Technology Analysis & Strategic Management

ISSN: 0953-7325 (Print) 1465-3990 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ctas20

Is the leadership style important in R&D

departments in Spanish industrial companies? An
empirical analysis

Beatriz Junquera & Jesús Ángel del Brío

To cite this article: Beatriz Junquera & Jesús Ángel del Brío (2017): Is the leadership style
important in R&D departments in Spanish industrial companies? An empirical analysis,
Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, DOI: 10.1080/09537325.2016.1274024

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2016.1274024

Published online: 02 Jan 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 21

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ctas20

Download by: [FU Berlin] Date: 12 January 2017, At: 18:01

TECHNOLOGY ANALYSIS & STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT, 2017
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2016.1274024

Is the leadership style important in R&D departments in Spanish

industrial companies? An empirical analysis
a b
Beatriz Junquera and Jesús Ángel del Brío
a
Facultad de Economía y Empresa, Universidad de Oviedo, Oviedo, Spain; bEscuela Politécnica de Ingeniería,
Universidad de Oviedo, Gijón, Spain

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This paper aims to thoroughly look into the effects of the differences Received 27 June 2016
between the diverse leadership styles on innovative outputs (intensive, Revised 13 October 2016
efficient and eco-efficient) in Spanish industrial companies. A Accepted 13 December 2016
questionnaire for the factories was sent and was received between the
KEYWORDS
months of September 2013 and June 2014. A total of 142 valid Leadership style; innovation
questionnaires were received. Several regression models were used in the output; ecoefficiency; human
empirical analysis. The results show that charismatic leadership positively resource management
induces an intensive innovative output, at the same time as it improves
firms’ eco-efficient innovative output. Likewise, the individualised
consideration that characterises transformational leadership makes this
leadership style produce positive results on the whole group of innovative
outputs considered. At the other end of the leadership spectrum, the
transactional style causes negative effects on the relationship between
innovative activity and innovative outputs, and more specifically, on the
efficient innovative output.

Introduction
Nowadays, in businesses, the knowledge and the competencies stemming from the human factor
dedicated to R&D must be considered a valuable asset (Glaveanu and Lubart 2014). However, a valu-
able human asset depends on leadership. As a result, the literature has mostly shown that leadership
really matters in R&D departments (Keller 2006; Albors-Garrigós, Rincón-Díaz, and Iguartua-Lopez
2014).
As a consequence, the question is not only if leadership matters, but a more relevant issue: what
type of leadership is the most suitable for R&D teams? Nevertheless, there is limited research about
the type of leadership necessary for success in R&D departments (Elkins and Keller 2003), so that new
quantitative studies should be carried out, as this small amount prevents the results from providing
conclusiveness.
The literature refers to mainly three different leadership styles: transactional leadership, transfor-
mational leadership and charismatic leadership. The literature has studied them deeply, but not in
R&D departments, except for transformational leadership. Some papers have studied the influence
of the three kinds of leadership on innovation in general (Del-Corte-Lora, Molina-Morales, and
Vallet-Bellmunt 2016). Nevertheless, there is a research gap regarding the influence of these three
types of leadership on innovation outcomes, which Acs, Anselin, and Varga (2002) called innovative
outputs. Specifically, in this paper, we will study the following innovative outputs, the so-called: (a)

CONTACT Beatriz Junquera beatrizj@uniovi.es Facultad de Economía y Empresa, Universidad de Oviedo (Spain), Avda. del
Cristo s/n 33071, Oviedo (Asturias), Spain
© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 B. JUNQUERA AND J. Á. DEL BRÍO

intensive innovative output, (b) eco-efficient innovative output and (c) efficient innovative output. We
define these concepts before starting our analysis:

. Intensive innovative output includes all the effects of the R&D investment (even the human capital
investment) on the achievement of a great deal of new products and processes, patents, techno-
logical secrets, and so on (without ecological innovations).
. Efficient innovative output includes all the effects of the R&D investment (even the human capital
investment) on the achievement of innovations that make industrial processes more efficient
(without ecological innovations on the industrial processes).
. Eco-efficient innovative output includes all the effects of the R&D investment (even the human
capital investment) on the achievements of ecological product and process innovations. Ecoeff-
iciency is supported on the idea that, as any ecological problem is a specific problem related to
efficiency, an ecological innovation leads to an improvement of a company’s efficiency.

1. Theoretical framework and hypothesis formulation

1.1. Effects of transactional leadership on innovative outputs
A transactional leader focuses on the task-related exchange of actions and rewards between fol-
lowers and leaders, which often needs the existence of hierarchy and authority to be displayed.
These leaders must award or reprove their followers for their actions, and they must pay attention
to all deviations and irregularities (Waldman et al. 2001).
As a result, transactional leaders regard management as a series of transactions in which they use
their legitimate reward and coercion powers to give orders and exchange rewards for services pro-
vided (Yukl 2002). That is, transactional leadership is dispassionate. Thus, after reviewing the litera-
ture,1 we have concluded that a transactional leader neither stimulates, nor transforms nor
inspires people to concentrate on the group or the organisation’s interests. This kind of leadership
is more effective for individualistic people than for collectivistic people and its results are usually
shown on business efficiency.
After reviewing the literature, we can conclude that, in innovative environments, the results are
mixed. For instance, Akbar, Sadegh, and Chehrazi (2015) have found a positive influence of transac-
tional leadership on employees’ creativity and innovation. Nevertheless, most of the papers have
shown a negative relationship (Pieterse et al. 2010; Liu, Liu, and Zeng 2011; Si and Wei 2012) or
with no impact (Rawung, Wuryaningrat, and Elvinit 2015) between them.
These differences are based on several arguments which allow us to approach two alternative
hypotheses. On the one hand, transactional leadership looks for efficiency (Yukl 2006) through
either rewards or finding out mistakes and offering rules to avoid them, among other methods
(Bass and Avolio 1995), so that, from this point of view, we would necessarily have to conclude
that with this type of leadership, it would be possible to improve the efficient innovative output,
and, as a result, the first hypothesis (first part) of our work would be formulated as follows:
H1a. In innovative environments, the more transactional the leadership style adopted by those responsible for
the innovative activity in a business is, the more positive their contribution on the efficient innovative output
will be.

