characteristics of leadership for innovation essay

Interested in a complimentary coaching session with one of our coaches?

Want to learn how folks from meta, airtable and stripe are accelerating their careers with highrise, a guide to innovation leadership: characteristics, examples, and practices..

What is Innovation Leadership?

Why is innovation leadership important, innovation leadership style: characteristics and practices, examples of innovative leadership, how can you practice innovative leadership, what are the challenges of innovative leadership, can highrise improve my leadership skills.

“Some see things as they are and ask why.  Others dream things that never were and ask why not.”- Thomas Edison

It is not difficult to see why innovation leadership is what is needed for continued success. Nokia, Blockbuster, Blackberry, & Yahoo offer quintessential examples. For example, as a dominant market player at the start of the Internet age, Yahoo's senior leadership proclaimed that the search experience was not worth improving and passed on an opportunity to buy Google.

An innovative leader will solve problems, encourage rapid prototyping of new ideas, focus on what matters, and encourage a creative environment – all essential ingredients for a good workplace .

So, how do we define innovation leadership?

What makes it different from other leadership styles?

What are the characteristics and practices of an innovative leader?

This article will give us some insight.

<div id ="one">

Innovation leadership is a management style that integrates different leadership styles like collaboration, competency, and ability for creativity within the workplace.

This style capitalizes on employee's creative potential. It inspires and guides them to develop the essential skills to improve the company's performance.

An innovative leader doesn't need to be the most intelligent person in the room or the person who comes up with creative ideas. Instead they are leaders who promote innovation efforts and greenlight innovation projects.

<div id ="two">

Innovation leaders like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and Thomas Edison are known as powerful leaders, but they are the most effective innovation leaders because of their creative insights. They have also motivated people and turned their innovative ideas into a reality.

So, what made their leadership style successful?

What is the importance of this leadership role and style?

Here are two examples of why innovation leadership is key for company growth:

1. It improves employee engagement and morale.

Innovation leadership style enables innovative behavior in a company because it promotes innovative thinking. This enhances corporate culture and amplifies the effort of every individual in achieving success.

This will allow individuals from all levels to be involved in the processes that are the building blocks for success. Also, the more ideas are produced, the more employees are engaged.

When team members feel that their concerns can be heard and addressed, they may feel more welcome in the workplace, which increases confidence . Companies nowadays have realized the need to maintain employee morale by developing programs to boost their employees and ensure they are comfortable working and performing.

2. It Inspires and Motivates Employees.

Innovative leaders can create an innovation culture within their company. This can be possible through communication. They communicate their vision as well as how to achieve it. They focus on the bigger picture and how to achieve long-term goals.

An innovation leader should be for open feedback, where team members can actively participate in the company plans, and maintain a space where individual creativity is appreciated and welcomed. With clear communication, an innovation culture is born and the company's status quo changes. An environment where there is free-flowing creativity is developed.

A perfect example is Steve Jobs. He was able to communicate the company's vision and inspire his employees to develop the best products in a competitive environment.

<div id ="three">

A leader who enables and promotes innovation possesses some key characteristics. These attributes make them different and unique from other leaders.

Here are some characteristics:

1. Comfortable with risk-taking.

Innovative leaders have a high risk tolerance; they know how to take up new concepts that are applicable because they have done their homework beforehand.

Their high risk tolerance enables them to stay competitive and achieve positive results. They also have a "Plan B" in case the new concepts blow back on them.

2. Promoters of Creativity.

"A small invention every ten days, a large one every six months" - Thomas Edison

Good innovation leadership identifies that creativity is needed for excellent results to happen . Innovative can require leaders who are willing to expand existing boundaries and inspire their employees to explore their creative ideas, which can include applying innovative solutions to modern workday problems.

Frameworks, such as those of Thomas Edison, created targets for employees to employ different skills in their routine work and gave them the freedom to cultivate innovation without limits.

3. Detail-Oriented.

Innovative leaders are very meticulous; they are detail-oriented and make sure all the aspects are on point , especially during the implementation of an innovation process. Tech innovators like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates produced more than one prototype before settling on an ideal product.

Innovative leaders know that a small deviation in an innovation process can negatively impact innovation performance and success.

Innovative leaders are efficient and are highly skilled in managing time and resources for innovation. Therefore, they are detail-oriented time managers, and hold themselves accountable when leading innovation in their companies.

