Innovation Implemantation Behavior

7/30/2019 Innovation Implemantation Behavior

1/20

Affective Commitment to Change andInnovation Implementation Behavior:The Role of Charismatic Leadership andEmployees Trust in Top Management

BJORN MICHAELIS, RALF STEGMAIER & KARLHEINZ SONNTAG

Ruprecht-Karls-University, Heidelberg, Germany

ABSTRACT This questionnaire-based study investigated the relationship between two aspects ofleadership (charismatic leadership and trust in top management) and followers innovationimplementation behavior. Findings from 194 employees working in R&D teams of a multinationalautomotive company indicated that charismatic leadership and trust in top management were

both positively related to innovation implementation behavior, controlling for followersindividual differences, management level, and department affiliation. The findings demonstratethat both relationships were mediated by followers affective commitment to change. Resultsimplicate the need to more closely bond the concepts of affective commitment to change andinnovation implementation behavior and consider their connection in future investigations.

KEY WORDS: Charismatic leadership, trust in top management, affective commitment to change,innovation implementation

Introduction

Innovation implementation describes the process by which employees becomecapable and committed to using a particular innovation. It requires innovationadoption: a decision, typically made by senior organizational managers, thatemployees within the organization will use the innovation in their work (Kleinand Sorra, 1996, p. 1055). Implementation failure occurs when, regardless of

Journal of Change Management

Vol. 9, No. 4, 399417, December 2009

Correspondence Address: Dr Bjorn Michaelis, Institute of Psychology, Ruprecht-Karls-University Heidelberg,

Hauptsstrae 47-51, 69117 Heidelberg, Germany. Tel.: 49 6221 54 7358; Fax: 49 6221 54 7390; Email:

[email protected]

1469-7017 Print/1479-1811 Online/09/04039919 # 2009 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10 1080/14697010903360608


2/20

this decision, employees do not engage in the innovation as frequently or as con-sistently as required for the potential benefits of the innovation to be realized(Klein and Sorra, 1996).

The cause for an organizations failure to achieve the intended benefits of aninnovation it has adopted may, therefore, result from either a failure of implemen-tation or a failure of the innovation itself. Increasingly, organizational analystssupport the former explanation suggesting that implementation failure, not inno-vation failure, leads to an organizations inability to achieve the intended benefitsof the innovations they adopt (Klein and Sorra, 1996). The understanding offactors that promote employees innovation implementation behavior anindividuals consistent and committed use of a particular innovation (Choi andPrice, 2005, p. 84) is, therefore, needed. This study refers to an innovation asa technology or practice that an organization is using for the first time, regardless

whether other organizations have previously used the technology or practice(Klein et al., 2001, p. 811). A review of literature by Klein and Knight (2005)has identified several factors which play a critical role in influencing innovationimplementation behavior: the teams or organizations climate for innovationimplementation (see Klein et al., 2001; Holahan et al., 2004; Michaelis et al.,2008), management support for innovation implementation (Sharma andYetton, 2003; Michaelis et al., 2008), and managerial patience (Repenning andSterman, 2002). Reviewing the above-described key situational factors, leaderbehaviors may substantially influence employees innovation implementationbehavior.

The purpose of this study is to examine charismatic leadership (Bass, 1985,1990b; Waldman et al., 2004) and employees trust in top management (Whiteneret al., 1998) and how they affect employees innovation implementation behavior.Further, the study concentrated on identifying psychological processes by whichcharismatic leadership and trust in top management are related to innovationimplementation behavior. Specifically, because commitment to change has beenidentified as an important aspect of behavioral intention to support change (Hers-covitch and Meyer, 2002; Fedor et al., 2006), the study examined the effects ofcharismatic leadership and trust in top management on employees commitmentto actual changes and their innovation implementation behavior.

By testing these linkages, this study extends previous literature on innovation

implementation behavior in four ways. First, the study investigated how charis-matic leadership is related to followers innovation implementation behavior.Second, it examined how trust in top management is related to followersinnovation implementation behavior. Third, the study tested whether affectivecommitment to change mediated these relationships. Fourth, the study goesoutside the usual boundaries and combines organizational change and innovationimplementation research.

Affective Commitment to Change and Innovation Implementation Behavior

The study explored the role of affective commitment to change to investigatethe psychological mechanisms by which charismatic leadership and trust in topmanagement influence innovation implementation behavior This article refers

400 B. Michaelis et al.


3/20

to affective commitment to change as a desire to provide support for the changebased on a belief in its inherent benefits (Herscovitch and Meyer, 2002, p. 475).Although some scholars studying innovation implementation behavior have

included commitment to change as a central component in their theories (Kleinand Sorra, 1996), no known studies have empirically tested the mediating roleof commitment to change in the context of innovation implementationbehavior. This is surprising, given that research has indicated that psychologicalreactions to a particular innovation determine the ultimate success of innovationimplementation (Leonard-Barton, 1988; Hartwick and Barki, 1994).

In order to explain why affective commitment to change might be relatedto employees innovation implementation behavior, Ajzens Theory of Planned

Behavior (TpB) (Ajzen, 1985, 1987, 1991) was applied. Ajzens theory hasbeen successfully employed in many studies linking attitudes and behaviors

(Conner and Armitage, 1998; Sutton, 1998; Jimmieson et al., 2008). A reviewof nine meta-analyses for instance, which included the TpB or its predecessor,the Theory of Reasoned Action, provided strong evidence that a persons attitudesdetermine behavioral intention (Sutton, 1998). Behavioral intention defines thedegree to which a person exerts effort to perform a behavior and includes themotivational forces that produce planned behavior. As behavioral intentionincreases, a person is more likely to perform a behavior. We, therefore, assumethat employees attitudes are particularly relevant to organizations willing toimplement innovations and to reduce the likelihood of implementation failure,because they determine behavioral intention and decide on the degree to whicha person puts effort to perform innovation implementation behavior.

Additionally, the study applied a social exchange explanation in order to explainwhy charismatic leadership and employees trust in top management might berelated to followers innovation implementation behavior. Social exchangetheories (Homans, 1961; Adams, 1963; Blau, 1964; Gergen, 1969) describehow social relationships are based on the exchange of benefits between parties.If charismatic leadership and trust in top management is considered as a perceivedbenefit for employees, social exchange theories suggest that employees will bemotivated to reciprocate that benefit (Gouldner, 1960), for instance throughcommitment to change and innovation implementation behavior.

