Innovativeness and Business Performance

SOLUTION AT Academic Writers Bay

Georgia State University
ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University
Business Administration Dissertations Programs in Business Administration
5-3-2020
Leadership Style and Organizational Structure Alignment: Impact
on Innovativeness and Business Performance
Charles Ifedi
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/bus_admin_diss
Recommended Citation
Ifedi, Charles, “Leadership Style and Organizational Structure Alignment: Impact on Innovativeness and
Business Performance.” Dissertation, Georgia State University, 2020.
https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/bus_admin_diss/129
This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Programs in Business Administration at
ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Business Administration
Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. For more information,
please contact
[email protected].
PERMISSION TO BORROW
In presenting this dissertation as a partial fulfillment of the requirements for an advanced
degree from Georgia State University, I agree that the Library of the University shall make it
available for inspection and circulation in accordance with its regulations governing materials of
this type. I agree that permission to quote from, copy from, or publish this dissertation may be
granted by the author or, in his absence, the professor under whose direction it was written or, in
his absence, by the dean of the Robinson College of Business. Such quoting, copying, or
publishing must be solely for scholarly purposes and must not involve potential financial gain. It
is understood that any copying from or publication of this dissertation that involves potential
gain will not be allowed without written permission of the author.
Charles Ifedi
NOTICE TO BORROWERS
All dissertations deposited in the Georgia State University Library must be used only in
accordance with the stipulations prescribed by the author in the preceding statement.
The author of this dissertation is:
Charles Ifedi
5180 Breezewood Cir
Alpharetta, GA 30004
The director of this dissertation is:
Naveen Donthu
J. Mack Robinson College of Business
Georgia State University
Atlanta, GA 30302-4015

LEADERSHIP STYLE AND ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE ALIGNMENT: IMPACT
ON INNOVATIVENESS AND BUSINESS PERFORMANCE
BY
CHARLES IFEDI
A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree
Of
Doctor of Philosophy
In the Robinson College of Business
Of
Georgia State University
GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY
ROBINSON COLLEGE OF BUSINESS
2020

Copyright by
Charles Ifedi
2020

ACCEPTANCE
This dissertation was prepared under the direction of the CHARLES IFEDI Dissertation
Committee. It has been approved and accepted by all members of that committee, and it has been
accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in
Business Administration in the J. Mack Robinson College of Business of Georgia State
University.
Richard Phillips, Dean
DISSERTATION COMMITTEE
Dr. Naveen Donthu (Chair)
Dr. Todd J. Maurer
Dr. Wesley J. Johnston

iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Special thanks to my advisor and committee members for their dissertation guidance. I
also thank the supportive faculty, staff, and cohort members of the Executive Doctorate in
Business Administration Program.
I am extremely grateful to my wife, Toyin Ifedi, and my beautiful daughters, Osinachi
and Dikachi, for their understanding and support throughout the program and in particular when
I was undertaking this research.

v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES ………………………………………………………………………………………………………. vii
LIST OF FIGURES ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… ix
I. INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 1
II. BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW ……………………………………………………. 4
II.1. Definitions………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 4
II.1.1. Organizational Innovativeness and Business Performance ………………………….. 4
II.1.2. Leadership Style ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 4
II.1.3. Organizational Structure …………………………………………………………………………… 5
II.2. Academic Literature Review …………………………………………………………………………… 7
III. THEORETICAL FRAMING………………………………………………………………………………… 11
III.1. Congruence Theory and Structural Contingency Theory: Key Concepts and
Claims 11
III.2. Hypotheses and Model……………………………………………………………………………….. 12
III.2.1. Relating Leadership Style to Innovativeness and Business Performance….. 12
III.2.2. Relating Organizational Structure to Innovativeness and Business
Performance ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 13
III.2.3. Relating Organizational Innovativeness and Business Performance to the
Leadership Style-Organizational Structure Fit……………………………………………………….. 14
III.2.4. The Relationship between Innovativeness and Business Performance……… 17
IV. RESEARCH METHOD………………………………………………………………………………………… 19
IV.1. Participants and Procedures………………………………………………………………………. 19
IV.2. Measures …………………………………………………………………………………………………… 22
IV.2.1. Independent Variables …………………………………………………………………………. 22
IV.2.2. Dependent Variables……………………………………………………………………………. 24
IV.2.3. Control Variables ………………………………………………………………………………… 26
V. RESULTS…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 28
V.1. Defining the Empirical Model………………………………………………………………………… 52
VI. DISCUSSION……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 56
VI.1. Key Findings……………………………………………………………………………………………… 56
VI.2. Research Contribution and Limitations ……………………………………………………… 59
VI.2.1. Contribution to Theory ………………………………………………………………………… 59
VI.2.2. Contribution to Practice……………………………………………………………………….. 60

vi
VI.2.3. Study Limitations & Recommendations for Future Research………………….. 61
VII.APPENDIX…………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 63
VII.1. Summarized Survey Instrument ………………………………………………………………… 63

vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Number of employees in the organizations studied ………………………………………….. 21
Table 2. CEO Tenure…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 22
Table 3. Cronbach’s Alpha (α) Coefficients of Reliability for the Leadership Style
Measures………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 24
Table 4. Cronbach’s Alpha (α) Coefficients of Reliability for Innovativeness Measure…… 25
Table 5. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Among Study Variables (ALL) ……………. 29
Table 6. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Among Study Variables for the Companies
with Functional Organizational Structure……………………………………………………………… 30
Table 7. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Among Study Variables for the Companies
with Divisional Organizational Structure ………………………………………………………………. 30
Table 8. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Among Study Variables for the Companies
with Matrix Organizational Structure …………………………………………………………………… 31
Table 9. Regression Results for CEO Leadership Style and Organizational Innovativeness
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 32
Table 10. Regression Results for Leadership Style and Business Performance ………………. 33
Table 11. Mean and Standard Deviation of Innovativeness for the Different Organizational
Structure Types (ALL)………………………………………………………………………………………….. 34
Table 12. Mean and Standard Deviation of Business Performance for the Different
Organizational Structure Types (ALL)………………………………………………………………….. 36
Table 13.
P-value Results of Comparative Performance Score for Different Organization
Sizes……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 38
Table 14. Regression Results for Leadership Style and Innovativeness for Functional
Organizations……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 42
Table 15. Regression Results for Leadership Style and Innovativeness for Divisional
Organizations……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 43
Table 16. Regression Results for Leadership Style and Innovativeness for Matrix
Organizations……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 44
Table 17. Regression Results for Leadership Style and Business Performance for
Functional Organizations………………………………………………………………………………………. 45

viii
Table 18. Regression Results for Leadership Style and Business Performance for Divisional
Organizations……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 47
Table 19. Regression Results for Leadership Style and Business Performance for Matrix
Organizations……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 49
Table 20. Hypotheses and Results Summary ………………………………………………………………… 51
Table 21. Path-Analytic Regression Results of the Entire Model …………………………………… 53

ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Characteristics of leaders with low versus high microinvolvement preference…. 10
Figure 2. Leadership Style-Organizational Structure Alignment…………………………………… 16
Figure 3. Proposed Conception Model for Leadership Style-Organizational Structure Fit 17
Figure 4. Proposed conceptual model depicting the independent, dependent, and control
variables……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 27
Figure 5. Empirical model showing the relationship between organizational structure,
organizational innovativeness and business performance……………………………………….. 54
Figure 6. Mediation path of CEO transformational and comparative performance through
organizational innovativeness………………………………………………………………………………… 55
Figure 7. Mediation path of CEO transformational and employee commitment through
organizational innovativeness………………………………………………………………………………… 55
Figure 8. Mediation path of CEO transformational and employee job satisfaction through
organizational innovativeness………………………………………………………………………………… 55

x
ABSTRACT
Leadership Style and Organizational Structure Alignment: Impact on Innovativeness and
Business Performance
by
Charles Ifedi
April 2020
Committee Chair: Naveen Donthu
Major Academic Unit: Doctorate in Business Administration
Organizations strive to achieve competitive advantage and deliver superior performance
by adequately utilizing and coordinating the resources available to them. Employees are a key
resource in an organization, but it is the chief executive officer (CEO) in particular, who leads
and coordinates all the resources of the organization, that has the most impact on the
organization’s fortunes. Even though the CEO may utilize many leadership styles and behaviors,
each CEO has an innate or preferred leadership style. Organizations are structured differently,
which has an impact on the way their activities are coordinated.
In this paper, I argue that if an organization is structured in a way that does not align with
the CEO’s leadership style, then it will not be a high-performing organization. Conversely, if an
organization is structured in a way that aligns with the CEO’s leadership style, then it will be a
high-performing organization. The leadership styles evaluated are transactional and
transformational leadership, and the organizational structures reviewed are functional, divisional,
and matrix structures.
I shed light on this issue by undertaking a quantitative study of 448 employees of smallto medium-sized companies (with 1-3,000 employees) in the technology industry operating in

xi
the United States of America. My findings show that irrespective of the organizational structure
used by a technology company, the CEO’s transformational leadership style has a direct and
indirect impact on organizational innovativeness and business performance. Contrary to some of
my hypotheses, I did not find that the CEO’s transactional leadership style has an impact on
organizational innovativeness or on business performance for any of the organizational structure
types. Additionally, I found no relationship between organizational structure and innovativeness,
or between organizational structure and business performance.
My academic contribution is demonstrated by applying CEO leadership style as a
contingency factor in the structural contingency theory, and my contribution to practice stems
from identifying which CEO leadership style is important in the achievement of organizational
innovativeness, superior performance, employee commitment, and job satisfaction.
INDEX WORDS: Organizational Structure, CEO Leadership Style, Innovativeness, Business
Performance, Job Satisfaction, Employee Commitment, Technology Company, Structural
Contingency Theory, Congruence Theory, Fit, Misfit

1
I. INTRODUCTION
Many factors influence the business performance of an organization. In business fora and
literature, the factors that are most commonly considered are the size of the organization and its
market power (Ahuja, Lampert, & Tandon, 2008; Bate, Khan, & Pye, 2000; Dhillon & Gupta,
2015; Rowe, 2001; Schumpeter, 1942), the competence of the chief executive officer (CEO) and
top management team (Lieberson & O’Connor, 1972), the organization’s strategy (Yıldız,
Baştürk, & Boz, 2014), organizational culture (Hartnell et al., 2016; Wilkins & Ouchi, 1983),
employees’ satisfaction (Blanco-Oliver, Veronesi, & Kirkpatrick, 2018; Wood & Ogbonnaya,
2018), market orientation and organizational learning (Narver & Slater, 1990, 1995), and other
environmental factors (Drazin & Van de Ven, 1985; Gavrea, Ilies, & Stegerean, 2011). A lot of
research has been done on the relationship between leadership style and innovativeness (Raj &
Srivastava, 2016; Wu, Chiang, & Jiang, 2002), between leadership style and business
performance (Bass, Avolio, Jung, & Berson, 2003; Ejere & Abasilim, 2013; Tran, 2017), and
between innovativeness and business performance (Colbert, Barrick, & Bradley, 2014; Yıldız et
al., 2014). Some research has been done on the relationship between organizational structure and
innovativeness (Dedahanov, Rhee, & Yoon, 2017; Tushman & Nadler, 1986) and the
relationship between organizational structure and business performance (Andersen & Jonsson,
2006; Burton, Lauridsen, & Obel, 2002); however, very little is known about how the interaction
of organizational structure and leadership style impacts innovativeness and business
performance.
Organizations differ in their organizational structure, and CEOs differ in their leadership
styles. According to Koohborfardhaghighi and Altmann (2017, p. 46), “organizational structure
can be defined as a network of roles with a special arrangement; they relate to one another based

2
on an organizational hierarchy and act in line with organizational goals.” DuBrin (2016, p. 124)
described “leadership style as the relatively consistent and predictable pattern of behavior that
characterizes a leader.” I opine that an optimal organizational structure is required to achieve
organizational goals, and the leadership style of the CEO, who typically has the most power and
authority within the organization, has a significant impact on the achievement of the
organizational goals. Literature appears to be silent on if there needs to be an alignment between
organizational structure and CEO leadership style. In this research, I studied the impact of the fit
between the CEO’s leadership style and the organizational structure in achieving organizational
goals. I focused on technology companies in the United States to set the boundaries of the study
on an industry in which this topic has not been studied. The primary aim of this research was to
answer the question, “What is the optimal fit between the CEO’s leadership style and the
organizational structure, in order for companies to be more innovative and achieve better
business performance?”
To answer this question, I engaged with employees of technology companies via an
extensive online questionnaire to answer questions about their CEO, the CEO’s leadership style,
their organization, and its organizational structure, as well as the employees’ perspectives about
the innovativeness and performance of their organization. I then analyzed the responses from the
employees through quantitative methods. The results show that the CEO transformational
leadership style fits with all the organizational structure types. Based on the findings, I was
unable to conclude on the impact of the fit between the CEO transactional leadership style and
any of the organizational structure types on organizational innovativeness and business
performance. Considered alone, organizational structure was not seen as a significant predictor
of organizational innovativeness and business performance.

3
For academia, this engaged scholarship research contributes to the body of knowledge by
empirically applying CEO leadership style as a contingency factor in structural contingency
theory, which has not been considered in prior research. For practitioners, the study provides
practical insights to CEOs of tech companies about the importance of the transformational
leadership style if the CEO’s objective is to improve organizational innovativeness and business
performance. The findings also deemphasize the need for CEOs that utilize transformational
leadership styles to have perfect organizational structures, because any chosen structure can
work.
I now present the structure of this paper. In Chapter I, I provide the introduction to the
study, the area of concern, the motivation for the study, an overview of the entire study, and the
research question. Chapter II contains the background of the study, the definition of the
constructs used throughout the study, and a review of the extant literature on the topic. In
Chapter III, I discuss the theories applied and their claims, articulate my hypotheses, and define
the model that was tested. In Chapter IV, I explain the research method, the source and reliability
of the data, and the data collection and analysis approach. Chapter V presents the results of the
analysis, and in Chapter VI, I bring the study to a close by answering the research question,
explaining key findings and implications, presenting the research contribution and limitations,
and then proposing future research.