4. Good Collaborators.

Creative solutions are born when people from different backgrounds and experiences work together using innovation to achieve the desired results and propel companies to success.

Innovative leaders have high emotional intelligence and they know how to bring people with different temperaments together while seeing both sides of a collaborative argument. They create harmony within the work environment by covering all possible solutions.

Innovative leaders aim to make an innovation process as smooth as possible by combining different expertise and skills that can be beneficial in developing creative insights, services, and products that help navigate a dynamic marketplace.

5. Creators of Innovative Culture.

Effective innovation leaders are big on the idea of innovation and no matter what kind of company they run, they want to leave a mark. Therefore, they create a culture where innovative solutions are born. They encourage their team members to gather creative ideas that welcome generational changes.

In addition, the leaders prioritize a continuous innovation culture and believe that inclusivity fosters the conception of the best innovations. They have a support team with responsibilities and roles that lead to implementing and sustaining a free-flowing creative workspace.

<div id ="four">

Mary Barra's leadership at General Motors

She is the first CEO of a global automotive company, General Motors. She has an inclusive innovative leadership style, always striving to build a team with the right people collaboratively managing others and creating plans to confront challenges directly.

She encourages GM employees to be frank, speaking their minds and confronting problems head on. She's also tech-savvy, uses social media regularly, and is a blogger on LinkedIn as well.

Ted Sarandos Leadership at Netflix

He is the Chief Content Officer of Netflix, the streaming giant. He oversaw one of the biggest changes in the Film and TV industry. Through innovative data collection, he took calculated risks that influenced the way consumers watched TV and film during his time at Netflix.

Netflix has a total of 238 million subscribers as of 2023, and this was possible because Ted developed groundbreaking software algorithms to predict what movies would connect with viewers.

Sarandos has a talent for combining data and judgment, which allows him to take calculated risks. His innovative leadership style has been applied by many aspiring CEOs.

Mark Zuckerberg's leadership at Meta

One of the most influential innovative leaders of the 21st century is the CEO of Meta. Still in his 30s, he has managed to create a social media revolution with the various platforms he owns.

As an innovation leader, he prioritizes passion over skill because he believes that passion can't be taught. He encourages his employees to work on passion projects as it motivates them to perform in every aspect of their work.

Satya Nadella's Leadership at Microsoft

Satya Nadella became the CEO of Microsoft in 2014 and since then, his innovative leadership style has transformed Microsoft from a sleepy giant, known for goofs, into one of the most innovative companies in the world today. This is reflected in, among other things, the company share price which has risen by almost 1000% in value .

As an innovative innovation leader himself, he has cultivated a growth mindset , embraced open source, and acquired strategic assets such as Linkedin as well as the most recent open A.I. applications.

Want to read more from us? Subscribe to our newsletter to read our latest resources

<div id ="five">

The business world is becoming more competitive by the minute, and business leaders need to level up to give their companies competitive advantages in new markets. Therefore, they need to be innovative.

So, how can they practice innovation leadership?

Here are some pointers:

1. Develop psychological safety within the workplace.

This ensures that employees feel psychologically safe, and feel free to explore risky endeavors, show their innovative sides, and speak their minds.

2. Emphasize Team Work.

Encourage your team members to share ideas and opinions no matter how contradicting they might be from their colleagues. To develop a cohesive team , you need to bring together conflicting ideas and develop concepts that can ensure continued success.

Teamwork is one of the most important determiners of success. Also, when transitioning to a modern workplace that will be full of technology, you will want all your team syncing so that you can implement changes easily.

To learn more: 5 behaviors of a cohesive team .

3. Be Diverse.

This is one of the essential leadership skills. You need to integrate people from different backgrounds and encourage them to work well with one another, despite their differences, because their perspectives can positively impact the company.

4. Be an effective communicator.

Effective communication is an crucial skill for innovation. It is essential to ensure that instructions, strategies, and expectations are disseminated clearly. Additionally, it is necessary to maintain a steady flow of information that is open and easily accessible.

<div id ="six">

The innovative leadership style is becoming popular and more leaders are trying to use it. However, with all the benefits it can bring, it has its challenges too.

Here are some:

1. Limited Resources

Any organization or company that is planning to be innovative requires human capital/talent, time, and money. However, if the resources are limited, it is difficult to implement any creative ideas that the team can develop.