Charismatic Leadership and Innovation Implementation Behavior

Charismatic leadership has been defined as the ability of a leader to exercisediffuse and intense influence over the beliefs, values, behavior, and performanceof others through his or her own behavior, beliefs, and personal example (Houseet al., 1991, p. 366). Unlike the traditional leadership theories, which empha-sized rational processes, charismatic leadership theory focuses on emotions andvalues, acknowledges the importance of symbolic behavior and the role of theleader in making events meaningful for followers. Charismatic leaders transformfollowers needs, values, preferences, and aspirations. They motivate followers to

make personal sacrifices in order to achieve the mission articulated by the leaderand to perform above and beyond the call of duty (House et al., 1991, p. 364).Followers motivation become less driven by self-interests and is shifted

Charismatic Leadership and Employees Trust in Top Management 401


4/20

towards serving the interests of the larger collective. Charismatic leadershipusually emphasise leaders at or near the top of the organization (Waldmanet al., 2004; Agle et al., 2006) or even at the societal level (see Fiol et al.,

1999; Seyranian and Bligh, 2008). Conceptual works, however, tend to emphasizemultiple hierarchical levels (Yukl, 1999) and experiments on first-level leaderfollower relationships (De Cremer and van Knippenberg, 2002). The latterperspective implies that not only top-executives can motivate followers byarticulating a compelling vision or by providing a behavioral role model, butalso non-executives at lower management levels. Therefore, the study followedBass (1990a) and Conger et al. (2000) who argue that charismatic leaders canalso be found at levels below the executive suite and investigated charismaticleadership at lower and middle management positions.

Another leadership theory which takes a very similar approach in explaining

effective leadership processes is transformational leadership. Various scholars(Dvir et al., 2002; House and Aditya, 1997) conclude that transformational andcharismatic leadership have only minor differences with a strong convergenceamong the empirical findings. Transformational leadership has been alreadyextensively studied in the context of innovation research in recent years(Mumford and Licuanan, 2004) and has demonstrated its effectiveness on inno-vation processes, such as creativity (Jung, 2001; Jaussi and Dionne, 2003; Shinand Zhou, 2003), improvement-oriented voice (Detert and Burris, 2007), andorganizational innovation (Jung et al., 2003).

Despite the theoretical significance of charismatic leadership and its potentialenhancement of innovation outcomes, no studies have contributed to an under-standing of the mechanisms linking this type of leadership and innovation out-comes such as followers innovation implementation behavior. This issurprising, given that scholars have long bemoaned the paucity of research onmediating mechanisms in the relationship between leadership and innovationimplementation behavior (Beyer and Trice, 1978; Tornatzky and Klein, 1982;Klein et al., 2001; Klein and Knight, 2005).

Fiol et al. (1999) summarizes the similarities among various concepts of char-ismatic leadership by noting that all of them share the common perspective thateffective leaders articulate visions that are based on normative ideologicalvalues, offer innovative solutions to major social problems, stand for nonconser-

vative if not radical change, and generally emerge and are more effective underconditions of social stress and crisis (Fiol et al., 1999, p. 450). In other words,charismatic leadership causes followers to be more receptive to organizationalchange.

Specifically, when a leader is charismatic and followers identify with the leader,encouragement to re-examine assumptions, the status quo, and old ways of doingthings are likely to be successful. Under these circumstances, followers are morelikely to identify and concentrate on the positive outcomes of the change-initiativeinstead of on worries and concerns. This enhanced concentration on positive out-comes of the change-initiative should lead to high levels of affective commitment

to change.Charismatic leaders provide a behavioral role model and articulate a compelling

vision to energize followers to perform beyond expectations (Shamir et al 1993)



5/20

They affiliate the self-concepts of followers with the mission articulated by theleader (Fiol et al., 1999; Seyranian and Bligh, 2008). By doing so, they generatea common frame of reference. Consequently, followers of charismatic leaders are

likely to be able to recognize the need for the use of a particular innovation anddevelop high levels of affective commitment to change.

Likewise, charismatic leaders increase self-efficacy by evaluating positively,showing confidence in followers ability, and emphasizing followers ties to thecollective (Shamir et al., 1993). According to the social exchange theory, thesebehaviors are likely to lead to heightened levels of affective commitment tochange because followers are likely to repay their leader for support and encour-agement. Consequently, followers respond more likely to the change-initiativeand accept the change message (House and Mitchell, 1974). More importantly,followers are much more likely to persist when they perceive their environment

to be supportive (Bandura, 1986). In addition, followers may be encouraged tostay focused on the goals of the change-initiative and to keep trying even whenthey suffer a setback. Taken together, followers personal support and encourage-ment are likely to enhance followers affective commitment to change.

According to Ajzens TpB, an increase of affective commitment to change(behavioral intention) contributes to the prediction of change-relevant behavior.Building on this notion, the study suggests that followers with high levels ofaffective commitment to change are more likely to exhibit innovation implemen-tation behavior. Subsequently, the findings suggest that charismatic leadershipcontributes to affective commitment to change, which, in turn, contributes toinnovation implementation behavior. Thus:

Hypothesis 1. The positive relationship between charismatic leadership and employ-

ees innovation implementation behavior will be mediated by employees affective

commitment to change.

Trust in Top Management and Innovation Implementation Behavior

Scholars have identified trust to play an important role in innovation and changeresearch (Armenakis et al., 1993). Trust has been defined as a willingness to bevulnerable to others, based on the prior belief that others are trustworthy (Sitkin

and Roth, 1993; Mishra, 1996; Mayer et al., 2007). Based on this definition,trust in top management was conceptualized as an attitude held by employeestoward the leadership of the organization that indicates a willingness to be vulner-able to top management (Korsgaard et al., 2002). The concept of trust has alreadydemonstrated its effectiveness in the context of organizational change. Armenakiset al. (1993) for instance, emphasized the importance of change agents credi-bility, trustworthiness, and sincerity in creating employees readiness forchange. Additional research by Reinke (2003) has demonstrated that the levelof trust between employees and their leaders is the strongest predictor of employ-ees acceptance of a new appraisal system. Similarly, Condrey (1995) found that

employees with greater trust in their organization evaluated a new human resourcemanagement system more positively, believed that their supervisors had a funda-mental role in the change process and were more motivated to become involved in



6/20

the project. Still, despite the theoretical significance of this concept and its poten-tial enhancement of innovation implementation behavior, no studies have contrib-uted to an understanding of the mechanisms linking trust in top management and

innovation outcomes such as followers innovation implementation behavior.Research demonstrates that trust in top management provides employees with

an understanding of managements good intentions (Harvey et al., 2003). Employ-ees, who trust their top management, believe in the value of the innovation andthink that they and the organization will benefit from it, consequently trust intop management should enhance followers affective commitment to change.

