A Study of the Effects of Leadership Styles on Innovation Management and Organizational Innovation in Environmental Protection Industry

Yi Lin, Jin Wu

Ekoloji, 2018, Issue 106, Pages: 771-777, Article No: e106078


Download Full Text (PDF)


Environmental protection industry covers prevent environmental pollution, improve the ecological environment, and protect natural resources to diversify the business marketing channels. It is necessary to utilize teamwork as the management model for sharing and fully using resources. Under the cross-industry business, traditional marketing is impacted and the market becomes more competitive. Salespeople in traditional Environmental protection industry could maintain the market by learning and enhancing personal service quality. The competence of a business supervisor is the key in the excellence of the team. The major characteristic of Environmental protection industry is talent oriented, unlike traditional manufacturing with plenty of production machines and production lines. The major issue for Environmental protection industry therefore is to enrich industrial talents. As the example of environmental protection industry in Guangdong, the effect of leadership styles on innovation management and organizational innovation is discussed. With quantitative questionnaire survey, data required for this study are collected and analyzed with statistics for the conclusion and suggestion. The research results reveal that leadership styles could coherence to the unit and induce employees involving in the work with continuous innovative ability to achieve organizational innovation; and, leadership styles could affect the operation of innovation management, which could induce employees to work hard.


leadership style, innovation management, organizational innovation, environmental protection industry


  • Adinoyi YM, Ernawati MK, Yusof NA (2014) Influences of Firm Size, Age and Sector on Innovation Behavior of Construction Consultancy Services Organizations in Developing Countries. Business Management Dynamics, 4(4): 1–9.
  • Arena M, Azzone G, Bengo I (2015) Performance measurement for social enterprises. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 26(2): 649-672.
  • Bailey JR (2016) The Difference between Good Leaders and Great Ones. Harvard Business Review.
  • Barlatier PJ, Dupouët O (2015) Achieving contextual ambidexterity with communities of practice at GDF SUEZ. Global Business and Organizational Excellence, 34(3): 43-53.
  • Barrientos E, Reilly AH (2016) Unpacking ‘‘Give Back Box:’’: A Social Enterpriseat the Intersection of Leadership, Innovation, and Sustainability. Journal of technology management & innovation, 11(1): 48-54.
  • Baškarada S, Watson J (2017) Managing the exploitation-exploration tradeoff: how leaders balance incremental and discontinuous innovation. Development and Learning in Organizations: An International Journal, 31(4): 13-16.
  • Chang JH, Teng CC (2017) Intrinsic or extrinsic motivations for hospitality employees’ creativity: The moderating role of organization-level regulatory focus. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 60: 133-141.
  • Chen ASY, Hou YH (2016) The effects of ethical leadership, voice behavior and climates for innovation on creativity: A moderated mediation examination. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(1): 1-13.
  • Dartey-Baah K (2015) Resilient leadership: A transformational-transactional leadership mix. Journal of Global Responsibility, 6(1): 99-112.
  • Garaus C, Güttel WH, Konlechner S, Koprax I, Lackner H, Link K, Müller B (2016) Bridging knowledge in ambidextrous HRM systems: Empirical evidence from hidden champions. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(3): 355-381.
  • Habaradas RB, Aure PAH (2016) Managing social enterprises in the Philippines: Challenges and strategies. Journal of Legal, Ethical and Regulatory Issues, 19(2): 39.
  • Hansen NK, Güttel WH, Swart J (2017) HRM in dynamic environments: Exploitative, exploratory, and ambidextrous HR architectures. The International Journal of Human Resource Management (in press): 1-32.
  • Jamielniak D, Latusek-Jurczak D, Prystupa K (2015) Klasykateoriizarządzania. Warszawa. Poland: WydawnictwoPoltext.
  • Johnston MW, Marshall GW (2016) Sales force management: Leadership, innovation, technology. Routledge.
  • Mirić AA, Krstić G (2017) Social Enterprises in Serbia: Analysis of Key Development Factors, Major Actors and their Relationships. Management: Journalof Sustainable Business and Management Solutions in Emerging Economies, 21(81): 47-57.
  • Mook L, Chan A, Kershaw D (2015) Measuring Social Enterprise Value Creation. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 26(2): 189-207.
  • Newth J (2016) Social Enterprise Innovation in Context: Stakeholder Influence through Contestation. Entrepreneurship Research Journal, 6(4): 369-399.
  • Nieves J, Segarra-Ciprés M (2015) Management innovation in the hotel industry. Tourism Management, 46: 51-58.
  • O’’Connor A, Du K, Roos G (2015) The intellectual capital needs of a transitioning economy: a case study exploration of Australian sectoral changes. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 16(3): 466-489.
  • Robbins SP, Coulter M (2017) Management (14th Ed). NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
  • Robbins SP, Judge TA (2015) Organizational Behavior (14th ed.). NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  • Robbins SP, Judge TA (2016) Organizational behavior (17th Ed.). NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
  • Salanova M, Lorente L, Chambel MJ, Martinez IM (2015) Linking transformational leadership to nurses’ extra-role performance: The mediating role of self-efficacy and work engagement. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 67(10): 2256-2266.
  • Tsai C-J (2016) Exploring the Problem Solving of Aurora Social Enterprise: An Application of Business Model Canvas.
  • Woodman T (2016) The leader ship is sinking: A temporal investigation of narcissistic leadership. Journal of Personality, 84(2): 237-247.
  • Zheng X, Liu Z, Gong X (2016) Why does leader attention scope matter for innovation ambidexterity? The mediating role of transformational leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 37(7): 912-935.