4
II. BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW
II.1. Definitions
II.1.1. Organizational Innovativeness and Business Performance
Raj and Srivastava (2016) defined organizational innovativeness as the ability of the
organization to develop new products/services/processes. Innovativeness reflects an
organization’s willingness and capacity to pursue new opportunities to adopt and implement
innovations successfully (Hurley & Hult, 1998). In the changing business environment,
innovation is required to attain competitive advantage (Rubera & Kirca, 2012).
Business performance can be measured in financial and nonfinancial measures. Financial
measures of business performance are more common, and they include measures of profitability,
gross profit, return on assets (ROA), return on investment (ROI), return on equity (ROE),
revenue growth, and stock price. Nonfinancial measures focus mostly on internal achievements
of the organization, such as market share, customer growth rate, employee job satisfaction,
employee commitment, staff attrition rate, customer satisfaction, and net promoter score, among
others.
II.1.2. Leadership Style
Some literature categorizes leaders as either managerial or visionary leaders (Rowe,
2001), some as having a high level or low level of microinvolvement (Burton & Obel, 1998),
some as detail-oriented or big-picture leaders, and some as task-oriented or relationship-oriented
leaders (Fiedler, 1967), and other literature describes them as transactional or transformational
leaders (DuBrin, 2016; Raj & Srivastava, 2016). Based on the definitions used in these studies,
one could argue that these distinctions are not too dissimilar. The transactional leadership style is

5
a lot like the managerial leadership style, task-oriented leadership style, high level of
microinvolvement, and detail-oriented leadership, whereas the transformational leadership style
is like the visionary leadership style, relationship-oriented leadership style, low level of
microinvolvement, and big-picture leadership. I chose to use transactional and transformational
leadership categorizations to evaluate easily distinguishable leadership styles. In the transactional
leadership style, “the leader focuses on supervision, organization, and performance of routine
activities” (DuBrin, 2016, p. 89), establishes objectives, and monitors and controls results (Bass
& Avolio, 2004). For this study, I used the multifactor leadership questionnaire (MLQ) – form
5X-short, developed by Bass and Avolio (1995), which breaks transactional leadership style into
Contingent Reward (rewards achievement) and Management by Exception: Active (monitors
mistakes), and breaks transformational leadership style into Idealized Influence: Attributes
(builds trust), Idealized Influence: Behaviors (acts with integrity), Inspirational Motivation
(inspires others), Intellectual Stimulation (encourages innovative thinking), and Individual
Consideration (coaches people). Transformational leaders challenge the status quo (intellectual
stimulation), articulate a compelling vision of the future (inspirational motivation), engage in
behaviors that build followers’ trust in and identification with their leaders (charisma or idealized
influence), and listen to followers’ needs and concerns (individualized consideration) (Bass,
1985).
II.1.3. Organizational Structure
Various researchers have looked at organizational structure in different ways. Donaldson
(2001) used dimensions such as specialization, standardization, formalization, hierarchical
levels, and span of control to describe how organizational structures can be differentiated. Ansoff

6
and Brandengurg (1971) categorized organizational structures as centralized functional form,
decentralized divisional form, adaptive (project) form, and innovative form. Mintzberg (1980)
identified ideal types of organizational structures as simple form, machine form, professional
bureaucracy, divisional form, and adhocracy. I chose the distinctions used by
Koohborfardhaghighi and Altmann (2017), who described organizational structures as
functional, divisional, matrix, and project organizational structure, because these terms are more
commonly used in the business world today.
For this study, functional organizations are defined as organizations in which employees
are grouped by function (e.g., sales, marketing, engineering, and operations), and the
responsibility to deliver aspects of the organization’s products and services cuts across the
multiple functions working together to deliver organizational goals. A divisional organization is
structured around its products (or a cluster of products) or by geography, whereby each division
has all the functions (e.g., sales, marketing, engineering, and operations) required to run
independently. Matrix organizations are a combination of functional and divisional structure,
wherein most employees have more than one supervisor—a functional manager and an
additional manager—for example, a divisional manager, product manager, project manager, or
industry manager (depending on the focus of the organization). The main objective of the matrix
structure is to combine the benefit of day-to-day functional activities and other focus areas of the
organization. In project organizational structures, to deliver on various tasks, groups are formed
comprising employees with the requisite complimentary competences, and the groups disband
after the tasks have been concluded. In this research, I focused primarily on organizations with
functional, divisional, and matrix structures. I excluded companies with a project organizational
structure because the types of companies that I researched (i.e., technology companies) seldom

7
use this structure. It should be noted that it is possible for an organization not to have one of
these “pure” forms of organizational structure but to have aspects of multiple organizational
forms.
II.2. Academic Literature Review
Leadership style is a well-researched topic. Prior researchers agree that the leadership
style affects the level of innovativeness (Raj & Srivastava, 2016; Wu et al., 2002) and business
performance (Colbert et al., 2014; Yıldız et al., 2014) of organizations. Most leaders possess
both transactional and transformational leadership style and exhibit both behaviors to varying
degrees (Bass, 1999). In more specific terms, some research shows that a positive relationship
exists between transactional leadership style and organizational effectiveness factors such as
innovativeness, business performance, employee organizational commitment, and employee job
satisfaction (Afshari & Gibson, 2016; Jabeen, Behery, & Elanain, 2015; Rahman, Islam, Ahad
Abdullah, & Sumardi, 2018), whereas others conclude that transactional leadership behaviors
have a negative impact on organizational success factors (Masi & Cooke, 2000; You-De, YouYu, Kuan-Yang, & Hui-Chun, 2013). On the other hand, researchers generally agree that
transformational leadership style always has a positive effect on innovativeness, business
performance, worker execution, employee organizational commitment, and employee job
satisfaction (Garg, & Ramjee, 2013; Jia, Song, Li, Cui, & Chen, 2007; Rahman et al., 2018). A
combination of aspects of transactional and transformational behaviors to fit certain situations
has been described as delivering the most effective results in organizations (Bass, 1999; Chen &
Chen, 2009; Mosley & Patrick, 2011). Researchers sometimes suggest that the transformational
leadership style is more beneficial than transactional leadership style with respect to its impact

8
on organizational or employee effectiveness (Chen & Chen, 2009; Clinebell, Skudiene,
Trijonyte, & Reardon, 2013; Emery & Barker, 2007; Rathnaraj & Vimala, 2018).
An organizational structure, whether formalized or not, is required for an organization to
exist and be effective (Mintzberg, 1980). It is a generally held belief that the right organizational
structure enables competitiveness, innovativeness, learning, effectiveness, or performance
(Baligh, Burton, & Obel, 1996; Dedahanov et al., 2017; Khandwalla, 1973; Twomey, 2002), but
some researchers have found that there is no direct or indirect relationship between
organizational structure and organizational effectiveness, profitability, or performance (Andersen
& Jonsson, 2006). My interest in this research was to identify which organizational structure has
a positive impact on organizational success factors and which of the organizational forms
(functional, divisional, or matrix structure) is better. The literature presents conflicting views on
this topic. Ansoff and Brandenburg (1971) posited that each organizational structure type has
advantages and shortcomings, as well as conditions in which it is effective and less effective.
Some researchers have argued that divisional structures are better than functional structures
(Hamilton & Shergill, 1992), particularly as the size of the organization increases and/or the
number of products delivered by the company increases (Chandler, 1962) or the company
expands into more geographies (Egelhoff, 1982). Some researchers suggested that
divisionalization and increased diversification, particularly into un businesses, lead to
higher cost and lower performance (Bettis, 1981; Luffman & Reed, 1982; Rumelt, 1984) and that
the more diversified a company is (i.e., the more products a company offers), the harder it is to
manage (Hitt & Ireland, 1987). My opinion is that this is likely the case during the initial phases
of the divisionalization, but as the new business area stabilizes and begins to contribute, the
divisionalization and diversification may lead to higher returns. Dedalhanov et al. (2017) argued

9
that centralization and formalization (which are attributes of a functional organization) have a
negative relationship with organizational innovativeness. Looking at the industry at large, it is
evident that there are several innovative and high-performing functional-structured
organizations, and there are several innovative and high-performing divisional organizations.
Apple, Google, and Microsoft (after 2013) use functional structures, whereas General Electric,
Microsoft (before 2013), and Sony use divisional structures (Dhillon & Gupta, 2015; Rowe,
2001). One may therefore conclude that organizational structure alone is unable to determine the
innovativeness and business performance of a company.
In the preceding paragraphs, I discussed some of the current knowledge of how
leadership style and organizational structure uniquely impact innovativeness and business
performance. When it comes to the factors that influence organizational structure’s impact on
innovativeness and business performance, the most researched are size, strategy, and
environment. Studies that evaluated the interaction of leadership style and organization’s impact
innovativeness and business performance are quite scarce. Burton and Obel (1998) posited that
leaders have a preference for either high or low levels of microinvolvement with differing
attributes (see Figure 1). They argued that high microinvolvement leadership preference, which
is similar to transactional leadership style, is a misfit for matrix organizational structure,
divisional organizational structure, and low centralization. They also argued that low
microinvolvement leadership preference, which is quite like transformational leadership style, is
a misfit for functional organizational structure, and high centralization.

10
Adapted from Burton and Obel (1998, p. 98)
Figure 1. Characteristics of leaders with low versus high microinvolvement preference
It is a commonly held belief that organizational innovativeness has a direct and positive
impact on business performance, and this has been confirmed in several empirical studies
(Chien-Huang, Ching-Huai, & Kao, 2008; Colbert et al., 2014; Yıldız et al., 2014). For an entire
organization to be innovative, someone or something must create a culture that fosters
innovativeness across most parts of the organization. In this study, I argue that the interaction of
CEO leadership style and organizational structure impacts organizational innovativeness. Then, I
suggest that higher organizational innovativeness leads to higher business performance.
In the next chapter, I provide an overview of the theories that I applied in the study and
present the hypotheses and model developed for the study.

11
III.THEORETICAL FRAMING
III.1. Congruence Theory and Structural Contingency Theory: Key Concepts and Claims
Morton and Hu (2008) state that “Structural contingency theory posits that business
performance is achieved by matching organizational characteristics to contingencies.” According
to Donaldson (2001, p. 7),
contingency is defined as “any ‘variable’ or ‘factor’ that moderates
the effect of an organizational characteristic on business performance.” Donaldson (2001) argued
“that size, environment, and technology are the underlying contingencies in the structural
contingency literature.” Donaldson (2001, as cited in Morton & Hu, 2008, p. 393) stated that
“three main elements form the core paradigm of structural contingency theory: (1) there is an
association between the contingency and the organizational structure; (2) contingency impacts
the organizational structure; and (3) there is a fit of some level of the structural variable to each
level of the contingency, where high fit leads to effectiveness and low fit leads to
ineffectiveness.”
Nadler and Tushman (1980) described congruence as the measure of how well pairs of
components fit together. They defined the congruence between two components as “the degree to
which the needs, demands, goals, objectives, and/or structures of one component are consistent
with the needs, demands, goals, objectives, and/or structures of another component” (Nadler &
Tushman 1980, p. 45).
The core concept of these theories is “fit” (Drazin & Van de Ven, 1985). Congruence
theory focuses on various aspects of an organization being aligned for effectiveness, while
structural contingency theory focuses on one of the contingent factors being organizational
structure. Both theories agree with the proposition that an organization whose characteristics
(e.g., needs, demands, goals, objectives, and structures) fit with the contingencies, factors, or

12
variables in its situation will perform more effectively than an organization whose characteristics
do not fit with the contingencies in its situation (Nadler & Tushman, 1980), thereby leading to
better business performance. In this paper, I focus on leadership style as a contingency variable
because it has not been adequately researched. Fiedler’s (1967) contingency model holds that the
best style of leadership is determined by the situation in which the leader is working. Similarly, I
reason that once CEOs understand their leadership style, they should adapt it to fit the
organizational structure, or adapt their organizational structure to align with their leadership
style.
Throughout this paper, I use congruence, fit, match, and alignment interchangeably. I
also use organization and company interchangeably.
III.2. Hypotheses and Model
III.2.1.Relating Leadership Style to Innovativeness and Business Performance
As discussed in section II.2, prior researchers agree that leadership style impacts
organizational innovativeness and business performance. They, however, disagree on the
direction, positive or negative, of its impact. Because I focus on transactional and
transformational leadership style, I evaluate their impact as well as the direction of their impact
on innovativeness and business performance, and therefore propose the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1: CEO transformational leadership style and CEO transactional
leadership style are significant predictors of organizational innovativeness.
Hypothesis 2: CEO transformational leadership style and CEO transactional
leadership style are significant predictors of companies’ business performance.

13
III.2.2.Relating Organizational Structure to Innovativeness and Business Performance
Prior researchers also presented differing views on whether there is a direct (or indirect)
relationship between organizational structure and organizational effectiveness. Organizational
structure is at the center of structural contingency theory, so it is pertinent to verify if there is an
association between organizational structure and organizational innovativeness, and between
organizational structure and business performance for technology companies in the US. I also
wanted to identify which organizational form is better.
As organizations grow larger, they tend to move from functional to divisional or matrix
structures to remain focused and nimble. Based on this, I can assume that it is a commonly held
belief that if functional organizations do not move to divisional structures, they will become less
innovative. Due to the multiple reporting lines in matrix organizational forms, it is assumed that
matrix organizational structures are more complex than functional and divisional structures; as
such, they are not as efficient. To test these assumptions, I assessed the following:
Hypothesis 3a: Companies with divisional structures are more innovative than
companies with functional structures.
Hypothesis 3b: Companies with divisional structures are more innovative than
companies with matrix structures.
Hypothesis 3c: Companies with matrix structures are more innovative than
companies with functional structures.
Hypothesis 3d: Organizational structure is a significant predictor of company
innovativeness.