Specifically, individuals with a high degree of trust in top management mayfeel that they will not be the target of negative attacks or manipulation,because they believe that the intentions of the upper management are trustworthy(Byrne et al., 2005). Further, they feel that they are respected by the organization

and have some opportunity to protect their own interests (Korsgaard et al.,2002). Under these circumstances, followers are more likely to concentrate onthe positive outcomes of change-initiatives instead of constantly questioningor criticizing them. Consequently, followers who perceive that the organizationtreats them with respect and dignity through difficult times of change shouldhave higher levels of affective commitment to change than those who believethat they are treated unfairly.

Likewise, trust in top management, which is mostly evoked through open com-munication and disclosure, may give individuals a sense of control by feeling pro-tected by the good intentions of upper management (Byrne et al., 2005). Thesebehaviors are likely to lead to affective commitment to change because by provid-ing support and encouragement, followers are more likely to respond to change-initiatives and accept the change message (House and Mitchell, 1974). Takentogether, trust in top management is likely to be associated with high levels ofaffective commitment to change.

Finally, according to the social exchange theory, the relationship between theorganization and followers consists of followers perceptions of organization obli-gations on the one hand (that is, what they believe the organization has promised)such as advancement opportunities, training, and job security; and their perceivedobligations towards the organization on the other hand (what they believe theyowe the organization in return) such as loyalty, hard work and commitment

(Robinson et al., 1994). Specifically, when followers feel high levels of trust intop management, they are more willing to cooperate within and have greaterattachment to this exchange relationship (Whitener et al., 1998), leading tohigher levels of affective commitment to change.

Building on the notion of Ajzens TpB, it can be argued that followers with highlevels of affective commitment to change are more likely to exhibit innovationimplementation behavior. Subsequently, its is argued that trust in top managementcontributes to affective commitment to change, which, in turn, contributes to inno-vation implementation behavior. Thus:

Hypothesis 2. The positive relationship between trust in top management andemployees innovation implementation behavior will be mediated by employees

affective commitment to change



7/20

Method

Participants and Procedure

Data were collected from employees working in a multinational automotive cor-poration located in Germany, which had introduced a new computer softwarewithin the nine months prior to this study. The software is based on the companysemail program and developed to support team and project tasks. A successfulimplementation of this software implied a paperless office that could be achievedthrough information technologies and new work procedures. For instance,employees were prompted to use this software for their audit trails, calendar,address and meeting administration, filing, and absence planning. All informationwas accessible in every German subsidiary. Furthermore, employees were encour-aged to create their own profile enabling the software to inform them about newand relevant documents. The utilization of this software was mandatory andconsequently played a central role for every employee.

All employees in the sample held Research & Development (R&D) jobs in thetruck development division, were in operational, lower- and middle-managementpositions, and were working in the companys headquarters in Germany. Thequestionnaire administration took place online. Employees received a link viaemail, which allowed them to access the online questionnaire. The link wassent out by department heads, with an appeal to fill out the questionnaire withina period of four weeks. Respondents were allowed to complete the questionnaireduring normal work hours in front of their own computer. Participation wasvoluntary and confidential in all cases. The study collated usable responses

from 194 of the possible 270 employees, which represents a 72% net responserate. Respondents were working in 10 different teams within two departments,namely, truck vehicle testing (40%) and truck vehicle systems (60%). The meanage of the responding employees was 43 years (SD 9.11). A majority of therespondents were male (89%), held lower level management positions (78 %),had been with the company for more than 10 years (65%), and reportedcollege-level education (technical college degree, 40%; university degree, 32%;completed apprenticeship, 10%).

Measures

If not already available, German versions of all measures were created followingBrislins (1980) translation-back-translation procedure.

Charismatic leadership

The German version of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ), Form5X-Short (Avolio and Bass, 1995), developed by Felfe and Goihl (2002), whichhas four items for the charismatic leadership scale (a 0.91) were utilized.Employees were asked to refer to their direct workgroup leader. Items assessedthe degree to which followers admired their leader for his or her outstanding

skills and abilities or to which degree their leader inspired them. Sample itemsincluded, The leader, which I refer to impresses and fascinates me with his orher unique personality and The leader which I refer to is consistently able to



8/20

inspire me. On a five-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5(strongly agree), employees indicated how well each statement fitted their leader.

Trust in top managementTrust in top management was assessed with an adapted three-item scale (a 0.78), developed by Cook and Wall (1980). Sample items included, I feel confi-dent that top managment will always treat me fairly and top management wouldtry to gain an advantage by deceiving workers (reverse-scored). On a five-pointscale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), employees indi-cated how well each item represented their feeling of trust in the companys topmanagement.

Affective commitment to change

Affective commitment to change was assessed with a six-item scale (a

0.88),developed by Herscovitch and Meyer (2002), concentrating on followers affectexperienced during the change-initiative. Sample items were, I believe in thevalue of this change and I think that management is making a mistake by intro-ducing this change (reverse-scored). On a five-point scale ranging from 1(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), employees indicated how welleach item represented their feelings about the introduced software.

Innovation implementation behavior

Employees innovation implementation behavior was assessed with an adaptedversion of a six-item scale (a 0.84) from Choi and Price (2005). Sampleitems included, I heavily use this innovation at work and I use this innovationfor task-related communication. On a five-point scale ranging from 1 (stronglydisagree) to 5 (strongly agree), employees indicated the extent to which eachof the six items applied to them in terms of employing the introduced software.

Control variables

Given the critical role of followers characteristics in the leadership process,particularly charismatic leadership (Conger and Kanungo, 1988; Conger et al.,2000), participants age and gender were assessed. Dummy-coded variableswere included to control for the variance in perception of leaders charisma that

could be attributed to followers age (age up to 40 years, age above 40 years)and gender (male, female).

