This chapter is divided into two sections. The first section integrates and induces the research results in this study. And the second section proposes suggestions for the follow-up studies.
Research Conclusion
The research purposes in this study are to discuss the current supervisors’
leadership styles in the public museums in Taiwan and the influence of their leadership styles on employee’s creativity. According to the result of data analysis, this section will conclude the supervisors’ mutual leadership styles in the public museums in Taiwan; the influence of their leadership styles on employees’ creativity;
whether supervisors with these types of leadership styles value employees’ creativity development, give opportunities for employees to deliver creative ideas, and influence employees’ willingness to propose creative ideas; and what innovative outcomes employees have done under their supervisors’ leading. These results are presented as follows:
Supervisors in the Public Museums in Taiwan have a Mutual Combination of Leadership Styles – Supportive and Participative Leadership Styles
The leadership styles in this study are based on the Path-Goal Theory (House, 1971), including directive, supportive, participative, and achievement-oriented leadership styles. From the interview and questionnaire data, this study discovers that each supervisor has his/her own tendency towards these four leadership styles,
which has its discrimination from levels. The supervisor who possesses more characteristics of a certain leadership style would belong to that type of leadership style. Besides, each supervisor could possess not only one type of leadership styles at the same time.
Each of the supervisors in this study possesses two to three types of leadership styles, which is shown as follows (see Figure 5.1.):
(1) Supervisor A1 is combined with two types – supportive and participative leadership styles.
(2) Supervisor B1 is combined with three types – supportive, participative, and achievement-oriented leadership styles.
(3) Supervisor C1 is combined with three types – supportive, participative, and achievement-oriented leadership styles.
Neither the evidence shows that any supervisor belongs to directive leadership style nor the achievement-oriented leadership style represents all of the supervisors, but the result confidently shows that three of the supervisors have a mutual combination of leadership styles – supportive and participative leadership styles. Consequently, with the support of nine museum supervisors and employees, this study assumes that the supervisors’ leadership styles in the public and large-scale museums in Taiwan are combined with supportive and participative ways.
Figure 5.1. Supervisor’s Mutual Leadership Styles in Taiwanese Museums
In the following research items, this combination of leadership styles will also be taken as the influenced leadership styles on employees in the three museums.
Employees’ Creativity would be Influenced by the Level of Supervisor’s Authorization and Communication
Under the leading of supervisors’ multiple leadership style (supportive and participative), subordinates’ creativity would either be inspired or not be influenced. The possibility that subordinates’ creativity would be restrained under the supervisors’ multiple leadership style (supportive and participative) is quite low. There is even no case in this study showing this situation. This multiple leadership style (supportive and participative) would inspire or not influence subordinates’ creativity for the following reasons (see Figure 5.2.):
Figure 5.2. Influence of Supervisors’ Leadership Styles on Employees’ Creativity
(1) Inspire
[1] Supervisor gives space for expressing opinions
If supervisor gives space for expressing opinions, subordinates could think and speak freely without fear of supervisor’s attitude, and they could, therefore, more easily come up with new ideas by using their creativity.
[2] Supervisor asks for subordinate’s opinions
For this reason, subordinates, somehow, have to use their creativity to think up his/her own ideas, comments or suggestions by supervisor’s request. Consequently, subordinates’ creativity is inspired.
[3] Supervisor triggers subordinate’s thinking
If supervisors use the method of brainstorming to discuss working affairs with subordinates, subordinates’ creativity would be triggered and further produces more ideas.
(2) Does not influence
The above conclusion reveals that the supervisors with multiple leadership style (supportive and participative) would inspire subordinates’ creativity because of more communication and authorization. Nevertheless, if supervisors give high authorization, subordinates conversely would think that their supervisors’ multiple leadership style (supportive and participative) would not influence their creativity; they would consider that whether they handle the tasks creatively or not, it is more about their own autonomous behavior rather than their supervisors’ leadership.
In consideration of this situation, no matter supervisors belong to multiple leadership style (supportive and participative) discussed in this study or not, they have to notice the level of authorizing subordinates. If supervisors authorize subordinates too much, they will not influence subordinates’ working process and content too much as well; let alone to influence subordinates’ creativity. Creative or common outcomes would completely determined by subordinates. However, if supervisors would like to inspire subordinates’ creativity and hope them to produce innovative performance, they have to communicate more with subordinates and authorize properly with control.
