International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management

Leadership Styles and their relationship with TQM Focus for Indian Firms: An Empirical Investigation
Vimal Kumar, R.R.K. Sharma,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Vimal Kumar, R.R.K. Sharma, "Leadership Styles and their relationship with TQM Focus for Indian Firms: An
Empirical Investigation", International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management , https://doi.org/10.1108/
IJPPM-03-2017-0071
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-03-2017-0071
Downloaded on: 18 May 2018, At: 10:16 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:178665 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
Downloaded by INSEAD At 10:16 18 May 2018 (PT)

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 Leadership Styles and their relationship with TQM Focus for Indian Firms: An Empirical
Investigation
Abstract
Purpose - This research paper seeks to examine leadership styles and their impact on TQM focus within Indian firms.
Design/methodology/approach - The empirical data for this study was drawn from a survey of 111 firms in India to
examine the validity and reliability of the independent constructs (leadership styles: transformational, servant, adaptive,
rational, and kinesthetic); and two dependent constructs (TQM focus: continuous improvement and innovation). The data
was analyzed employing correlation and multiple regression analysis to identify the influence of leadership styles on TQM
focus.
Findings - The results of the study revealed that six hypotheses from nine have a significant and positive relationship with
TQM focus; one hypothesis is partial while rest two hypotheses are not associated with TQM focus. It is also found that
leadership styles are more inclined to continuous improvement and perceived as dominant TQM practices than innovation.
Research limitations/implications - The present study used only two major variables continuous improvement and
innovation as the outcome of TQM focus, but the outcomes are not limited. TQM focus is also related to other variables
customer focus, product quality, employee involvement, and benchmarking etc. Future research should be extended by
using other variables as the outcome of TQM focus.
Originality/value - The results can be beneficial for the current organization’s leaders to achieve appropriate leadership
styles for effective and TQM focus. Moreover, this paper also attempts to inspire researchers to include the TQM focus in
Downloaded by INSEAD At 10:16 18 May 2018 (PT)

studying the effect of the leaders on TQM focus while implementing it effectively in the organizations.
Keywords: Leadership, TQM focus, continuous improvement, innovation, multiple regressions

1. Introduction
TQM is a management philosophy which aims towards customer satisfaction by superior performance (increased
productivity, lower product cost, and better product reliability) and optimal use of all the resources of an organization
(Kumar & Sharma, 2017). In the competitive era, organizations want to excel and therefore focus on making their product
quality and service criteria better than others to attract customers. So, the organizations focus on market changes,
customer’s preferences, technological improvement and development (Kumar & Sharma, 2017). Organizations need
effective & planned innovation; coordination among employees which can be possible with the presence of effective
leadership. The leadership styles provide managers with TQM focus to promote a TQM organization, so, managers can
make a correct and effective decision through the adequate prescription of appropriate leadership style (Chih & Lin, 2009).
Effective leaders think the innovative way to lead overall growth in their organization by proper controlling of the
organization activities. This study establishes the relationship between five leadership styles & TQM focus and it recognizes
that the relationships develop for the firm competitiveness. This research also focuses on the Indian firms as the main
research object and probes using regression and correlation in order to build the model of leadership style and TQM focus.
The TQM focus encourages to the employees at all levels of the organization in resolving the problem of quality and
motivates for continual work improvement to achieve the projected goals. The effective organizational leadership
acknowledges the inherent value of delegation and autonomy. Baker et al. (1993) found that leadership displays not the
only acumen in decision-making and strategic planning while it has the capacity to react proactively to extraordinary
circumstances through the utilization of the change management tools. We focus that TQM leaders have the positive
characteristics which are important for the successful TQM implementation and realize the leadership support to TQM in
terms of strategic planning and decision making. Saraph et al. (1989); Flynn et al. (1994); Ahire et al. (1996); Black &
Porter (1996) and Kaynak (2003) consider TQM practices named customer focus, supplier relationship, training, employee
focus, quality measurement, quality process, zero defect, product design, process management, teamwork and
benchmarking etc. Garvin (1988) identifies four major types of quality focus: quality inspection, statistical control, quality
assurance, and, strategic quality management. In this paper we have considered only continuous improvement and
innovation from them.
Continuous improvement is defined in terms of the process of the organizations; it is the ongoing process to remedy the
workflow for the betterment of the organizations. Moreover, the leaders take the course of action to attain continuous
quality improvement by small changes as improving to TQM rather than radical changes (Kumar & Sharma, 2017). There
are different steps in continuous improvement where team members examine each step to determine when the bottlenecks
occur then reduce the defects and improve customer satisfaction. It is not enough to improve the quality of ideas but also
focus on innovation in TQM to reduce the complaint rate or defects rate and generates innovative ideas to develop the
competitive excellence. Tushman & Nadler (1997) assert: “In today’s business environment, there is no executive task more
vital and demanding than the sustained management of innovation and change; to compete in this ever-changing
environment, companies must create new products, services, and processes; to dominate they must adopt innovation as a
way of corporate life”. TQM provides a necessary platform to develop the competitive excellence through leadership to
 achieve continuous improvement and innovation. The two research objectives of this study can be articulated as follows: 1.
Establish the relationship between leadership styles and TQM focus. 2. Appropriate leadership style has a greater
association with continuous improvement and innovation individually. This paper organized as follows: section 2 devotes to
brief review of the literature on leadership styles, continuous improvement and innovation. We relate theoretical framework
and hypotheses development with past literature in Section 3. Section 4 outlines the research methodology followed data
analysis and results in section 5. Section 6 briefly outlines the discussion and conclusions followed by limitations of the
study and future research in Section 7.

2. Literature Review
Leadership is at the heart of successful strategic plans, a primary factor in organizational success. Within the context of
TQM approach, the correlation between leadership and strategic plans which constructively contribute to organizational
success. Thereafter this study is paralleled empirically validate the relationship between leadership, decision-making and
organizational success/ability to survive the crisis, change and conflict. According to Bhushan & Rai (2004), decisions
impact the organization as a whole and can function as either obstacles to, or enablers of, the realization of strategic goals,
hence the attainment of organizational success. The empirical studies indicate that organizational leadership is at the core of
effective strategic decision making. It also guides the organizations through change, conflict and crisis, lending to the
contention that acumen in decision-making is a testament to effective leadership. In this study, it is clear that TQM leaders
have effective decision making and leadership considered in TQM. The TQM leaders inspire, by appropriate means,
sufficient competence to influence a group of individuals to become willing followers in the achievement of organizational
Downloaded by INSEAD At 10:16 18 May 2018 (PT)

goals (John, 1992). Their leadership behavior and style is the way in which the functions of leadership are carried out, the
way in which managers typically behave towards members of the group (Igbaekemen & Odivwri, 2015). The leadership
styles can influence the effectiveness and it depends on TQM focus as continuous improvement & innovation and show the
relationship of leadership styles to TQM focus. To the next, a brief review of literature of TQM leadership, continuous
improvement, and innovation is given.

2.1 Leadership styles in TQM practices

According to the theory of TQM, success is measured in terms five parameters namely effectiveness, efficiency,
productivity, quality, and non-quality related measures such as defects, error rates, the cost of poor quality and deliveries
not on time etc. (Oakland, 1995). TQM is, as Easton & Jarrell (1998) maintain, a comprehensive organizational
management system which is based upon the integration of several managerial perspectives, approaches, and theories into
one, in acknowledgment of the complexity of organizational structures themselves. TQM, insofar as it is predicated upon
strategic management, well- defined decision-making model, project management and performance measurement, embrace
the tools particular to each of the stated (Sila, 2007). Leadership is a process which holds the entire employees for
achieving a particular task or goal and influence their behavior or actions on others. For the success of an organization, the
leader plays an important role (Bass, 1985). Leadership is conceptualized within behavioral domains varying from
transformational, servant, adaptive, rational leadership, and leadership for kinesthetic styles. A description of each
leadership style is as follows:

2.1.1. Transformational Leadership

Transformational leadership means “a relationship of mutual stimulation and elevation that converts followers into a leader
and may convert leaders into moral agents” (Burns, 1978), which is also regarded as the most effective leadership style
(Bass, 1985; Burns, 1878). Transformational leadership raises followers’ motivation through exchange values and thus
achieves better performance and self-actualization. Transformational leaders express confidence in the ability of team
members to achieve goals and they facilitate coordination and cooperation among team members, resulting in a high level
of team potency, cohesion and morale, subsequently lifting overall team performance (Wang et al., 2011; Patiar & Wang,
2016). Bass (1985) identified four factors that characterize the behavior of transformational leaders: individualized
consideration, intellectual stimulation, inspirational motivation and idealized influence. The transformational leaders
motivate the team to be effective and efficient. Communication is the base for goal achievement focusing the group on the
final desired outcome or goal attainment. This leader is highly visible and uses a chain of command to get the job done.
They focus on the big picture, needing to be surrounded by employees who take care of the details. The leader is always
looking for ideas that move the organization to reach the company’s vision (Burns, 1978). This leads to high
productivity and engagement from everyone in their team. The leaders engage with others in such a way that leaders and
followers raise one another to higher levels of motivation and morality, and motivates followers to accomplish more than
what is usually expected. Transformation is a process that changes and transforms and this process is concerned with the
emotions, values, standards, ethics, and long- term goals. Decisions taken by a manager are very important as they affect
a large number of employees. Thus the leadership skills of the manager have to be very pronounced. An organic, non-
formalized organization with a larger span of control is conducive for transformational leadership to appear.
 2.1.2. Servant leadership
The characteristics of the servant leadership focus on personal growth as a route to better serve others, enabling
environments that empower and encourage to provide better services. Moreover, it also focuses on the creating commitment
as a way to collaborative activity and community building as a way to create environments in which employees can trust
each other and work together. This leadership focuses on nurturing the spirit as a way to provide joy and fulfillment in
meaningful work (Greenleaf, 1977) and it requires more care in the organization for customer satisfaction and the rigors of
market competition. Traditional leadership generally involves the accumulation and exercise of power by one at the “top of
the pyramid”. Further, Greenleaf (1977) explained by comparison that these leaders share powers and recognizes the needs of
others first and helps employees develop and perform as highly as possible. “The Servant as Leader”, an essay that he first
published in 1970. The highest priority of a servant leader is to encourage, support and enable subordinates to unfold their
full potential and abilities. According to Hamilton (2008), several positive outcomes can be observed at servant-led
organizations, including the following: Mission and value focus; innovation; responsiveness and flexibility; commitment to
both internal and external service; respect for employees; employee loyalty; and celebration of diversity. Van Dierendonck
& Nuijten (2011) and Van Dierendonck et al. (2017) focus on characteristics of servant leadership as empowerment,
humility, standing back, authenticity, forgiveness, courage, accountability, and stewardship. While Keith (2008) described
servant leadership as ethical, practical, and meaningful. On the basis of Greenleaf’s writings, Spears (2010) identified ten
characteristics of servant leaders, including listening, empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion, conceptualization, foresight,
stewardship, commitment to the growth of others, and building community. This leadership emphasizes on the work
together, trust and support that leads to the organization growth and TQM performance. A servant-leader is one who is
Downloaded by INSEAD At 10:16 18 May 2018 (PT)