In addition, employees hierarchical levels might influence their ratings of thestudy variables. Charismatic leadership, for instance, occurs to a greater extent athigher hierarchical echelons (Shamir et al., 1993), and employees may tend torate their job characteristics more favorably the higher their hierarchical positioning(Robie et al., 1998). Hence, respondents hierarchy level were included (operational/lower management and middle management) as dummy-coded variables.

Finally, prior research indicates that employees department affiliation mightinfluence their innovation implementation behavior (Krause, 2004). Consequently,

department affiliation was dummy-coded, to prevent department differences formbiasing the relationships obtained (that is, truck vehicle testing and truck vehiclesystems)



9/20

Analytical Strategy

The data analyses was conducted utilizing structural equations modeling (AMOS16.0). The study followed Anderson and Gerbings (1988) widely recommended

procedure and added the discriminent validity of the study variables (a conforma-tory factor analysis of the measurement model), prior to assessing the fit of theoverall structural model. Consistent with other researchers (Bommer et al.,2005), four dummy-coded control variables were included to the measurementand structural model. This approach is appropriate if: (a) the control variablesare theoretically justified; (b) the model complexity is not overstressed; and (c)the sample size is ample (Fletcher et al., 2006). Further, an approach describedby Marsh et al. (1989) was utilized and resorted items randomly into itemparcels, to gain an adequate sample size to parameter ratio. A x

2/df ratio test, aroot mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) index, and a comparative fit

index (CFI) were all used to assess the fit of the different models to the data.A x

2/df ratio less than 3 indicates an acceptable model fit (Kline, 1998).A RMSEA below 0.08 and a CFI above 0.09 (DiLalla et al., 2000; Cunningham,2006) indicate that the specified model fits well with the observed data.

Results

Means, standard deviations, bivariate correlations, and Cronbachs alpha valuesfor all study variables are presented in Table 1. As shown, innovation implemen-tation behavior is significantly and positively correlated with charismatic leader-

ship, trust in top management, and affective commitment to change. Affectivecommitment to change is significantly and positively correlated with charismaticleadership and trust in top management.

Measurement Model Testing

The measurement model consisted of the four control variables and the four focalvariables. The study followed various scholars (Podsakoff and Organ, 1986; Cun-ningham, 2006) and compared the measurement model with an alternative modeland a one factor model to check which model fit the observed data best. In the first

model, the single factor model, all items were forced on a single factor. In thesecond, alternative model, charismatic leadership and trust in top managementwere forced on one factor, affective commitment to change on a second factor,and innovation implementation behavior on a third factor. In the third model,the measurement model, items were forced according to their scales on thefactors charismatic leadership, trust in top management, affective commitmentto change, and innovation implementation behavior. The CFA results showthat the measurement model (x

2 92.92; df 53; p,0.001; x

2/df 1.80;RMSEA 0.06; CFI 0.95), relative to both the alternative model (x

2

198.02; df 60; p , 0.001; x2/df 3.30; RMSEA 0.11; CFI 0.83), and

the single factor model (x2

522.09; df

71; p , 0.001; x2

/df

7.35;RMSEA 0.18; CFI 0.46) provided a better fit to the data. These results alsoindicate that common method bias is not a major concern because if method



10/20

Table 1. Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations among all var

Variable n Mean s.d. 1 2 3 4

1. Age 176 0.43 0.502. Gender 189 0.92 0.28 0.093. Management level 186 0.78 0.41 0.24 20.10

4. Department affiliation 146 0.39 0.49 20.08 0.09 20.065. Charismatic leadership 193 3.07 0.92 20.11 20.06 20.02 20.076. Trust in top management 193 2.43 0.89 20.08 20.07 20.30 0.177. Affective commitment to change 187 3.61 0.82 20.11 0.07 20.17 0.118. Innovation implementation behavior 194 3.06 0.82 20.14 0.02 20.12 0.06

Note: Internal consistency reliabilities (Cronbachs alpha) are on the diagonal, in parentheses. Age, gender, management le p , 0.05, p , 0.01, p , 0.001.


11/20

variance is a significant problem, a simple model (e.g. single factor model) shouldfit the data as well as a more complex model (Korsgaard and Roberson, 1995,p. 663). Thus, the measures can be viewed as distinct and were kept for analysis.

Hypotheses Testing

The results of the structural equations modeling are presented in Table 2. Thefit indices for the proposed model fulfilled above described criteria (x

2 134.39;

df 69; p , 0.001; x2/df 1.95; RMSEA 0.07; CFI 0.92), revealing that

the data were consistent with the proposed model. Figure 1 shows the pathwayestimates for the hypothesized model indicating that all assumed paths weresignificant. Specifically, affective commitment to change was positively linked tocharismatic leadership (b 0.18, p , 0.05) and trust in top management (b

0.33, p , 0.001), and it was also linked significantly positively to innovationimplementation behavior (b 0.36, p , 0.001). For significance testing of theindirect effects postulated in the mediation hypotheses, the study followedrecommendations by MacKinnon et al. (2007). As postulated in Hypothesis 1,commitment to change mediates the relation between charismatic leadership andinnovation implementation behavior (indirect effect 0.06; p , 0.001). Assuggested in Hypothesis 2, commitment to change also mediates the relationbetween trust in top management and innovation implementation behavior (indirecteffect 0.12; p , 0.001).

Although the hypothesized mediated model provided an adequate fit to the data,

the study tested three alternative models and checked for partial mediations(Cunningham, 2006). Alternative models were all tested within the proposedmodel. The study tested models which add the pathway between charismatic lea-dership and innovation implementation behavior (Partially-mediated Model A),the pathway between trust in top management and innovation implementation

Table 2. Results of structural equations modelling

Models df x2

x2/df Dx2 RMSEA CFI

Single-factor model 71 522.09 7.35 0.18 0.46Alternative model 60 198.02 3.30 0.11 0.83Measurement model 53 92.92 1.80 0.06 0.95Hypothesized (fully-mediated) model 69 134.39 1.95 0.07 0.92Alternative Models

(nested within hypothesized model)Partially-mediated (A) 68 133.70 2.00 0.69 0.07 0.92Partially-mediated (B) 68 134.34 1.98 0.05 0.07 0.92Partially-mediated (C) 67 133.69 2.00 0.65 0.07 0.92

Note: Partial mediated models: (A) addition of pathway between charismatic leadership and innovation

implementation behaviour; (B) addition of pathway between trust in top management and innovation

implementation behaviour; (C) addition of pathway between charismatic leadership/trust in top management

and innovation implementation behavior; Dx2 values are calculated by comparison with adjacent, lessrestrictive model. Controls: age, gender, management level, department affiliation. p , 0.05; p , 0.01; p , 0 001: N 194



12/20

behavior (Partially-mediated Model B), and both pathways (Partially-mediatedModel C). Table 2 presents the fit indices for the alternative models.

