-bottom-line approach in a green economy that requires a much longer-term

view. Thus far this latter time horizon appears to be indefinite and organizationalsuccess unmeasurable. Success within the purview of an integrated approach shouldbe defined and boundaries of time should be set and/or made explicit. Also, it issuggested the wider community for which we should show concern and the broadergroup of stakeholders with whom we should collaborate be identified. Else, in ourresearch we will fail to account for the needs of these groups and hence understandleadership’s influence so as to best inform practice.

Servant leadership and its impact on innovation and sustainability should befurther explored. “Critical to understanding servant leadership is its reciprocal nature.Servant leaders focus on the growth and well-being of others inclusive of theirorganizations and the communities to which they belong. Organizations in accord lookbeyond their immediate self-interests to not only help their own employees develop and

perform as high as possible but also act and do right by the external environment inwhich they operate. Greenleaf was perhaps ahead of his time in the sense ‘he had greatfaith that servant-leader organizations could change the world’” (n.d., para. 6).

Lastly, acknowledging this shift in global perspective (Marquardt and Berger,2003), further study of mindset is needed, and at all levels. “Levy et al. (2007, p. 244f.)define global mind-set as ‘a highly-complex cognitive structure characterized by anopenness to and articulation of multiple cultural and strategic realities on both globaland local levels, and the cognitive ability to mediate and integrate across this

EJTD38,1/2

34



multiplicity’” (as cited in Pless et al., 2012, p. 890). As with innovation, cognitive abilityrelated to sustainability should be explored and perhaps screening measures and toolsdeveloped. Further research on innovative service learning projects havingexperiential learning and multi-cultural components to enhance the quality of

leadership at the group and organizational levels is warranted.

Implications for practiceThe integrative analysis indicates leadership’s influence on innovation differs fromthat on sustainability, with the latter having more indefinite and distal targets. Acomprehensive approach to leadership is warranted, so as to foster creativity andinnovation albeit sustainably. Given this tall order, leadership should be nurtured at alllevels of an organization such that it may emerge from the bottom up as well as bedriven from the top down. Ways of leading and managing human resources to promoteperformance but also show concern for employees, their families, and communities atlarge, and protect everyone’s interests, should be rethought; here, servant leadership isworth exploring.

As regards leadership capacity building, talent management practices may berevisited to see whether screening measures and tools are up-to-date. Perhaps ideallywould be creating pivotal talent pools (Boudreau and Ramstad, 2005), by identifyingcandidates capable of leading for innovation within the traditional and emergingdefinitions of success to include sustainability. With reference to leadership developmentin innovation and sustainability, I see many commonalities in competencies, such asproblem-solving, cognitive, and social skills. I believe these as well as global mindsetshould be in focus. It is suggested HRD professionals therefore consider enhancingleadership development programs by incorporating experiential learning activities relatedto innovation and that foster a global mindset, raise social awareness, and increasecultural literacy. Practitioners may wish to take Schumpeter’s broad view of innovation to

move beyond technical ingenuity and concomitant hard skills; advancement may bemade in areas of new production, processes, organizational forms, products and services,and ways of marketing (Koivisto, 2005). In so doing, a wider range of stakeholders shouldbe considered. Integration of innovation with sustainable practices is needed, andsustainable leadership should no longer be a choice but rather a requisite.

ConclusionStudy of the relationships between leadership and innovation and sustainability isfragmented but gaps are emerging in the literature. As tension between innovation andsustainability seemingly increases, one wonders how if at all this paradox can beaddressed. I see leadership as common ground for HRD to integrate these concepts sothat organizations may overcome resistance to change and thrive while reaching a

higher purpose to find the win-win.

References

Allen, K.E., Stelzner, S.P. and Wielkiewicz, R.M. (1999), “The ecology of leadership: adapting tothe challenges of a changing world”, The Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 5 No. 2,pp. 62-82.

Amabile, T.M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J. and Herron, M. (1996), “Assessing the workenvironment for creativity”, Academy of Management Journal , Vol. 39 No. 5, pp. 1154-1184.


sustainability

35



Antes, A.L. and Schuelke, M.J. (2011), “Leveraging technology to develop creative leadership

capacity”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 318-365.