On the other hand, some arguments lead us to think that transactional leadership influences efficient
innovative output negatively in R&D departments. In fact, transactional leadership appears as one of
those elements that hinder a good use of the subordinates’ innovative capability, as, in a general way,
Hamel and Prahalad (1994) predicted. That is, leaders in R&D departments must encourage people to
be open-minded and question what is generally assumed, as, otherwise, the huge innovative poten-
tial underlying the employees’ ideas would be wasted (Hamel and Prahalad 1994). Consequently,
transactional leadership may contribute, due to its own characteristics and goals, to keep
 TECHNOLOGY ANALYSIS & STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT 3

subordinates weak (Yukl 2006), preventing them from questioning the leader’s assumptions (Seltzer
and Bass 1990). This will therefore prevent subordinates from improving their result expectations
(Bass 1995). Thus, our paper, starting from Yukl’s (2006) finding about subordinates’ weakening
due to a transactional leader, shows us some consequences, specifically the waste of their capability
to generate new ideas, which could contribute to a better firm efficiency. As a result, we would
necessarily have to conclude that with this type of leadership, it would be possible to make worse
the efficient innovative output, and, as a result, the first hypothesis (second part) of our work
would be formulated as follows:2
H1b. In R&D departments, the more transactional the leadership style adopted by those responsible for the inno-
vative activity in a business is, the more negative their contribution on the efficient innovative output will be.

1.2. Effects of charismatic leadership on innovative outputs

Charismatic leadership is that leadership ‘in which, by virtue of the extraordinary qualities subordi-
nates attribute to the leader and his/her mission, he/she is regarded by his/her followers with a
mixture of reverence, unflinching dedication, and awe’ (Bryman 1992, 41). That is, subordinates attri-
bute to him/her heroic or extraordinary abilities for leadership when they observe his/her behaviours
(Conger and Kanungo 1998). Charismatic leaders make sacrifices in the process of achieving their
objectives (Yorges, Weiss, and Strickland 1999).
Charismatic leadership improves corporate financial performance, particularly in situations in
which people have difficulty in understanding what they have to do when the environment
changes (House and Aditya 1997; Waldman et al. 2001). This means that the trust subordinates
place on the charismatic leader (Conger and Kanungo 1998), his/her sacrifice inducement (Yorges,
Weiss, and Strickland 1999) and the emotional infection, which contributes to improve the subordi-
nates’ self-esteem (Waldman and Yammarino 1999), promote the team members’ innovative capa-
bility (Kodama 2005), thus contributing to the improvement of the intensive innovative output. On
the other hand, that collective identity, which characterises a charismatic leader, leads to a deeper
involvement with every team (Ashforth and Mael 1989). As a result, charismatic leadership can
improve the intensive innovative output because of its effects on a team’s processes (Paulsen
et al. 2009). That is to say, the belief which the person who leads an innovative activity has about
his/her own capabilities may influence the intensive innovative output positively due to the kind
of relationships established between charismatic leaders and subordinates. Consequently, in this
respect, the following hypothesis can be derived:3
H2. In R&D departments, the more charismatic the leadership style adopted by those responsible for the inno-
vative activity in a firm is, the more positive their contribution on the intensive innovative output will be.

The leaders who tackle questions relating to environmental innovation (Egri and Herman 2000) must
have certain characteristics (collaboration values, charisma or change orientation) indissolubly linked
to charismatic leadership. In this respect, with such characteristics, it is possible to break the organ-
isational barriers to environmental progress, which would contribute to improve the result of the
actions in that area (Ramus 2001). As the environmental issue is, in essence, a specific problem of effi-
ciency (Porter and van der Linde 1995), this progress, applied, in this case, to R&D leaders, may nar-
rowly be linked to the improvement of the eco-efficient innovative output. From this reasoning, the
third hypothesis of this paper is derived:
H3. In R&D departments, the more charismatic the leadership style adopted by those responsible for the inno-
vative activity in a firm is, the more positive their contribution on the eco-efficient innovative output will be.

1.3. Effects of transformational leadership on innovative outputs

The transformational leader is the one who pays attention to his subordinates’ concerns and devel-
opment needs from an individual point of view, helps them to see their old problems in a new way
4 B. JUNQUERA AND J. Á. DEL BRÍO