Innovation requires enough resources – and the transition from a traditional leadership style can be tight on the budget. Many companies can face losses if the implementation goes wrong.

2. Resistance to Change

Innovation in any company or organization brings change. Processes change as new aspects are incorporated, but people are naturally resistant to change. This becomes a challenge if a leader wants to introduce creative ideas to a team.

It is common for individuals within organizations to resist change when they are asked to adopt new behaviors, processes, or technologies. This resistance can take the form of outright opposition, passive resistance, or skepticism within teams, groups, and even the organization as a whole.

Ultimately, resistance can hinder the efforts of innovative leaders who are trying to implement new ideas and initiatives, resulting in missed opportunities and slow progress.

3. Time Limitations

Organizations and companies run on performance, which comes from having a clear plan. And for it to work leaders need to turn their ideas into strategies quickly. However, it can be difficult to prioritize innovative ideas while meeting deadlines.

Leaders might have a challenge in keeping up with the day-to-day operations while exploring a creative new idea. They should try to set clear goals and deadlines and break down large projects into smaller, manageable tasks.

<div id ="seven">

The cornerstone of Highrise coaching is making you understand your authentic leadership skills. This way, you get to understand what holds you back and how best you can maximize your core strengths. This in turn will make you a better leader and help you learn how you can negotiate better work-life balance, listen to & influence others, and give and receive actionable feedback.

Learn how we work , enroll in our leadership coaching, and start the journey of becoming a better leader.

The Six Fundamentals of Leadership

September 24, 2022.

November 22, 2023

Digital Employee Experience (DEX)

April 26, 2023.

12 Good Reasons to Call Out of Work.

May 11, 2023.

A Systems View Across Time and Space

• Open access
• Published: 12 May 2020

Leader strategies for motivating innovation in individuals: a systematic review

• Eleftherios K. Soleas 1  

Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship volume  9 , Article number:  9 ( 2020 ) Cite this article

18k Accesses

16 Citations

42 Altmetric

Metrics details

Innovation is a topic of intense interest and is seen as key to confronting the vast majority of issues facing humanity. To consolidate the knowledge about approaches promoting innovation, this study conducted a systematic review integrating an all-database ( n  = 375) search through EBSCOhost completed on April 6th, 2019 in addition to search engine use. Three hundred three studies were full-text reviewed yielding 82 final studies eligible for the inclusion in findings extraction. The findings were synthesized and then organized into the Expectancy–value–cost (EVC) motivation framework to isolate promotive and hindering factors. It is clear that there is an unbalanced primacy in the innovation literature in favor of business and corporate settings with very little representation from the arts or social justice sectors. There is also a common trend of using surveys of individuals in organizations within a single discipline, while interviews are rare. The paucity of studying costs of innovation in the literature is symptomatic of the primarily positive psychology approach taken by studies, rather than a framework like EVC which also considers detractive factors like costs. Numerous studies provide support for the notion that more internal motivations like intrinsic (e.g., interest) and attainment (e.g., importance, fulfillment) were more influential than external motivators like rewards as targets of strategies. Leaders should focus, whenever possible, on topics that engaged curiosity, interest, and satisfaction and, if they choose to use rewards, should focus their strategies to give related rewards; otherwise, they risk sundering the internal motivation to innovate for already interested workers.

Introduction

Innovation is key to confronting the vast majority of issues facing humanity. It can be defined variously and tends to include problem-solving processes (Cramond & Fairweather, 2013 ), executing novel ideas to create societal value (Soleas, 2018a ) and applied creativity (Horkoff, Maiden, & Asboth, 2019 ). The capacity to refine existing ideas and challenge existing ideas is a very important and thankfully human process drawing intense interest from a range of disciplines including psychology (e.g., Carr, Kendal, & Flynn, 2016 ), business (e.g., De Clercq & Pereira, 2019 ), and education (e.g., Soleas, 2020 ), among many others. The importance, variety, and outcomes of innovation have made it necessary for institutions, corporations, and educational systems to more effectively stoke this crucial skill. It is the leaders, in these contexts, that must find strategies to motivate innovation. It follows that it should be a priority to understand what the leaders of various contexts can do to make innovation more likely.