committed to the growth of both the individual and the organization, and who works to build community within
organizations. Greenleaf (1977) suggests that servant leadership produces organizational success because it builds or
creates a trusting, supportive community that fosters creativity and initiative. The characteristics are central to the
development of a servant-leader are: building trust relationships, the growth of individuals & organizations, supportive top &
low-level management, employee loyalty, respect for employees, empowerment of employee & encouragement, concern for
the growth of employees and community building.

2.1.3. Adaptive leadership

Adaptive leadership (ALT, 2009; Trivellas & Dargenidou, 2009; and CLA, 2015) focuses on the leader’s positive aspects of
transformative change and create innovative approaches to problems rooted in the status quo. Adaptive leaders are suited to
drive creative approaches in the increasingly complex environment. Leaders at all levels can enhance the determinants of
organization performance, which include efficiency and process reliability, innovation and adaptation, and human resources
and relations. The long-term survival and prosperity of an organization depend on high efficiency, timely adaptation to
external change, and a high level of commitment and cooperation by talented employees at all levels. Successful
companies have leaders who demonstrate greater flexibility and competence in dealing with the difficult challenges posed
by these performance determinants. The essence of adaptive leadership for innovation just because of in adaptation one
key to success is to embrace trial and error. It also develops the courage to risk and know failure–and adapt from those
failures with adjustments - accept the risk of failure. These types of risk/failure are keys to the origin of innovation.
Adaptive leadership focuses on accepting and tolerating failure and just because of tolerance adaptive leadership is
emphasized on the innovation (Heifetz et al., 2009). There are two tips toward adaptive leadership: 1. Try new things with the
expectation that some experiments will fail. 2. Make failure survivable because it will be common. Delude the mistakes tends
to compound them by making stupid decisions in an effort to deny the failure ever happened. Leaders are unconventional
and unlimited in their thinking with creative ideas therefore; they apply creative means to issues in order to discover
possibilities for new solutions. Further, they always prepare with the entrepreneurial spirit to take calculated risks and do
things differently if it helps to meet the needs of customers.

2.1.4. Rational leadership

Rational means to think in a reasonable way. Rational leaders make statements, decisions, or judgments using reasoned
thinking, based on facts, and applying rules (Chris, 2009). Hughes et al. (2006) and Teresa (2013) defined the rational
leaders are the goal oriented and behave as they do because they believe that performing their chosen actions has more
benefits than costs. They make rational choices based on their goals, and those choices govern their behavior. They would
make a strong effort to determine all the significant facts necessary to make a particular decision before that decision is
made and accept the environmental conditions. Further, they accept the shortcomings as well as talents and look at the only
facts behind before making a decision.

2.1.5. Leadership for kinesthetic learning style

Constantly experiment and new things can be achieved by continuous learning effort. Meso et al. (2002) stated that
organizational learning has a significant impact on the sustainable competitive position of a firm. The kinesthetic learning
 style is used to describe the leaders who learn through experience (Grabowski & Jonassen, 1993). Additionally, they
find it difficult to impossible to sit quietly without moving. They are easily distracted if they are not engaged in some
activity. They have “to feel” the objects in their hands to derive information effectively (Sims & Sims, 1995). A
kinesthetic learner prefers to learn through touch, feel, and hands-on experience. Kinesthetic learners like to learn new
tasks by experimenting and trying things out. Very seldom, do leaders with this type of learning style read directions before
they begin a task. The characteristics of these leaders are: Improvements are based on many, small changes rather than the
radical changes, as the ideas come from the workers themselves; they are less likely to be radically different, and
therefore easier to implement; small improvements are less likely to require major capital investment than major process
changes; the ideas come from the talents of the experience; all employees should continually be seeking ways to improve
their own performance; it helps encourage workers to take ownership for their work, and can help reinforce team
working, thereby improving worker motivation.

2.2 Continuous Improvement in TQM practices

The importance of continuous improvement of processes and outcomes on a number of performance parameters to the
competitive success of organizations has been highlighted by the examples of Japanese companies (Imai, 1986). Thus,
continuous improvement is defined as the relentless quest to satisfy all customers through constant refinement of
organizational processes and financial, mechanical and human resources. Leaders initiate and reinforce continuous
improvement (Deming, 1986). By envisioning and clearly articulating continuous improvement as an organizational value,
leaders are able to encourage employees to improve processes, products and services. Moreover, continuous improvement is
Downloaded by INSEAD At 10:16 18 May 2018 (PT)

an ongoing improvement in products, programs, services and processes; it plays a critical role in a TQM environment (Lam
et al., 2015). According to Imai (1986), a continuous improvement is a process-oriented approach; referred to as the “plan-
do-check-act” (PDCA) cycle is used to improve the processes. A process-oriented approach, referred to as the PDCA cycle
is used for process improvement. Shewart in the 1920s introduced the concept of the plan, do, see. Later, the TQM guru
Deming modified this cycle as: plan, do, study, and act (Singh & Singh, 2015). The Deming improving cycle is continuous
quality improvement model which consist of these four repetitive steps for continuous improvement and learning: PDCA:
Plan: study current situation and develop changes for improvement, Do: pilot measures on a trial basis, Check: Examine
effect of changes to see if the desired result is achieved, and Action: standardize on a permanent basis. Bound (1995)
indicated that continuous improvement is a program to reduce order processing times, service development cycle-time,
service delivery cycle times as well as reducing paperwork and to find wasted time and cost in all the internal processes. The
evolutionary model of the continuous improvement process is discussed in figure 1.

Figure 1: An evolutionary model of the continuous improvement process. Source: Jorgensen et al. (2006) and Bessant et al. (2001), and Kumar & Sharma
(2017)

2.3 Innovation in TQM practices

TQM approaches is a powerful management tool for innovation because the success of TQM implementation is primarily
the potential to bring about a change in company culture through creative accumulation and integration of knowledge. The
organization must meet the necessary conditions: to focus primarily on human resources for knowledge creation and
storage, to ensure strong participation and formation processes of innovation. Along with constant experiment, leaders try
new things in a learning effort to maintain sustainable competitive advantage. Majaro (1988) looks at innovation as a
process where ideas are generated and transformed for implementation to business products and services. In the current
competitive era, innovation in the organization has become the basis for creating and sustaining competitiveness (Kanji,
1996) which also shows that the integration of TQM and innovation increase their profits and market share by using an
evolutionary process to develop business excellence. In order to avoid failure, the organizations always try to do better
innovation (Trivellas & Santouridis, 2009). It will also help in achieving business success, to improve business performance
and foster competitiveness so, many organizations worldwide have adopted TQM principles (Pinho, 2008). The major focus
of marketing innovation and TQM theory is to address the customer needs and increase the sales volume of the firm by
means of introducing new markets or through positioning a product on the market. Product and process innovation belong
to technological innovation at large (Damanpour, 1987). Jackson et al. (2016) define the quality management innovation as
 one of those elements of TQM that specifically support or enhance the innovation processes in products and services. Since
the relationship between quality management and innovation is rather controversial (Kafetzopoulos, 2015), however this
study concentrated on the quality management practices that are potentially more supportive to the innovation process.
Further, Kafetzopoulos (2015) explained that many organizations always try to get the competitive advantage in the markets
through technical innovation (process and product innovation) and make a strong relationship with quality management.
According to Al-Dhaafri et al. (2016), strategies, processes, behaviors, and activities play a role for innovativeness that
represents the willingness and tendency of the organizations to achieve innovation and the organizational innovativeness
effects on organizational performance. Juran (1988) and Prajogo & Sohal (2003) found that the organizations always focus
on customer satisfaction and consistently search for new customer needs and expectations demand. Therefore, it leads to the
organizations to be innovative in terms of developing and introducing new products as a continual adaptation to the
market’s changing needs. Williams (1992) argues if the organizations focus their strategy on making frequent and fast
innovations; they would not have time to learn about the processes in order to statistically control them to achieve a high
level of conformance. According to Flynn et al. (1994), businesses practices prefer the concept of quality management
within the structure of the firm before addition of innovation concept therefore, innovation and quality both cannot be
achieved at the same time. On the other hand, Feng (2006) reported the firms must improve both quality and innovativeness
in a changing marketplace concurrently. Innovation allows to the organizations in adapting changes quickly and helps in the
finding new products, markets, protect themselves from the unstable environment (Costa & Lorente, 2008). The TQM
practices is a good way of improving quality while facilitating the innovation process therefore, the organization’s strategy
should focus on innovation and maintain the quality standards (Nowak, 1997; Zehir, 2012). The features of continuous
Downloaded by INSEAD At 10:16 18 May 2018 (PT)

improvement and innovation is depicted in Table 1.