and is capable of moving, stirring and inspiring his/her subordinates to make an additional effort
which allows them to achieve the group’ objectives. Thus, transformational leaders get the best
out of their subordinates and encourage them to the achievement of higher and universal needs
and goals (Burns 1978).
With these attitudes and patterns of behaviour they are capable of obtaining better results by
means of the use of one or more of the four components of transformational leadership (Bass
1998): (a) idealised influence, (b) inspirational motivation, (c) intellectual stimulus and (d) individua-
lised consideration.
In innovative contexts, inspirational motivation ‘provides stimulation in the idea generation
process’ (Sosik, Kahai, and Avolio 1998, 113). Until this point, the concept of transformational leader-
ship is similar to charismatic leadership. However, the conceptual differences between both of them
are supported on ‘intellectual stimulus’ and ‘individualized consideration’, which characterise trans-
formational leadership, but not charismatic leadership (Bass 1990). These leaders show great toler-
ance not only to discrepancies, but also to the mistakes made by meticulous subordinates. Finally,
leaders establish a climate where not only the subordinates’ individual differences are accepted
(Bass and Riggio 2006), but in which these are recognised and even rewarded to increase creativity
and innovation.
Furthermore, transformational leadership leads subordinates to deal with emotional exhaustion
more easily, because they believe that their supervisor consults with them and considers their
opinions before making decisions. In addition, when employees think that they have adequate per-
sonal capabilities to deal with job demands, they are better able to cope with emotional exhaustion
(Mulki, Jaramillo, and Locander 2006).
Although transformational and charismatic leadership styles show differences, these are relatively
minor (House and Aditya 1997), showing great agreement in empirical results. The basic notion is that
a transformational leader can create the impression that he/she has relevant competence and vision
to be successful.
As a result, subordinates respond with enthusiasm and commitment to the group’s goals. The
leader can inspire and stimulate his/her subordinates, so that they pursue and achieve the goals
beyond expectations (Bass 1998). Furthermore, transformational leadership may influence employ-
ees’ creativity through psychological empowerment (Gumusluoglu and Ilsev 2009b). In fact, transfor-
mational leadership is composed of, in the first place, inspirational leadership. However, intellectual
stimulus and individualised consideration, although in the framework of this approach, continue
characterising transformational leadership in a specific way.
Transformational leadership influences multiple results in technological environments (Keller
1992; Thite 2000): it is positively related to R&D employees’ creativity (Sosik, Kahai, and Avolio 1998).
In relation to the previous result, intellectual stimulus, charisma and individualised consideration
on the part of high-level R&D managers influenced the success of the projects (Waldman and Atwater
1994). In fact, the characteristics of the transformational leadership themselves are the ones that
seem to trigger the subordinate’s actions to guarantee the success of the innovations (Jung,
Chow, and Wu 2003).
Furthermore, the champions of innovation have some characteristics of transformational leaders,
who depend more on innovation and risk assumption than those who are not champions. Some
aspects of transformational leadership, such as mission awareness, predicted the success of R&D pro-
jects to different degrees according to the stage of the project. Transformational leadership in R&D
organisations predicts performance, including the quality of the project at two points in time, con-
currently and one year after the leadership measurement (Keller 1992).
On the other hand, the project teams managed by R&D leaders with high marks in transforma-
tional leadership generate better quality products, which even become more profitable five years
later (Keller 2006). Finally, the employees who have worked for successful projects value their
leaders more regarding intellectual stimulus and charisma (inspirational leadership) than the employ-
ees working for less successful projects (Thite 2000).
 TECHNOLOGY ANALYSIS & STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT 5

If this idea was linked to transformational leaders’ influence on project success and their ability to
stimulate subordinates intellectually (Bass 1990) and their acceptance of individual differences (Bass
1990; Bass and Riggio 2006), it would be reasonable to think that this influence is transmitted to the
businesses’ intensive innovative output. Therefore, we can derive the fourth hypothesis of this work:
H4. In R&D departments, the more transformational the leadership style adopted by those responsible for the
innovative activity in a business is, the more positive their contribution on the intensive innovative output will be.

The leaders who deal with issues related to environmental innovation must have certain character-
istics related to charismatic leadership (Egri and Herman 2000) and, consequently, transformational
leadership, capable of breaking the organisational barriers to environmental progress (Ramus 2001).
On the other hand, when defining the transformational leader, this has been recognised to have an
individualised concern about each one of his subordinates, which arouses their enthusiasm and com-
mitment (Bass 1990; Bass and Riggio 2006). All this, together with the intellectual stimulus typical of
transformational leaders, (Bass 1990), contributes, still with additional reasons to the case of charis-
matic leadership, to the development of ideas on the part of the R&D leaders who encourage
improvements in the business efficiency for environmental reasons. Consequently, the fifth hypoth-
esis of this work is defined as follows:
H5. In innovative environments, the more transformational the leadership style adopted by those responsible for the
innovative activity in a business is, the more positive their contribution on the eco-efficient innovative output will be.

As R&D teams are usually interfunctional, the transformational leader can convince his/her members
and act as an advisor and mentor (Yukl 2002). In this way, the transformational leader increases his/
her subordinates’ self-esteem and effectiveness, making them stronger than before. His/her potential
allows him/her to subvert his/her subordinates’ personal values (as well as the conception they have
of themselves). In this way, they catapult them into higher levels of needs and aspirations, improving
their performance expectations (Bass 1995). This conception of the business, as an institution that
facilitates the integration of the knowledge which generates capabilities, establishes a vision
based on a strong integration among the members of the organisation (Dutton and Dukerich
1991) and promotes entrepreneurial efficiency. From what we have said before, we can infer, conse-
quently, the last hypothesis of this work:
H6. In innovative environments, the more transformational the leadership style adopted by those responsible for the
innovative activity in a business is, the more positive their contribution on the efficient innovative output will be.

2. Methodology of the research

Next, we will present the methodology used to carry out the following research. Secondly, we justify
the constructs used to assess each type of leadership whose influence is considered.

2.1. Data
Taking the objectives of this study into consideration, we have started from data obtained from the
Ministry of Economy, which constitute a 2006 database, used for the study of Technology Manage-
ment. The database was composed of 1330 productive centres of firms set up with some of their
establishments located in Spain and with R&D department in some of such locations. A total of
142 valid questionnaires were received, that is, 10.68% of response rate.
The distribution of the firm according to size (number of employees) is shown in Table 1. More-
over, in order to assess the sample representativeness in a more reliable way than the mere descrip-
tion, a logistic regression analysis was carried out following the Osterman (1994) method (Table 2).
The dependent variable was the response likelihood, while the independent variable was the size
of the firm, measured according to the number of employees. The results confirm the lack of signifi-
cance, since the independent variable (number of employees) shows no relationship with response
6 B. JUNQUERA AND J. Á. DEL BRÍO

Table 1. Comparison of the distribution of the sample according to size.

SIZE
Population Sample
Employees Number Percentage Number Percentage
0–249 1030 77.5 101 71.1
250–499 125 9.4 15 10.6
500–999 85 6.4 12 8.5
More than 1000 89 6.7 14 9.9

Table 2. Logistic regression for sample representativeness.