Supervisors Scarcely Pay Attention on Employees’ Creativity Development
Almost all the supervisors with multiple leadership style (supportive and participative) would not value subordinates’ creativity development (see Figure 5.3.). Although some opinions reveal that the supervisors with this multiple leadership style would value subordinates’ creativity development, however, the
proposed evidence was not sufficient or persuasive; consequently, this study concluded that most of the supervisors in the public and large-scale Taiwanese museums actually do not value subordinates’ creativity development much.
Figure 5.3. Attention Supervisors Pay on Employees’ Creativity Development
(3) Value
[1] Supervisor gives instant feedbacks on creative ideas
If a supervisor consider that to give subordinates feedbacks on their creative ideas is a kind of training for subordinates’ creativity, generating repeatedly thinking and self-examination, then it can say that the supervisor values subordinates’ creativity development.
[2] Supervisor discusses with subordinate by brainstorming
It is a kind of value and training on subordinate’s creativity development if the supervisor constantly does so.
[3] Supervisor gives space for delivering creative ideas
If a subordinate is given the space for delivering ideas, and he/she usually proposes his/her creative ideas as well, then it is a kind of supervisor’s value on creativity development.
(4) Does not value
[1] Supervisor considers that creativity is inherent
With the assumption that creativity is inborn, supervisors are not capable of changing subordinates’ creativity; even if they want to increase subordinates’ creativity, the fixed creativity will not be changed as well.
[2] Supervisor values more on the goal achievement
Supervisor values on subordinates’ goal achievement more than their creativity development, which is commonly seen in any institute or corporation. Normally supervisor would put task achievement as the top priority following by other standards.
[3] Supervisor values more on subordinate’s knowledge and cultivation
Supervisor values on subordinates’ knowledge and cultivation more than their creativity development.
[4] Supervisor values more on the increase of job quality and quantity
Supervisor values on subordinates’ increase of job quality and quantity more than their creativity development, which is commonly seen in any field of work.
[5] Supervisor values or not depends on job attribute
Some subordinates’ tasks do not focus on the creativity performance.
Consequently, if there is a job which is not needed to deliver creative ideas, supervisors naturally will not value subordinates’ creativity development as well.
For all the reasons illustrated in Chapter IV, this study concluded that even there are some behavior from supervisors could help to develop subordinates’
creativity, most of the supervisors in the public and large-scale Taiwanese museums do not value subordinates’ creativity development much. It should be discussed by many aspects – Do supervisors understand the importance of creativity and innovation? Do supervisors understand what it could brings if employee have high creativity? Do supervisors understand people’s creativity could be trained? And what resources supervisors have? If supervisors realize the importance of creativity, they will value on subordinate’s creativity development.
Supervisors in the Public Museums in Taiwan Give Opportunities for Employees to Deliver Creative Ideas
The supervisors with multiple leadership style (supportive and participative) would give opportunities for subordinates to deliver creative ideas. And there is no evidence showing that this multiple leadership style (supportive and participative) do not give subordinates opportunities for delivering their creative ideas (see Figure 5.4.).
Figure 5.4. Opportunities Supervisors Give for Employees to Deliver Creative Ideas
[1] Supervisor largely gives authorization
Supervisors usually give subordinates opportunities to deliver creative ideas by authorizing them. With the sufficient empowerment, subordinates can deliver their own creative ideas, opinions and suggestions freely. Yet, supervisors should also pay attention on the quality of creative ideas and their practicality.
[2] Supervisor accepts innovative proposals
To accept innovative proposals is to give subordinates opportunities to deliver creative ideas. When subordinates know that their supervisors would accept their innovative proposals if they are good and practical, they will be motivated and will try to contribute more creative ideas, which will also generate the virtuous circle.
[3] The given task requires delivering creative ideas
If the given tasks require subordinates to come up with more creative ideas, subordinates naturally “have to” do so. These are also their good opportunities to perform.
The supervisors with multiple leadership style (supportive and participative) give subordinates opportunities to deliver their creative ideas, but some supervisors with other leadership styles, such as production-oriented or task management leadership styles, in the other leadership theories may do not. This is very important that if a supervisor gives subordinates opportunities to deliver creative ideas. Only when supervisors give opportunities – by any ways – it is possible that their subordinates could produce innovative outcomes; otherwise, even if subordinates have creative ideas, their innovative performance will not be seen.
Whether Employees Are Willing to Propose Creative Ideas Is Determined by Their Locus of Control
Under the leading of supervisor’s multiple leadership style (supportive and participative), whether subordinates are willing to propose creative ideas or not depends either the supervisor’s attitude or their own wills (see Figure 5.5.). In other words, the subordinates whose willingness of proposing creative ideas is determined by supervisors’ attitude have external locus of control, triggering by the external motivation; and the subordinates whose willingness of proposing creative ideas is determined by their own have internal locus of control, triggering by the internal motivation.