Table 1: Features of continuous improvement and innovation Source: Imai, 1986, Prajogo & Sohal, 2001

SN Features Continuous Improvement Innovation

1 Effect Long-term and long-lasting, but undramatic Short-term, but dramatic
2 Pace Small steps Big steps
3 Time frame Continuous and incremental Intermittent and non-incremental
4 Change Gradual and constant Abrupt and volatile
5 Involvement Everybody Select few “champions”
6 Approach Collectivism, group efforts, systems approach Rugged individualism, individual ideas and efforts
7 Mode Maintenance and improvement Scrap and rebuild
8 Spark Conventional know-how and state of the art Technological breakthroughs, new inventions, new theories
9 Practical requirements Requires little investment, but great effort to maintain it Requires large investment, but little effort to maintain it
10 Effort orientation People Technology
11 Evaluation criteria Process and efforts for better results Results for profits
12 Advantage Works well in slow-growth economy Better suited to fast-growth economy

3. Theoretical framework and hypotheses development

This research framework has been developed in accordance with the literature review. In the global marketplace, the current
market scenario is very competitive among the organizations therefore, it focuses on competitive advantage and
organization competencies. Further, Kumar & Sharma (2016) emphasized on those organizations who develop their product
quality & innovative idea for sustainability. Moreover, leadership is required in order to achieve better product performance
and make quality & business excellence. The role of leadership in TQM adoption is characterized through planning,
controlling, organizing, motivating, and managing resources of the organization. Although, TQM scholars consider that
leadership is important but there has been little studies on linkages between leadership style and TQM studies believe that
leadership is a catalyst for quality improvement. Gonzalez & Guillen (2002) carried on the discussion of administrator’s
leadership style and ethical belief influence on TQM implementation, and the result of the study showed that leadership
really has a suitable influence on TQM. TQM outcomes such as continuous improvement and innovation should focus on
prescriptions concerning the application of appropriate leadership style necessarily. According to Rijal (2016), leadership
provides the vision and direction towards goal attainment. The leadership theories in the previous literature (trait theories,
behavioral theories, situational/contingency theories) considered leaders as heroes who made all the decisions. However, the
present generation of employees requires a leadership which encourages participation and creativity. Therefore, there is
plenty of evidence to show that leadership style has a positive influence on the implementation of TQM. The UK-based
Board Room report of April 1993 suggests that innovating firms tend to have a larger market share, higher growth rates and
profit, than none innovators. In the current highly competitive market, delighting customers is most important (Griffin et al.,
1995). As a consequence, the requirement for a business to be competitive and satisfy its customers as well as, or better than
its rivals is fundamental to the success and growth of the business. According to Irani et al. (2004), continuous improvement
and innovation are considered to be the lifeblood of many companies, and there is nothing so stultifying to those companies
or to the employee in it as a belief that the old ways must be the best ways. Further, Irani et al. (2004) emphasize that the
 implementations of these concepts require a blend of creativity, clear thinking, and the ability to get things done. It requires
thinkers and doers to work closely together. The success of continuous improvement and innovation has been dependent on
the characteristics of the individuals employed by the company, which have developed and nurtured by management over
several years. The foundation of the current research model (see figure 2) comprises leadership styles and TQM focus.

Figure 2: A research framework. Source: Author(s)

Downloaded by INSEAD At 10:16 18 May 2018 (PT)

3.1 Transformational leadership with continuous improvement and innovation

According to Yoshida et al. (2014), transformational leaders will excite and inspire followers to perform beyond
expectations, but their behaviors are typically motivated by a preoccupation within the organization. Hoch et al. (2016)
found that the effectiveness of transformational leadership, in explaining employee behaviors, attitudes, and relational
perceptions, the strong moral dimensions. Rijal (2016) identified the Transformational leaders raise the followers to a
higher level by changing their attitudes, beliefs, values and needs. Fulwiler & Gerlach (2014) identified the role
transformational leadership that plays in driving continuous improvement. Sattayaraksa & Boon-itt (2016) supported the
view that transformational leadership strongly affects the innovation. More specifically, it influences shared values and
beliefs within a firm that is favorable to open communication, risk taking, and exploring new opportunities.
Transformational leadership can contribute to an innovation culture by emphasizing the core values related to innovation,
rewarding creativity and innovation, and allow employees to try new ways of doing things. According to Jung et al. (2003),
transformational leadership can create an innovation culture where employees feel free to share their original ideas.
Transformational leaders, who intellectually stimulate employees and emphasize innovation, provide support for innovation
and autonomy for employees to explore new ideas and find novel solutions (Sattayaraksa & Boon-itt, 2016). The research
shows that employees working for transformational leaders are more innovative and direct their energy toward the benefit
of the organization (Xenikou & Simosi, 2006) leading to a committed workforce which promotes continuous improvements
(Feng et al., 2006). Rijal (2016) observed that they are visionary and encourage followers to perform beyond expectation.
These leaders are change agents and enable organizations to respond to change and cope with environmental uncertainties.
For instance, Oke et al. (2009) argued that, “Google CEO and founders have demonstrated transformational leadership in
making Google one of the most innovative companies in the world, by creating a fun environment and a relaxed culture in
which creativity thrives”. The organizations have to provide an effective and transformed thinking about the nature of
leadership. The new way of thinking can develop a new way of leadership that aims to achieve the objectives of the
organization and removes the barriers confronting productivity (Arrington, 2010). This leadership is the skill to get
employees to wish for change, to improve, and to be led. These leaders generate an awareness of the mission or vision of
the organization and develop employees to higher levels of capability and potential (Hassan & Aziah, 2013). Hassan &
Aziah (2013) understand that success is a team effort and growth is derived from the willingness to be open and listen to
ideas from all levels of their organization. Based on the above observations, the following hypotheses have been proposed:
H1: There is a positive and significant relationship between transformational leadership and continuous improvement in
an organization.
H2: There is a positive and significant relationship between transformational leadership and innovation in an
organization.

3.2 Servant leadership with continuous improvement and innovation

According to Yoshida et al. (2014), Servant leadership is a holistic approach to leadership that encompasses the rational,
relational, emotional, moral, and spiritual dimensions of leader-follower relationships. These followers enhance and grow
their capabilities, as well as develop a greater sense of their own worth as a result. Gigliotti & Dwyer (2016) emphasize that
servant leadership serve first and lead second. Owens & Hekman (2012) found that servant leaders can exert their effect by
 way of their humility in essence, modeling to followers how to grow and view their uncertainty about their own
development as legitimate. Liden et al. (2014) reported that servant leadership behaviors exert their effect by creating a
serving culture where all employees of the work unit engage in servant leadership behaviors. It is in turn related to
individual job performance, organizational performance, and lower turnover. Moreover, Flynn et al. (2016) identified the
relationship between servant leadership and valued individual and organizational outcomes, including followers’ helping
and creative behaviors, organizational citizenship behaviors, organizational learning, followers’ self-efficacy, engagement
with work, job satisfaction and motivation, service climate, trust in the leader and organization, and organizational
commitment. In addition, Greenleaf (1977); Yoshida et al. (2014) and Kumar & Sharma (2014) suggest that the mediated
effect of leader identification is strongest when team climate for innovation is high. This leadership style emphasizes on
trust and support of the organization growth and performance. Further, these leaders are committed to the growth of both
the individual and the organization to build community within organizations. The servant leadership affects both employee
creativity and team innovation and found that it promotes individual relational identification and collective prototypicality
with the leaders. Servant leadership directly influences affect-based trust & team and the leaders hold in that exemplify
team values for the sake of the team members. According to Yoshida et al. (2014), these prototypical leaders will also be
likely to foster collective effort in implementing creative ideas; in particular servant leadership influences both individual
creativity and team innovation. As such, the positive affect emerging out of the followers’ relationship with the servant
leader will foster their creativity. So, the characteristics of the servant leadership are building trusting relationships, growth
individuals, and organizations, supportive top and low-level management. They develop a corporate culture to attract another
servant leader, responsiveness and flexibility. They focus on employee loyalty, respect for the employee, empowerment of
Downloaded by INSEAD At 10:16 18 May 2018 (PT)

employee and encouragement, concern for the growth of employees, community building, delegation, and teaching. Based
on preceding discussions, the authors hypothesize that:
H3: Servant leadership in an organization will contribute positively towards continuous improvement.
H4: Servant leadership in an organization will also contribute positively towards creative idea generation.