Variables Wald Degrees of freedom Significance
Size equation
Size 0.71 1 0.40

likelihood. Therefore, the results above confirm the lack of bias of the sample based on the size of the
firm.
As all the data were collected from a single polled one in a single factory, there is some risk linked
to the common method bias, which may show a problem. A single factorial analysis was carried out
(Tables 3 and 4). Using as a criterion the eigenvalue greater than one, six factors are generated, each
one of them explains, respectively, 23.58%, 13.82%, 7.83%, 5.98%, 5.19% and 4.63% of the data var-
iance. As a single factor is not created and the first factor represents only less than a fourth part of the
variance, we can conclude, without any doubts, that the results will not be biased as a result of the
existence of the common method variance in the data.

2.2. Measures
The questionnaire included items about leadership with the following heading: ‘To what extent do
the following sentences relative to the kind of leadership by your company’s senior managers and
team leaders for its innovative activity represent the situation of your company?’. We used a five-
point construct, so that, if the similarity between the sentence and their company’s situation were
virtually zero, the interviewee would score 1 and 5 if the similarity were wide.
Anyway, we asked three questions about different dimensions of performance (respectively, effi-
ciency, eco-efficiency and innovative capability). The heading was the following one: ‘Could you tell
us your level of agreement with the following sentences: In my company innovative activity we have
carried out last five years has lead it to:’. We used a 1–5 Likert construct.

2.2.1. Independent variables

In order to develop the construct relating to several leadership styles, we took as reference the classic
studies of transactional leadership (Podsakoff et al. 1990; Bass and Avolio 1995; Conger and Kanungo
1998) and, in the second place, the papers which approach the question of leadership in relation to
some other aspects of business management, specifically innovation management, corporate social
responsibility and manufacturing strategy (Antonakis, Avolio, and Sivasubramaniam 2003; Rafferty
and Griffin 2004; Tucker et al. 2006). Tables 5–7 show, respectively, the main results regarding trans-
actional, charismatic and transformational leadership. For each construct, the Cronbach’s alpha was
calculated to estimate its reliability and a factor analysis to prove its validity.

2.2.2. Dependent variables

To develop the construct relative to the dependent variables, we took as reference Aragón-Correa
(1998), Ilinitch, Soderstrom, and Thomas (1998), Sharma and Vredenburg (1998), Hanna, Newman,
and Johnson (2000), Baldwin and Lin (2002), Rao (2002) and Melnyk, Sroufe, and Calantone’s
 TECHNOLOGY ANALYSIS & STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT 7

Table 3. Factors variances.

Factors Variance
Factor 1 23.58
Factor 2 13.82
Factor 3 7.83
Factor 4 5.98
Factor 5 5.19
Factor 6 4.63

Table 4. Weightings of a single factor factorial analysis.

F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6
I1 0.01 0.73 0.20 0.07 −0.17 0.19
I2 0.19 0.73 0.13 −0.03 −0.10 0.02
I3 −0.08 0.66 0.40 −0.04 −0.30 0.09
I4 −0.03 0.62 0.32 0.18 0.00 0.16
I5 −0.09 0.52 0.48 −0.01 −0.22 0.11
I6 0.29 0.51 0.37 0.20 0.11 0.19
I7 −0.07 0.56 0.17 0.24 −0.23 0.28
I8 0.19 0.30 0.71 0.09 −0.10 0.14
I9 −0.03 0.39 0.55 0.03 −0.14 −0.13
I10 0.10 0.39 0.59 0.00 −0.03 0.21
I11 0.15 0.31 0.55 −0.03 −0.24 0.26
I12 −0.01 0.02 0.79 0.01 0.06 0.05
I13 0.01 0.04 −0.05 −0.07 0.85 −0.11
I14 −0.04 −0.14 0.18 −0.06 0.75 0.03
I15 0.05 −0.08 −0.22 −0.05 0.76 0.05
I16 0.54 0.09 0.04 0.43 −0.09 −0.08
I17 0.59 0.13 0.08 0.30 −0.08 0.27
I18 0.73 0.01 −0.05 0.21 0.05 0.22
I19 0.74 0.06 0.03 0.18 0.01 0.18
I20 0.66 −0.02 0.13 0.23 0.08 0.11
I21 0.81 0.04 −0.04 −0.02 0.03 0.01
I22 0.77 −0.02 0.17 −0.05 −0.04 0.09
I23 0.11 0.00 −0.05 0.81 −0.11 0.10
I24 −0.02 −0.05 0.09 0.80 −0.02 −0.02
I25 0.19 0.16 −0.03 0.68 −0.05 −0.10
I26 0.22 0.31 −0.25 0.09 0.00 0.68
I27 0.05 0.16 0.06 −0.17 −0.00 0.76
I28 0.08 −0.23 0.34 0.08 −0.03 0.73

Table 5. Factorial weightings of transactional leadership.

Items Transactional
Our leaders ask employees exclusively about what is necessary to carry out the work (I13) 0.86
Our leaders do not have any problem if the employee has an initiative, although they do not encourage them to do 0.75
it (I14)
Our leaders tell the employee only what he/she has to know to carry out his/her work, because he/she gets paid 0.80
because of his/her obedience (I15)
Cronbach’s alpha 0.73
Eigenvalue 1.95
Percentage of explained variance 64.84

(2003) papers. Tables 8–10 show, respectively, the main results regarding the three innovative
outputs. For each construct, the Cronbach’s alpha was calculated to estimate its reliability and a
factor analysis to prove its validity.

3. Results and discussion

Table 11 summarises the main results of the regression models. Transactional leadership generates
negative effects on innovative activity (Table 12), explaining approximately 1.2% of the variance
8 B. JUNQUERA AND J. Á. DEL BRÍO

Table 6. Factorial weightings of charismatic leadership.