Ardichvili, A. (2012), “Sustainability or limitless expansion: paradigm shift in HRD practice and

teaching”, European Journal of Training and Development , Vol. 36 No. 9, pp. 873-887.

Axelrod, E.L., Handfield-Jones, H. and Welsh, T.A. (2001), “War for talent, part two”, McKinsey

Quarterly, Vol. 2, pp. 9-12.

Barnett, R. and Davis, S. (2008), “Creating greater success in succession planning”, Advances in

Developing Human Resources, Vol. 10 No. 5, pp. 721-739.

Boudreau, J. and Ramstad, P.M. (2005), “Talentship, talent segmentation, and sustainability:

a new HR decision science paradigm for a new strategy definition”, Human Resource

Management , Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 129-136.

Brundtland, G.H. (1987), “Report of the world commission on environment and development: our

common future”, United Nations.

Burke, W.W. and Litwin, G.H. (1992), “A causal model of organizational performance and

change”, Journal of Management , Vol. 18 No. 3, p. 523.

Callahan, J.L. and Rosser, M.H. (2007), “Pop goes the program: using popular culture artifacts to

educate leaders”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 269-287.

Chambers, E.G., Foulton, M., Handfield-Jones, H., Hankin, S.M. and Michaels, E.G. (1998),

“The war for talent”, McKinsey Quarterly, Vol. 3, pp. 44-57.

Cummings, T.G. and Worley, C.G. (2009), Organization Development and Change, South-Western

Pub., Cincinnati, OH.

Day, D.V. (2001), “Leadership development: a review in context”, The Leadership Quarterly,

Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 581-613.

Deal, T.E. and Kennedy, A.A. (1982), Corporate Cultures: The Rites and Rituals of Organizational

Life, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

Drucker, P. (1999), “Innovate or die: Drucker on financial services”, The Economist , September 25.(The) Economist (2011), “Big and clever: why large firms are often more inventive than small

ones”, The Economist .

Egan, T.M. (2008), “The relevance of organizational subculture for motivation to transfer

learning”, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 299-322.

Eisenbeiss, S.A. (2012), “Re-thinking ethical leadership: an interdisciplinary integrative

approach”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 23, pp. 791-808.

Evans, A. and Steven, D. (2011), Making Rio 2012 Work: Setting the Stage for Global Economic,

Social, and Ecological Renewal , Center for International Cooperation, New York University,

New York, NY.

Garavan, T.N. and McGuire, D. (2010), “Human resource development and society: human

resource development’s role in embedding corporate social responsibility, sustainability,and ethics in organizations”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 12 No. 5,

pp. 487-507.

Garavan, T.N., Carbery, R. and Rock, A. (2012), “Mapping talent development: definition, scope

and architecture”, European Journal of Training and Development , Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 5-24.

Gilley, A., Dixon, P. and Gilley, J.W. (2008), “Characteristics of leadership effectiveness:

implementing change and driving innovation in organizations”, Human Resource

Development Quarterly, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 153-169.

EJTD38,1/2

36



Gilley, J.W., Shelton, P.M. and Gilley, A. (2011), “Developmental leadership: a new perspective forhuman resource development”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 13 No. 3,pp. 386-405.

Gilley, J.W., Morris, M.L., Waite, A.M., Coates, T. and Veliquette, A. (2010), “Integrated

theoretical model for building effective teams”, Advances in Developing Human Resources,Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 7-28.

Glendon, L. (2011), “Supply chain resilience 2011”, 3rd Annual Survey, The Business ContinuityInstitute (BCI), Caversham, UK.

Greenleaf, R.K. (2003), The Servant Leader Within: A Transformative Path, Paulist Press,Mahway, NJ.

Heenan, D.A. (1977), “Global cities of tomorrow”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 55 No. 3,pp. 79-92.

Hospers, G.J. (2005), “Joseph Schumpeter and his legacy in innovation studies”, Knowledge,Technology, & Policy, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 20-37.

