This critical writing is a review of the article “Does Innovation Leadership Enhance Creativity in High-Tech Industries” by Feng-Cheng Tung and Tsu-Wei Yu. Mainly, the authors’ purpose is to analyze the importance of innovation leadership in enhancing creativity in high-tech industries. In particular, it builds up a substantial knowledge of the impact of innovation leadership inform of instrumental, supportive, and participative on supervisory-based employee tasks via a strong regulatory focus on employees using prevention and promotion.
Notably, the article relates to other works in the same subject regarding innovation leadership and creativity. Considerably, a significant number of organizations rely on creativity and innovation because of their role in formulating business strategies. The authors of the article are not only knowledgeable but also have reputation and authority in the field. Remarkably, Tung is an assistant professor (Kun Shan University) whose interests include leadership, innovation, organization development, marketing, human resource, and information system. On the other hand, Yu is an assistant professor (Chaoyang University of Technology) with interests in the organization, management, marketing management, and finance.
The intended audiences of the article include human resource managers, IT experts, financial managers, organizational leadership, innovators, supervisors, employees, scholars, and general readers. Mainly, the objective of the article is to present an argument that builds on the audiences’ past knowledge or research. Notably, Tung and Yu agree with contemporary literature that the creativity of an employee forms the basis of creativity and innovation in an organization; and hence, business performance (579). However, they argue that the creativity and innovation of an employee are not automatic; thus, leaders have to provide employees with support and encouragement during the creative process. The article is based on the identified study gap in which prior studies have only studied leadership as the only factor influencing creativity. In this regard, the article considers both leadership creativity and innovation.
The authors of the study have comprehensively defined important terms and explained them in the perspective of the arguments presented in the article. In particular, “the study defines innovation leadership and then develops a measurement of its dimensions by examining the relationship between innovation leadership, regulatory focus, and employee creativity, and then further by examining the mediating effect of regulatory focus” (Tung and Yu 580). The three leadership styles namely innovation leadership, supportive leadership, and participative leadership are well defined and well explained in the perspective of high-tech industries. For instance, participative leadership is defined as a style that promotes group decision making; whereby, participative leaders permit employees to make some decisions regarding their work (Tung and Yu 580). Mainly, participative leaders desist from imposing their own ideas and opinions, value, and rely on subordinates’ standpoints.
The information presented in the article constitutes both facts and opinions. Notably, the findings of the empirical study constitute the facts that authors use to make conclusions. For instance, the findings of the study show that both supportive and participative leadership have a positive relationship with the creativity of supervisory-based subordinates with regard to promotion. On opinions, the authors rely on prior studies and theories to interpret the facts. In particular, Tung and Yu rely on a large number of peer-reviewed studies to show a link between the styles of leadership used and the performance of the business through innovation and creativity (580). Overall, the information contained in the article is well researched.
Throughout the article, the authors have clearly stated and supported their main arguments and conclusions with evidence and conclusions. For instance, they have argued that participative leadership and supportive leadership styles have a considerable positive relationship to the prevention focus of employees, they do not have a positive relationship to the prevention focus of employees (Tung and Yu 583). Besides, they have maintained that the promotion focus of employees has a significant positive relationship with their creativity. Using empirical sample data, they have supported and concluded that participative leadership and supportive leadership styles have a positive relationship with creativity when employees focus on promotion. Again, the Tung and Yu have noted that instrumental leadership style has a positive relationship to the prevention focus of employees, and a negative relationship to the creativity of the employees (582-583). Further, their findings have demonstrated a positive relationship between the creativity of employees and instrumental leadership that is entirely associated with the prevention focus of employees.
This article is a study whose purpose is to explore innovation leadership dimensions and their relationship to employee creativity and regulatory focus. Notably, the methodology is characterized by a clearly outlined study model and expected results in the form of a figure (Tung and Yu 584). In particular, the model captures leadership styles, regulatory focus, and creativity. Besides, the methodology has control variables attached to creativity such as education, age, gender, and employee position. Further, the study relied on data attained from 206 employees and their supervisors working in the high-tech industry in Taiwan (Tung and Yu 584). Overall, the methodology is well presented; while, the sample used is considered a representative of the entire population of the completely high-tech industry in Taiwan.
Particularly, I believe that the article presents comprehensive information as I anticipated to find after reading its content. As the topic of the article suggests, the entire article focuses on enlightening the reader on whether innovation leadership enhances creativity in high-tech industries. Besides, the information in the article is organized logically; hence, easy to follow. Notably, it contains main sections such as introduction, literature review and hypothesis development, methodology, data analysis and results, and, conclusion. Further, some of the main sections have subsections for the specification of content and easy reading. Thus, the writers’ style is suitable for the intended audience such as busy business leaders and managers as they can skim through and still grasp the main ideas of the article. Again, the language used in the presentation of ideas, arguments, and conclusions is objective as it is based on prior studies and empirical data rather than personal emotions and bias. Finally, the charts and tables are used effectively to represent information such as the study model and the findings of the study.
In conclusion, Tung and Yu’s article is not only enlightening but also well written. Primarily, the article focuses on providing the reader with knowledge about the effect of innovation leadership on creativity in high-tech industries. Mainly, the article is intended for business leaders, managers, scholars, and general readers. Again, the authors have clearly stated, defined, and supported their important terms and main arguments with evidence, and made related conclusions. Besides, the language used in the article is objective as it is based on prior research and empirical study. Overall, the article is organized logically; thus, easy to read and follow.
Work Cited
Tung, Feng-Cheng, and Tsu-Wei Yu. “Does Innovation Leadership Enhance Creativity in High-Tech Industries?” Leadership & Organization Development Journal, vol. 54, no. 9, 2015, pp. 579-592.