Items Charismatic
Our leaders inspire loyalty towards them in their employees because of their sound ideas and the trust they pass on 0.83
(I8)
Our leaders inspire loyalty towards the organisation in the employees because of the attractive image they 0.71
communicate about the organisation (I9)
Our leaders give new ways to see everything about issues that used to be a puzzle to the employees (I10) 0.74
There is an important proximity between what the our leaders are expecting from the teams and what it is possible 0.75
to achieve from them (I11)
When an employee wants to do it, he/she can negotiate with our leaders what he/she can achieve from his/her work 0.70
(I12)
Cronbach’s alpha 0.79
Eigenvalue 2.78
Percentage of explained variance 55.50

Table 7. Factorial weightings of transformational leadership.

Items Transformational
Our leaders make every employee enthusiastic towards them in relationship with the tasks (I1) 0.79
Employees have a full trust in our leaders (I2) 0.69
Our leaders encourage employees to communicate their ideas (I3) 0.81
Our leaders are an inspiration for their employees (I4) 0.74
Our leaders allow employees to think about old problems in a new way (I5) 0.73
Our leaders give special personal attention to the most bewildered members of the teams (I6) 0.68
Our leaders find out what their employees want and try to help them to achieve it (I7) 0.70
Cronbach’s alpha 0.86
Eigenvalue 3.78
Percentage of explained variance 53.92

Table 8. Factorial weightings of eco-efficient innovative output.

Items Ecoefficiency
Lower consumption of raw materials (I16) 0.62
Better relationships with green stakeholders, local communities and public bodies (I17) 0.71
Lower costs because of complying with environmental regulation (I18) 0.79
Higher compliment with environmental regulation (I19) 0.79
Scarce detection of the most usual emissions (I20) 0.71
Lower amount of solid and liquid waste (I21) 0.75
Lower amount of emissions (I22) 0.74
Cronbach’s alpha 0.85
Eigenvalue 3.76
Percentage of explained variance 53.71

(p < .10). Therefore, we reject hypothesis 1a and accept hypothesis 1b. Thus, transactional leadership
appears as one of those elements that hinder a good use of the subordinates’ innovative capability,
as, in a general way, Hamel and Prahalad (1994) predicted. Consequently, transactional leadership
may contribute, due to its own characteristics and goals, to keep subordinates weak (Yukl 2006).
As a result, although transactional leadership is useful to obtain more efficiency in the most of the
environments, in R&D ones, you need other kinds of leadership to improve your organisation
efficiency.
Charismatic leadership explains about 6.4% of the improvement of businesses’ intensive innova-
tive output (p < .001) (Table 13). Thus, the effects of the characteristics which define the charismatic
leader, as suggested in the literature (Conger and Kanungo 1998; Waldman and Yammarino 1999;
Yorges, Weiss, and Strickland 1999; Paulsen et al. 2009), are elements which promote an intensive
innovative activity on the part of firms. Hypothesis 2 was therefore accepted.
In its turn, charismatic leadership generates positive effects on the eco-efficient innovative output
(p < .05). Charismatic leadership explains about 3.2% of the improvement in the eco-efficient
 TECHNOLOGY ANALYSIS & STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT 9

Table 9. Factorial weightings of efficient innovative output.

Items Efficient
More efficient product design and equipment use through incremental improvement (I23) 0.69
Lower machine investments because the current product lines have been modified, adapting the equipments to the 0.81
new products and making them more flexible (I24)
Lower inventories, removing components and parts, designing common components, etc. (I25) 0.69
Cronbach’s alpha 0.72
Eigenvalue 1.61
Percentage of explained variance 53.65

Table 10. Factorial weightings of intensive innovative output.

Items Intensive
An increase of the number of significant process innovations (I26) 0.73
An increase of the number of significant product innovations (I27) 0.85
More possibilities to enter products into international markets (I28) 0.71
Cronbach’s alpha 0.63
Eigenvalue 1.75
Percentage of explained variance 58.18

Table 11. Summary of the main results.

Dependent variables Significant independent variables Explained variance (%)
Eco-efficient innovative output Positive effects:
Transformational leadership 2.3%
Charismatic leadership 3.2%
Efficient innovative output Positive effects:
Transformational leadership 1.4%
Negative effects:
Transactional leadership 1.2%
Intensive innovative output Positive effects:
Transformational leadership 8.2%
Charismatic leadership 6.4%

Table 12. Regression equations of transactional leadership.

Variables B non standardised Beta (B) t-Value p
Dependent variable: efficiency
Transactional −0.14 −0.14 −1.66 0.099
(0.08)
Constant −5.33*10−17 0.000 1.000
(0,08)
R2 0.02
R 2 adjusted 0.01
F 2.75
Probability of F 0.099
N 142

innovative output. Therefore, this result is coherent with Ramus’ (2001) idea about the potential of
some characteristics of this type of leadership on the team’s capability and agrees with the expec-
tations that this management would contribute positively to improve business efficiency through
the environmental activity in the way suggested by Porter and van der Linde (1995). In this way,
hypothesis 3 was accepted. Summarily, a charismatic leader helps companies to improve their inno-
vative capability and their ecoefficiency.
Transformational leadership explains about 8.2% of the improvement of businesses’ intensive
innovative output (p < .001) (Table 14). This result seems to agree, not so much with Keller’s (1992)
references to the effects of transformational leadership on the innovative effort, but to its results,
10 B. JUNQUERA AND J. Á. DEL BRÍO

Table 13. Regression equations of charismatic leadership.

Variables B non standardised Beta (B) t-value p
Dependent variable: innovative
Charismatic 0.27 0.27 3.27 0.001
(0.001)
Constant 2.06*10−16 0.000 1.000
(0.08)
R2 0.07
R 2 adjusted 0.06
F 10.69
Probability of F 0.001
N 142
Dependent variable: ecoefficiency
Charismatic 0.20 0.20 2.38 0.019
(0.019)
Constant 8.88*10–19 0.000 1.000
(0.000)
2
R 0.04
2
R adjusted 0.03
F 5.67
Probability of F 0.02
N 142

Table 14. Regression equations of transformational leadership.