3.3 Adaptive leadership with innovation

The performance of the organization depends not only on the decisions and actions of the chief executive, but on
commitment, cooperation, and coordination among leaders at different levels and in different subunits. Leaders at all the
levels need to continually improve their abilities to develop and execute winning strategies. This leadership is ideally suited
to drive creative approaches in such a complex environment. Govindarajan (2016) identified the weak signals which offer a
different way to think about a particular problem. Tapping into these signals can mean the difference between growth and
stagnation for companies today. The leaders are well-positioned to create cultural norms, tangible plans, and expectations in
which continuous improvement and transformative change will occur. They set up the systematic mechanisms and use them
for such as monitoring progress, impacts, and lessons learned, creating a “learning organization” to drive outcomes (ALT,
2009). Govindarajan (2016) explained that what adaptive leaders might think, they don’t really adapt to change. Adaptation
implies a response, a reaction to change. Adaptive leaders are proactive and keep eyes on the Mavericks. They anticipate
change, prepare for it, and often make change happen in the direction they want to go. There are more of everything-
competitors, consumers, opportunities and it’s spinning the marketplace at high speed, facilitated by lightning changes in
technology. Further, Govindarajan (2016) believes that the organizations accept maverick’s approaches and give values to
their ideas to gain confidence. They are more likely to share the kind of observations and promising innovations that help
companies move forward. This Leadership is a practical leadership framework that helps individuals and organizations
adapt and thrive in challenging environments (CLA, 2015). It is being able, both individually and collectively, to take on the
gradual but meaningful process of change. It is the framework that needs to diagnose, interrupt, and innovate to create the
capabilities that match organizations aspirations. It stresses innovativeness, entrepreneurship, adaptation and resource
acquisition (Trivellas & Dargenidou, 2009). A successful leadership requires patience, persistence, an eye for obstacles and
a willingness to overcome these attributes (Heifetz et al., 2009). The leaders focus on the positive aspects of the
transformative change and create innovative approaches to the problems rooted in the status quo. These leaders at every
levels can enhance the determinants of organization performance, which include efficiency and process reliability,
innovation and adaptation, and human resources and relations. The long-term survival and prosperity of an organization
depend on high efficiency, timely adaptation to external change, and a high level of commitment and cooperation by
talented employees at all the levels. Successful companies have leaders who demonstrate greater flexibility and
competence in dealing with the difficult challenges posed by these performance determinants. The essence of this
leadership for innovation is focused on adaptation one key to success is to embrace trial and error, develop the courage
to risk and know failure, adapt from the failures with adjustments and accept the risk of failure. Such type of risk or failure is
keys to the origin of innovation. The leadership focuses on accepting and tolerating failure and just because of tolerance
adaptive leadership is emphasized on the innovation. So, tries new things with the expectation that some experiments will
fail and make failure survivable because it will be common and make sure the leaders know when they have failed. If the
focus on the strategies and business models help them to lead the organizational innovation and growth, so this leadership is
 responsive to innovative generation. Based on above discussions, the hypothesis has been proposed that:
H5: Adaptive (flexible) leadership in an organization will achieve innovative results in the context of TQM.

3.4 Rational leadership with continuous improvement and innovation

The implications of new technology, new competitive threats, or industrial consolidation impact the financial ranks, along
with the organizations (Hughes et al., 2006). To take care of these situations, the rational leaders employed by managers
that help with the change-making process which needed to fit into the constantly changing work environment (Teresa,
2013). Leadership involves the rational side of a situation by Hughes et al. (2006). According to Teresa (2013), these
leaders are expected to innovate, develop, inspire, and look at long-term views, originate and always challenge the status
quo by being a change maker. This leadership is based on facts about performance and expectations for the future. These
leaders deal with their nature, reasoning and always analyzing the details of the facts and the reasons behind it, before
making any decisions, or acting on anything they do. They state that rationalist thinkers to consistent, value-maximizing,
and to be homogeneous across individuals. Rational leadership is logical, factual and is solely based on the numerical,
statistical, or sensible data that is presented. In the current era, the organizations face great challenges to achieve the
organizational goal, institutional culture, and productivity. Further, it stated when there are not enough infrastructures to
make big changes or to transform the vision of the entire organization, it is better just to adapt rational approach, do their
best, and develop good governance. The rational approach controls budget and costs and administers the programs that
leaders. The problem starts when the managers emphasize on the resistance to change behavior, promote the failure of plans
of action just because they interrupt the status quo (Coghlan & Brannick, 2010; Hughes et al., 2006).
Downloaded by INSEAD At 10:16 18 May 2018 (PT)

This leadership includes the formation of professional relationships and valuable employees networks (Chris, 2009).
Rational means to think in a reasonable way. Rational employees make statements, decisions, or judgments using
reasoned thinking, based on facts, and applying rules and the leaders are the goal oriented. The rational theory is the view
that employees behave as they do because they believe that performing their chosen actions has more benefits than
the costs. The employees make rational choices based on their goals, and those choices govern their behavior. Based on
the evidence, it has been proposed the following hypotheses:
H6: Rational leaders in an organization are suited for continuous improvement.
H7: Rational leaders in an organization are also suited for innovation.

3.5 Leadership with kinesthetic (experiential) learning style for continuous improvement and innovation
Opportunities to develop the better methods for carrying out work that always exists and a commitment to continuous
improvement ensures that the leaders will never stop learning about their work (Juran, 1969; Deming, 1986; and Ishikawa,
1985). It reinforces and emphasizes the improvement of both processes and outcomes the results that are likely to be much
more positive (Lakshman, 2006). Kinesthetic learning style is used to describe the leaders who learn from some experience;
they become experts after getting proper training and work experiences and learning transpires as a result of what is done
and leaders become habitual, movements performed with confidence and proficiency (Simpson, 1972). The leaders
modified or adapted to fit special situations and creating new movement patterns to fit a situation. These leaders focus on
discovery and action, think out issues, ideas and problems while they exercise, remember by using tools, building models
and manipulating things. According to Trofino (2000), the leaders develop their skills and expand their capacity to create
the results that they really desire. New and expansive patterns of thinking are encouraged, collectively aspiration is released
learns how to work together. They complement each other’s strength, shared common goals, resulting in extraordinary
results and generate and transfer new knowledge and technology. Their experiences provide important information
necessary to generate new creative ideas and solutions to organizations problem. They anticipate change and enhance their
capacity to be creative and innovative. According to Vincent & Ross (2001), the research in service that continues to
integrate more of the techniques. The leaders understand their learning styles, they can better adapt to their learning
environment. Throughout the training leaders enter many areas so, understanding learning styles are only a first step in
maximizing potential and overcoming learning differences. Further, he considers the processing components of the
kinesthetic modality are included in the active/reflective learning style category and a better understanding of learning
styles benefits not only trainers but learners as well.
It has been stressed on the leadership styles with continuous improvement and innovation. Continuous quality improvement
also should be put into learning and training process. New and expansive patterns of thinking are encouraged, collective
aspiration is released and leaders are constantly learning. Through their expertise experience, they find error detection,
correction, and prevention that is necessary for Innovation is connected to continuous improvement. Only a few researchers
start to view innovation essentially as an organizational learning and knowledge creation process (Wang & Ahmed, 2001),
which demonstrates a higher degree of proactiveness and interactiveness. So, the emphasis on the understanding of
kinesthetic learning approach to continuous improvement and Innovation. Based on substantial evidence, the following
hypotheses have been proposed:
H8: Kinesthetic learning style in an organization is an essential element in continuous improvement for TQM leaders.
 H9: Kinesthetic learning style in an organization is also an essential element in innovation for TQM leaders.

4. Research Methodology
In this section, the authors discuss sample and data collection procedure and an operational measure of variables used in this
study as well as the statistical tests used to evaluate the hypotheses. Based on the literature review, the authors developed
the conceptual framework and research instrument. Data collection and variable measurement of the constructs are
described in the following section.

4.1 Data Collection and Measurement Scale

The study is questionnaire based and most of the responses were collected manually and online. Data collection was done
on leadership styles and questions along with continuous improvement and innovation. The data was collected from the
potential respondents related to different departments of the ISO certified firms in India. The respondents belong to the
quality department along with quality managers. The authors have considered only the firms who are involved in TQM
practices fully or partially. Around 69% respondents were from different manufacturing industry, 23% and 8% belong to
service and other industries respectively. It has been considered the majority of most manufacturing firms in this study. A
total of 348 questionnaires was distributed. 26 questionnaires were rejected due to largely missing values. The total of 322
questionnaires has been considered out of which 111 are valid and useable questionnaires that have been used to conduct
final data analysis which showing a response rate of 34%. This response size was sufficient to test research hypotheses
(Hair et al., 2010). From the total respondents, 91% male while rest 9% are female and the average age was 28.5 years. The
Downloaded by INSEAD At 10:16 18 May 2018 (PT)

age range of sample was 18 to more than 50 years. There were 22% respondents belongs to a group of 18- 25 years, 74%
respondents belong to a group of 26-35 years, and 4% respondents belong to more than 35 years age group. From the
sample respondents, 28%, 55% and 17% respondents were top, middle and supervisory level management respectively.
From the respondent's group, 10%, 51%, and 35% of respondents belong to 0-1 year, 1-5 years, and 5-10 years of work
experience respectively while only 4% of respondents belong to more than 10 years’ work experience years’ group.

4.2 Variable Measurement

For testing the hypotheses, the authors used the SPSS 21 provided by the Institute. Correlation (using multiple regression
analysis) studies were used to determine the relationship between independent and dependent variables.
Independent variable: A total of 33 items captured the five elements namely transformational leadership (TL), servant
leadership (SL), adaptive leadership (AL), rational leadership (RL), leadership for kinesthetic learning style (LKL) under
investigation for data analysis. All items were measured on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 to 5 with “1” representing strongly
disagree “5” representing strongly agree.
Dependent variable: A total of 12 items captured two dependent variables namely continuous improvement (CI) and
Innovation (IN) and these constructs were measured by five-item scale adopted from different literature which described
below. All the constructs were measured by five-point Likert scale adopted from different literature which described below.
These items were worded and assessed on 5 points Likert scale from 1 to 5 with “1” representing strongly disagree “5”
representing strongly agree.

5. Statistical analysis and result

5.1 Factor Analysis and Scale Reliabilities
A principal component factor analysis with varimax rotation was conducted to validate the underlying leadership styles and
TQM focus (Table 3). Items in constructs were generally marked for elimination if they did not load at 0.60 or above. The
summary of these tests is presented in Table 3. In the factor analysis, it has been reported the several outputs such as Kaiser-
Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy for each factor should be 0.50 or above (Kaiser, 1974) while each of
Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant (p = 0.000 < 0.01). Eigenvalues (>1) and loadings (>0.5 or above) for all
constructs met significant (Hair et al., 2006). All the items of each scale had high factor loadings >0.60 on a single factor.
Thus, a model with five independent and two dependent factors are adequate to represent the data because the result of the
explained variance recommended in social sciences (Hair et al., 1998). Here in the current study, the authors consider these
five leadership styles are independent variables on a continuous scale and the two dependent variables continuous
improvement and innovation are on continuous scale therefore, multiple regression analysis was the most appropriate
approach to be employed to test the relationship.