14
Because I argue that innovativeness leads to business performance, I therefore expected
that organizational structure would have the same impact on innovativeness and business
performance. As such, I also tested the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 4a: Companies with divisional structures achieve better business
performance than companies with functional structures.
Hypothesis 4b: Companies with divisional structures achieve better business
performance than companies with matrix structures.
Hypothesis 4c: Companies with matrix structures achieve better business
performance than companies with functional structures.
Hypothesis 4d: Organizational structure is a significant predictor of business
performance.
III.2.3.Relating Organizational Innovativeness and Business Performance to the Leadership
Style-Organizational Structure Fit
For any organizational structure to be effective, the ability to coordinate all activities and
collaborate across the boundaries of function or structure is required for effectiveness. The CEO
of an organization has the overall responsibility of coordinating and driving collaboration,
particularly for medium-sized organizations. My primary claim in this paper is that the
appropriate (or inappropriate) alignment between a CEO’s leadership style and organizational
structure increases (or decreases) organizational innovativeness and business performance.
In functional organizations, each of the functional teams performs different specialized
tasks and activities. For a CEO to adequately manage such an organization, the CEO needs to be
able to coordinate the different activities of the functional teams and pay attention to detail.

15
Transactional CEOs innately pay attention to detail, whereas transformational CEOs are typically
“big picture” minded, so I deduced that there would be a fit between transactional CEOs and
functional organizations, and a misfit between transformational CEOs and functional
organizations. Divisional organizations, on the other hand, have divisions that are
semiautonomous that can run effectively on their own without much interference. Overseeing a
divisional organization would require a CEO who can paint a vision and motivate the divisions,
which are traits exhibited by transformational CEOs and less so by transactional CEOs. The
transactional CEO is very competent in coordinating and directing, which are not very necessary
in a divisional organization and as such could lead to micromanaging and possible disruption of
the independent activities of divisions. I therefore deduced that there would be a fit between a
transformational CEO and a divisional organization, but a lesser fit (or even misfit) between a
transactional CEO and a divisional organization. An organization with a matrix structure requires
a lot of coordination, like a functional organization, as well as the ability to present a clear
strategy for the organization and motivate employees. The transactional CEO would be able to
better handle the coordination but poor at motivating the team, whereas the transformational
CEO would be able to paint a clear vision but poor at coordinating. Because a matrix
organizational structure is primarily a functional structure organization with an additional
reporting line, I argue that the matrix organization is a better fit for a transactional CEO than for
a transformational CEO. Figure 2 summarizes the expected alignments between the CEO
leadership styles and organizational structure forms.

16

Functional Divisional Matrix
Transactional
Transformational

Note.
= congruent = matched = aligned = fit
= incongruent = mismatched = not aligned = misfit
= likely congruent / likely mismatched
= likely incongruent / likely mismatched
Figure 2. Leadership Style-Organizational Structure Alignment
I evaluated the following hypotheses with respect to company innovativeness:
Hypothesis 5a: For companies with functional structures, the CEO transactional
leadership style is a greater predictor of company innovativeness than the CEO
transformational leadership style.
Hypothesis 5b: For companies with divisional structures, the CEO transformational
leadership style is a greater predictor of company innovativeness than the CEO
transactional leadership style.
Hypothesis 5c: For companies with matrix structures, the CEO transactional
leadership style is a greater predictor of company innovativeness than the CEO
transformational leadership style.
Similarly, for business performance, I evaluated the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 6a: For companies with functional structures, the CEO transactional
leadership style is a greater predictor of the company’s business performance than the
CEO transformational leadership style.

17
Hypothesis 6b: For companies with divisional structures, the CEO transformational
leadership style is a greater predictor of the company’s business performance than the
CEO transactional leadership style.
Hypothesis 6c: For companies with matrix structures, the CEO transactional
leadership style is a greater predictor of the company’s business performance than the
CEO transformational leadership style.
III.2.4.The Relationship between Innovativeness and Business Performance
To validate previous studies that showed a relationship between innovativeness and
business performance, such as that of Rubera and Kirca (2012), I hypothesized the following:
Hypothesis 7: There is a positive relationship between organizational innovativeness
and business performance.
Figure 3. Proposed Conception Model for Leadership Style-Organizational Structure Fit
I defined a model (see Figure 3) in which leadership style is the contingency of focus.
The conceptual model theorizes that specific CEO leadership style and organizational structure
factors, individually and together, lead to organizational innovativeness and business

18
performance. For business performance, I used three dimensions: one external dimension
(comparative performance) and two internal dimensions (employee job satisfaction and
employee commitment).
In Chapter IV, I provide details on how the data were collected, information about the
quantitative survey and the respondents, and the variables used in the study.

19
IV. RESEARCH METHOD
IV.1. Participants and Procedures
I obtained the data utilized for the research by surveying respondents who work in
technology companies in the United States. As a member of the Technology Association of
Georgia (TAG), I obtained the list of the 37,383 TAG members in the US, which comprised the
member name, company name, and e-mail address of each member. The TAG website
(https://www.tagonline.org/about/) states that TAG has “over 35,000 members representing over
2,000 tech and tech-enabled companies.” Because I was interested in organizations with fewer
than 3,000 employees, that had been in operation for at least 2 years, and that were based in the
US, I utilized the LinkedIn.com profiles, company website information, and other resources on
the Internet to prune the list down to 5,346 TAG members who worked in organizations that met
these criteria, and I sent the survey to only these potential respondents. I sent the survey
introduction and follow-up e-mails to each of the members via Qualtrics to ensure that responses
were adequately tracked. I sent a total of four e-mails to each potential respondent over an 8-
week period between July 31, 2019, and September 27, 2019. Upon receipt of the survey e-mail,
respondents were expected to read the research overview, review the survey instructions, and
then complete the online questionnaire. Each respondent was required to start and finish the
survey in one or multiple sittings within a 7-day period from when the respondent clicked on the
survey link to start the survey. Of the 5,346 respondents e-mailed, 1,126 e-mails bounced back,
24 respondents declined to participate, 142 respondents had partial or inaccurate data (which
made their responses ineligible), and 448 respondents fully completed the survey (11.05%
response rate). Inaccurate data included recipients who worked in ineligible organizations where
their organizational structure had changed less than 2 years prior to the time of completing the

20
survey. No incentives were given for the survey completion; however, respondents were
promised that they would receive a summary of the research findings at the completion of the
study.
Of the respondents, 275 (61.4%) identified as male, 172 (38.4%) as female, and one
(0.2%) as “Other.” In terms of the respondents’ highest level of education, one (0.2%) had not
completed high school, 26 (5.8%) had completed high school, 45 (10%) had not completed
college, 151 (33.7%) had a college degree, 32 (7.1%) had completed some graduate school, and
193 (43.1%) had completed graduate school. Eighteen respondents (4.0%) were between the
ages of 18 and 24 years, 107 respondents (23.9%) were between the ages of 25 and 34 years, 178
respondents (39.7%) were between the ages of 35 and 44 years, 105 respondents (23.4%) were
between the ages of 45 and 54 years, 28 respondents (6.3%) were between the ages of 55 and 64
years, and the remaining 12 respondents (2.7%) were 65 years old and older. Thirteen
respondents (2.9%) had worked with their organizations for less than a year, 98 respondents
(21.9%) had worked with their organizations for 1–3 years, 159 respondents (35.5%) had worked
for 4–6 years, 57 respondents (12.7%) had worked for 7–9 years, 62 respondents (13.8%) had
worked for 10–12 years, 12 respondents (2.7%) had worked for 13–14 years, and 47 respondents
(10.5%) had worked with their organizations for 15 years or more.
Only organizations headquartered in the US and that had been in operation for 2 or more
years were considered in the study. The organizations studied were headquartered in 41 out of
the 50 US states (see Figure A1 for the US regions represented). Thirty-nine of the organizations
(8.7%) studied had been in operation for 2–5 years, 123 (27.5%) had been in operation for 6–10
years, 49 (10.9%) had been in operation for 11–14 years, and 237 (52.9%) had been in operation
for 15 years or more. Table 1 presents the number of employees in the organizations studied, and

21
it shows that 36.8% of the companies (165) had fewer than 500 employees, 33.7% of the
companies (151) had between 501 and 1,000 employees, and 29.5% (132) had more than 1,000
employees.
Table 1. Number of employees in the organizations studied

No. of
employees
No. of
organizations
% of
organizations
1-50 18 4.0%
51-100 46 10.3%
101-200 39 8.7%
201-300 15 3.3%
301-400 16 3.6%
401-500 31 6.9%
501-600 43 9.6%
601-700 10 2.2%
701-800 22 4.9%
801-900 17 3.8%
901-1,000 59 13.2%
1,001-3,000 132 29.5%
448 100.0%

The survey also obtained information about the CEOs of the companies. Of the CEOs,
378 identified as male (84.4%), 66 as female (14.7%), one as “Other”, and three elected not to
respond to this question. Six of the CEOs (1.3%) had worked with their organizations for less
than a year, 42 (9.4%) had worked with their organizations for 1–3 years, 159 (35.5%) had
worked for 4–6 years, 58 (12.9%) had worked for 7–9 years, 81 (18.1%) had worked for 10–12
years, 22 (4.9%) had worked for 13–14 years, and 80 (17.9%) had worked with their
organizations for 15 years or more. I distinguished between how long the CEOs had worked with
the organizations and how long the CEOs had been CEOs at the organizations, which is
presented in Table 2.

22
Table 2. CEO Tenure

No. of years No. of years
as CEO
% of CEOs
Less than 1 year 7 1.6%
1 year 2 0.4%
2 years 7 1.6%
3 years 47 10.5%
4 years 46 10.3%
5 years 92 20.5%
6 years 39 8.7%
7 years 30 6.7%
8 years 18 4.0%
9 years 14 3.1%
10 years 66 14.7%
11 years 7 1.6%
12 years 8 1.8%
13 years 6 1.3%
14 years 4 0.9%
15 years or more 55 12.3%
448 100.0%

For representativeness of the leadership style, I compared the CEO leadership style score
with the U.S. public, and they were not very divergent (see Table A1 for details).
IV.2. Measures
For each of the constructs, validated scales created in previous research were employed
where available. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were used to determine the reliability of the
constructs. Statistical significance was set at a 95% confidence interval level (
p < .05).
IV.2.1. Independent Variables
For organizational structure, a question was used to ascertain which organizational
structure (i.e. functional, divisional, or matrix) the organization used. The question asked was

23
“Please characterize the form of your organizational structure based on the definitions provided
below.” The definitions provided were “Functional – employees are grouped on the basis of their
area of specialization (e.g., sales, marketing, or R&D)”; “Divisional – employees are grouped on
the basis of product, service, geography, etc., and each division has the resources (sales, product
managers, etc.) required for it to operate semiautonomously. Support functions (HR, finance,
etc.) may be shared”; and “Matrix – combination of functional and divisional, where most
employees have two managers (e.g., a functional manager and a divisional manager).” The
options provided to the respondents were “Functional,” “Divisional,” “Matrix,” and “Other,” and
respondents who chose “Other” had the ability to provide additional information about their
organizational structure. Of the data collected, 245 companies (54.7%) were functional, 90
companies (20.1%) were divisional, 110 companies (24.6%) were matrix, and three companies
(0.7%) were described as “Other.”
The leadership style measure sought to assess the CEOs’ transactional and
transformational leadership qualities, which was assessed using 28 out of the 45 items of Bass
and Avolio’s (1995) Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ Form 5x-Short). The MLQ
uses four items each (totaling eight items) to measure contingent reward and management by
exception (active) relating to transaction leadership. In addition, MLQ uses four items each
(totaling 20 items) to measure idealized attributes, idealized behaviors, inspirational motivation,
intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration relating to transformational leadership.
I averaged the item scores for each scale to form the respective scores each scale. I also averaged
all the items to transactional leadership style and transformational leadership style to
form their respective scores. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of reliability for transactional

24
leadership styles and transformational leadership style, as well as each of their subconstructs, are
presented in Table 3.
Table 3. Cronbach’s Alpha (α) Coefficients of Reliability for the Leadership Style
Measures

Construct Scales Description Cronbach’s
alpha
Cronbach’s
alpha
CEO
Transactional
Leadership Style
Contingent
reward
Rewards
achievement
0.851 0.811
Management-by-
exception: active
Actively
manages by
exception
0.758
CEO
Transformational
Leadership Style
Idealized
attributes
Builds trust 0.756 0.946
Idealized
behaviors
Acts with
integrity
0.750
Inspirational
motivation
Inspires others 0.809
Intellectual
stimulation
Encourages
innovative
thinking
0.816
Individualized
consideration
Coaches people 0.839

IV.2.2. Dependent Variables
To ascertain organizational innovativeness, I adopted Shoham, Vigoda-Gadot, Ruvio, and
Schwabsky’s (2012) scale to evaluate various dimensions (i.e., creativity, openness to change,
future orientation, risk-taking, and proactiveness of the organizations). I averaged the item scores
for each scale to form the respective scores for each scale, and I averaged all the items to form
the organizational innovativeness score. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of reliability for
organizational innovativeness, as well as each of their subconstructs, are presented in Table 4.