This interdisciplinary perspective necessitates a broader view of the strategies which leaders (decision makers) can use to enact its promotion. Strategies will include the decisions, approaches, and interventions that the leading figures (leaders) in a given context, including teachers, managers, supervisors, and mentors can utilize to make innovation more likely. This review will consolidate the disparate literatures pertaining to the support of innovation in the varied disciplines through the use of strategies. It will identify lingering gaps in knowledge that would need to be explored to better inform innovation education efforts. As innovation is a multidisciplinary interest shared by business, economics, education, engineering, management, manufacturing, psychology, and many more disciplines, the resulting synthesis should be a shared understanding that reflects the diverse aspirations, goals, and perspectives of these disciplines (Baregheh et al., 2009 ; Soleas, 2020 ).

As will be revealed, there are some disciplinary studies of the motivations of innovation, with robust representation from business and economic disciplines (e.g., Manso, 2017 ; Marvel et al., 2007 ; Scott & Bruce, 1994 ). However, there are very few studies using a multidisciplinary perspective and none examining both promotive and hindering motivation factors for innovation from a multidisciplinary view. Although the interest is intense, the precise motivation factors underpinning this skill remain siloed in various disciplines. As a first step, it would be important to isolate and evaluate all the available evidence of the promotive and hindering motivating factors that would need to be addressed by those who seek to build learner capacity to innovate. This systematic review will bring together all available scholarly perspectives on the strategies available to leaders to motivate innovation with the goal of proving transferable strategies that can be adapted to a range of contexts.

Motivating innovation

Expectancy–value–cost theory (EVC) is an established motivation framework that considers the factors that make motivation more likely and those that actively detract from motivation to complete a task (Barron & Hulleman, 2015 ; Flake et al., 2015 ). The promoting factors are grouped into expectancies (e.g., built expectations of success, perceived self-efficacy, and acquired confidence) and task values (interest, fulfilment, and utility). There are also factors that actively detract from motivation to innovate which are holistically termed “costs” which include prices that someone would pay to complete a task which can encompass pressure, stress, monetary considerations, and implications of failure.

Although EVC theory has recently begun to enjoy widespread popularity for explaining complex phenomena in the social sciences literature (e.g., Barron & Hulleman, 2015 ; Flake et al., 2015 ; Senko et al., 2011 ; Wigfield et al., 2009 ), it has been used very little in the study of innovation—and, surprisingly, not at all with respect to gaining insights into what approaches could motivate innovation, for instance, what leader or teaching strategies increase the confidence of learners for innovating. At the time of writing, the nebulous state of the literature remains siloed among different disciplines, and there has yet to be a cogent amalgamation of the research elucidating what motivates innovators in one place. What interventions can reduce the costs of innovating to the point where more learners are willing to give it a try? A systematic and two-pronged approach of evaluating the literature offerings on both promotive and hindering motivation factors promises a holistic view of the decision maker and teaching approaches that make innovation more likely and hindering factors that need to be addressed to make the most of promotion.

A typical literature review did not reasonably capture all the necessary information from such varied fields including business, education, and psychology, to name a few. Thus, a review that would be systematic, replicable, and thorough would be ideal to address this concern (Liberati et al., 2009 ; The Campbell Collaboration, 2017 ). Systematic reviews are structured literature reviews where researchers retrieve and evaluate all available evidence on a given topic; they synthesize, categorize, and appraise all the extant knowledge pertaining to a topic of inquiry. In this case, the review sought all articles through an EBSCOhost all-database search on approaches for promoting individuals’ capacity to innovate. As a result of innovation knowledge and, hence, promotion being spread across the many contributing disciplines, a siloing effect has occurred. To span these disciplines and evaluate all the knowledge currently available about approaches promoting innovation, a review that would be systematic, thorough, and replicable would be ideal to address this concern (Liberati et al., 2009 ; The Campbell Collaboration, 2017 ). A systematic review of the literature would provide the necessary insights to inform the design of approaches that would promote innovative behavior of aspirants.

Methodology

For structuring the review, protocols as recommended by the Campbell Collaboration, a social sciences international collaboration that regulates and supports the conductance of rigorous systematic reviews of interventions in education and other settings were used (The Campbell Collaboration, 2017 ). In this case, this registered systematic review ( osf.io/up83s ) consolidated and analyzed empirical studies about the approaches for supporting innovation, which includes strategies, practices, interventions, and curricula, guided by the following research questions:

What does the existing literature tell us about strategies that motivate and sustain human innovative behavior?