Variables B non standardised Beta (B) t-value p
Dependent variable: innovative
Transformational 0.30 0.30 3.68 0.001
(0.001)
Constant −4.94*10−17 0.000 1.,000
(0.08)
R2 0.09
R 2 adjusted 0.08
F 13.54
Probability of F 0.000
N 142
Dependent variable: ecoefficiency
Transformational 0.17 0.17 2.10 0.038
(0,038)
Constant −7.72*10−18 0.000 1.000
(0.08)
R2 0.03
R 2 adjusted 0.02
F 4.38
Probability of F 0.038
N 142
Dependent variable: efficiency
Transformational 0.15 0.15 3.68 0.08
(0.084)
Constant 1.97*10−16 0.000 1.000
(0.083)
R2 0.02
R 2 adjusted 0.01
F 3.04
Probability of F 0.08
N 142

as we anticipated in the theoretical framework. That is, the intellectual stimulus that triggers trans-
formational leadership (Bass 1990) and its acceptance of individual differences (Bass 1990; Bass
and Riggio 2006) are the characteristics which lay the foundations of its ability to promote the inno-
vative results of R&D teams. Hypothesis 4 was thus accepted.
 TECHNOLOGY ANALYSIS & STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT 11

Likewise, transformational leadership generates positive effects on businesses’ eco-efficient inno-

vative output (p < .05). Transformational leadership explains about 2.3% of the improvement in the
eco-efficient innovative output. This result is coherent with the assumptions of those that defined the
innovative leader and its possible consequences, as well as with our assumptions in relation to the
eco-efficient innovative output. That is, the individualised concern (Bass 1990; Bass and Riggio
2006), characteristic of transformational leadership, together with other characteristics coincident
with charismatic leadership, encourages the development of ideas on the part of the employees
capable of contributing to the improvement of businesses’ eco-efficient innovative output. Hypoth-
esis 5 was thus accepted.
In its turn, transformational leadership influences positively the efficient innovative output,
explaining approximately 1.4% of the variance with significant relations at a p < .10 level. Dutton
and Dukerich’s (1991) contribution, which suggests the positive effect of the organisational
members’ collegiate action on business performance, can be generalised to the case of the innova-
tive teams. This implies that only this type of leadership is capable of preventing the waste of the
employees’ generation of ideas potential which, as a last resort, contributes to the improvement in
entrepreneurial efficiency. Thus, hypothesis 6 was accepted. As a result, the most useful kind of lea-
dership in R&D environments is transformational leadership because it lets companies obtain better
levels of efficiency, innovative capability and ecoefficiency.

4. Conclusions
The results of this paper showed that, apart from the positive effects on the intensive innovative
output and the eco-efficient innovative output, on which it matches up with charismatic leadership,
transformational leadership influences positively the effects of the innovative activity on a business’
efficient innovative output. In this respect, contrary to what has been stated by those who suggested
similarities between charismatic and transformational leadership styles (House and Aditya 1997), our
results show their differences not only in relation to these characteristics, but also regarding their
results. At the other end of the leadership spectrum, the transactional one only causes negative
effects on the relationship between innovative activity and innovative outputs, and more specifically,
on the efficient innovative output.
That is to say, some interpersonal relationships, such as collaboration values, as well as intellectual
stimulus and individualised consideration, and the so-called emotional intelligence (for instance, the
leader’s belief in himself/herself or charisma), are key to achieve the best performance about the
three innovative outputs. To sum up, taking employees into special consideration and motivation
are the most successful ways to improve all the innovative outputs in a company.
The most outstanding implications of this paper are both academic and related to the managerial
practice. First of all, our results contribute to enrich the amount of knowledge about the human
resource management for technological and environmental issue management. Secondly, we have
shown that our approach is useful to explain our main question, although traditional literature is
not useful to explain the relationship between efficiency and leadership style. Finally, we have
made relevant contributions to the strong debate about the hypothetical differences in results
between charismatic leadership and transformational leadership. We have entered this debate.
Our side is with the researchers who defend that there are conceptual differences between both
kinds of leadership, but also differences in results.
Nevertheless, this is only the beginning in a field that requires a more profound study. Conse-
quently, according to Gumusluoglu e Ilsev (2009a), future research must replicate studies of this
type in countries with different economic structures, in different industries and in businesses of
diverse sizes, because there are only a scarce number of papers which have studied this issue, so
that the results cannot be considered conclusive. Different environments (in several geographical
areas, cultures or industries, among other variables) could put into context this debate. On the
other hand, it would be also essential to study to what extent some of the so-called leadership
12 B. JUNQUERA AND J. Á. DEL BRÍO

substitutes could be effective in the process of creating innovative outputs. Finally, it would be
required a differentiated and specific analysis, the innovative activity of the rest of the members
of the firm in their jobs, at a workshop level mainly.

Notes
1. However, the literature has not studied the influence of transactional leadership on the three innovative outputs
in R&D environments yet. Some papers have studied other environments.
2. Both reasons have led us to omit other two hypotheses related to respectively intensive innovative output and
eco-efficient output. On the one hand, an empirical analysis about both relationships has been carried out and
both hypotheses have been rejected. On the other hand, the literature is capable of explaining these results.
Some papers have suggested that transactional leadership is not the most suitable in order to improve the inten-
sive innovative output (Berson and Linton 2005). Likewise, the eco-efficient innovative output is linked to employ-
ees’ cooperation and motivation. Nevertheless, transactional leadership is not characterised by them (Egri and
Herman 2000; Ramus 2001). To sum up, the literature supports the results of our empirical analysis, which
rejects any kind of influence of transactional leadership on intensive innovative output and eco-efficient innova-
tive output.
3. An empirical analysis about the relationship between charismatic leadership and efficient innovative output has
been carried out. However, we have rejected this hypothesis. An explanation is supported on the literature. A
charismatic leader emphasises the personal loyalty to the leader. As a result, this attitude may make his/her sub-
ordinates weaker (Yukl 2006), although they are the only people who are able to improve this innovative output.
Consequently, this leader does not allow his/her subordinates to subvert their personal values (as well as the con-
ception they have of themselves), as transformational leaders do. As a result, charismatic leadership is not capable
of fostering new incremental innovations that could contribute to the improvement of entrepreneurial efficiency.