Table 2: Reliability Statistics of leadership and TQM focus constructs

SN Constructs Total items Alpha Values (α)

1 TL 9 0.874
2 SL 7 0.819
3 AL 6 0.820
 4 RL 4 0.705
5 LKL 7 0.740
6 CI 5 0.724
7 IN 7 0.804

Before discussing reliability and validity of measuring items, the authors checked the assumption of outliers. To detect
multivariate outliers, the authors used Mahalanobis distances of predicted variable (Chohen et al., 2013). All the values of
Mahalanobis distances are less than or equal to .001. Factor analysis was initially undertaken for this study. Reliability
coefficient and inter-item correlations were computed to understand the variability and interdependence of the scales
derived from the factor analyses. After this, the hypothesis was tested using multiple regression analysis. A reliable measure
is one which repeatedly measures the same phenomenon with accuracy. Cronbach alpha is by far the most popular measure
of reliability (Peterson, 1994; Hogan et al., 2000; and Iacobucci & Duhachek, 2003). It takes into account the effect of each
item in estimating the overall reliability (Fried & Ferris, 1987). A measure is considered reliable if the Cronbach’s alpha
value is greater than 0.7 (Nunnally, 1978; Hair et al., 2010). This is the most accepted formula for assessing the reliability
of data. These values indicate that all constructs archiving internal consistency reliability. Thus, the measures employed in
the study can be considered reliable is presented in Table 2.
Table 3: KMO Measure and Bartlett's Test of Sphericity

SN Constructs KMO Measure Bartlett's Test of Sphericity

Chi-Square df Sig.
Downloaded by INSEAD At 10:16 18 May 2018 (PT)

1 TL .902 365.493 36 .000

2 SL .824 298.018 66 .000
3 AL .839 310.437 66 .000
4 RL .760 100.138 15 .000
5 LKL .782 167.340 45 .000
6 CI .774 111.622 15 .000
7 IN .801 203.748 21 .000

5.2 Descriptive Statistics

Table 2 indicates the mean and standard deviation values of all the constructs. From the reliability statistics table, the
adaptive leadership (highest mean score M=3.81, SD=.587) has a most dominant effect on innovation as compared to the
transformational leadership (lowest mean score M=3.236, SD=.688) on continuous improvement and innovation. On the
other hand all dimensions of leaderships have an effect on TQM focus. The standard deviations were quite high, indicating
the dispersion in a widely spread distribution. It means that the effects of leadership styles on TQM focus are an
approximation to a normal distribution and respondents had a high degree of TQM focus. Table 4 represents the factor
loading obtained for the items.
Table 4: Factor loading obtained for the Items Related to leadership styles and TQM focus (Varimax rotated principal component extraction method)

Items TL SL AL RL LKL CI IN
TL5 .770
TL1 .752
TL8 .721
TL6 .713
TL4 .706
TL2 .697
TL9 .690
TL7 .669
TL3 .644
SL1 .779
SL2 .774
SL3 .753
SL5 .678
SL6 .665
SL4 .644
SL7 .624
AL1 .806
AL3 .768
AL2 .761
AL5 .740
AL6 .664
AL4 .624
RL2 .737
 RL4 .709
RL3 .640
RL1 .609
LKL3 .797
LKL2 .744
LKL5 .733
LKL4 .712
LKL7 .660
LKL1 .623
LKL6 .603
CI5 .708
CI1 .696
CI2 .670
CI4 .627
CI3 .611
IN2 .738
IN3 .706
IN7 .688
IN6 .670
IN5 .655
IN1 .646
IN4 .645
Eigen values 4.509 4.054 4.312 2.443 3.049 2.534 3.22
Downloaded by INSEAD At 10:16 18 May 2018 (PT)

% of variance explained 50.097 33.781 35.934 40.722 30.493 42.24 46.12

Cumulative % 50.097 33.781 35.934 40.722 30.493 42.24 46.12

5.3 Correlation analysis: relationship between variables

The correlation matrix in Table 5 further indicates that leadership styles were correlated to TQM focus. There were
significantly positive correlation for rational leadership and continuous improvement (r6=0.735**, n=111, p6<0.01); servant
leadership and continuous improvement (r3=0.667**, n=111, p3<0.01); leadership for kinesthetic learning style and
continuous improvement (r8=0.634**, n=111, p8<0.01); transformational leadership and continuous improvement
(r1=0.631**, n=111, p1<0.01); adaptive leadership and innovation (r5=0.450**, n=111, p5<0.01); transformational
leadership and innovation (r2=0.354**, n=111, p2<0.05). The correlation between rational leadership and innovation
(r7=0.027, n=111, p7<0.05) represents the positively moderate. Moreover, the results table shows the weak correlation and
the relationship are not significant for servant leadership and innovation (r4=.229*, n=111, p4>0.05); and leadership for
kinesthetic learning style and innovation (r9=.158, n=111, p9>0.05).
The correlation coefficients between independent (i.e. leadership styles) and dependent (i.e. TQM focus) variables were less
than 0.90; it means that there is no collinearity between them (Hair et al., 1998). These correlations indicate the evidence of
validity and reliability of measurement scales used in this research (Barclay et al., 1995; Hair et al., 1998). The results
indicate that the rational leadership from the leadership styles is most important for continuous improvement while adaptive
leadership is most important for innovation (i.e. with the highest scores of correlation), which goes to prove that where
rational and adaptive leadership were perceived as dominant leadership styles for continuous improvement and innovation
respectively. The summary of the Bivariate (Pearson) correlation is depicted in Table 5.
Table 5: Bivariate correlation matrices for leadership styles and TQM focus constructs

Variable TL SL AL RL LKL CI IN
TL 1
SL .198* 1
AL .380** .514** 1
RL .216* .443** .535** 1
LKL .266** .238* .501** .373** 1
CI .631** .667** .832** .735** .634** 1
IN .354** .229* .450** .027 .158 .356** 1
**
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

5.4 Multiple regression analysis

Multiple regression analysis was employed to test the hypotheses. This technique is used to analyze the relationships
between several independent (predictor or explanatory) variables and single dependent variable (Hair et al., 1998). But in
this paper, the authors have considered two dependent variables. In some other studies, Hassan et al. (2012) and Dubey &
Gunasekaran (2015) have a contribution towards two more than two dependent variables with imposing multiple regression
analysis. The considering two dependent variables in the research and 111 sample size were adequate to perform the
multiple regression analysis (Hair et al., 1998).
 Before going to impose multiple regression analysis, there is need to test the assumptions to perform. There are several
assumptions of regression analysis, such as variables are normally distributed, linear relationship between the variables and
assumption of homoscedasticity (Osborne & Waters, 2010). The F-statistics produced (F=593.999 & 9.584 for continuous
improvement and innovation respectively) which were significant at 1% level (Sig. F=0:000), thus confirming the fitness
for the model. The Durbin-Watson (2.004 & 1.647 for continuous improvement and innovation respectively) fall between
the acceptable range (1.5<D<2.5) indicating no autocorrelation problem in the data. Therefore, it indicates that the error
term is independent. The results indicate no multicollinearity problems such as the tolerance indicators for independent
variables in CI and IN (i.e. all greater than 0.1); and Variation Inflation Factors (VIF) for independent variables in CI and
IN (i.e. all greater than 1 and lesser than 10). The summary of the tolerance and VIF values are depicted in Table 6.
Table 6: Collinearity statistic for Continuous Improvement and Innovation

SN Constructs Collinearity statistic

Continuous improvement Innovation
Tolerance VIF Tolerance VIF
1 TL .904 1.106 .848 1.179
2 SL .789 1.267 .694 1.441
3 AL ------ ------ .497 2.014
4 RL .723 1.383 .660 1.516
5 LKL .821 1.218 724 1.381
Downloaded by INSEAD At 10:16 18 May 2018 (PT)

For the normality of the variables, the authors performed the histograms and normal P-P plots. It has been found that data is
normal in nature. Then the authors also performed the scatter plot to show the consistent variance of the error terms
(Homoscedasticity); and partial regression plots for a linear relationship between the dependent and independent variable
(Arumugam & Fong, 2008). All assumptions are met so the data is ready to perform the regression analysis. Based on this
analysis, it indicates that there is a statistically significant relationship between leadership styles and TQM focus. The
summary of the result analysis from regression analysis is depicted in Table 7.
In the result analysis model, multiple regression coefficients (R) are .978 and .560 for two dependent variables (CI & IN
respectively) which indicate a good level of prediction of the dependent variable. The coefficients of determination (R2) are
.957 & .313. This explained the leadership styles can significantly account for 95.7% & 31.3% dependent variables (CI &
IN respectively). From the multiple regression models, F-ratio checks whether the overall regression model fit the data or
not. F (3, 107) =593.999 and p<.01 indicate that the independent variables (TL, SL, RL & LKL) statistically significant
predict the dependent variable (CI). On the other hand, F (3, 107) =9.584, p<.01 (AL, RL), p<.05 (TL), p<.01 (SL, LKL)
represent that these independent variables statistically significant predict the dependent variable (IN) which shows the
regression model is good fit for the data. Standard regression coefficients has been got for TL (β =.400, p<.01), SL (β
=.347, p<.01), RL (β =.383, p<.01) & LKL (β =.303, p<.01) in CI are significant; and for TL (β =.224, p<.05), SL (β =.066,
p>.05), AL (β =.529, p<.01), RL (β =-.308, p<.01) & LKL (β =-.068, p>.01) in IN. Thus, the empirical findings indicate the
TL, SL, RL & LKL are positively associated with CI; while only TL & AL are positively associated with IN. Moreover,
there is theoretically RL, SL, and LKL is positively associated with IN. However, the empirical results represent that RL is
partially associated with IN and SL & LKL are not significantly associated with IN. Moreover, the importance of servant
leadership that promoting trust, stronger relationship and faith on team member and other stakeholders which lead to
increased innovation. Leadership for kinesthetic learning style creates an experience in innovation but these two have
indirect association towards innovation.