The results of the comparison of partially-mediated models A and B with thehypothesized fully mediated model indicate that the change in chi-square is notstatistically significant at the 0.05 level (Dx

2, 1 df). Further, the study compared

model C with the hypothesized fully mediated model and did not find a significantimprovement in fit at the 0.05 level. Therefore, none of the partially mediatedmodels yield an improvement over the fully mediated model, which makes the

more parsimonious (that is restrictive) fully mediated model the preferredmodel (Mulaik et al., 1989). These results indicate that affective commitment tochange mediates the relation between charismatic leadership and innovationimplementation behavior and that affective commitment to change also mediatesthe relation between trust in top management and innovation implementationbehavior.

Discussion

Leadership qualities have been linked to several innovation-relevant factors such

as subordinates creativity (Jung, 2001; Jaussi and Dionne, 2003; Shin and Zhou,2003), improvement-oriented voice (Detert and Burris, 2007), organizationalinnovation (Jung et al., 2003), and social change (Seyranian and Bligh, 2008).However, only a few studies exist investigating leadership and its relation to inno-vation implementation behavior. Notably, Krause (2004) examined the effects ofinfluence-based leadership on followers innovation implementation behaviorand found a positive relationship. Furthermore, Herold et al. (2008) found a posi-tive relationship between transformational leadership and change commitment.This study found that charismatic leadership is related to innovation imple-mentation behavior and, consequently, identified another leadership construct

which plays an important role in promoting followers innovation implementationbehavior. It is important to recognize that Krauses (2004), Herold et al. (2008),and the present study have moved the fragmentary research on innovation

Figure 1. Pathway estimates for hypothesized modelNotes: Structural pathways estimates are completely standardized coefficients; Controls: age, gender,management level, department affiliation. aNon-significant Covariance (p 0.08). p , 0.05;

p , 0.01; p , 0.001



13/20

implementation behavior (Klein and Knight, 2005) forward by identifying theory-based leadership behaviors, which are beneficial for innovation implementationbehavior.

Second, the study has demonstrated that followers trust in top management isrelated to innovation implementation behavior. Only a few studies exist thatinvestigate trust in top management in the field of innovation and change research.In particular, Korsgaard et al. (2002) demonstrated the importance of trust in topmanagement while planning change-initiatives. However, the study has extendedprior research in demonstrating that trust in top management is related to theaspect which determines the ultimate success of change-initiatives: innovationimplementation behavior.

The third and most important contribution of this study is that it identifiedpsychological processes by which charismatic leadership and trust in top manage-

ment are related to innovation implementation behavior. By investigating charis-matic leadership and trust in top management simultaneously in one model, thestudy revealed that trust in top management has a stronger indirect effectthrough affective commitment to change on innovation implementation behaviorthan charismatic leadership. This result indicates that both sentiments regardingtop management and immediate managers are important and complementary forsuccessful innovation implementation. However, it also shows that trust in topmanagement might be even more important, because of its stronger relation tofollowers affective commitment to change. Klein and Sorra (1996) emphasizedthe role of commitment to change as a mechanism by which situational factorsinfluence innovation implementation behavior. However, no known studieshave empirically tested this relationship in actual work settings. Most studies,so far, have concentrated on investigating situational factors that either influencepsychological mechanisms, such as followers affective commitment to change(Herold et al., 2007), or outcome variables, such as innovation implementationbehavior, separately (Axtell et al., 2000; Choi and Price, 2005). This researchhas gone outside these boundaries and combined organizational change andinnovation implementation research. Moreover, research in the context oforganizational change has mostly concentrated on negative reactions such ascynicism toward change-initiatives (Bommer et al., 2005). The study extendedprior research by explicitly concentrating on a positive reaction affective com-

mitment to change and its relation to charismatic leadership and trust in topmanagement. Thus, the study has contributed to the innovation implementationliterature by applying Ajzens TpB and demonstrated its significance in explainingthe influence of affective commitment to change on innovation implementationbehavior.

Limitations and Future Research

Although the study found several encouraging results, it is important to recognizethat the current findings also have several limitations. First, the study used

perceptual data because the influence of the leader and the perceptions of upper-management eventually depend on what followers perceive their leader or topmanagement to have done or been like (Bandura 1989) Nevertheless future



14/20

research should investigate the influence of charismatic leadership and trust in topmanagement on followers innovation implementation behavior using data frommultiple sources. Second, the cross-sectional design prevents us from a causal

interpretation of the relationship between charismatic leadership and trust in topmanagement, respectively, and innovation implementation behavior.Supplemental studies with experimental or longitudinal design and the obtainmentof independent or objective confirmation of employees innovation implementationbehavior are needed to determine causality. Third, all participants came from onecompany in the automotive industry and were working in the R&D division.Although this sample helps to control for industry and division effects, employeesworking in different industries and divisions may respond to innovations in differentways. One might argue, for instance, that employees working in R&D divisions areparticularly open to innovations because they have innovation-relevant knowledge

and higher levels of autonomy, which leads to innovation implementation behavior(Krause, 2004). Finally, the study indicates that trust in top management is strongerrelated to affective commitment to change than charismatic leadership. However, itacknowledges that trust in top management might be only more important because itmatches the level most responsible for the change studied. Supplemental studies,expanding both constructs to both levels such as top management charisma andtrust in direct supervisor, are needed to determine the relative importance of trustand charisma for evoking followers affective commitment to change.