What is found in the literature about strategies that build expectancies of individual innovative behavior?

What is found in the literature about strategies that build individual-held subjective task values of innovative behavior?

What is found in the literature about strategies that mitigate the perceived costs of individual innovative behavior?

A challenge with the current literature on innovation and a key reason why a systematic review is necessary is the nebulous and often conjectural ideas defining and explaining the motivation of innovators. To manage this issue, only empirical studies with human participants that examined the motivations of individuals as a unit of analysis were included. Additionally, only English-language articles and articles with verified English-language translations were considered. There were no restrictions on the years of included studies with the earliest studies dating back to 1967, and the most recent published in early 2019.

Specific consideration was given to the design of strategies that build expectancies and values, and those that help mitigate the perceived and unperceived costs or risks of innovative behavior. This systematic review followed an all-database ( n  = 375) search through EBSCOhost performed on January 2nd, 2018 and again on April 6th, 2019, in addition to Google and Bing search engine use (see Fig.  1 ).

Flow of information in this systematic review study

When contacting authors of included papers for additional sources to consider, there were no date-of-publication restrictions. One hundred twenty six additional studies from outside the database search were obtained this way, while an additional 85 studies were found to be already included in the search and removed as redundant. Database searching was concluded on April 6th, 2019, and the last of the article-yielding author replies was retrieved by February 1st, 2019 (see Fig.  2 ). The database searching was performed in early 2018, but subsequent searches updating with more recent articles were performed in April 2019 to include the most modern articles.

Flow diagram of the study selection

Search strategy

In Abstract AND Paper: Innovat* AND (Motiv* OR Promot* OR Support*) AND (Strateg* OR Approach* or Interven*). Related word substitutions are allowed.

Using Boolean logic, the addition of an asterisk would tell the database to search for all permutations of the rest of the word. For example, motiv* would tell the database to search for motivation, motivator, motivate, motivating as related terms as well as synonyms like encourage, prompt, etc. As secondary search procedures, Google and Bing were also searched using an analogous process with Boolean search code operators. As well, email addresses of authors were extracted and these authors were contacted, resulting in 126 previously undiscovered prospective studies after eliminating redundant duplicates.

Research assistants were employed to facilitate the screening process by abstract and title. Study reviewers operated in dyads, with each member doing independent reviews of each abstract and title by deciding whether the title would be relevant and within the inclusion criteria. Each abstract and title was therefore reviewed twice for the purposes of adjudicating inclusion or exclusion. Disagreements were resolved through the study being included in the full paper review to avoid removing a potentially eligible study. Cohen’s Kappas were calculated using the tabulated data in the aggregate review (see Table  1 ). The Kappa value (0.806) indicates very good agreement among the reviewers. Three hundred three studies were full-text reviewed, of which 82 final studies were determined to be eligible for inclusion in findings extraction.

Findings were extracted from the final papers using qualitative data analysis software, Atlas.ti v8.0. In this way, salient hypotheses, methodologies, findings, conclusions, participant data, and other articles for consideration were isolated from the full-text files. From the methodology, the paradigm (e.g., qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methodology) and tradition (e.g., case study, experimental design, or pre-/post-test) were isolated and extracted.

Demographics of the literature results

Business workers and employees were the most common study participants (40.2%), followed by students (19.5%), business leaders (10.97%), consumers (10.97%), teachers (9.76%), and entrepreneurs (8.53%; see Table  2 for a complete listing of studies by participant type). Many studies examined the activities of managers or leaders as crucial for promoting the innovative behavior of other workers. For simplicity’s sake, the term leader will be used going forward for individuals who influence subordinate, worker, or learner groups in their care. In the case of schools, leaders would be those leading classes, namely teachers and administrators.

When comparing the results of analyzing articles by discipline, the disciplinary breakdown of articles mirrored the findings of Soleas ( 2018 b) including the disproportionate representation of innovation conceptualized from business disciplines (56.09%) such as economics, management, and entrepreneurship compared to education (10.98%), higher education (10.98%), and psychology (8.54%), as well as small minorities from the public sector (7.32%), engineering (4.87%), and environmental conservation (1.22%; see Table  3 for a complete study listing by discipline).