25
Table 4. Cronbach’s Alpha (α) Coefficients of Reliability for Innovativeness Measure

Construct Scales No. of Items Cronbach’s
alpha
Cronbach’s
alpha
Organizational
Innovativeness
Creativity 5 0.902 0.961
Openness to
change
4 0.900
Future
orientation
4 0.916
Risk-taking 4 0.836
Proactiveness 4 0.865

For business performance, I chose to assess one external dimension (comparative
financial performance) and two internal dimensions (employee job satisfaction and employee
commitment) independently. For comparative financial performance, I asked the respondents
“How would you rate your company’s overall financial performance compared to competition?”
and provided the options:
far below average, somewhat below average, average, somewhat
above average
, and far above average. I chose to use this measure for financial performance
because I was targeting responses from nonpublic organizations, which would be unwilling to
provide confidential financial information to a third party. To augment the nonavailability of
detailed financial performance, I added two nonfinancial business performance scales (employee
commitment and employee job satisfaction) adapted from Shoham et al. (2012). For employee
commitment, there were four items, and I averaged the item scores to form the employee
commitment score. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of reliability for employee commitment
was 0.884. For employee job satisfaction, there were five items, and I averaged the item scores to

26
form the employee job satisfaction score. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of reliability for
employee job satisfaction was 0.844.
IV.2.3. Control Variables
To ascertain the influence of leadership style and organizational structure on
innovativeness and business performance, it was important to control for certain variables that
could otherwise explain the dependent variables. The control variables considered were size of
the organization, age of the organization, CEO leadership experience, and number of years the
CEO had been in the company. I controlled for organization size because it is likely going to
have a high correlation with comparative performance, and it is a frequently researched predictor
of business performance. I controlled for the age of the organization because I also expected it to
correlate highly with the age of the organization and comparative performance. I controlled for
CEO leadership experience and the CEO tenure in the organization to avoid the clouding the
effects of CEO leadership style on the results.
To determine the size of the organization, the question “How many employees are
employed in your company?” was asked, and the options 1–50, 51–100, 101–200 . . . 901–1,000,
and 1,000+ were provided. For the age of the organization, the question “How long has the CEO
been employed in this organization?” was asked, and the options provided ranged from “less
than 1 year” to “15 years or more.” The CEO tenure was determined by asking, “How long has
the CEO held the CEO position in your company?” and providing the options “less than 1 year”
to “15 years or more.” In addition, the CEO experience with the company was determined by
asking “How long has the CEO been employed in this organization?” and the options ranged
from “less than 1 year” to “15 years or more.”

27
Using each of the variables that would be evaluated, I revised the model in Figure 3 and
produced Figure 4.
Figure 4. Proposed conceptual model depicting the independent, dependent, and control
variables.
The analysis strategy, approach, and the results are presented in Chapter V.
28
V. RESULTS
The statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics Version 25 (2017).
Descriptive statistics (e.g., mean and standard deviation) and Pearson’s correlations were used to
analyze the data and evaluate the relationships between the variables. Multiple regression is used
to determine how well the independent variables are able to predict the dependent variables. The
independent
t-test was used to determine whether a statistically significant difference in
organizational innovativeness and business performance exists between the organizational
structure forms. The Baron and Kenny (1986) method (described in Miles & Shevlin, 2001, pp.
187–190) is used to analyze the mediation path of the model (i.e., innovativeness–performance).
Tables 5–8 show descriptive statistics and correlations among the independent,
dependent, and control variables for all the respondents, and then for respondents in
organizations with functional, divisional, and matrix structures. Looking at the correlations,
which include all the organizations studied, transactional leadership style cor positively
with transformational leadership style (
r = 0.757, p < .01), organizational innovativeness (r =
0.589,
p < .01), comparative performance (r = 0.313, p < .01), employee job satisfaction (r =
0.505,
p < .01), and employee commitment (r = 0.466, p < .01). Transactional leadership style
also cor positively with the same variables across all the organization structure types.
Similarly for all the organizations studied, transformational leadership style cor positively
with organizational innovativeness (
r = 0.739, p < .01), comparative performance (r = 0.433, p <
.01), employee job satisfaction (
r = 0.630, p < .01), and employee commitment (r = 0.617, p <
.01). Similarly, transformational leadership style also cor positively with the same
variables across all the organization structure types. Comparing innovativeness with the business

29
performance dimensions for all the organizations, organizational innovativeness cor
positively with comparative performance (
r = 0.429, p < .01), employee job satisfaction (r =
0.793,
p < .01), and employee commitment (r = 0.752, p < .01). Organizational leadership style
also cor positively with these same variables across all the organization structure types.
Not surprisingly, organizational innovativeness had a negative correlation with company age (
r =
-0.117,
p < .05) for all the organizations and for organizations with functional structures.
Organizational innovativeness was not to organizational size, CEO company experience,
and CEO tenure in all the organizations, as well as in each specific organizational structure type.
As expected, comparative performance cor positively with organization size (
r = 0.193, p
< .05) in all the organizations, as well as for the functional and divisional organizations.
Employee job satisfaction had a negative correlation with CEO tenure (
r = -0.193, p < .05) with
only the data of all the organizations but did not correlate for each of the specific organization
forms. Employee job satisfaction did not have a relationship with any of the other control
variables.
Table 5. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Among Study Variables (ALL)

Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Transactional 2.558 0.795
2. Transformational 2.846 0.798 0.757**
3. Organizational
Innovativeness
3.995 0.806 0.589** 0.739**
4. Comparative
Performance
3.920 0.955 0.313** 0.433** 0.429**
5. Employee Job
Satisfaction
4.004 0.897 0.505** 0.630** 0.793** 0.383**
6. Employee
Commitment
4.118 0.918 0.466** 0.617** 0.752** 0.359** 0.787**
7. Organization
Size
7.890 3.898 0.135** 0.043 0.074 0.193* 0.059 0.046
8. Company Age 13.060 3.714 -0.091 -0.096* -0.117* 0.003 -0.068 -0.044 0.343**
9. CEO company
experience
8.270 4.288 -0.068 -0.096* -0.043 0.030 -0.061 -0.040 0.066 0.443**
10. CEO Tenure 8.380 3.960 -0.145** -0.162** -0.077 0.007 -0.102* -0.069 0.002 0.353** 0.827**

Note. *p < .05. **p < .01. n = 448.
30
Table 6. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Among Study Variables for the Companies
with Functional Organizational Structure

Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Transactional 2.561 0.799
2. Transformational 2.848 0.780 0.748**
3. Organizational
Innovativeness
4.005 0.775 0.611** 0.740**
4. Comparative
Performance
3.910 0.939 0.265** 0.370** 0.384**
5. Employee Job
Satisfaction
3.994 0.871 0.505** 0.612** 0.754** 0.335**
6. Employee
Commitment
4.128 0.900 0.450** 0.602** 0.717** 0.333** 0.771**
7. Organization
Size
7.52 4.033 0.231** 0.128* 0.165** 0.268** 0.101 0.077
8. Company Age 12.74 3.697 -0.084 -0.096 -0.136* 0.030 -0.102 -0.039 0.314**
9. CEO company
experience
8.020 4.296 -0.078 -0.117 -0.049 0.031 -0.056 -0.009 0.011 0.427**
10. CEO Tenure 8.240 4.105 -0.120 -0.155* -0.041 -0.021 -0.081 -0.004 -0.049 0.334** 0.854**

Note. *p < .05. ** p < .01. n = 245.
Table 7. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Among Study Variables for the Companies
with Divisional Organizational Structure

Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Transactional 2.564 0.734
2. Transformational 2.865 0.751 0.697**
3. Organizational
Innovativeness
3.995 0.809 0.523** 0.683**
4. Comparative
Performance
3.820 0.907 0.313** 0.457** 0.409**
5. Employee Job
Satisfaction
4.023 0.939 0.423** 0.621** 0.815** 0.386**
6. Employee
Commitment
4.094 0.992 0.402** 0.558** 0.740** 0.291** 0.799**
7. Organization
Size
8.540 3.601 0.128 -0.006 -0.014 0.209* -0.052 -0.058
8. Company Age 13.710 3.494 -0.213* -0.137 -0.153 -0.077 -0.121 -0.141 0.233*
9. CEO company
experience
8.740 4.494 -0.139 -0.156 -0.137 -0.033 -0.180 -0.230* 0.128 0.437**
10. CEO Tenure 8.540 3.935 -0.258* -0.194 -0.225* 0.046 -0.193 -0.272** 0.110 0.397** 0.800**

Note. *p < .05. **p < .01. n = 90.
31
Table 8. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Among Study Variables for the Companies
with Matrix Organizational Structure

Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Transactional 2.543 0.845
2. Transformational 2.821 0.888 0.812**
3. Organizational
Innovativeness
3.981 0.873 0.597** 0.778**
4. Comparative
Performance
4.040 1.004 0.417** 0.557** 0.533**
5. Employee Job
Satisfaction
4.013 0.909 0.572** 0.678** 0.854** 0.492**
6. Employee
Commitment
4.109 0.903 0.552** 0.700** 0.832** 0.489** 0.816**
7. Organization
Size
8.240 3.714 -0.055 -0.092 -0.018 0.020 0.064 0.112
8. Company Age 13.350 3.775 -0.023 -0.067 -0.034 -0.025 0.047 0.068 0.422**
9. CEO company
experience
8.540 4.074 -0.002 -0.012 0.035 0.031 0.026 0.076 0.111 0.471**
10. CEO Tenure 8.650 3.651 -0.133 -0.163 -0.054 -0.011 -0.078 -0.040 0.020 0.354** 0.781**

Note. *p < .05. ** p < .01. n = 110.
The preliminary results of the correlations, which considers neither the combined effect
of the independent variables nor the effect of the control variables, showed the CEO
transformational leadership style had a stronger correlation than the CEO transactional
leadership style against organizational innovativeness, comparative performance, employee job
satisfaction, and employee commitment across all the organizational structure types.
Hierarchical multiple regression was used to assess the ability of the CEO
transformational leadership style and CEO transactional leadership style to predict organizational
innovativeness, after controlling for the control variables. The control variables explained 2.5%
of the variance in organizational innovativeness, and with the inclusion of CEO transformational
leadership style and CEO transactional leadership style, the total variation explained by the
model as a whole was 55.2%,
F(6,441) = 92.658, p < .001. Of the control variables, organization
size (
b = 0.014, beta = 0.069, p < .05), and company age (b = -0.021, beta = -0.097, p < .05) were
statistically significant. Transformational leadership style also made a unique statistically
significant contribution (
b = 0.705, beta = 0.698, p < .001), while transactional leadership style
was not statistically significant. Therefore, H1 is partially supported (refer to Table 9).

32
Table 9. Regression Results for CEO Leadership Style and Organizational Innovativeness

Dependent Variable
Predictors Organizational Innovativeness
Transactional 0.054
Transformational 0.705**
Organization Size 0.014*
Company Age -0.021*
CEO Company Experience 0.001
CEO Tenure 0.015
Control Variables Adjusted R2 0.025**
Model Adjusted R2 0.552**

Note. Tabled values are unstandardized regression (b) coefficients.
*
p < .05. **p < .01. n = 448.
Next, hierarchical multiple regression was used to assess the ability of the CEO
transformational leadership style and CEO transactional leadership style to predict business
performance (using the comparative performance score), after controlling for the control
variables. Using the adjusted R
2 (Table 10), the control variables explained 3.6% of the variance
in business performance, and with the inclusion of CEO transformational leadership style and
CEO transactional leadership style, the total variation explained by the model as a whole was
21.8%,
F(6,441) = 21.782, p < .001. Of the control variables, only organization size (b = 0.50,
beta = 0.203,
p < .001) was statistically significant. Transformational leadership style also made
a unique statistically significant contribution (
b = 0.592, beta = 0.495, p <.001), whereas
transactional leadership style was not statistically significant. Therefore, H2(i) is partially
supported.

33
Table 10. Regression Results for Leadership Style and Business Performance

Dependent Variables
Predictors Comparative
Performance
Employee
Commitment
Employee Job
Satisfaction
Transactional -0.098 -0.005 0.062
Transformational 0.592** 0.719** 0.654**
Organization Size 0.050** 0.005 0.008
Company Age -0.016 0.000 -0.005
CEO Company Experience 0.004 -0.006 -0.001
CEO Tenure 0.020 0.012 0.003
Control Variables Adjusted R2 0.036** 0.001 0.011
Model Adjusted R2 0.218** 0.374** 0.392**

 

Note. *p < .05. **p < .01. n = 448.

Hierarchical multiple regression was used to assess the ability of the CEO
transformational leadership style and CEO transactional leadership style to predict employee
commitment, after controlling for the control variables. Using the adjusted R
2 (Table 10), the
control variables explained 0.1% of the variance in employee commitment, and with the
inclusion of CEO transformational leadership style and CEO transactional leadership style, the
total variation explained by the model as a whole was 37.4%,
F(6,441) = 45.425, p < .001. None
of the control variables were statistically significant. Transformational leadership style made a
unique statistically significant contribution (
b = 0.719, beta = 0.625, p < .001), whereas
transactional leadership style was not statistically significant. Therefore, H2(ii) is partially
supported.
Hierarchical multiple regression was used to assess the ability of the CEO
transformational leadership style and CEO transactional leadership style to predict employee job
satisfaction, after controlling for the control variables. Using the adjusted R
2 (Table 10), the
control variables explained 1.1% of the variance in employee job satisfaction, and with the

34
inclusion of CEO transformational leadership style and CEO transactional leadership style, the
total variation explained by the model as a whole was 39.2%,
F(6,441) = 49.040, p < .001. None
of the control variables were statistically significant. Transformational leadership style made a
unique statistically significant contribution (
b = 0.654, beta = 0.586, p < .001), whereas
transactional leadership style was not statistically significant. Therefore, H2(iii) is partially
supported. As a whole, H2 is partially supported.
An independent sample
t-test was conducted to evaluate the hypotheses that
organizations with divisional structures, functional structures, and matrix structures differ
significantly from one another in their innovativeness. The mean innovativeness scores for the
different organization structure types are listed in Table 11.
Table 11. Mean and Standard Deviation of Innovativeness for the Different Organizational
Structure Types (ALL)

Construct Organizational
Structure
N Mean SD
Organizational
Innovativeness
Functional 245 4.0047 0.7749
Divisional 90 3.9952 0.8078
Matrix 110 3.9810 0.8728

Note. n = 445.
The results of the t-tests for Hypothesis 3a-c are presented in the paragraphs below.
The organizational innovativeness score of functional organizations (
M = 4.045, SD =
0.7749) was not statistically significantly different (
t = 0.098, df = 333, two-tailed p = .922) from
that of divisional organizations (
M = 3.995, SD = 0.8078). The magnitude of the differences in
the means (mean difference = 0.009, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.20]) was very small (eta squared =
0.00003) according to Cohen’s (1988, pp. 284–7) terms. Based on these results, H3a is not
supported.