Moreover, additional determinants could be integrated into future investi-gations. Since recent research (Zhou and George, 2003; Amabile et al., 2004;Bono and Ilies, 2006) and this study suggest that emotions play a major role inthe innovation-process, and particularly during change-initiatives (Kiefer, 2005;Bartunek et al., 2006), future research might investigate the role of supervisorscapability to influence followers emotions in promoting affective commitmentto change and innovation implementation behavior. It is also recognized thatthere are other mediators, which have not been examined in this study. Asindicated by Klein and Sorra (1996), innovation-relevant skills and knowledgeare also critical for innovation implementation behavior. Prior research hassuggested that supervisory behaviors enhance employees skills and knowledgewhich, in turn, results in higher levels of innovation implementation behavior(Krause, 2004). Thus, future research might investigate skill and knowledge

development as mediators linking charismatic leadership to innovation implemen-tation behavior. Finally, scholars could focus on additional types of leadershipand its effects on affective commitment to change and innovation implementationbehavior. A promising approach might come from complexity leadership theory(Uhl-Bien et al., 2007), which emphasizes the role of enabling leadership indisseminating innovative products through formal managerial systems.

Practical Implications

Given the consistent positive effects of trust in top management, it may be argued

that systematic efforts to enhance this factor is particularly important to companiesthat want to promote innovation implementation behavior. In order to enhancetrust in top management it should be integrated into the organizations reward



15/20

system, leadership guidelines, and company policies. Supervisors could beevaluated by their followers, for instance, on how trustworthy they seem.

The results suggest that companies should invest in leadership training and in

the selection of charismatic supervisors before initiating the implementation ofinnovations. Research indicates that charismatic leadership behaviors are trainable(Barling et al., 1996). By training idealized influence, for example, leadersimprove their ability to articulate a vision and to become more effective rolemodels (Awamleh and Gardner, 1999). More specifically, by training leaderscapability to provide role models in terms of using new innovations and demon-strating the value of these innovations, leaders are most likely to maximizeemployees affective commitment to change which, in turn, leads to innovationimplementation behavior.

In addition, by showing affective commitment to change as a mediator, the find-

ings indicate that managers need to consider the psychological mechanisms bywhich charismatic leadership and trust in top management are related to inno-vation implementation behavior. This may lead to a better ability to guide theimpact of these influences to proper psychological processes, resulting in higherlevels of innovation implementation behavior.

Conclusion

Leadership, organizational change, and innovation implementation have been, andcontinue to be, important fields of study for both researchers and practitioners. The

purpose of this study was to demonstrate the connection between these constructsand the importance of better integrating these three fields of study. In line withthese deliberations, the results illustrated the impact of charismatic leadershipand trust in top management on affective commitment to change and innovationimplementation behavior. Most importantly, the results demonstrate the impor-tance of affective commitment to change, because it functions as a mediator inthis relationship. Hence, if successful innovation implementation within organiz-ations requires affective commitment to change, and affective commitment tochange is about facilitating innovation implementation, then there is a need tomore closely bond these concepts and consider their connection in futureinvestigations.

References

Adams, J.S. (1963) Towards an understanding of inequity, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 47(5),

pp. 422436.

Agle, B.R., Nagarajan, N.J., Sonnenfeld, J.A. and Srinivasan, D. (2006) Does CEO charisma matter? An empiri-

cal analysis of the relationships among organizational performance, environmental uncertainty, and top

management team perceptions of CEO charisma, Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), pp. 161174.

Ajzen, I. (1985) From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior, in: J. Kuhl and J. Beckmann (eds)

Action Control: From Cognition to Behavior, pp. 1139 (New York: Springer-Verlag).

Ajzen, I. (1987) Attitudes, traits, and actions: a theory of planned behavior, in: L. Berkowitz (ed.) Advances in

Experimental Social Psychology, pp. 163 (New York: Academic Press).

Ajzen, I. (1991) The theory of planned behavior, Organization Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2),

pp 179 211



16/20

Amabile, T.M., Schatzel, E.A., Moneta, G.B. and Kramer, S.J. (2004) Leader behaviors and the work environ-

ment for creativity: perceived leader support, Leadership Quarterly, 15(1), pp. 532.

Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988) Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended

two-step approach, Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), pp. 411423.

Armenakis, A.A., Harris, S.G. and Mossholder, K.W. (1993) Creating readiness for organizational change,Human Relations, 46(6), pp. 681703.

Avolio, B.J. and Bass, B.M. (1995) Individual consideration viewed at multiple levels of analysis: a multi-level

framework for examining the diffusion of transformational leadership, Leadership Quarterly, 6(2),

pp. 199218.

Awamleh, R. and Gardner, W.L. (1999) Perceptions of leader charisma and effectiveness: the effects of vision

content, delivery, and organizational performance, Leadership Quarterly, 10(3), pp. 345373.

Axtell, C.M., Holman, D.J., Unsworth, K.L., Wall, T.D., Waterson, P.E. and Harrington, E. (2000) Shopfloor

innovation: facilitating the suggestion and implementation of ideas, Journal of Occupational and Organiz-

ational Psychology, 73(3), pp. 265285.

Bandura, A. (1986) Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory (Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice Hall).

Bandura, A. (1989) Human agency in social cognitive theory, American Psychologist, 44(9), pp. 11751184.Barling, J., Weber, T. and Kelloway, E.K. (1996) Effects of transformational leadership training on attitudinal and

financial outcomes: a field experiment, Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(6), pp. 827832.

Bartunek, J.M., Rousseau, D.M., Rudolph, J.W. and DePalma, J.A. (2006) On the receiving end: sensemaking,

emotion, and assessments of an organizational change initiated by others, Journal of Applied Behavioral

Science, 42(2), pp. 182206.

Bass, B.M. (1985) Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectation (New York: Free Press).

Bass, B.M. (1990a) Bass & Stoddills Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and Managerial Applications,

3rd edn (New York: Free Press).

Bass, B.M. (1990b) From transactional to transformational leadership: learning to share the vision, Organiz-

ational Dynamics, 18(3), pp. 1931.

Beyer, J.M. and Trice, H.M. (1978) Implementing Change (New York: Free Press).

Blau, P.M. (1964) Exchange and Power in Social Life (New York: John Wiley & Sons).

Bommer, W.H., Rich, G.A. and Rubin, R.S. (2005) Changing attitudes about change: longitudinal effects of trans-

formational leader behavior on employee cynicism about organizational change, Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 26(7), pp. 733753.