Table 7: Regression analysis bivariate correlation matrices for leadership styles and TQM focus

Step Dependent Independent Multiple correlation Coefficient of Standardized F T Sig. Adjusted

Variable Variable coefficient (R) determination(R2) regression R2
coefficients
1 CI TL .978a .957 .400 593.999 18.938 .000** .956
SL .347 15.342 .000**
RL .383 16.204 .000**
LKL .303 13.676 .000**
2 IN TL .560a .313 .224 9.584 3.199 .012* .281
SL .066 2.549 .500
AL .529 .677 .000**
RL -.308 4.614 .003*
LKL -.068 -3.095 .479
 6. Discussion and conclusion
The present study sought to investigate the leadership styles and their relationship towards TQM focus. In the current study,
it has been established the conceptual framework and recognized the leadership styles and their relationship towards TQM
focus. There are nine hypotheses explained on transformational, servant, adaptive, rational, and leadership for kinesthetic
learning style to TQM focus. The major findings of this study are that four hypothesis based on continuous improvement is
supported have the greatest influence, towards achieving it, while leadership styles have the greatest influence, towards
achieving continuous improvement and innovation. The results represented all hypotheses supported by this study except
two (H4 and H9) while only one hypothesis (H7) is partially supported. The summary of the results is presented in Table 8.
Table 8: Summary of results and hypotheses testing

Hypothesis Construct Result

H1 Transformational Leadership for Continuous Improvement Supported
H2 Transformational Leadership for Innovation Supported
H3 Servant Leadership for Continuous Improvement Supported
H4 Servant Leadership for Innovation Not supported
H5 Adaptive Leadership for Innovation Supported
H6 Rational Leadership for Continuous Improvement Supported
H7 Rational Leadership for Innovation Partially supported
H8 Leadership for Kinesthetic Learning Style with Continuous Improvement Supported
H9 Leadership for Kinesthetic Learning Style with Innovation Not supported
Downloaded by INSEAD At 10:16 18 May 2018 (PT)

From the above explanation, it is evident that TQM theory and literature wanting the role of effective leadership in
emphasizing TQM focus for enhancing organizational effectiveness. As we all know the selection of appropriate leadership
styles for continuous improvement and innovation will improve the productivity of the organization and target will be met.
Effective leadership can maximize the importance of strategic planning, decision making appropriate decisions and the
leaders have an important role in quality improvement and better product performance in the organization. The contribution
to the TQM literature is in terms of developing a framework that specifically incorporates the role of leaders in the TQM
initiative. Therefore identifying potential leader actions that can facilitate the implementation of TQM in organizations,
which has generally been considered in many case studies as challenging, to say the least (Lakshman, 2006). These findings
are consistent with Pounder’s (2003) study that the leadership of transformation was better than others in terms of quality
management training for staff and organization commitment. However, it is found that servant leadership and leadership for
kinesthetic learning style were not supported because their relationship with innovation was not significant. Other
leadership styles can significantly improve the TQM practices in a firm. The process of continuous improvement and
innovation with good leadership should be an essential part of business strategy. Serafimovska & Ristova (2011) emphasize
the use of TQM encourages employees at all levels of the organization to participate not just in resolving the problem of
quality, but also in continual work improvement and achieving the projected goals. The universal agreement of leadership is
doing the right things. The leaders promote the importance of quality in the organization, provides conditions for continuous
education and training of employees, as well as maintaining constant contacts with the employees, consumers and suppliers.
Primarily, the TQM leaders need to be strong instigators for the organization and provocateur of changes. By setting
aggressive goals for constant improvement and searching of opportunities for making larger benefits. They focus on the
primary needs and expectations of the consumers. Leadership requires from the manager to provide an inspirational vision,
a strategic direction which will be understandable for all the employees, as well as setting values which will lead the lower
level employees.
Maybe, leadership is the most important element for achieving TQM. It requires from the manager to provide an
inspirational vision, a strategic direction which will be understandable for all the employees, as well as setting values which
will lead the lower level employees. Thus, the current TQM literature focuses good leadership styles are based on the need
for products & services and continuous process improvement. In this leadership model, the goal of the active phase is to
create an environment that will work motivational and will encourage employees to participate and give suggestions for
improving the quality. Defining the aims and policy for quality achievement, as well as the creation of quality plan are the
components of the planning phase of PDCA leadership model. One of the most important managerial duties is to create an
environment which will act motivationally and will make sure that the employees function accordingly to the set quality
goals and will give suggestions for improving it. The success of the organization to achieve quality control depends on the
ability and attitude of the top management. According to Ng et al. (2013), this study contends that having good leadership in
the firm can lead to the enhancement of TQM practices explore the relationships with TQM focus that appear to be more
versatile. A continuous yearly study will lead to new trends of leadership styles due to the change in employee behavior and
work environment with time. Overall, the results of this study are useful for leaders in their quest to identify a suitable mix
of leadership styles for TQM practices. The current study serves as a precursor guideline to the leaders to improve their
leadership skills towards the TQM approaches. Based on the review of relevant literature, despite leadership is important to
 manage quality and impact on the commitment of the employees in the organization, it has not been specifically empirical
studies (Lakshman, 2006). First of all, the results of the investigation reveal that leadership style brings strong and positive
influence on continuous improvement and innovation. The intense competition confronts practically corporate entity
regardless of the industry within the market. So, it serves as maximized the importance of strategic planning, decision
making, and effective leadership. Indeed, it has culminated in the redefinition of effective leadership in TQM terms,
whereby decision making and strategic planning acumen have become the hallmarks of the effective leaders. Quality
improvement in the organization is a closely related to the improving the efficiency of individuals or groups in the
organization. For all of this to be achieved the most important thing is leadership but leadership styles with TQM focus is
essential for the current rapidly changing market.

7. Limitations of the study and future research

Like every study, the present study has its own limitations, where the research study is carried out with some constraints
such as the number of companies, available resources, areas of industry, etc. As we see the data were collected from the
different 111 Indian firms, the generalizability of the findings is limited. The study with the large sample size gives global
solutions for the current organizations that provide good insights on the effectiveness of TQM implementation. The sample
size included only 69% manufacturing firms so it can be considered the current study mainly focuses on manufacturing
firms. Continuous improvement and innovation are the most important dimensions of TQM in this research, suggesting that
the cross-function teams in the organization should treat quality improvement as never-ending issues. The findings of this
research show there are many interesting results have been revealed. The future study could include additional TQM focus
Downloaded by INSEAD At 10:16 18 May 2018 (PT)

like customer driven, teamwork, employee involvement, supplier partnership & benchmarking etc. with other leadership
styles. It can be also further explored to test some other leadership styles like transactional, participative, charismatic,
visionary, and laissez-faire for other TQM focuses in the future which may provide different insights into the present
framework. In order to improve the findings of this study, it is suggested that in-depth qualitative research is conducted at
manufacturing firms around India to obtain more phenomenography data on this research. Also, longitudinal studies are
encouraged for this research. Future research should be extended by using these variables as the outcome of TQM focus to
provide more managerial insights leadership styles.

References
Adaptive Leadership Toolkit, (2009). “Adaptive Leadership Toolkit”. American Public Human Services Association.
http://aphsa.org/content/dam/aphsa/Raise%20Local%20Voices/Adaptive%20Leadership%20Toolkit.pdf
Ahire, S. L., Golhar, D. Y. and Waller, M. A. (1996). Development and validation of TQM implementation
constructs. Decision Ssciences, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 23-56.
Al-Dhaafri, H.S., Al-Swidi, A.K. and Bin Yusoff, R.Z. (2016). The mediating role of total quality management between the
entrepreneurial orientation and the organizational performance. The TQM Journal, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 89-111.
Argia, Hassan. A. A. and Ismail, Aziah. (2013). The Influence of Transformational Leadership on the Level of TQM
Implementation in the Higher Education Sector. Higher Education Studies, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 136-146.
Arrington, C. B. (2010). The Relationship between Transformational Leadership and Instructional Coaching (Doctoral
dissertation). Alabama University, Alabama.
Arumugam, V., Ooi, K. B. and Fong, T. C. (2008). TQM practices and quality management performance: An investigation
of their relationship using data from ISO 9001: 2000 firms in Malaysia. The TQM Journal, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 636-650.
Baker, W.H., Addams, H.L. and Davis, B. (1993), “Business Planning in Successful Small Firms”, Long Range Planning”,
Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 82-88.
Barclay, M. J., Smith, C. W. and Watts, R. L. (1995). The determinants of corporate leverage and dividend policies. Journal
of Applied Corporate Finance, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 4-19.
Bass, B. M. (1985) Leadership and Performance beyond Expectations (New York: Free Press).
Bessant, J., Caffyn, S. and Gallagher, M. (2001), “An evolutionary model of continuous improvement behaviour”,
Technovation, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 67-77.
Bhushan, N., and Rai, K. (2004). Strategic Decision Making. London: Springer.
Black, S. A., and Porter, L. J. (1996). Identification of the Critical Factors of TQM*. Decision sciences, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp.
1-21.
Bounds, G.M. (1995), “Management: A Total Quality Perspective”, South Western College Publishing, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Burns, J. (1978), “Leadership”, New York: Harper & Row.
Cambridge Leadership Associates, (2015) http://cambridge-leadership.com/adaptive-leadership/
Chih, W. H. and Lin, Y. A. (2009). The study of the antecedent factors of organisational commitment for high-tech
industries in Taiwan. Total Quality Management, Vol. 20 No. 8, pp. 799-815.
Chris, R. (2009). “Why should we practice Rational Leadership?” http://rationalleadership.blogspot.in/ accessed 10th May,
2016.
 Coghlan, D. and Brannick, T. (2014). Doing action research in your own organization. 4th ed., SAGE Publications Ltd. Los
Angeles, California.
Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K. (2013). Research methods in education. Routledge.
Costa M. M. and Lorente A. R. (2008), “Does quality management foster or hinder innovation? An empirical study of
Spanish companies”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 209-221.
Damanpour, F. (1987). The adoption of technological, administrative, and ancillary innovations, impact of organizational
factors. Journal of Management, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 675-688.
Darling, J. R. (1992) "Total Quality Management: The Key Role of Leadership Strategies", Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 3-7.
Deming, W. E. (1986). Out of Crisis, Centre for Advanced Engineering Study. Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge, MA.
Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A. and Chakrabarty, A. (2015). World-class sustainable manufacturing: framework and a
performance measurement system. International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 53 No. 17, pp. 5207-5223.
Easton, G. S. and Jarrell, S.L. (1998) “The effects of total quality management on corporate performance: An
empirical investigation”, The Journal of Business, Vol. 71 No. 2, pp. 253-307.
Feng J., Prajogo D.I. and Sohal A.S., (2006), “The impact of TQM practices on performance a comparative study between
Australian and Singaporean organizations”, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 269-278.
Flynn, B. B., Schroeder, R. G., and Sakakibara, S. (1994). “A framework for quality management research and an
associated measurement instrument”, Journal of Operations mManagement, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 339-366.
Downloaded by INSEAD At 10:16 18 May 2018 (PT)