Hudson, F.M. (1999), The Handbook of Coaching: A Comprehensive Resource Guide for

Managers, Executives, Consultants, and Human Resource Professionals, Jossey-BassPublishers, San Francisco, CA.

Hunter, S.T. and Cushenbery, L. (2011), “Leading for innovation: direct and indirect influences”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 248-265.

Jeon, K.S. and Kim, K.N. (2012), “How do organizational and task factors influence informallearning in the workplace?”, Human Resource Development International , Vol. 15 No. 2,pp. 209-226.

Kalshoven, K., Den Hartog, D.N. and De Hoogh, A.H.B. (2011), “Ethical leadership at workquestionnaire (ELW): development and validation of a multidimensional measure”,The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 22, pp. 51-69.

Kennedy, F., Carroll, B. and Francoeur, J. (2013), “Mindset not skill set: evaluating in newparadigms of leadership development”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 15

No. 1, pp. 10-26.Khandelwal, A.K. (2007), “Moving HRD from the periphery to the centre for transformation of an

Indian public sector bank: keynote address, 4th Asian conference of the academy of HRD”, Human Resource Development International , Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 203-213.

Kingston, W. (2006), “Schumpeter, business cycles and co-evolution”, Industry and Innovation,Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 97-106.

Koivisto, T. (2005), “Developing strategic innovation capability of enterprises: theoreticalmethodological outlines of intervention”, ESPOO 2005 , VTT Publications 586, VTTInformation Services, Finland, pp. 1-120.

Leach, M., Rockstrom, J., Raskin, P., Scoones, I., Stirling, A.C., Smith, A., Thompson, J., Millstone,E., Ely, A., Arond, E., Folke, C. and Olsson, P. (2012), “Transforming innovation forsustainability”, Ecology and Society, Vol. 17 No. 2.

Levy, O., Beechler, S., Taylor, S. and Boyacigiller, N.A. (2007), “What we talk about when we talkabout ‘global mindset’: managerial cognition in multinational corporations”, Journal of

International Business Studies, Vol. 38, pp. 231-258.

Lewis, R.E. and Heckman, R.J. (2006), “Talent management: a critical review”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 139-154.

Ligon, G.S., Wallace, J.H. and Osburn, H.K. (2011), “Experiential development and mentoringprocesses for leaders for innovation”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 13No. 3, pp. 297-317.


sustainability

37



Lundvall, B. (2010), National Systems of Innovation: Toward a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning , Anthem Press, London.

McCauley, C.D., Moxley, R.S. and Van Velsor, E. (Eds) (1998), The Center for Creative Leadership Handbook of Leadership Development , Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

McEntire, L.E. and Greene-Shortridge, T.M. (2011), “Recruiting and selecting leaders forinnovation: how to find the right leader”, Advances in Developing Human Resources,Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 266-278.

McGuire, D. and Garavan, T.N. (2010), “Closing comments: a call to action”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 614-616.

McLean, L.D. (2005), “Organizational culture’s influence on creativity and innovation: a review of the literature and implications for human resource development”, Advances in Developing

Human Resources, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 226-246.

Marquardt, M. and Berger, N.O. (2003), “The future: globalization and new roles for HRD”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 283-295.

Michaels, E., Handfield-Jones, H. and Axelrod, B. (2001), War for Talent , Harvard Business Press,

Boston, MA.Mumford, M.D. and Gibson, C. (2011), “Developing leadership for creative efforts: a preface”,

Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 243-247.

Mumford, M.D. and Licuanan, B. (2004), “Leading for innovation: conclusions, issues, anddirections”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 163-171.

Mumford, M.D., Scott, G.M., Gaddis, B. and Strange, J.M. (2002), “Leading creative people:orchestrating expertise and relationships”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 6,pp. 705-750.

Mumford, M.D., Hunter, S.T., Eubanks, D.L., Bedell, K.E. and Murphy, S.T. (2007), “Developingleaders for creative efforts: a domain-based approach to leadership development”, Human

Resource Management Review, Vol. 17 No. 4, p. 402.