35
The organizational innovativeness score of divisional organizations (M = 3.995, SD =
0.8078) was not statistically significantly different (
t = 0.119, df = 198, two-tailed p = .905) from
that of matrix organizations (
M = 3.981, SD = 0.8723). The magnitude of the differences in the
means (mean difference = 0.014, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.25]) was very small (eta squared = 0.00007).
Based on these results, H3b is not supported.
The organizational innovativeness score of functional organizations (
M = 4.045, SD =
0.7749) was not statistically significantly different (
t = 0.256, df = 353, two-tailed p = .798) from
that of matrix organizations (
M = 3.981, SD = 0.8723). The magnitude of the differences in the
means (mean difference = 0.023, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.21]) was very small (eta squared = 0.00019).
Based on these results, H3c is not supported.
Tests and analysis were performed of organizational innovativeness comparison between
functional, divisional, and matrix organizational structure types for the organizations with fewer
than 1,000 employees, as well as for the organizational with more than 1,000 employees. The
results also showed no statistically significant difference in organizational innovativeness exists
amongst organizations with functional, division, and matrix organizational structures with fewer
than 1,000 employees, and similarly for organizations with more than 1,000 employees.
The organizational structure type (comprising functional, divisional, and matrix
structures) was the nominal variable, which I converted to dummy variables and used in a
regression analysis. A standard multiple regression was performed between company
innovativeness as the dependent variable and the dummy variables for functional, divisional, and
matrix organizational structure types as the independent variables. Using the R
2, the total
variation explained by the model was 0%,
F(2,445) = 0.024, n.s. None of the organizational
structure dummy variables were statistically significant, therefore, H3d is not supported. I

36
performed similar tests and analysis to ascertain how well organizational structure predicts
organizational innovativeness for organizations with fewer than 1,000 employees, as well as for
organizations with more than 1,000 employees; similarly, none of the organizational structure
dummy variables were statistically significant.
An independent sample
t-test was conducted to evaluate the hypothesis that organizations
with divisional structures, functional structures, and matrix structures differ significantly from
one another in their business performance. The constructs used to measure business performance
are (a) comparative performance, (b) employee commitment, and (c) employee job satisfaction.
The mean comparative performance, employee commitment, and job satisfaction scores for the
different organization structure types are listed in Table 12.
Table 12. Mean and Standard Deviation of Business Performance for the Different
Organizational Structure Types (ALL)

Construct Organizational
Structure
N Mean SD
Comparative
Performance
Functional 245 3.910 0.939
Divisional 90 3.820 0.902
Matrix 110 4.040 1.004
Employee
Commitment
Functional 245 4.128 0.900
Divisional 90 4.094 0.992
Matrix 110 4.109 0.903
Employee Job
Satisfaction
Functional 245 3.994 0.871
Divisional 90 4.027 0.939
Matrix 110 4.013 0.909

Note. n = 445.
37
The results of the t-tests for Hypothesis 4a–c are presented in the paragraphs below.
The comparative performance score of functional organizations (
M = 3.910, SD = 0.939)
was not statistically significantly different (
t = 0.803, df = 333, two-tailed p = .423) from that of
divisional organizations (
M = 3.820, SD = 0.902). The magnitude of the differences in the means
(mean difference = 0.092, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.32]) was very small (eta squared = 0.00193)
according to Cohen’s (1988, pp. 284–7) terms. Based on these results, H4a(i) is not supported.
The comparative performance score of divisional organizations (
M = 3.820, SD = 0.902) was not
statistically significantly different (
t = -1.567, df = 198, two-tailed p = .119) from that of matrix
organizations (
M = 4.040, SD = 1.004). The magnitude of the differences in the means (mean
difference = -0.214, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.06]) was small (eta squared = 0.01225). Based on these
results, H4b(i) is not supported. The comparative performance score of functional organizations
(
M = 3.910, SD = 0.939) was not statistically significantly different (t = -1.108, df = 353, twotailed p = .268) from that of matrix organizations (M = 4.040, SD = 1.004). The magnitude of the
differences in the means (mean difference = -0.122, 95% CI [-0.34 to 0.10]) was very small (eta
squared = 0.00347). Based on these results, H4c(i) is not supported. I performed similar tests and
analysis to compare the comparative performance of the different organizational structure types
for the organizations with fewer than 1,000 employees, as well as for the organizational with
more than 1,000 employees. The results from Table 12 and Table 13 show that for organizations
with fewer than 1000 employees, the matrix organizational structure delivers more performance
than the divisional organizational structure; none of the other comparisons were statistically
significantly different.

38
Table 13. P-value Results of Comparative Performance Score for Different Organization
Sizes

Construct Comparison Organizational Size
(employee count)
Sig. (2-tailed)
Comparative
Performance
Functional vs.
Divisional
ALL 0.423
< 1,000 0.373
1,000+ 0.537
Divisional vs.
Matrix
ALL 0.119
< 1,000 0.040*
1,000+ 0.989
Functional vs.
Matrix
ALL 0.268
< 1,000 0.100
1,000+ 0.541

The employee commitment score of functional organizations (M = 4.128, SD = 0.900)
was not statistically significantly different (
t = 0.290, df = 333, two-tailed p = .772) from that of
divisional organizations (
M = 4.094, SD = 0.992). The magnitude of the differences in the means
(mean difference = 0.033, 95% CI [and -0.19, 0.26]) was very small (eta squared = 0.00025)
according to Cohen’s (1988, pp. 284–7) terms. Based on these results, H4a(ii) is not supported.
The employee commitment score of divisional organizations (M = 4.094, SD = 0.992) was not
statistically significantly different (
t = –0.109, df = 198, two-tailed p = 0.913) from that of matrix
organizations (
M = 4.109, SD = 0.903). The magnitude of the differences in the means (mean
difference = -0.015, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.25]) was very small (eta squared = 0.00006). Based on
these results, H4b(ii) is not supported. The employee commitment score of functional
organizations (
M = 4.128, SD = 0.900) was not statistically significantly different (t = 0.179, df =
353, two-tailed
p = .858) from that of matrix organizations (M = 4.109, SD = 0.903). The
magnitude of the differences in the means (mean difference = 0.018, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.22]) was
very small (eta squared = 0.00009). Based on these results, H4c(ii) is not supported. I performed

39
similar tests and analysis to compare the employee commitment of the different organizational
structure types for organizations with fewer than 1,000 employees, as well as for organizations
with more than 1,000 employees. The results from all the comparisons were not statistically
significantly different.
The employee job satisfaction score of functional organizations (
M = 3.994, SD = 0.871)
was not statistically significantly different (
t = -0.303, df = 333, two-tailed p = .762) from that of
divisional organizations (
M = 4.027, SD = 0.939). The magnitude of the differences in the means
(mean difference = -0.033, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.18]) was very small (eta squared = 0.00028)
according to Cohen’s (1988, pp. 284–7) terms. Based on these results, H4a(iii) is not supported.
The employee job satisfaction score of divisional organizations (
M = 4.027, SD = 0.939) was not
statistically significantly different (
t = 0.106, df = 198, two-tailed p = .915) from that of matrix
organizations (
M = 4.013, SD = 0.909). The magnitude of the differences in the means (mean
difference = 0.014, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.27]) was very small (eta squared = 0.00006). Based on
these results, H4b(iii) is not supported. The employee job satisfaction score of functional
organizations (
M = 3.994, SD = 0.871) was not statistically significantly different (t = -0.190, df
= 353, two-tailed
p = .849) from that of matrix organizations (M = 4.013, SD = 0.909). The
magnitude of the differences in the means (mean difference = -0.019, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.18]) was
very small (eta squared = 0.00010). Based on these results, H4c(iii) is not supported. I performed
similar tests and analysis to compare the employee job satisfaction of the different organizational
structure types for organizations with fewer than 1,000 employees, as well as for organizations
with more than 1,000 employees. The results from all the comparisons were not statistically
significantly different.

40
The organizational structure type (comprising functional, divisional, and matrix
structures) was a nominal variable that I converted to dummy variables and used in a regression
analysis. A standard multiple regression was performed between business performance (using the
comparative performance score) as the dependent variable and the dummy variables for
functional, divisional, and matrix organizational structure types as the independent variables.
Using the R
2, the total variation explained by the model was 0.6%, F(2,445) = 1.347, n.s. None
of the organizational structure dummy variables were statistically significant; therefore, H4d(i) is
not supported. I performed similar tests and analysis to ascertain how well organizational
structure predicts business performance for organizations with fewer than 1,000 employees, as
well as for organizations with more than 1,000 employees. The results showed that for
organizations with fewer than 1000 employees, when referencing against divisional structure, the
model explained 1% (adjusted R
2) of business performance, F(2,313) = 2.609, p = .075, with the
matrix organizational structure (
b = 0.357, beta = 0.164, p < .05) being a predictor of business
performance, whereas functional organizational structure was not statistically significant. A
standard multiple regression was performed between employee commitment as the dependent
variable and the dummy variables for functional, divisional, and matrix organizational structure
types as the independent variables. Using the R
2, the total variation explained by the model was
0%,
F(2,445) = 0.056, n.s. None of the organizational structure dummy variables were
statistically significant; therefore, H4d(ii) is not supported. I performed similar tests and analysis
to ascertain how well organizational structure predicts employee commitment for organizations
with fewer than 1,000 employees, as well as for organizations with more than 1,000 employees.
Similarly, none of the organizational structure dummy variables was statistically significant. A
standard multiple regression was performed between employee job satisfaction as the dependent

41
variable and the dummy variables for functional, divisional, and matrix organizational structure
types as the independent variables. Using the R
2, the total variation explained by the model was
0%,
F(2,445) = 0.060, n.s. None of the organizational structure dummy variables were
statistically significant; therefore, H4d(iii) is not supported. I performed similar tests and analysis
to ascertain how well organizational structure predicts employee job satisfaction for
organizations with fewer than 1,000 employees, as well as for organizations with more than
1,000 employees. Similarly, none of the organizational structure dummy variables were
statistically significant.
For organizations with the functional organizational structure, hierarchical multiple
regression was used to assess the ability of the CEO transformational leadership style and CEO
transactional leadership style to predict organizational innovativeness, after controlling for the
control variables. The control variables explained 5.2% of the variance in organizational
innovativeness, and with the inclusion of CEO transformational leadership style and CEO
transactional leadership style, the total variation explained by the model as a whole was 56.9%,
F(6,238) = 54.716, p < .001. Of the control variables, organization size (b = 0.021, beta = 0.009,
p < .05), company age (b = -0.028, beta = -0.050, p < .01), and CEO tenure (b = 0.031, beta =
0.164,
p < .05) were statistically significant. Transformational leadership style also made a
unique statistically significant contribution (
b = 0.658, beta = 0.662, p < .001), while
transactional leadership style was not statistically significant. Therefore, H5a is not supported
(see Table 14).

42
Table 14. Regression Results for Leadership Style and Innovativeness for Functional
Organizations

Dependent Variable
Organization
Structure Type
Predictors Organizational
Innovativeness
Functional Transactional 0.093
Transformational 0.658**
Organization Size 0.021*
Company Age -0.028*
CEO Company Experience -0.009
CEO Tenure 0.031*
Control Variables Adjusted
R
2
0.052**
Model Adjusted R2 0.569**

 

Note. Tabled values are unstandardized regression (b) coefficients.
*
p < .05. **p < .01. n = 245.

For organizations with the divisional organizational structure, hierarchical multiple
regression was used to assess the ability of the CEO transformational leadership style and CEO
transactional leadership style to predict organizational innovativeness, after controlling for the
control variables. The control variables explained 2% of the variance in organizational
innovativeness, and with the inclusion of CEO transformational leadership style and CEO
transactional leadership style, the total variation explained by the model as a whole was 44.6%,
F(6,83) = 12.936, p < .001. None of the control variables were statistically significant.
Transformational leadership style made a unique statistically significant contribution (
b = 0.676,
beta = 0.629,
p < .001), whereas transactional leadership style was not statistically significant.
Therefore, H5b is supported (see Table 15).

43
Table 15. Regression Results for Leadership Style and Innovativeness for Divisional
Organizations

Dependent Variable
Organization
Structure Type
Predictors Organizational
Innovativeness
Divisional Transactional 0.054
Transformational 0.676**
Organization Size -0.001
Company Age -0.010
CEO Company Experience 0.023
CEO Tenure -0.036
Control Variables Adjusted
R
2
0.020
Model Adjusted R2 0.446**

 

Note. Tabled values are unstandardized regression (b) coefficients.
*
p < .05. **p < .01. n = 90.

For organizations with the matrix organizational structure, hierarchical multiple
regression was used to assess the ability of the CEO transformational leadership style and CEO
transactional leadership style to predict organizational innovativeness, after controlling for the
control variables. The control variables explained 1.5% of the variance in organizational
innovativeness, and with the inclusion of CEO transformational leadership style and CEO
transactional leadership style, the total variation explained by the model as a whole was 59.7%,
F(6,103) = 27.862, p < .001. None of the control variables were statistically significant.
Transformational leadership style made a unique statistically significant contribution (
b = 0.869,
beta = 0.884,
p < .001), whereas transactional leadership style was not statistically significant.
Therefore, H5c is not supported (see Table 16).