Bono, J.E. and Ilies, R. (2006) Charisma, positive emotions and mood contagion, Leadership Quarterly, 17(4),

pp. 317334.

Brislin, R.W. (1980) Translation and content analysis of oral and written material, in: H.C. Triandis and

J.W. Berry (eds) Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology, pp. 389444 (Boston, Allyn and Bacon).

Byrne, Z.S., Kacmar, C., Stoner, J. and Hochwarter, W.A. (2005) The relationship between perceptions of politics

and depressed mood at work: unique moderators across three levels, Journal of Occuputational Health

Psychology, 10(4), pp. 330343.

Choi, J.N. and Price, R.H. (2005) The effects of person-innovation fit on individual responses to innovation,

Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 78(1), pp. 8396.

Condrey, S.E. (1995) Reforming human resource management systems: exploring the importance of organiz-ational trust, American Review of Public Administration, 25(4), pp. 341354.

Conger, J.A. and Kanungo, R.N. (1988) The empowerment process: integrating theory and practice, Academy of

Management Review, 13(3), pp. 471482.

Conger, J.A., Kanungo, R.N. and Menon, S.T. (2000) Charismatic leadership and follower effects, Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 21(7), pp. 747767.

Conner, M. and Armitage, C.J. (1998) Extending the theory of planned behavior: a review and avenues for future

research, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28(15), pp. 14291464.

Cook, J.M. and Wall, T. (1980) New work attitude measures of trust, organizational commitment, and personal

need fulfillment, Journal of Occupational Psychology, 53(1), pp. 3952.

Cunningham, G.B. (2006) The relationships among commitment to change, coping with change, and turnover

intentions, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15(1), pp. 2945.

De Cremer, D. and van Knippenberg, D. (2002) How do leaders promote cooperation? The effects of charismaand procedural fairness, Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), pp. 858866.



17/20

Detert, J.R. and Burris, E.R. (2007) Leadership behavior and employee voice: is the door really open?Academy of

Management Journal, 50(4), pp. 869884.

DiLalla, L.F., Tinsley, H.E. A. and Brown, S.D. (2000) Structural equation modeling: uses and issues, in: H.E.A.

Tinsley and S.D. Brown (eds) Handbook of Applied Multivariate Statistics and Mathematical Modeling,

pp. 439464 (San Diego, CA: Academic Press).Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B.J. and Shamir, B. (2002) Impact of transformational leadership on follower

development and performance: a field experiment, Academy of Management Journal, 45(4), pp. 735744.

Fedor, D.B., Caldwell, S. and Herold, D.M. (2006) The effects of organizational changes on employee

commitment: a multilevel investigation, Personnel Psychology, 59(1), pp. 129.

Felfe, J. and Goihl, K. (2002) Transformational leadership and commitment, in: J. Felfe (ed.) Organizational

Development and Leadership, pp. 87124 (Frankfurt a. M: Lang).

Fiol, C.M., Harris, D. and House, R.J. (1999) Charismatic leadership: strategies for effecting social change,

Leadership Quarterly, 10(3), pp. 449482.

Fletcher, T.D., Selgrade, K.A. and Germano, L.M. (2006) On the use of partial covariances in structural

equation modeling, in: 21st Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology,

2006 (Dallas, TX).

Gergen, K.J. (1969) The Psychology of Behavioral Exchange (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley).Gouldner, A.W. (1960) The norm of reciprocity: a preliminary statement, American Sociological Review, 25(2),

pp. 161178.

Hartwick, J. and Barki, H. (1994) Explaining the role of user participation in information system use, Manage-

ment Science, 40(4), pp. 440465.

Harvey, S., Kelloway, E.K. and Duncan-Leiper, L. (2003) Trust in management as a buffer of the relationships

between overload and strain, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 8(4), pp. 306315.

Herold, D.M., Fedor, D.B. and Caldwell, S.D. (2007) Beyond change management: a multilevel investigation of

contextual and personal influences on employees commitment to change, Journal of Applied Psychology,

92(4), pp. 942951.

Herold, D.M., Fedor, D.B., Caldwell, S.D. and Yi, L. (2008) The effects of transformational and change

leadership on employees commitment to a change: a multilevel study, Journal of Applied Psychology,

93(2), pp. 346357.

Herscovitch, L. and Meyer, J.P. (2002) Commitment to organizational change: extension of a three-component

model, Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), pp. 474487.

Holahan, P.J., Aronson, Z.H., Jurkat, M.P. and Schoorman, F.D. (2004) Implementing computer technology: a

multiorganizational test of Klein and Sorras model, Journal of Engineering and Technology Management,

21(12), pp. 3150.

Homans, G.C. (1961) Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms (New York, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich)

House, R.J. and Aditya, R.N. (1997) The social scientific study of leadership: quo vadis?, Journal of

Management, 23(3), pp. 409473.

House, R.J. and Mitchell, T.R. (1974) Path-goal theory of leadership, Journal of Contemporary Business, 3(4),

pp. 8197.

House, R.J., Spangler, W.D. and Woycke, J. (1991) Personality and charisma in the US presidency: a psycho-

logical theory of leader effectiveness, Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(3), pp. 364396.

Jaussi, K.S. and Dionne, S.D. (2003) Leading for creativity: the role of unconventional leader behavior,Leadership Quarterly, 14(4), pp. 475498.

Jimmieson, N.L., Peach, M. and White, K.M. (2008) Utilizing the theory of planned behavior to inform change

management: an investigation of employee intentions to support organizational change, The Journal of

Applied Behavioral Science, 44(2), pp. 237262.

Jung, D.I. (2001) Transformational and transactional leadership and their effects on creativity in groups,

Creativity Research Journal, 13(2), pp. 185195.

Jung, D.I., Chow, C. and Wu, A. (2003) The role of transformational leadership in enhancing organizational

innovation: hypotheses and some preliminary findings, Leadership Quarterly, 14(4), pp. 525544.

Kiefer, T. (2005) Feeling bad: antecedents and consequences of negative emotions in ongoing change, Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 26(8), pp. 875897.

Klein, K.J., Conn, A.B. and Sorra, J.S. (2001) Implementing computerized technology: an organizational

analysis, Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5), pp. 811824.Klein, K.J. and Knight, A.P. (2005) Innovation implementation: overcoming the challenge, Current Directions in

Psychological Science, 14(5), pp. 243246.