Notes on contributors
Beatriz Junquera is Professor of Management at Universidad de Oviedo in Spain. She has published more than 200
papers in specialised journals with anonymous reviewing processes. Her specialisation is mainly technology and inno-
vation management, environmental management, human resource management, political leadership, leadership in
business, organisational justice, social corporate responsibility, entrepreneurship and female entrepreneur.
Jesús del Brío is doctor cum laude of Management at Universidad de Oviedo, where he teaches since 1995. He has
studied about environmental management and environmental strategy’s effects on firm’s performance and published
in books and journals the results in journals such as Ecological Economics, International Journal of Human Resource Man-
agement, International Journal of Production Research and Journal of Cleaner Production.

ORCID
Beatriz Junquera http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2920-9452
Jesús Ángel del Brío http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3460-4876

References
Acs, Z. J., L. Anselin, and A. Varga. 2002. “Patents and Innovation Counts as Measures of Regional Production of New
Knowledge.” Research Policy 31 (7): 1069–1085.
Akbar, A. A., R. Sadegh, and R. Chehrazi. 2015. “Impact of Transformational and Transactional Leadership Style on
Employees’ Creativity and Innovation.” International Journal of Environmental Research 12 (4): 1109–1123.
Albors-Garrigós, J., C. A. Rincón-Díaz, and J. I. Iguartua-Lopez. 2014. “Research Technology Organisations as Leaders of
R&D Collaboration with SMEs: Role, Barriers and Facilitators.” Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 26 (1):
37–53.
Antonakis, J., B. A. Avolio, and N. Sivasubramaniam. 2003. “Context and Leadership: An Examination of the Nine-factor
Full-range Leadership Theory using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire.” The Leadership Quarterly 14 (3): 261–
295.
Aragón-Correa, J. A. 1998. “Strategic Proactivity and Firm Approach to the Natural Environment.” Academy of
Management Journal 41 (5): 556–567.
Ashforth, B. E., and F. Mael. 1989. “Social Identity Theory and the Organization.” The Academy of Management Review 14
(1): 20–39.
 TECHNOLOGY ANALYSIS & STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT 13

Baldwin, J., and Z. Lin. 2002. “Impediments to Advanced Technology Adoption for Canadian Manufacturers.” Research
Policy 31 (1): 1–18.
Bass, B. M. 1990. “From Transactional to Transformational Leadership: Learning to Share the Vision.” Organizational
Dynamics 18 (3): 19–31.
Bass, B. M. 1995. “Transformational Leadership.” Journal of Management Inquiry 4 (3): 293–297.
Bass, B. M. 1998. Transformational Leadership: Industry, Military, and Educational Impact. Mahwah: Erlbaum Associates.
Bass, B. M., and B. J. Avolio. 1995. Transformational Leadership Development: Manual for the Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychological Press.
Bass, B. M., and R. E. Riggio. 2006. Transformational Leadership. 2nd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Berson, Y., and J. D. Linton. 2005. “An Examination of the Relationships between Leadership Style, Quality, and Employee
Satisfaction in R&D versus Administrative Environments.” R&D Management 35 (1): 51–60.
Bryman, A. 1992. Charisma and Leadership in Organizations. London: Sage.
Burns, J. M. 1978. Leadership. New York: Harper and Row.
Conger, J. A., and R. N. Kanungo. 1998. Charismatic Leadership in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Del-Corte-Lora, V., F. X. Molina-Morales, and T. M. Vallet-Bellmunt. 2016. “Mediating Effect of Creativity between Breadth
of Knowledge and Innovation.” Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 28 (7): 768–782.
Dutton, J. E., and J. M. Dukerich. 1991. “Keeping an Eye on the Mirror: Image and Identity in Organizational Adaptation.”
Academy of Management Review 34 (3): 517–554.
Egri, C. P., and S. Herman. 2000. “Leadership in the North American Environmental Sector: Values, Leadership Styles, and
Contexts of Environmental Leaders and Their Organizations.” Academy of Management Journal 43 (4): 571–604.
Elkins, T., and R. T. Keller. 2003. “Leadership in Research and Development Organizations: A Literature Review and
Conceptual Framework.” The Leadership Quarterly 14 (4–5): 587–606.
Glaveanu, V. P., and T. Lubart. 2014. “Decentring the Creative Self: How Others Make Creativity Possible in Creative
Professional Fields.” Creativity and Innovation Management 23 (1): 29–43.
Gumusluoglu, L., and A. Ilsev. 2009a. “Transformational Leadership and Organizational Innovation: The Roles of Internal
and External Support for Innovation.” Journal of Product Innovation Management 26 (1): 264–277.
Gumusluoglu, L., and A. Ilsev. 2009b. “Transformational Leadership, Creativity, and Organizational Innovation.” Journal of
Business Research 62 (4): 461–473.
Hamel, G., and C. K. Prahalad. 1994. Competing for the Future. Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press.
Hanna, M. D., W. R. Newman, and P. Johnson. 2000. “Linking Operational and Environmental Improvement through
Employee Involvement.” International Journal of Operations and Production Management 20 (2): 148–165.
House, R. J., and R. N. Aditya. 1997. “The Social Scientific Study of Leadership: Quo Vadis?” Journal of Management 23 (3):
409–473.
Ilinitch, A. Y., N. S. Soderstrom, and T. E. Thomas. 1998. “Measuring Corporate Environmental Performance.” Journal of
Accounting and Public Policy 17 (4–5): 383–408.
Jung, D. I., C. Chow, and A. Wu. 2003. “The Role of Transformational Leadership in Enhancing Organizational Innovation:
Hypotheses and Some Preliminary Findings.” The Leadership Quarterly 14 (4–5): 525–544.
Keller, R. T. 1992. “Transformational Leadership and Performance of Research and Development Project Groups.” Journal
of Management 18 (3): 489–501.
Keller, R. T. 2006. “Transformational Leadership, Initiating Structure, and Substitutes for Leadership: A Longitudinal Study
of Research and Development Project Team Performance.” Journal of Applied Psychology 91 (1): 202–210.
Kodama, M. 2005. “New Knowledge Creation through Leadership-based Strategic Community –A Case of New Product
Development in IT and Multimedia Business Fields.” Technovation 25 (8): 895–908.
Liu, J., X. Liu, and X. Zeng. 2011. “Does Transactional Leadership Count for Team Innovativeness? The Moderating Role
of Emotional Labor and the Mediating Role of Team Efficacy.” Journal of Organizational Change Management 24
(3): 282–298.
Melnyk, S. A., R. P. Sroufe, and R. Calantone. 2003. “Assessing the Impact of Environmental Management Systems on
Corporate and Environmental Performance.” Journal of Operations Management 21 (3): 329–351.
Mulki, J. P., F. Jaramillo, and W. B. Locander. 2006. “Emotional Exhaustion and Organizational Deviance: Can the Right Job
and a Leader’s Style Make a Difference?” Journal of Business Research 59 (12): 1222–1230.
Osterman, P. 1994. “How Common is Workplace Transformation and How Can We Explain Who Adopts It?” Industrial and
Labor Relations Review 47 (2): 173–188.
Paulsen, N., D. Maldonado, V. J. Callan, and O. Ayoko. 2009. “Charismatic Leadership, Change and Innovation in an R&D
Organization.” Journal of Organizational Change Management 22 (5): 511–523.
Pieterse, A. N., D. van Knippenberg, M. Schippers, and D. Stam. 2010. “Transformational and Transactional Leadership and
Innovative Behavior: The Moderating Role of Psychological Empowerment.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 31 (4):
609–623.
Podsakoff, P. M., S. B. Mackenzie, R. H. Moorman, and R. Fetter. 1990. “Transformational Leaders Behaviors and Their Effect
on Followers’ Trust in Leader, Satisfaction, and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors’.” The Leadership Quarterly 1 (2):
107–142.
14 B. JUNQUERA AND J. Á. DEL BRÍO

