An Empirical Study of the Relationships between Leader, Member, and Innovative Operation in the High Tech Industry

ABSTRACT The purpose of this study is to provide the high tech industry with a concise review of the following: Big-Five personality traits, transformational leadership style, transactional leadership style, and the relationship of each of the above to innovative operation. The study was conducted using a sample of 324 members of high tech firms in Taiwan. Hybrid analyses were used to evaluate the hypotheses of the study. Several conclusions can be drawn from this study. First, the findings indicated that the traits of extraversion and agreeableness have a significant positive relationship to perception of innovative operation in high tech firms. Second, the active participant leadership style, which is characteristic of transformational leadership, combined with the characteristics of transactional leadership without management-by-exception, is the best way to lead team members to operating with innovation within high tech industries. A discussion of the key research findings and some suggested directions for future research are provided. INTRODUCTION After entering the WTO, business competition with other countries became even more fierce in Taiwan. The literature has noted that a firm will lose its market share if it does not innovate (Daft, 2004; Krause, 2004). Additionally, the high tech industry in Taiwan is Taiwan's most profitable industry. Thus, for top managers and the Taiwanese government, it has become important to understand how to more efficiently promote innovation to gain substantial competitive advantage. Recent studies have indicated that both top managers and members can influence the success of an organization (Beng & Robert, 2004). However, studies have also revealed that many firms fail to operate well (Glower & Hagon, 1998; Cuban, 1999) due to low rates of member participation (McLaughlin, cited in Rudduck, 1991) and poor leadership by top managers (Shally, Zhou, & Oldman, 2004). In this regard, the aim of this study is to discuss how top managers and members, based on their personality traits and leadership styles, can successfully promote innovation. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE AND HYPOTHESIS Personality Traits and Related Research During the past fifteen years, there has been an increasing number of studies focusing on the relationships between personality traits and performance, collective and individual (Hurtz & Donovan, 2000; Barrick, Mount, & Judge, 2001). Personality traits can involve the role played, a person's thinking style, or their emotional stability over a long period of time (Funder, 2001). The most accepted categorization of personality traits is the so-called Big Five, which was proposed by Costa & McCrea (1988). The Big Five includes the personality traits of Extraversion, Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, Neuroticism, and Openness to Experience. Recent literature has proposed that Neuroticism, Extraversion, and Conscientiousness have strong positive relationships with work performance and the success of a firm's operation (Hurtz & Donovan, 2000). Some studies have indicated that aperson who possesses Neuroticism will be more likely to have negative emotions (Suis, Green, & Hills, 1998), poor work performance (Tokar & Subich, 1997), low job satisfaction (Judge and Locke, 1993; Necowitz & Roznowski, 1994), and separation from colleagues (Brief, Butcher, & Roberson, 1995). Hl. Neuroticism has a significant negative relationship with innovative operation. The literature has also revealed that a member who possesses Extraversion generally has high job satisfaction (Watson & Slack, 1993; Tokar & Subich, 1997). Some researchers, however, have noted that while good job performance leads to a worker's advancement, a worker who also possesses Extraversion will achieve a top position (Hurtz & Donovan, 2000; Hogan & Holland, 2003). There is also literature that argues that Conscientiousness has a positive relationship with performance, success of the operation (Timothy, Chad, Carl, & Murray, 1999), and the individual's position within the company (Mount, Barrick, & Stewart, 1 998). …