44
Table 16. Regression Results for Leadership Style and Innovativeness for Matrix
Organizations

Dependent Variable
Organization
Structure Type
Predictors Organizational
Innovativeness
Matrix Transactional -0.106
Transformational 0.869**
Organization Size 0.017
Company Age -0.007
CEO Company Experience -0.008
CEO Tenure 0.027
Control Variables Adjusted R2 -0.015
Model Adjusted R2 0.597**

 

Note. Tabled values are unstandardized regression (b) coefficients.
*
p < .05. ** p < .01. n = 104.

For organizations with the functional organizational structure, hierarchical multiple
regression was used to assess the ability of the CEO transformational leadership style and CEO
transactional leadership style to predict business performance (using the comparative
performance score), after controlling for the control variables. Using the adjusted R
2 (Table 17),
the control variables explained 6.8% of the variance in business performance, and with the
inclusion of CEO transformational leadership style and CEO transactional leadership style, the
total variation explained by the model as a whole was 17.9%,
F(6,238) = 9.839, p < .001. Of the
control variables, only company size (
b = 0.059, beta = 0.254, p < .001) was statistically
significant. Transformational leadership style also made a unique statistically significant
contribution (
b = 0.506, beta = 0.420, p < .001), whereas transactional leadership style was not
statistically significant. Therefore, H6a(i) is not supported.

45
Table 17. Regression Results for Leadership Style and Business Performance for
Functional Organizations

Dependent Variables
Organization
Structure
Type
Predictors Comparative
Performance
Employee
Commitment
Employee
Job
Satisfaction
Functional Transactional -0.128 -0.002 0.102
Transformational 0.506** 0.713** 0.599**
Organization Size 0.059** 0.002 0.007
Company Age -0.015 -0.002 -0.017
CEO Company
Experience
0.033 -0.011 0.009
CEO Tenure -0.015 0.030 0.000
Control Variables
Adjusted R
2
0.068** -0.005 0.017
Model Adjusted R2 0.179** 0.356** 0.368**

Note. Tabled values are unstandardized regression (b) coefficients.
*
p < .05. **p < .01. n = 245.
For organizations with the functional organizational structure, hierarchical multiple
regression was used to assess the ability of the CEO transformational leadership style and CEO
transactional leadership style to predict employee commitment, after controlling for the control
variables. Using the adjusted R
2 (Table 17), the control variables explained 0.5% of the variance
in employee commitment, and with the inclusion of CEO transformational leadership style and
CEO transactional leadership style, the total variation explained by the model as a whole was
35.6%,
F(6,238) = 23.486, p < .001. None of the control variables were statistically significant.
Transformational leadership style made a unique statistically significant contribution (
b = 0.713,
beta = 0.617,
p < .001), whereas transactional leadership style was not statistically significant.
Therefore, H6a(ii) is not supported.

46
For organizations with the functional organizational structure, hierarchical multiple
regression was used to assess the ability of the CEO transformational leadership style and CEO
transactional leadership style to predict employee job satisfaction, after controlling for the
control variables. Using the adjusted R
2 (Table 17), the control variables explained 1.7% of the
variance in employee job satisfaction, and with the inclusion of CEO transformational leadership
style and CEO transactional leadership style, the total variation explained by the model as a
whole was 36.8%,
F(6,238) = 24.685, p < .001. None of the control variables were statistically
significant. Transformational leadership style made a unique statistically significant contribution
(
b = 0.599, beta = 0.536, p < .001), whereas transactional leadership style was not statistically
significant. Therefore
, H6a(iii) is not supported.
For organizations with the divisional organizational structure, hierarchical multiple
regression was used to assess the ability of the CEO transformational leadership style and CEO
transactional leadership style to predict business performance (using the comparative
performance score), after controlling for the control variables. Using the adjusted R
2 (Table 18),
the control variables explained 3.4% of the variance in business performance, and with the
inclusion of CEO transformational leadership style and CEO transactional leadership style, the
total variation explained by the model as a whole was 24.1%,
F(6,83) = 5.720, p < .001. Of the
control variables, only company size (
b = 0.059, beta = 0.233, p < .05) was statistically
significant. Transformational leadership style also made a unique statistically significant
contribution (
b = 0.601, beta = 0.498, p < .001), whereas transactional leadership style was not
statistically significant. Therefore, H6b(i) is supported.

47
Table 18. Regression Results for Leadership Style and Business Performance for Divisional
Organizations

Dependent Variables
Organization
Structure
Type
Predictors Comparative
Performance
Employee
Commitment
Employee
Job
Satisfaction
Divisional Transactional -0.045 0.003 -0.025
Transformational 0.601** 0.693** 0.775**
Organization Size 0.059* -0.010 -0.009
Company Age -0.029 0.003 0.002
CEO Company
Experience
-0.036 -0.007 -0.013
CEO Tenure 0.068 -0.036 -0.006
Control Variables
Adjusted R
2
0.034 0.032 -0.004
Model Adjusted R2 0.241** 0.293** 0.351**

Note. Tabled values are unstandardized regression (b) coefficients.
*
p < .05. ** p < .01. n = 90.
For organizations with only the divisional organizational structure, hierarchical multiple
regression was used to assess the ability of the CEO transformational leadership style and CEO
transactional leadership style to predict employee commitment, after controlling for the control
variables. Using the adjusted R
2 (Table 18), the control variables explained 3.2% of the variance
in employee commitment, and with the inclusion of CEO transformational leadership style and
CEO transactional leadership style, the total variation explained by the model as a whole was
29.3%,
F(6,83) = 7.148, p < .001. None of the control variables were statistically significant.
Transformational leadership style made a unique statistically significant contribution (
b = 0.693,
beta = 0.525,
p < .001), while transactional leadership style was not statistically significant.
Therefore, H6b(ii) is supported.

48
For organizations with the divisional organizational structure, hierarchical multiple
regression was used to assess the ability of the CEO transformational leadership style and CEO
transactional leadership style to predict employee job satisfaction, after controlling for the
control variables. Using the adjusted R
2 (Table 18), the control variables explained 0.4% of the
variance in employee job satisfaction, and with the inclusion of CEO transformational leadership
style and CEO transactional leadership style, the total variation explained by the model as a
whole was 35.1%,
F(6,83) = 9.020, p < .001. None of the control variables were statistically
significant. Transformational leadership style made a unique statistically significant contribution
(
b = 0.775, beta = 0.620, p < .001), while transactional leadership style was not statistically
significant. Therefore, H6b(iii) is supported.
For organizations with the matrix organizational structure, hierarchical multiple
regression was used to assess the ability of the CEO transformational leadership style and CEO
transactional leadership style to predict business performance (using the comparative
performance score), after controlling for the control variables. Using the adjusted R
2 (Table 19),
the control variables explained 3% of the variance in business performance, and with the
inclusion of CEO transformational leadership style and CEO transactional leadership style, the
total variation explained by the model as a whole was 29.1%,
F(6,103) = 8.455, p < .001. None
of the control variables were statistically significant. Transformational leadership style made a
unique statistically significant contribution (
b = 0.759, beta = 0.671, p < .001), while
transactional leadership style was not statistically significant. Therefore, H6c(i) is not supported.

49
Table 19. Regression Results for Leadership Style and Business Performance for Matrix
Organizations

Dependent Variables
Organization
Structure
Type
Predictors Comparative
Performance
Employee
Commitment
Employee
Job
Satisfaction
Matrix Transactional -0.123 -0.064 0.058
Transformational 0.759** 0.788** 0.670**
Organization Size 0.027 0.041* 0.027
Company Age -0.012 0.005 0.011
CEO Company
Experience
-0.017 0.002 -0.008
CEO Tenure 0.042 0.015 0.011
Control Variables
Adjusted R
2
-0.030 0.002 -0.009
Model Adjusted R2 0.291** 0.500** 0.449**

Note. Tabled values are unstandardized regression (b) coefficients.
*
p < .05. ** p < .01. n = 110.
For organizations with the matrix organizational structure, hierarchical multiple
regression was used to assess the ability of the CEO transformational leadership style and CEO
transactional leadership style to predict employee commitment, after controlling for the control
variables. Using the adjusted R
2 (Table 19), the control variables explained 0.2% of the variance
in employee commitment, and with the inclusion of CEO transformational leadership style and
CEO transactional leadership style, the total variation explained by the model as a whole was
50%,
F(6,103) = 19.197, p < .001. Of the control variables, only company size (b = 0.041, beta =
0.169,
p < .05) was statistically significant. Transformational leadership style also made a unique
statistically significant contribution (
b = 0.788, beta = 0.775, p < .001), while transactional
leadership style was not statistically significant. Therefore, H6c(ii) is not supported.

50
For organizations with the matrix organizational structure, hierarchical multiple
regression was used to assess the ability of the CEO transformational leadership style and CEO
transactional leadership style to predict employee job satisfaction, after controlling for the
control variables. Using the adjusted R
2 (Table 19), the control variables explained 0.9% of the
variance in employee job satisfaction, and with the inclusion of CEO transformational leadership
style and CEO transactional leadership style, the total variation explained by the model as a
whole was 44.9%,
F(6,103) = 15.918, p < .001. None of the control variables were statistically
significant. Transformational leadership style made a unique statistically significant contribution
(
b = 0.670, beta = 0.655, p < .001), while transactional leadership style was not statistically
significant. Therefore, H6c(iii) is not supported.
As presented in Table 5, I found a medium positive correlation between organizational
innovativeness and business performance (measured using comparative performance score;
r =
0.429;
p < .01); thus H7(i) is supported. I also found a high positive correlation between
organizational innovativeness and employee commitment (
r = 0.752, p < .001); thus, H7(ii) is
also supported. Finally, there was a high positive correlation between organizational
innovativeness and employee job satisfaction (
r = 0.793, p < .001); thus, H7(iii) is supported.
Tables 6–8 had already shown that, for the different organizational structure types (functional,
divisional, and matrix structure), organizational innovativeness had a medium to high correlation
with comparative performance, employee commitment, and employee job satisfaction.

51
Table 20. Hypotheses and Results Summary

Hypotheses Claim Claim supported? Hypothesis supported?
H1 Transactional Innovativeness No Partially
Transformational Innovativeness Yes
H2 Transactional Performance Comparative – No
Commitment – No
Job Satisfaction – No
Partially
Transformational Performance Comparative – Yes
Commitment – Yes
Job Satisfaction – Yes
H3a Innovativeness: Divisional > Functional No Not supported
H3b Innovativeness: Divisional > Matrix No Not supported
H3c Innovativeness: Matrix > Functional No Not supported
H3d Organizational Structure Innovativeness No Not supported
H4a Comparative: Divisional > Functional No Not supported
Job Satisfaction: Divisional > Functional No
Commitment: Divisional > Functional No
H4b Comparative: Divisional > Matrix No* Not supported
Commitment: Divisional > Matrix No
Job Satisfaction: Divisional > Matrix No
H4c Comparative: Matrix > Functional No Not supported
Commitment: Matrix > Functional No
Job Satisfaction: Matrix > Functional No
H4d Organizational Structure Performance Comparative – No
Commitment – No
Job Satisfaction – No
Not supported
H5a Functional: Transactional >
Transformational
Innovativeness – No Not supported
H5b Divisional: Transformational >
Transactional
Innovativeness – Yes Supported
H5c Matrix: Transactional > Transformational Innovativeness – No Not supported
H6a Functional: Transactional >
Transformational
Comparative – No
Commitment – No
Job Satisfaction – No
Not supported
H6b Divisional: Transformational >
Transactional
Comparative – Yes
Commitment – Yes
Job Satisfaction – Yes
Supported
H6c Matrix: Transactional > Transformational Comparative – No
Commitment – No
Job Satisfaction – No
Not supported
H7 Innovativeness Performance Yes Supported

Note. For organizations with less than 1000 employees, the matrix structure delivered a better comparative
performance than the divisional structure.

52
V.1. Defining the Empirical Model
Hierarchical multiple regression was used to assess the ability of the CEO
transformational leadership style, CEO transactional leadership style, and organizational
structure (converted to the dummy variables for functional, divisional, and matrix organizational
structure types) to predict organizational innovativeness, after controlling for the control
variables. Using the adjusted R
2 (Table 21), the control variables explained 1.1% of the variance
in organizational innovativeness, and with the inclusion of CEO transformational leadership
style, CEO transactional leadership style and the dummy variable for organizational structure,
the total variation explained by the model as a whole was 54.6%,
F(8,439) = 68.079, p < .001.
None of the control variables were statistically significant. Transformational leadership style
made a unique statistically significant contribution (
b = 0.696, beta = 0.689, p < .001), while
transactional leadership style and the organizational structure variables were not statistically
significant.