18/20

Klein, K.J. and Sorra, J.S. (1996) The challenge of innovation implementation, Academy of Management Review,

21(4), pp. 10551080.

Kline, R.B. (1998) Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling (New York: Guilford Press).

Korsgaard, M.A. and Roberson, L. (1995) Procedural justice in performance evaluation: the role of instrumental

and noninstrumental voice in performance-appraisal discussions, Journal of Management, 21(4),pp. 657669.

Korsgaard, M.A., Sapienza, H.J. and Schweiger, D.M. (2002) Beaten before begun: the role of procedural justice

in planning change, Journal of Management, 28(4), pp. 497516.

Krause, D.E. (2004) Influence-based leadership as a determinant of the inclination to innovate and of innovation-

related behaviors: an empirical investigation, Leadership Quarterly, 15(1), pp. 79102.

Leonard-Barton, D. (1988) Implementation characteristics of organizational innovations: limits and opportunities

for management strategies, Communication Research, 15(5), pp. 603631.

MacKinnon, D.P., Fairchild, A.J. and Fritz, M.S. (2007) Mediation analysis, Annual Review of Psychology, 58,

pp. 593614.

Marsh, H.W., Antill, J.K. and Cunningham, J.D. (1989) Masculinity and femininity: a bipolar construct and

independent constructs, Journal of Personality, 57(3), pp. 625663.

Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H. and Schoormann, F.D. (2007) An integrative model of organizational trust: past, present,and future, Academy of Management Review, 32(2), pp. 344354.

Michaelis, B., Buch, V., Stegmaier, R. and Sonntag, K. (2008) A recipe for effective and non-stressful change:

the role of organizational support and fairness, in: The Seventh International Conference on Occupational

Stress and Health, 2004 (Washington, DC).

Mishra, A.K. (1996) Organizational responses to crisis: the centrality of trust, in: R.M. Kramer and T.R. Tyler

(eds) Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research, pp. 261287 (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications).

Mulaik, S.A., James, L.R., Van Alstine, J., Bennett, N., Lind, S. and Stilwell, C.D. (1989) Evaluation of

goodness-of-fit indices for structural equation models, Psychological Bulletin, 105(3), pp. 430445.

Mumford, M.D. and Licuanan, B. (2004) Leading for innovation: conclusions, issues, and directions, Leadership

Quarterly, 15(1), pp. 163171.

Podsakoff, P.M. and Organ, D.W. (1986) Self-reports in organizational research: problems and prospects,Journal

of Management, 12(4), pp. 531544.

Reinke, S.J. (2003) Does the form really matter? Leadership, trust, and the acceptance of the performance apprai-

sal process, Review of Public Personnel Administration, 23(1), pp. 2337.

Repenning, N.P. and Sterman, J.D. (2002) Capability traps and self-confirming attribution errors in the dynamics

of process improvement, Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(2), pp. 265295.

Robie, C., Ryan, A.M., Schmieder, R.A., Parra, L.F. and Smith, P.C. (1998) The relation between job level and

job satisfaction, Group & Organization Management, 23(4), pp. 470495.

Robinson, S.L., Kraatz, M.S. and Rousseau, D.M. (1994) Changing obligations and the psychological contract: a

longitudinal study, Academy of Management Journal, 37(1), pp. 137152.

Seyranian, V. and Bligh, M.C. (2008) Presidential charismatic leadership: exploring the rhetoric of social change,


Shamir, B., House, R.J. and Arthur, M.B. (1993) The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: a self-

concept based theory, Organization Science, 4(4), pp. 577594.Sharma, R. and Yetton, P. (2003) The contingent effects of management support and task interdependence on

successful information systems implementation, MIS Quarterly, 27(4), pp. 533555.

Shin, S.J. and Zhou, J. (2003) Transformational leadership, conservation, and creativity: evidence from Korea,

Academy of Management Journal, 46(6), pp. 703714.

Sitkin, S.B. and Roth, N.L. (1993) Explaining the limited effectiveness of legalistic remedies for trust/ distrust,Organization Science, 4(3), pp. 367392.

Sutton, S. (1998) Predicting and explaining intentions and behavior: how well are we doing?, Journal of Applied

Social Psychology, 28(15), pp. 13171338.

Tornatzky, L.G. and Klein, K.J. (1982) Innovation characteristics and innovation adoption-implementation: a

meta-analysis of findings, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 29(1), pp. 2845.

Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R. and McKelvey, B. (2007) Complexity leadership theory: shifting leadership from the

industrial age to the knowledge era, Leadership Quarterly, 18(4), pp. 298318.Waldman, D.A., Javidan, M. and Varella, P. (2004) Charismatic leadership at the strategic level: a new appli-

cation of upper echelons theory, Leadership Quarterly, 15(3), pp. 355380.



19/20

Whitener, E., Brodt, S., Korsgaard, M.A. and Werner, J.M. (1998) Managers as initiators of trust: an exchange

relationship framework for understanding managerial trustworthy behavior, Academy of Management

Review, 23(3), pp. 513530.

Yukl, G.A. (1999) An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership

theories, The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), pp. 285305.Zhou, J. and George, J.M. (2003) Awakening employee creativity: the role of leader emotional intelligence,


Notes on Contributors

Bjorn Michaelis received his PhD in Organizational Behavior at the University ofHeidelberg, Germany. Currently, he is a Substitute Professor at the Departmentof Industrial and Organizational Psychology at the University of Heidelberg,Germany. His research focuses on how leadership and emotions promote orinhibit organizational change and innovation.

Ralf Stegmaier received his PhD in Psychology at the University of Heidelberg,Germany. Currently, he is a Professor at the Department of Industrial andOrganizational Psychology. His current research focuses on how procedural fair-ness and leadership affects organizational change and innovation processes.

Karlheinz Sonntag earned his PhD degree at the University of Munich, Germany;he is a full professor of Industrial and Organizational Psychology at the Universityof Heidelberg, Germany. His current research interests include human resourcedevelopment, workplace learning, change and innovation management, occu-

pational health, and aging workforce.



20/20

Copyright of Journal of Change Management is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or

emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.

However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Documents

Innovation Implemantation Behavior