Flynn, C. B., Smither, J. W., and Walker, A. G. (2016). Exploring the Relationship between Leaders’ Core Self-Evaluations
and Subordinates’ Perceptions of Servant Leadership: A Field Study. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies,
Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 260-271.
Fried, Y. and Ferris, G. R. (1987), “The validity of the job characteristics model: A review and meta‐analysis”, Personnel
Psychology, Vol. 40, No. 2, pp. 287-322.
Fulwiler, R. D., and Gerlach, R. C. (2014, September). How Transformational Leadership Drives Continuous Improvement
and Sustainability. In ASSE Professional Development Conference and Exposition 8-11 June, Orlando, Florida USA.
American Society of Safety Engineers.
Garvin, D. A. (1988) Managing Quality: the strategic and competitive edge (New York: Free Press).
González, T. F., and Guillén, M. 2002. “Leadership ethical dimension: a requirement in TQM implementation”. The TQM
Magazine, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 150-164.
Govindarajan, V. (2016). Adaptive Leadership 101. Leader to Leader, Vol. 81, pp. 42-46.
Grabowski, B. L., and Jonassen, D. H. (1993). Handbook of individual differences. Learning and Instruction, Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Greenleaf, R. K. (1977), “Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness”, New Jersey:
Paulist Press.
Griffin, J. (1995). Customer loyalty: How to earn it, how to keep it. New York: Lexington. Books.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L. and William, C. Black. 1998. Multivariate data analysis, 5th ed., Englewood
Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J. and Anderson, R. E. (2010), “Multivariate data analysis”, 7th ed., Englewood Cliffs:
Prentice Hall.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E. and Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (Vol. 6). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Hamilton, F. 2008. “Servant Leadership.” In Leadership: The Key Concepts, eds. A. Marturano and J. Gosling, 146-50,
London: Routledge.
Heifetz, R.A., Grashow, A. and Linsky, M. (2009). The practice of adaptive leadership: Tools and tactics for changing your
organization and the world. Harvard Business Press.
Hogan, T. P., Benjamin, A., and Brezinski, K. L. (2000), “Reliability methods: A note on the frequency of use of various
types”, Educational and psychological measurement, Vol. 60 No.4, pp. 523-531.
Hughes, R.L., Ginnett, R.C., and Curphy, G.J. (2006). Leadership: Enhancing the lessons of experience. Boston: Irwin
McGraw Hill.
Iacobucci, D. and Duhachek, A. (2003), “Advancing alpha: Measuring reliability with confidence”, Journal of Consumer
Psychology, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 478-487.
Igbaekemen G.O. and Odivwri, J.E. (2015), “Impact of Leadership Style on Organization Performance: A Critical
Literature Review”, Arabian Journal Business Management Review 5: 142.
Imai, M. (1986), “Kaizen: The Key to Japan’s Competitive Success”, Random House, New York.
Irani, Z., Beskese, A., and Love, P. E. D. (2004). Total quality management and corporate culture: constructs of
organisational excellence. Technovation, Vol. 24 No. 8, pp. 643-650.
 Ishikawa, K. (1985). What is Total Quality Control? The Japanese Way (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall).
Jackson, S.A., Gopalakrishna-Remani, V., Mishra, R. and Napier, R. (2016). Examining the impact of design for
environment and the mediating effect of quality management innovation on firm performance. International Journal of
Production Economics, Vol. 173, pp. 142-152.
Jorgensen, F., Boer, H. and Gertsen, F. (2003), “Jump-starting continuous improvement through self-assessment”,
International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 23 No. 10, pp. 1260-1278.
Jung, D.I., Chow, C. and Wu, A. (2003). The role of transformational leadership in enhancing organizational innovation:
hypotheses and some preliminary findings”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 14, No. 4/5, pp. 525-544.
Juran, J. (1969) Managerial Breakthrough: A New Concept of the Manager’s Job (New York: McGraw Hill).
Juran, J.M. (1988), “Juran on Planning for Quality”, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Kafetzopoulos, D., Gotzamani, K., and Gkana, V. (2015), “Relationship between quality management, innovation and
competitiveness: Evidence from Greek companies”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 26, No. 8,
pp. 1177-1200.
Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 31-36.
Kanji, G. K. (1996), “Can total quality management help innovation?” Total Quality Management, Vol. 7 No.1, pp. 3-10.
Kaynak, H. (2003). The relationship between total quality management practices and their effects on firm
performance. Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 405-435.
Keith, K. (2008). The case for servant leadership. Westfield, IN: The Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership-Asia, 2nd
edition.
Downloaded by INSEAD At 10:16 18 May 2018 (PT)

Kumar, V. and Sharma, R.R.K. (2014), “TQM Implementation: Relating Leadership Styles to achieve Continuous
Improvement and/or Innovation”, California Business Review, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 13-20.
Kumar, V. and Sharma, R.R.K. (2016). “Relating Left/Right Brained Dominance Types of Leaders to TQM Focus: A
Preliminary Study”. Sixth International conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management (IEOM) held
in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, March 8-10, 2016. pp. 814-823. IEOM Society International.
Kumar, V. and Sharma, R.R.K. (2017). “Relating Management Problem Solving Styles of Leaders to TQM Focus: An
Empirical Study”. The TQM Journal. Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 218-239.
Lakshman, C. (2006). A theory of leadership for quality: Lessons from TQM for leadership theory 1. Total Quality
Management & Business Excellence, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 41-60.
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Liao, C., and Meuser, J. D. (2014). Servant leadership and serving culture: Influence on
individual and unit performance. Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 57 No. 5, pp. 1434-1452.
Majaro, S, (1988), “Managing ideas for profit”, McGraw-Hill Book Co. Ltd.
Marco Lam, M., Mark O'Donnell, M. and Dan Robertson, D. (2015), “Achieving employee commitment for continuous
improvement initiatives”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 201-215.
Meso, P., Robinson, M., Troutt, M.D., Rudnicka, J. (2002) A review of naturalistic decision making research with some
implications for knowledge management, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 63-73.
Ng, P. K., Yeow, J. A., Chin, T. S., Jee, K. S., and Chan, P. H. (2013). Leadership Styles and Their Impacts on TQM
Practices in Malaysian Manufacturing Firms. In International Conference on Economics and Business Research,
Penang, Malaysia.
Nowak A. (1997), “Strategic relationship between quality management and product innovation”, Mid-Atlantic Journal of
Business, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 119-135.
Nunnally, J. L. (1978), “Psychometric Theory”, 2nd ed., New York: McGraw-Hill.
Oakland, J.S. (1995). Total Quality Management: Text with cases, Butterworth Heinemann Ltd., Oxford, UK.
Oke, A., Munshi, N. and& Walumbwa, F.O. (2009), “The influence of leadership on innovation processes and activities”,
Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 64-72.
Osborne, J. M., O’Dea, R. D., Whiteley, J. P., Byrne, H. M., and Waters, S. L. (2010). The influence of bioreactor geometry
and the mechanical environment on engineered tissues. Journal of Biomechanical Engineering, Vol. 132 No. 5, pp.
051006 (1-12).
Owens, B. P., and Hekman, D. R. (2012). Modeling how to grow: An inductive examination of humble leader behaviors,
contingencies, and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal. Vol. 55 No. 4, pp. 787-818.
Patiar, A. and Wang, Y. (2016). The effects of transformational leadership and organizational commitment on hotel
departmental performance. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Mmanagement. Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 586-
608.
Peterson, R. A. (1994), “A meta-analysis of Cronbach's coefficient alpha”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 21 No. 2,
pp. 381-391.
Pinho, J.C. (2008), “TQM and performance in small-medium enterprises: The mediating effect of customer orientation and
innovation”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 256-275.
 Pounder, J. S. (2003) Employing transformational leadership to enhance the quality of management development
instruction, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 22 No.1, pp. 6-13.
Prajogo, D. I., and Sohal, A. S. (2001). TQM and innovation: a literature review and research framework. Technovation,
Vol. 21 No.9, pp. 539-558.
Prajogo, D. I., and Sohal, A. S. (2003), “The relationship between TQM practices, quality performance, and innovation
performance: An empirical examination”, International journal of qQuality & Rreliability mManagement, Vol. 20 No.
8, pp. 901-918.
Rijal, S. (2016). The influence of transformational leadership and organizational culture on learning organization: A
comparative analysis of the IT sector. Journal of Administrative and Business sStudies, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 121-130.
Saraph, J. V., Benson, P. G., and& Schroeder, R. G. (1989). An instrument for measuring the critical factors of quality
management. Decision Ssciences, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 810-829.
Sattayaraksa, T. and Boon-itt, S. (2016). CEO transformational leadership and the new product development process: The
mediating roles of organizational learning and innovation culture. Leadership & Organization Development Journal.
Vol. 37 No. 6, pp. 730-749.
Serafimovska, H., and Ristova, E. (2011). The impact of leadership on achieving total quality management. MTM
International Virtual Journal, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 3-6.
Sila, I. (2007). Examining the effects of contextual factors on TQM and performance through the lens of organizational
theories: An empirical study. Journal of Operations management, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 83-109.
Simpson, E.J. (1972). The Classification of Educational Objectives in the Psychomotor. Washington, DC: Gryphon House.
Downloaded by INSEAD At 10:16 18 May 2018 (PT)