53
Table 21. Path-Analytic Regression Results of the Entire Model

Dependent Variables
Predictors Organizational
Innovativeness
Comparative
Performance
Employee
Commitment
Employee
Job
Satisfaction
Transactional 0.072 -0.071 -0.052 0.015
Transformational 0.696** 0.372** 0.192** 0.090
Functional 0.010 -0.080 -0.010 -0.040
Divisional -0.001 -0.206 -0.048 -0.006
Matrix comparative comparative comparative comparative
Organization Size 0.000 0.022* -0.001 -0.001
Company Age -0.015 0.002 0.014 0.010
CEO Company
Experience
0.001 0.001 -0.006 -0.002
CEO Tenure 0.013 0.011 0.001 -0.009
Organizational
Innovativeness
0.288** 0.753** 0.804**
Control Variables
Adjusted R
2
0.011 0.005 -0.002 0.005
Model Adjusted R2 0.546** 0.222** 0.568** 0.628**

Note. Tabled values are unstandardized regression (b) coefficients.
*
p < .05. ** p < .01. n = 448.
Hierarchical multiple regression was used to assess the ability of the CEO
transformational leadership style, CEO transactional leadership style, organizational structure
(converted to the dummy variables for functional, divisional, and matrix organizational structure
types), and organizational innovativeness to predict (i) comparative business performance, (ii)
employee commitment, and (iii) employee job satisfaction, after controlling for the control
variables.
The results (as presented in Table 21), show that:

(i) For comparative business performance (adjusted R2 = 22.2%, F(9,438) = 15.139,
p < .001): company Size (b = 0.022, beta = 0.114, p < .05), transformational

54
leadership style (b = 0.372, beta = 0.311, p < .001), and innovativeness (b =
0.288, beta = 0.243,
p < .001) were statistically significant, while other
independent variables and control variables were not statistically significant
(ii) For employee commitment (adjusted R
2 = 56.8%, F(9,438) = 66.415, p < .001):
transformational leadership style (
b = 0.192, beta = 0.167, p < .01) and
innovativeness (
b = 0.753, beta = 0.661, p < .001) were statistically significant,
while other independent variables and control variables were not statistically
significant
(iii) For employee job satisfaction (adjusted R
2 = 62.8%, F(9,438) = 84.903, p < .001):
Only innovativeness (
b = 0.804, beta = 0.727, p < .001) was statistically
significant, while other independent variables and control variables were not
statistically significant.
Figure 5 illustrates the empirically supported model for my findings.
Figure 5. Empirical model showing the relationship between organizational structure,
organizational innovativeness and business performance
As a final step in my analysis, I analyzed the mediation path between CEO
transformational leadership style and each of the business performance dimensions, through

55
organizational innovativeness. This was done following the steps described by Baron and Kenny
(1986). The results (Figures 6–8) demonstrate that organizational innovativeness is only a partial
mediator of the relationship between CEO transformational leadership style, and each of the
business performance dimensions – comparative business performance, employee commitment,
and employee job satisfaction.
Note. The values presented in the models below are the unstandardized regression coefficients (b), and pvalues in brackets
Figure 6. Mediation path of CEO transformational and comparative performance through
organizational innovativeness
Note. The values presented in the models below are the unstandardized regression coefficients (b), and pvalues in brackets
Figure 7. Mediation path of CEO transformational and employee commitment through
organizational innovativeness
Note. The values presented in the models below are the unstandardized regression coefficients (b), and pvalues in brackets
Figure 8. Mediation path of CEO transformational and employee job satisfaction through
organizational innovativeness

56
VI. DISCUSSION
With a focus on the technology companies in the United States of America, this study
addressed the research question, “What is the optimal fit between the CEO’s leadership style and
the company’s organizational structure, to make companies more innovative and achieve better
business performance?” I expected to expand on contingency and congruence theory by
empirically establishing leadership style as a contingent factor on organizational structure, and
identifying the ideal fits between the respective leadership styles and organizational structure
types that enhance innovativeness and business performance.
Generally speaking, the results showed that CEO transformational leadership style is
aligned with each of the organizational structure types and thereby leads to improved company
innovativeness and business performance. On the other hand, there was no fit between CEO
transactional leadership style and any of the organizational structure types to enhance company
innovativeness and business performance. In the following sections, I detail the key findings and
discuss the implications of the study results.
VI.1. Key Findings
Key Finding #1: CEO transactional leadership style is NOT a significant predictor of
company innovativeness or business performance
My findings are consistent with other research findings that transformational leadership
style is a predictor of organizational innovativeness, and the findings also supported prior
research on the relationship between transformational leadership and the business performance
dimensions studied (i.e., comparative performance, employee commitment, and employee job
satisfaction. Different prior studies presented conflicting results on the relationship between

57
transactional leadership style and organizational success factors, with some finding a positive
relationship and some others finding a negative relationship; however, my findings were unable
to determine whether CEO transactional leadership has an impact on organizational
innovativeness and business performance. I therefore conclude that CEO transformational
leadership style is a greater predictor of organizational and employee effectiveness than CEO
transactional leadership style is.
Implications: As CEOs adopt both transactional and transformational leadership styles,
to varying degrees, CEOs who focus on the transactional leadership style may not be
able to determine the innovativeness and performance of their organizations. On the
other hand, CEOs who continue to apply their transformational leadership capabilities
have a better chance of driving the innovativeness and performance of their
organizations.
Key Finding #2: Unable to conclude that organizational structure is a significant
predictor of company innovativeness or business performance
In most scenarios, my results were unable to demonstrate organizational structure as a
predictor of organizational innovativeness, comparative performance, employee commitment,
and employee job satisfaction. However, for organizations with less than 1000 employees, the
results showed that companies with matrix organization structures achieve superior business
performance to companies with divisional organizational structures, relative to their competitors.
The inability of my results to definitively show that organizational structure has an impact on
organizational and employee effectiveness does not mean that organizational structure is not
important. Instead, I reached the conclusion that “any organizational structure works.” Provided

58
that there is a defined way that an organization is structured and coordinated, the organization
has a chance to perform. There are a number of possible explanations of why the organizational
structure type was not identified as a predictor of organizational innovativeness and business
performance. It may be because: (a) the organization design (i.e. what is documented) is very
different from what is being practiced in the organization (Ferner, 2000); (b) organizational
structures are dynamic, and they evolve (Bate et al., 2000); (c) organizations do not necessarily
adopt a ‘pure’ organizational form (like functional, divisional, and matrix, or (d) that, even where
the company has chosen a pure organizational structure form, the employees are not performing
the roles assigned to them, due to reasons within or beyond their control. Whatever the reason is,
I can conclude that there are other factors at work, beyond organization structure, that determine
the effectiveness of employees and organizations.
Implications: CEO or top-management teams of tech organizations in the United States
are unable to use organizational structure as a lever to improve organizational
innovativeness, comparative performance, employee commitment, and employee job
satisfaction.
Key Finding #3: Transformational leadership style is key to achieving improved company
innovativeness and business performance, irrespective of the organizational structure used by
the organization
The primary objective of this study is to identify an organizational structure and
leadership style fit that delivers superior customer innovativeness and business performance. The
results show that transformational leadership style fits well with each of the organization

59
structure types (i.e. functional, divisional, or matrix) in the delivery of company innovativeness,
comparative performance, employee job satisfaction, and employee commitment.
Implications: Similar to key finding #1, there is certainly some value in CEOs utilizing
transactional leadership styles; however if the CEO’s objective is to improve
innovativeness, comparative performance, employee job satisfaction and employee
commitment, the CEO should focus on developing and applying his or her
transformational leadership style capabilities.
VI.2. Research Contribution and Limitations
VI.2.1. Contribution to Theory
Little was known about the interaction between organization structure and leadership
style to impact innovativeness and business performance. This study contributed to the body of
knowledge by demonstrating that, for all the studied organizational structure types (i.e.
functional, divisional, and matrix), CEO transformational leadership style has an impact on
innovativeness and business performance when controlling for organization size (i.e. number of
employees) and organization age (i.e. number of employees).
Prior research showed differing results (positive and negative) on the impact transactional
leadership style on innovativeness and business performance. This study added to the discuss as
it was unable to determine whether CEO transactional leadership style has a significant impact
on organizational innovativeness, whether positive or negative.
Some prior studies depicted organizational structure as having a positive impact on
company effectiveness, while some others showed that there was no relationship. For the
technology companies studied in the United States, my results squared with the latter, showing

60
that neither of the organizational structures predicted organizational innovativeness or business
performance; this study was also unable to identify, in general terms, any organizational
structure as better than another.
Finally, I presented a model that demonstrates that CEO transformational leadership style
is a direct predictor of organizational innovativeness, comparative performance, employee
satisfaction, and also has an indirect impact (through organizational innovativeness) on
comparative performance, employee job satisfaction, and employee satisfaction. This model, on
its own, is not new; its contribution stems from the fact that these relationships held true even
when controlling for organization size and organization age.
VI.2.2. Contribution to Practice
One of the aims of this study was to determine whether any one organizational structure
type was better than another. The results, however, did not find that any organizational structure
type was better than others. This therefore provides a contribution to executives of technology
companies, who previously believed that changing from one organizational structure to other
helps improve their organization’s innovativeness or organizational effectiveness. Although it is
good to have a good structure, there is no need for companies to spend time changing from one
organizational structure to another, because the change in itself is disruptive to the business and
does not add to its innovativeness and bottom-line
The findings of this research recommend that practitioners, particularly entrepreneurs and
business executives, focus on developing their transformational leadership capabilities, instead of
their transactional leadership capabilities, if their objective is to improve organizational
innovativeness, comparative performance, employee commitment, or employee job satisfaction.

61
Several studies have shown that the transformational leadership behaviors can be learned
(Castiglione, 2006, Russell & Mizrahi, 1995).
VI.2.3. Study Limitations & Recommendations for Future Research
As with any research, this research has limitations. One such limitation is that the
measure used for comparative performance was neither objective nor a validated measure.
Knowing that the respondents work with private companies, I concluded that the respondents
would be uncomfortable providing financial performance metrics about their organizations, such
as revenue, sales volumes, EBITDA (earnings before interest, tax, depreciation, and
amortization), or return on total assets (ROTA). For the comparative performance measure, I had
initially proposed using
ROTA-change over a 3-year period to be able to compare companies of
varying capital structure, debt structures, and geography; however, it was not favorably received
by the test respondents to the survey. Future research can consider targeting organizations with
publicly available financial data to achieve a more objective measure for comparative
performance.
To obtain additional context about the organizations, future researchers can include more
qualitative questions on the survey and possibly do interviews, thereby conducting mixedmethod study, which was not this study’s approach. Another way to obtain additional contextual
or qualitative information is to target specific organizations and obtain information directly from
the CEO, as well as from different people in the organization. These approaches may resolve one
of the limitations of this study, which was its incapacity to distinguish if the respondent was the
CEO or not. It would be valuable to be able to differentiate the responses by level (i.e., separate
responses given by CEOs, from responses given by those in top-management positions, and from

62
responses given by other employees). This separation would enable researchers to evaluate any
biases in the responses and consider response scores by level, against the transactional and
transformational norms.
An interesting extension of this study may be to evaluate whether transformational
leadership style is better in a functional, divisional, or matrix organization. Researchers may also
undertake my same research, but on non-tech companies, in other countries, or on smaller or
larger organizations.

63
VII. APPENDIX
VII.1. Summarized Survey Instrument
About the Company
Please characterize the form of your organizational structure based on the definitions provided
below (Functional: ; Divisional: ; Matrix: ; Other: ____________).
In which US State is your company headquartered?
How many years has the company been in operation since its founding date or date it commenced
operations (whichever is more recent)?
How many employees are employed in this company?
Business Performance:
Dimensions: Comparative Performance, Employee Commitment, and Employee Job Satisfaction
Comparative Performance
Options: Far below average – 1; Somewhat below average – 2; Average – 3; Somewhat above average –
4; Far above average – 5
How would you rate your company’s overall financial performance compared to competition?
Employee Commitment – Shoham, Vigoda-Gadot, Ruvio and Schwabsky (2012)
Options: Strongly Disagree – 1; Somewhat Disagree – 2; Neither Disagree nor Agree – 3; Somewhat
Agree – 4; Strongly Agree – 5
On the average, employees of the company:
o Are willing to put in a great deal of effort beyond that normally expected in order to help
the organization be successful
o Talk up this organization to their friends as a great place to work
o Find that their values and the organization’s values are very similar
o Really care about the fate of this organization
Employee Job Satisfaction – Shoham, Vigoda-Gadot, Ruvio and Schwabsky (2012)
Options: Strongly Disagree – 1; Somewhat Disagree – 2; Neither Disagree nor Agree – 3; Somewhat
Agree – 4; Strongly Agree – 5
On the average, employees of the company…
o Are satisfied with their jobs
o Are satisfied with their supervisors
o Are satisfied with their co-workers
o Are satisfied with their pay
o Are satisfied with their promotion opportunities
Organizational Innovativeness – Shoham, Vigoda-Gadot, Ruvio and Schwabsky (2012)
Options: Strongly Disagree – 1; Somewhat Disagree – 2; Neither Disagree nor Agree – 3; Somewhat
Agree – 4; Strongly Agree – 5
Creativity:
o Creativity is encouraged here
o Managers here expect us to be resourceful problem solvers
o We are constantly looking to develop and offer new or improved services
o Our ability to function creatively is respected by the leadership
64
o We are encouraged to use original approaches when dealing with problems in the
workplace
Openness
o This organization is always moving toward the development of new answers
o This organization is open and responsive to changes
o Assistance in developing new ideas is readily available
o People here are always searching for fresh, new ways of looking at problems
Future Orientation – This organization…
o Establishes a realistic set of future goals for itself
o Effectively ensures that all managers and employees share the same vision of the future
o Conveys a clear sense of future direction to employees
o Has a realistic vision of the future for all departments and employees
Risk-taking – This organization…
o Believes that higher risks are worth taking for high payoffs
o Encourages innovative strategies, knowing well that some will fail
o Likes to take big risks
o Does not like to ‘‘play it safe’’
Proactiveness
o We are constantly seeking new opportunities for the organization
o We take the initiative in an effort to shape the environment to our advantage
o We are often the first to introduce new services
o We usually take the initiative by introducing new administrative techniques
Competition in the Industry
Options: Fast Decline – 1, Slow Decline -2; Not Declining / Not Growing – 3; Slow Growth – 4; Fast
Growth – 5
In your opinion, what is the current direction of growth of your industry
About the CEO
How long has the CEO held the CEO position in your company?
How long has the CEO been employed in this organization?
CEO Leadership Style – MLQ Form 5x-Short (Bass & Avolio, 1995)
Options: Not at all – 0; Once in a while – 1; Sometimes – 2; Fairly often – 3; Frequently, if not always – 4
Our company’s CEO:
o Talks optimistically about the future.
o Spends time teaching and coaching.
o Avoids making decisions
Type of tech company
What type of technology company do you work in? Please select all that apply.
We buy technology for our use
We consult in technology deployment and usage
We sell technology (hardware or software) to customers for their use
We are a technology hosting company
We provide technology support
65
We develop or manufacture technology
We provide technology-as-a-service to clients (corporates and consumers)
(respondents that did not select any of the last 5 options were considered ineligible as I did not feel
that they work in the type of technology company that I was interested in for my study)