Figure 5.5. Supervisors’ Influence on Employees’ Willingness to Propose Creative Ideas
(1) Influence
Whether subordinates are willing to propose creative ideas would depend on supervisors’ attitude. If the supervisor prefers and welcomes that subordinates
could propose creative ideas, then subordinates will do so. Conversely, if the supervisor does not like subordinates to propose creative ideas and hope them work just by the old ways, then subordinates will tend to not propose the creative ideas.
(2) Does not influence
[1] Subordinates have their won behavioral styles
In terms of the willingness to propose creative ideas, some subordinates would act based on their own behavioral styles. They think that if there are creative ideas occur in their minds, they will bring them up because which is the way they doing things, no matter how supervisor’s attitude is.
[2] Whether to propose depends on the workload
Workload is also one of the factors which would influence subordinates to propose creative ideas rather than the supervisor’s attitude. If subordinates have normal workload, they would have time and spirit to propose creative ideas; nevertheless, if they have heavy workload, to be efficient would be the top priority to handle the work rather than creative.
Although this research item seems to be decided more by subordinate’s locus of control under the multiple leadership style (supportive and participative), however, it not definitely has the same result when under the other leadership styles. If the subordinates are leading by the production-oriented supervisor who does not care about what subordinates are thinking and does not accept subordinates’ opinions, maybe those who were originally willing to propose creative ideas will change their minds.
Employees Do Produce Innovative Outcomes under the Mutual Leadership Styles Discussed in This Study
Given opportunities to deliver creative ideas, subordinates’ creativity were partly inspired by their supervisors and partly derived from subordinates themselves. Although subordinates’ creativity was scarcely developed in their current positions; nevertheless, under the leading of supervisor’s multiple leadership style (supportive and participative), subordinates have produced plenty of innovative outcomes in the end, including ideas (new narrating method, new imagination, and new knowledge) and products (new education appliance, new exhibition, and new handout design).
Figure 5.6. Innovative Outcomes Employees Have Done
(1) Ideas
[1] New narrating method
Narrators would come up with new narrating methods such as narrating by drama, with puppets, with magic, or by wearing the costumes of the ancient ages, etc.
[2] New imagination
Subordinates would generate new imagination when resolving and discussing the problems in the job.
[3] New knowledge
New knowledge is also a kind of innovative outcome such as research result, teaching plans and articles, etc.
(2) Products
[1] New educational appliance
The innovative educational appliances include the appliances in static electricity series, optics series, electricity series, printing series, and in the exhibition halls, etc.
[2] New exhibition
It includes Children Science Hall and Telecommunication Exhibition.
[3] New handout design
New handout design for the museum introduction was also produced as the innovative outcome.
According to the research conclusion, supervisors in the public museums in Taiwan have a mutual leadership style – supportive and participative. Actually the supervisors with supportive and participative leadership would encourage, support, authorize, trust, care about, and communicate with their subordinates, and they would
benefit subordinates’ creativity. It corresponds with the studies that employees would more easily produce creative ideas when they are encouraged, supported, trusted and authorized by supervisors (Amabile & Gryskiewicz, 1989; Scott & Bruce, 1994), the significant relation between R&D scientists’ creative outputs and the level that supervisors concern about employees’ feeling (Stahl & Koser, 1978), most experts’
creativity in the healthcare center is generated by their supervisors’ high socially supportive behavior (West, 1989), the creativity of an individual who receives information feedback would be higher than one who does not receive (Carson &
Carson, 1993), supervisors could stimulate employees’ creativity by supporting what they are doing, caring about their feeling and needs, giving encouragement, providing instant and positive feedback, and enhancing their abilities (Oldham &
Cummings, 1996), “trust” and “sense of security” are considered as the important factors when building an environment for creativity development (Chandler, Keller &
Lyon, 2000; Ragazzoni, Baiardi, Zotti, Anderson & West, 2002; Isaksen & Lauer, 1999, 2002), and if leaders give job autonomy to employees, their creativity would be increased (Amabile & Gitomer, 1984; Amabile & Gryskiewicz, 1987; Bailyn, 1985;
Suojanen, 1976).