Sims, R. R., and Sims, S. J. (1995). The Importance of Learning Styles: Understanding the Implications for Learning,
Course Design, and Education: Understanding the Implications for Learning, Course Design, and Education. ABC-
CLIO.
Singh J. and Singh, H. (2015), “Continuous improvement philosophy – literature review and directions”, Benchmarking: An
International Journal, Vol. 22 No. 1 pp. 75 - 119.
Spears, L.C. (2010). Character and servant leadership: Ten characteristics of effective, caring leaders. The Journal of
Virtues & Leadership, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 25-30.
Trivellas, P. and Dargenidou, D. (2009), “Leadership and service quality in higher education”, International Journal of
Quality and Service Sciences, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 294 – 310.
Trivellas, P., and Santouridis, I. (2009), “TQM and innovation performance in manufacturing SMEs: The mediating effect
of job satisfaction”, IEEE International Conference, pp. 458-462.
Trofino, A. J. (2000). Transformational leadership: moving total quality management to world‐class
organizations. International Nursing Review, Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 232-242.
Tushman, L. and Anderson, P. (1997), “Managing Strategic Innovation and Change: A Collection of Readings”, Oxford
University Press, New York.
Ul Hassan, M., Mukhtar, A., Qureshi, S. U. and Sharif, S. (2012). Impact of TQM Practices on Firm's Performance of
Pakistan's Manufacturing Organizations. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social
Sciences, Vol. 2 No. 10, pp. 232-259.
Uranga, T. (2013). “Rational versus Emotional Leadership”. https://teresauranga.wordpress.com/2013/03/04/ rational-
versus-emotional-leadership/
Van Dierendonck, D., and& Nuijten, I. (2011). The servant leadership survey: Development and validation of a
multidimensional measure. Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 249-267.
Van Dierendonck, D., Sousa, M., Gunnarsdóttir, S., Bobbio, A., Hakanen, J., Pircher Verdorfer, A., Cihan Duyan, E. and
Rodriguez-Carvajal, R. (2017). The Cross-Cultural Invariance of the Servant Leadership Survey: A Comparative Study
across Eight Countries. Administrative Sciences, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 1-11.
Vincent, A. and Ross, D. (2001). Personalize training: determine learning styles, personality types and multiple
intelligences online. The Learning Organization, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 36-43.
Wang, C. L. and Ahmed, P. K. (2001). The role of learning and creativity in the quality and innovation process.
Management Research Centre, Wolverhampton Business School.
Wang, G., Oh, I.-S., Courtright, S.H. and Colbert, A.E. (2011), “Transformational leadership and performance across
criteria and levels: a meta-analytic review of 25 years of research”, Group and Organization Management, Vol. 36, No.
2, pp. 223-270.
Williams, J.R. (1992), “How sustainable is your competitive advantage?” California Management Review, Vol. 34 No. 3,
pp. 29-51.
Xenikou, A. and Simosi, M. (2006), “Organizational culture and transformational leadership as predictors of business unit
performance”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 566-579.
 Yoshida, D. T., Sendjaya, S., Hirst, G. and Cooper, B. (2014). Does servant leadership foster creativity and innovation? A
multi-level mediation study of identification and prototypicality. Journal of Business Research, Vol. 67 No. 7, pp. 1395-
1404.
Zehir, C., Ertosun, Ö. G., Zehir, S. and Müceldilli, B. (2012), “Total quality management practices’ effects on quality
performance and innovative performance”, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 41, pp. 273-280.
Downloaded by INSEAD At 10:16 18 May 2018 (PT)
 Figure 1: Evolutionary model of the continuous improvement process. Source: Jorgensen et al. (2006) and Bessant et al. (2001)
Downloaded by INSEAD At 10:16 18 May 2018 (PT)

Figure 2: Research framework

 SN Features Continuous Improvement Innovation
1 Effect Long-term and long-lasting, but undramatic Short-term, but dramatic
2 Pace Small steps Big steps
3 Time frame Continuous and incremental Intermittent and non-incremental
4 Change Gradual and constant Abrupt and volatile
5 Involvement Everybody Select few “champions”
6 Approach Collectivism, group efforts, systems approach Rugged individualism, individual ideas and efforts
7 Mode Maintenance and improvement Scrap and rebuild
8 Spark Conventional know-how and state of the art Technological breakthroughs, new inventions, new theories
9 Practical requirements Requires little investment, but great effort to maintain it Requires large investment, but little effort to maintain it
10 Effort orientation People Technology
11 Evaluation criteria Process and efforts for better results Results for profits
12 Advantage Works well in slow-growth economy Better suited to fast-growth economy
Table 1: Features of continuous improvement and innovation Source: Imai, 1986, Prajogo & Sohal, 2001

SN Constructs Total items Mean Std. Deviation Alpha Values (α)

1 TL 9 3.236 .688 0.874
2 SL 7 3.636 .521 0.819
3 AL 6 3.811 .587 0.820
4 RL 4 3.701 .615 0.705
5 LKL 7 3.720 .439 0.740
6 CI 5 3.621 .400 0.724
Downloaded by INSEAD At 10:16 18 May 2018 (PT)

7 IN 7 3.388 .657 0.804

Table 2: Reliability Statistics of leadership and TQM focus constructs

SN Constructs KMO Measure Bartlett's Test of Sphericity

Chi-Square df Sig.
1 TL .902 365.493 36 .000
2 SL .824 298.018 66 .000
3 AL .839 310.437 66 .000
4 RL .760 100.138 15 .000
5 LKL .782 167.340 45 .000
6 CI .774 111.622 15 .000
7 IN .801 203.748 21 .000
Table 3: KMO Measure and Bartlett's Test of Sphericity

Items TL SL AL RL LKL CI IN
TL5 .770
TL1 .752
TL8 .721
TL6 .713
TL4 .706
TL2 .697
TL9 .690
TL7 .669
TL3 .644
SL1 .779
SL2 .774
SL3 .753
SL5 .678
SL6 .665
SL4 .644
SL7 .624
AL1 .806
AL3 .768
AL2 .761
AL5 .740
AL6 .664
AL4 .624
RL2 .737
RL4 .709
RL3 .640
RL1 .609
LKL3 .797
LKL2 .744
 LKL5 .733
LKL4 .712
LKL7 .660
LKL1 .623
LKL6 .603
CI5 .708
CI1 .696
CI2 .670
CI4 .627
CI3 .611
IN2 .738
IN3 .706
IN7 .688
IN6 .670
IN5 .655
IN1 .646
IN4 .645
Eigen values 4.509 4.054 4.312 2.443 3.049 2.534 3.22
% of variance explained 50.097 33.781 35.934 40.722 30.493 42.24 46.12
Cumulative % 50.097 33.781 35.934 40.722 30.493 42.24 46.12
Table 4: Factor loading obtained for the items Related to leadership styles and TQM focus (Varimax rotated principal
component extraction method)
Downloaded by INSEAD At 10:16 18 May 2018 (PT)

Variable TL SL AL RL LKL CI IN
TL 1
SL .198* 1
AL .380** .514** 1
RL .216* .443** .535** 1
LKL .266** .238* .501** .373** 1
CI .631** .667** .832** .735** .634** 1
IN .354** .229* .450** .027 .158 .356** 1
**
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
Table 5: Bivariate correlation matrices for leadership styles and TQM focus constructs

SN Constructs Collinearity statistic

Continuous improvement Innovation
Tolerance VIF Tolerance VIF
1 TL .904 1.106 .848 1.179
2 SL .789 1.267 .694 1.441
3 AL ------ ------ .497 2.014
4 RL .723 1.383 .660 1.516
5 LKL .821 1.218 724 1.381
Table 6: Collinearity statistic for Continuous improvement and Innovation

Step Dependent Independent Multiple correlation Coefficient of Standardized F T Sig. Adjusted

Variable Variable coefficient (R) determination(R2) regression R2
coefficients
1 CI TL .978a .957 .400 593.999 18.938 .000** .956
SL .347 15.342 .000**
RL .383 16.204 .000**
LKL .303 13.676 .000**
2 IN TL .560a .313 .224 9.584 3.199 .012* .281
SL .066 2.549 .500
AL .529 .677 .000**
RL -.308 4.614 .003*
LKL -.068 -3.095 .479
Table 7: Regression analysis bivariate correlation matrices for leadership styles and TQM focus

Hypothesis Construct Result

H1 Transformational leadership for continuous improvement Supported
H2 Transformational leadership for innovation Supported
H3 Servant leadership for Continuous improvement Supported
H4 Servant leadership for innovation Not supported
H5 Adaptive leadership for innovation Supported
 H6 Rational leadership for Continuous improvement Supported
H7 Rational leadership for innovation Partially supported
H8 Leadership for kinesthetic learning style with continuous improvement Supported
H9 Leadership for kinesthetic learning style with innovation Not supported
Table 8: Summary of results and hypotheses testing
Downloaded by INSEAD At 10:16 18 May 2018 (PT)