66
Table A1. Comparing the CEO Leadership Style Scores with US Norms

Construct Scales This Study US Norm
(total)
ф
US Norm
(lower)
Ѱ
Transactional
Leadership Style
Contingent
Reward
2.83 2.87 2.84
Management
by-Exception:
Active
2.28 1.67 1.67
Transformational
Leadership Style
Idealized
Attributes
2.85 2.94 2.93
Idealized
Behaviors
2.89 2.77 2.73
Inspirational
Motivation
3.11 2.92 2.97
Intellectual
Stimulation
2.73 2.78 2.76
Individualized
Consideration
2.64 2.85 2.78

Note. The figures in the table show the mean scores of the respondents
ф all the respondents in the sample, including the leader being evaluated and his/her peers, superiors, and
subordinates
Ѱ respondents were junior to the leader being evaluated
Source: Bernard, Bass, B. & Avolio, B. (2002). Table 10a (US) – Descriptive Statistics for MLQ 5X 2004
Normative Sample. Published by Mind Garden, Inc. www.mindgarden.com

67
Figure A1. Location of the headquarters of the organizations studied
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Northeast Midwest South West
# of Organizations
68
References
Afshari, L., & Gibson, P. (2016). How to increase organizational commitment through transactional
leadership.
Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 37(4), 507-519.
Ahuja, G., Lampert, C. M., & Tandon, V. (2008). Moving beyond Schumpeter: Management research on
the determinants of technological innovation.
The Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 1-98.
Andersen, J. A. & Jonsson, P. (2006). Does organization structure matter? On the relationship between
structure, functioning and effectiveness.
International Journal of Innovation and Technology
Management
, 3(2), 237-263.
Ansoff, H. I., & Brandenburg, R. G. (1971). A language for organizational design: Part I-II.
Management
Science
, 17(12), B705-731.
Baligh, H. H., Burton, R. M. & Obel, B. (1996). Organizational consultant: Creating a useable theory for
organizational design.
Management Science, 42(12), 1648-1662.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.
Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology
, 51(6), 1173-1182.
Bass, B. M. (1985).
Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership.
European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology
, 8(1), 9-32.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1995).
MLQ: Multifactor leadership questionnaire for research: permission
set. Mind Garden.
Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance by assessing
transformational and transactional leadership.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 207-218.
Bate, P., Khan, R., & Pye, Á. (2000). Towards a culturally sensitive approach to organization structuring:
Where organization design meets organization development.
Organization Science, 11(2), 197-211.
Bettis, R. A. (1981). Performance differences in and un diversified firms.
Strategic
Management Journal
, 2(4), 379-393.
Blanco-Oliver, A., Veronesi, G., & Kirkpatrick, I. (2018). Board heterogeneity and organisational
performance: The mediating effects of line managers and staff satisfaction.
Journal of Business Ethics,
152(2), 393-407.
Burton, R.M. & Obel, B. (1998).
Strategic organizational diagnosis and design: Developing theory for
application
. Boston, MA: Kluwer Publishers.
Burton, R. M., Lauridsen, J., & Obel, B. (2002). Return on assets loss from situational and contingency
misfits.
Management Science; 48(11), 1461-1485.
Castiglione, J. (2006). Organizational learning and transformational leadership in the library environment.
Library Management, 27(4/5), 289-299.
Chandler Jr, A. D. (1962).
Strategy and structure: Chapters in the history of american industrial
enterprise
. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.
69
Chen, J. & Chen, I. (2009). An empirical study of the relationships between leader, member, and
innovative operation in the high tech industry.
Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and
Conflict
, 13(1), 21-33.
Chien-Huang, L., Ching-Huai Peng, & Kao, D. T. (2008). The innovativeness effect of market orientation
and learning orientation on business performance.
International Journal of Manpower, 29(8), 752-772.
Clinebell, S., Skudiene, V., Trijonyte, R., & Reardon, J. (2013). Impact of leadership styles on employee
organizational commitment.
Journal of Service Science, 6(1), 139-152.
Cohen, J. W. (1988).
Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Colbert, A. E., Barrick, M. R., & Bradley, B. H. (2014). Personality and leadership composition in top
management teams: Implications for organizational effectiveness.
Personnel Psychology, 67(1), 351-
387.
Dedahanov, A. T., Rhee, C., & Yoon, J. (2017). Organizational structure and innovation performance.
Career Development International, 22(4), 334-350.
Dhillon, I., & Gupta, S. (2015). Organizational restructuring and collaborative creativity: The case of
Microsoft and Sony.
The IUP Journal of Business Strategy, 12(1), 53-65.
Donaldson, L. (2001).
The contingency theory of organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Drazin, R., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1985). Alternative forms of fit in contingency theory.
Administrative
Science Quarterly
, 30(4), 514-539.
DuBrin, A.J. (2016).
Leadership: Research findings, practice, and skills (8th ed.). Boston, MA.: Cengage
Learning.
Egelhoff, W. G. (1982). Strategy and structure in multinational corporations: An information-processing
approach.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 27(3), 435-458.
Ejere, E. I., & Abasilim, U. D., 2013. Impact of transactional and transformational leadership styles on
organisational performance: Empirical evidence from Nigeria.
The Journal of Commerce, 5(1), 30-41.
Emery, C. R., & Barker, K. J., 2007. The effect of transactional and transformational leadership styles on
the organizational commitment and job satisfaction of customer contact personnel.
Journal of
Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict
, 11(1), 77-90.
Ferner, A. (2000). The underpinnings of ‘bureaucratic’ control systems: HRM in European multinationals.
Journal of Management Studies, 37(4), 521-539.
Fiedler, F. E. (1967).
A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Garg, A. K., & Ramjee, D. (2013). The Relationship between leadership styles and employee
commitment at a parastatal company in South Africa.
The International Business & Economics
Research Journal
, 12(11), 1411-1436.
Gavrea, C., Ilies, L, & Stegerean, R. (2011). Determinants of organizational performance: The case of
Romania.
Management & Marketing Challenges for the Knowledge Society, 6(2), 285-300.
70
Hamilton, R. T., & Shergill, G. S. (1992). The relationship between strategy-structure fit and financial
performance in New Zealand: Evidence of generality and validity with enhanced controls.
Journal of
Management Studies
, 29(1), 95-113
Hartnell, C. A., Schurer, L. L., Kinicki, A. J., Fugate, M., Doyle C. P., & Lambert, L. S. (2016). Do
similarities or differences between ceo leadership and organizational culture have a more positive effect
on firm performance? A test of competing predictions.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(6), 846-861.
Hitt, M. A., & Ireland, R. D. (1987). Peters and Waterman revisited: The unended quest for excellence.
Academy of Management Perspectives, 1(2), 91-98.
Hurley, R., & Hult, G. T. M. (1998). Innovation, market orientation, and organizational learning: An
integration and empirical examination.
Journal of Marketing, 62(3), 42-54.
Jabeen, F., Behery, M., & Elanain, H. A. (2015). Examining the relationship between the psychological
contract and organisational commitment.
International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 23(1), 102-
122.
Jia, L., Song, J., Li, C., Cui, R., & Chen, Y. (2007). Leadership styles and employees’ job-
attitudes: An empirical study on the mediating effects of reciprocity and trust.
Frontiers of Business
Research in China
, 1(4), 574–605.
Khandwalla, P.N. (1973). Viable and effective organizational design of firms.
Academy of Management
Journal
, 16(3), 481-495.
Koohborfardhaghighi, S., & Altmann, J. (2017). How organizational structure affects organizational
learning.
Journal of Integrated Design and Process Science, 21(1), 43-60.
Lieberson, S., & O’Connor J. F. (1972). Leadership and Organizational Performance: A study of Large
Corporations.
American Sociological Review, 37:117-130.
Luffman, G. A., & Reed, R. (1982). Diversification in British Industry in the 1970s.
Strategic
Management Journal
, 3(4), 303-314.
Masi, R. J., & Cooke, R. A. (2000). Effects of transformational leadership on subordinate motivation,
empowering norms, and organizational productivity.
International Journal of Organizational Analysis,
suppl. Special Issue: Experiment in Developing Scholars
, 8(1), 16-47.
Miles, J., & Shevlin, M. (2001).
Applying regression and correlation: A guide for students and
researchers
. SAGE Publications.
Mintzberg, H. (1980). Structure in 5’S: A synthesis of the research on organization design.
Management
Science
, 26(3), 322-341.
Morton, N. A., & Hu, Q. (2008). Implications of the fit between organizational structure and ERP: A
structural contingency theory perspective.
International Journal of Information Management, 28(5),
391-402.
Mosley, D. C., & Patrick, D. K. (2011). Leadership and Followership: The Dynamic Process of Building
High Performance Cultures.
Organization Development Journal, 29(2), 85-100.
Nadler, D., & Tushman, M. (1980). A model for diagnosing organizational behavior.
Organizational
Dynamics
, 9(2), 35-51.
71
Narver, J. C., & Slater, S. F. (1990). The effect of a market orientation on business profitability. Journal
of Marketing
, 54(4), 20-35.
Narver, J. C., & Slater, S. F. (1995). Market orientation and the learning organization.
Journal of
Marketing
, 59(3), 63-74.
Pallant, J. (2016).
SPSS survival manual (6th Edition). New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
Rahman, S., Islam, M. Z., Ahad Abdullah, A. D., & Sumardi, W. A. (2018). Empirical investigation of
the relationship between organizational factors and organizational commitment in service organizations.
Journal of Strategy and Management, 11(3), 418-431.
Raj, R., & Srivastava K. B. L. (2016). Transformational leadership and innovativeness.
Journal of
Management Research
, 16(4), 201-219.
Rathnaraj, S. N.; Vimala, A. (2018). Role of transformational and transactional leaderships in job
satisfaction: In an select public sector organisation.
SCMS Journal of Indian Management, 15(3), 91-97.
Rowe, W. G. (2001). Creating wealth in Organizations: The role of Strategic Leadership.
The Academy of
Management Executive
, 15(1), 81-94.
Rubera, G., & Kirca, A. H. (2012). Firm Innovativeness and its Performance outcomes: A meta-analytic
review and theoretical integration.
Journal of Marketing, 76(3), 130-147.
Rumelt, R. P. (1984).
Towards a strategic theory of the firm. In B. Lamb (Ed.), Competitive strategic
management (pp. 556–570). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Russell, R. G. & Mizrahi, R. (1995). Development of a situational model for transformational leadership.
Journal of Leadership Studies, 2(3), 154-163.
Schumpeter J. A. (1942).
Socialism, capitalism and democracy. New York: Harper & Brothers.
Shoham, A., Vigoda-Gadot, E., Ruvio, A., & Schwabsky, N. (2012). Testing an organizational
innovativeness integrative model across cultures.
Journal of Engineering and Technology Management,
29(2), 226-240.
Tran, X. (2017). Effects of leadership styles on hotel financial performance.
Tourism and Hospitality
Management, 23
(2), 163-183.
Tushman, M., & Nadler, D. (1980). Organizing for innovation.
California Management Review, 28(3),
74-92.
Twomey, D. F. (2002). Organizational competitiveness: Building performance and learning.
Competitiveness Review, 12(2), 1-12.
Wilkins, A. L., & Ouchi, W. G. (1983). Efficient cultures: Exploring the relationship between culture and
organizational performance.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 468-481.
Wood, S., & Ogbonnaya, C. (2018). High-Involvement Management, Economic Recession, Well-Being,
and Organizational Performance.
Journal of Management, 44(8), 3070-3095.
Wu, W. Y., Chiang, C. Y., & Jiang, J. S. (2002). Interrelationships between TMT management styles and
organizational innovation.
Industrial Management & Data Systems, 102(3), 171-183.
72
Yıldız, S., Baştürk, F., & Boz, I. T. (2014). The effect of leadership and innovativeness on business
performance.
Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 150, 785-793.
You-De, D., You-Yu, D., Kuan-Yang, C., Hui-Chun, W. (2013). Transformational vs transactional
leadership: Which is better?: A study on employees of international tourist hotels in Taipei City.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 25(5), 760-788.
73
VITA
Charles Ifedi is a business executive, financial technology consultant, and entrepreneur, with
over 20 years of experience. His experience encompasses strategy formulation and execution,
product development and management, client and partner relationship management, business
development and sales, new market entry, investment due diligence; he also has in-depth expertise
in the development and management of fintech initiatives, including switching, processing,
integration, transfers (ACH and P2P), bill presentment, eCommerce/POS acquiring, cards (debit,
credit, prepaid, charge and multi-purpose), multi-channel platforms, and emerging solutions
utilizing QR, digital wallets, and tokenization.
Charles is currently the CEO and co-founder of eBanqo, Inc., an Atlanta-based technology
company that helps organizations enhance their customer engagement, using artificial intelligence
(AI) and conversational commerce. Prior to founding eBanqo, Charles was the pioneer CEO of
Verve International (Africa’s leading payments card brand), and a co-founder of Interswitch
Limited. He has payments and consulting experience in Africa, Europe, and the United States,
having worked at American Express, PwC, and Accenture.
Charles has a doctorate in Business Administration from Georgia State University, an MBA
from Cranfield University, and a B.Sc. Computer Science (summa cum laude) from University of
Ilorin.
Charles resides in Alpharetta, Georgia, with his lovely wife Toyin, and their amazing
daughters, Osinachi and Dikachi.

CLICK HERE TO GET A PROFESSIONAL WRITER TO WORK ON THIS PAPER AND OTHER SIMILAR PAPERS

CLICK THE BUTTON TO MAKE YOUR ORDER

error: Content is protected !!