Porter, M. E., and C. van der Linde. 1995. “Green and Competitive: Ending the Stalemate.” Harvard Business Review 73 (5):
120–137.
Rafferty, A. E., and M. A. Griffin. 2004. “Dimensions of Transformational Leadership. Conceptual and Empirical Extensions.”
The Leadership Quarterly 15 (3): 329–354.
Ramus, C. A. 2001. “Organizational Support for Employees: Encouraging Creative Ideas for Environmental Sustainability.”
California Management Review 43 (3): 85–105.
Rao, P. 2002. “Greening the Supply Chain: A New Initiative in South East Asia.” International Journal of Operations and
Production Management 22 (6): 632–655.
Rawung, F. H., N. F. Wuryaningrat, and L. E. Elvinit. 2015. “The Influence of Transformational and Transactional Leadership
on Knowledge Sharing: An Empirical Study on Small and Medium Businesses in Indonesia.” Asian Academy of
Management Journal 20 (1): 123–145.
Seltzer, J., and B. M. Bass. 1990. “Transformational Leadership: Beyond Initiation and Consideration.” Journal of
Management 16 (4): 693–703.
Sharma, S., and H. Vredenburg. 1998. “Proactive Corporate Environmental Strategy and the Development of
Competitively Valuable Organizational Capabilities.” Strategic Management Journal 19 (8): 729–753.
Si, S., and F. Wei. 2012. “Transformational and Transactional Leaderships, Empowerment Climate, and Innovation
Performance: A Multilevel Analysis in the Chinese Context.” European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology 21 (2): 299–320.
Sosik, J. J., S. S. Kahai, and B. J. Avolio. 1998. “Transformational Leadership and Dimensions of Creativity: Motivating Idea
Generation in Computer-mediated Groups.” Creativity Research Journal 11 (2): 111–121.
Thite, M. 2000. “Leadership Styles in Information Technology Projects.” The Journal of Product Innovation Management 18
(4): 235–241.
Tucker, S., N. Turner, J. Barling, E. M. Reid, and C. Elving. 2006. “Apologies and Transformational Leadership.” Journal of
Business Ethics 63 (2): 195–207.
Waldman, D. A., and L. Atwater. 1994. “The Nature of Effective Leadership and Championing at Different Level in an R&D
Hierarchy.” The Journal of High Technology Management Research 5 (2): 233–245.
Waldman, D. A., G. G. Ramírez, R. J. House, and P. Puranam. 2001. “Does Leadership Matter? CEO Leadership Attributes
and Profitability Under Conditions of Perceived Environmental Uncertainty.” Academy of Management Journal 44 (1):
134–143.
Waldman, D. A., and F. J. Yammarino. 1999. “CEO Charismatic Leadership: Levels-of-Management and Levels-of-Analysis
Effects.” Academy of Management Review 24 (2): 266–285.
Yorges, S., H. Weiss, and O. Strickland. 1999. “The Effect of Leader Outcomes on Influence, Attributions, and Perceptions of
Charisma.” Journal of Applied Psychology 84 (3): 428–436.
Yukl, G. 2002. Leadership in Organizations. 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Yukl, G. A. 2006. Leadership in Organizations. 6th ed. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.