Northouse, P.G. (2007), Leadership: Theory and Practice, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Pless, N.M., Maak, T. and Stahl, G.K. (2012), “Promoting corporate social responsibility andsustainable development through management development: what can be learned frominternational service learning programs?”, Human Resource Management , Vol. 51 No. 6,pp. 873-904.

Porter, M.E. (1996), “What is strategy?”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 74 No. 6, pp. 61-78.

Portugal, E. and Yukl, G. (1994), “Perspectives on environmental leadership”, The LeadershipQuarterly, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 271-276.

Reinganum, J.F. (1985), “Innovation and industry evolution”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, pp. 81-99.

Rhinesmith, S.H. (1992), “Global mindsets for global managers”, Training and Development , Vol.46, American Society for Training & Development, Alexandria, VA, pp. 63-69.

Robert K. Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership (n.d.), “What is servant leadership?”,Robert K. Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership, Westfield, IN, available at: www.greenleaf.org/what-is-servant-leadership/ (accessed 9 May 2013).

Rosen, R. and Digh, P. (2001), “Developing globally literate leaders”, T þ D , Vol. 55 No. 5, p. 70.

Simmonds, D. and Tsui, O. (2010), “Effective design of a global leadership programme”, Human Resource Development International , Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 519-540.

Swedberg, R. (1995), “Schumpeter’s vision of socioeconomics”, Journal of Socio-Economics,Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 525-544.

EJTD38,1/2

38



Taylor, A., Cocklin, C., Brown, R. and Wilson-Evered, E. (2012), “An investigation of champion-driven leadership processes”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 22, pp. 412-433.

Torraco, R.J. (2005), “Writing integrative literature reviews: guidelines and examples”, Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 4 No. 3, p. 356.

Van Dierendonck, D. (2011), “Servant leadership: a review and synthesis”, Journal of Management , Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 1228-1261.

Vinarski-Peretz, H. and Carmeli, A. (2011), “Linking care felt to engagement in innovativebehaviors in the workplace: the mediating role of psychological conditions”, Psychology of

Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 43-53.

Waples, E.P. and Friedrich, T.L. (2011), “Managing creative performance: important strategiesfor leaders of creative efforts”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 13 No. 3,pp. 366-385.

Waples, E.P., Friedrich, T.L. and Shelton, P.M. (2011), “Closing comments on ‘leading forinnovation’: we’ve only just begun”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 13No. 3, pp. 406-413.

White, A.L. and Baraldi, M. (2012), “Reinventing the corporation”, in Starke, L. (Ed.), Moving Toward Sustainable Prosperity, The Worldwatch Institute, Island Press, Washington, DC,pp. 87-103.

Williams, F. and Foti, R.J. (2011), “Formally developing creative leadership as a driver of organizational innovation”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 13 No. 3,pp. 279-296.

Zheng, W., Khoury, A.E. and Grobmeier, C. (2010), “How do leadership and context matter inR&D team innovation? – A multiple case study”, Human Resource Development

International , Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 265-283.

Zurich Financial Services Group (2008), “Dealing with the unexpected: lessons for risk managersfrom the credit crisis”, Global Insights, Zurich Financial Services Group, Zurich, Switzerland.

About the authorDr Alina M. Waite is Assistant Professor of Human Resource Development and PerformanceTechnologies in the College of Technology at Indiana State University, Indiana, USA. She earnedher BS degree in Electrical Engineering with a Biomedical Engineering Option from theUniversity of New Mexico (1988), a MS degree in Biomedical Engineering from the New JerseyInstitute of Technology (1991), and a PhD degree in Organizational Performance and Changefrom Colorado State University (2008). Her current research interests include team development,leadership, process improvement, and innovation. She is a member of the Academy of HumanResource Development (AHRD) and the editorial board of Advances in Developing Human

Resources. Prior to her academic career she held a variety of management positions in Europeand the USA, including the Director of Research and Development of an international companyspecializing in the design, development, and manufacture of medical devices. Alina M. Waite canbe contacted at: [email protected]


sustainability

39

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Date post:	03-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	shradha-gawankar
View:	217 times
Download:	0 times

Leadership’s influence on innovation and sustainability

Documents