Although the supervisors with this mutual leadership style (supportive and participative) do not value employees’ personal creativity development much, they would either inspire or at least not influence subordinates’ creativity, depending on the level of authorization and communication. This type of supervisors would greatly give opportunities for employees to deliver creative ideas by different ways. Nevertheless, whether employees are willing to propose creative ideas or not depends more on their locus of control under this mutual leadership style. And fortunately, the employees would carry out innovative ideas and products in the end under their supervisors’
leading.
Research Suggestions
According to the research conclusions in this study, the following suggestions are proposed as the reference for the follow-up studies.
1. Interview the research subjects for more times. In order to increase the reliability of the interview content, it is the best to interview the people who we have already known each other. It is reasonable that people would have reservation about the fact when we are the strangers. If we are going to interview the people we just knew, then to try to make friends with them and interview more than once will bring us more information needed.
2. Write down the notes when interviewing. It can help to remind ourselves something important and may be forgotten when typing our transcript at home. By drawing structure graph and writing the keywords aside when the interviewee is answering our questions will make the data more easily be arranged afterwards.
3. Studies on other types of museums. This study focuses on the pubic and large-scales museums. The follow-up studies could focus on other types of museums in Taiwan such as private or small-scale ones.
4. Expand the field of research subjects. This study focuses on the industry of museum. The follow-up studies could focus on the other industries and study the influences between leadership styles and employee’s creativity.
5. Study the solutions of the results. This study only focuses on the influence of leadership styles on employee’s creativity. The follow-up studies could take this study as the reference to further research the solutions for the problems occur in this study such as the indifference to subordinates’ creativity development, etc.
REFERENCES
Marshall, C. & Rossman, G. B. (2006)。質性研究：設計與計畫撰寫。台北：五南。
Robbins, S. P. & Coulter, M. (2003)。管理學。台北：華泰。
Sternberg, R. J. (2005a)。創造力 I – 理論。台北：五南。
Sternberg, R. J. (2005b)。創造力 II – 應用。台北：五南。
Albrecht, K., & Albrecht, S. (1987). The creative corporation. Illinois: Dow Jones-Irwin.
Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. NY: Springer-Verlag.
Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations.
Research in Organizational Behavior, 10 , 123-167.
Amabile, T. M. (1998). How to kill creativity. Harvard Business Review, September- October, 1998, 77-87.
Amabile, T. M., & Gryskiewicz, N. (1989).The creative environment scales: The work environment inventory. Creativity Research Journal, 2, 231-254.
Amabile, T. M., Schatzel, E. A., Moneta, G. B., & Kramer, S. J. (2004). Leader behaviors and the work environment for creativity: Perceived leader support.
Leadership Quarterly, 15, 5-32.
Andriopoulos, C., & Lowe, A. (2000). Enhancing organizational creativity: the process of perpetual challenging. Management Decision, 38, 474-734.
Barron, F. B., & Harrington, D. M. (1981). Creativity, intelligence, and personality.
Annual Review of Psychology, 32, 439-476.
Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The strategies for taking charge. NY:
Harper & Row.
Besemer, S. P., & Treffinger, D. J. (1980). Analysis of creative products: review and synthesis. Journal of Creativity Behavior, 15(3), 158-178.
Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1964). Breakthrough in organization development.
Harvard Business Review, November-December, 1964.
Carson, P. P., & Carson, K. D. (1993). Managing creativity enhancement through goal-setting and feedback. Journal of Creative Behavior, 27, 36-45.
Cates, C. (1979). Beyond muddling: Creativity. Public Administration Review, 39, 527-532.
Chandler, G. N., Keller, C., & Lyon D. W. (2000). Unraveling the determinants and consequences of an innovation-supportive organization culture.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25(1), 59-76.
Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. London: Sage.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). Society, culture, and person: A system view of
creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity (pp. 325-329). NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). The domain of creativity. In M. A. Runco & R. S.
Albert (Eds.), Theories of creativity (pp. 190-215). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity. NY: Harper Collins.
Csikzentmihalyi, M., & Wolfe, R. (2000). New conceptions and research approach to creativity: Implications of a systems perspective for creativity in Education. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Monk, R. J. Sternberg & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.). International handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 81-94). NY: Elsevier.
Cummings, A., & Oldham, G. R. (1997). Enhancing creativity: managing work contexts for high potential employee. California Management Review, 40(1), 22-39.
Davis, G. A. (1986). Creativity is forever. Iowa: Kendall/ Hunt Publishing Company.
De Bono, E. (1971). Creativity and the role of lateral thinking. Personnel, May-June, 9-18.
Deci. E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York, Plenum Press.
Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. NY: McGraw-Hill.
Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. NY: McGraw-Hill.