The vast majority of studies in the sample were quantitative (71.95%), with qualitative as a sizable minority (19.51%), and mixed method studies as the rarest (8.54%; see Table  4 for a complete study listing by methodology type).

In terms of research design, surveys were by far the most common design (62.19%), followed by case studies (13.41%), experimental and quasi-experimental designs (9.75%), interviews (9.75%), and then meta-analyses (4.88%; see Table  5 for a complete listing by design).

Results for expectancies in the literature: Can I do this?

Innovation stands as an interesting case for EVC as the factors that might potentially motivate innovation are numerous. This study organizes the findings into the EVC framework to cluster together adjacent strategies that would focus on building learner confidence to innovate. In terms of the expectancies (self-efficacy and self-concept; see Bandura, 1986 , 2001 , 2006 ; Wigfield, 1994 ), persons who grow to see themselves as potentially able to innovate because of an acquired efficacy or confidence would typically hold a higher expectation of themselves to be able to innovate and. thus, become more invested in the task of innovating. Higher investment in the task results in a higher degree of motivation sourced from the self-held conviction that the individual can innovate. This theme focused on the strategies used by leaders to help learners engage in the task so that they could build their confidence. This establishes a foothold for further growth, as a growing expectancy of success begets further growth of the skill in innovation and elsewhere. This theme consolidates the research pertaining to the building of confidence and the strategies that a leader could integrate into their decision-making to better stoke innovation. Leaders and managers in organizations assigning simpler innovation tasks early in a program and then building to harder problems according to this logic line should steadily build esteem and self-efficacy.

Strategies for building expectancies

Researchers have considered a wide range of expectancy-building strategies to promoting innovation and have studied the effects that careful managerial planning, engagement seeking, experimentation, teaching the process of innovating, management style, collaboration, available support, and training would have on the confidence and self-efficacy of innovators. The research on strategies for motivating innovation tended to be specific to disciplines and typically use survey methodologies of workers in businesses rather than specifically probing the motivations of innovators. Leader strategies include careful managerial planning, encouraging experimentation, managerial style, fostering collaboration, and providing supports.

Careful planning and engagement seeking

The literature on promoting innovation tended to come from business settings and proposed that a key consideration for actively stoking confidence to innovate was careful managerial planning, with specific consideration of consistent efforts maximizing engagement opportunities. These efforts were found by some studies to be most fruitful when they led to informal or even improvised activities (Song, Im, Van Der Bij, & Song, 2011). Monge et al. ( 1992 ) found that careful managerial planning of meetings as well as cognizance of the peaks and troughs throughout yearly or periodic cycles were necessary; otherwise, employers risked shorting the confidence of participants to innovate. Similarly, Messmann and Mulder ( 2014 ) found that managers need to carefully consider that no matter how innovative a person might be over time, innovation fatigue can set in unless confidence is sufficiently stoked.

Research has identified the importance of careful managerial planning as key to the maintenance and encouragement of worker engagement and thereby confidence, such as information days, group goal setting, and stakeholder consultations (Hartmann, 2006 ; Monge et al., 1992 ; Pihlajamaa, 2017 ; Smith & Sandberg, 2018 ). Studies have shown that carefully curated interactions with others and having project teams that were crafted to include a variety of expertise tended to increase confidence in innovating (Marvel et al., 2007 ; Song et al., 2011 ). Other studies found that the organizational choices of leaders were also impactful in boosting innovation confidence (Almond & Power, 2018 ; Dee et al., 2002 ; Smith & Sandberg, 2018 ). Montani et al. ( 2014 ) pointed to the need for managers to provide practical tools and structures for these engagement efforts such that they became habitual and a part of organizational muscle memory. In short, managers and those in supervisory roles need to take explicit and thoughtful action to build and sustain the confidence to innovate of those in their employ.

Leader encouraging experimentation and innovators learning through experience

Research that examined strategies that built innovation confidence through the encouragement of experimentation tended to come from business settings and primarily consisted of survey studies. Demircioglu and Audretsch ( 2017 ) found that providing opportunities for experimentation coupled with feedback loops in work situations tended to build the expectancies of workers to innovate. Other studies found that experimentation was facilitated through the work environment and by the flexible allocation of work tasks that tolerated early failures (Almond & Power, 2018 ; Ederer & Manso, 2013 ; Messmann & Mulder, 2014 ; Muninger et al., 2019 . These same studies found that this early investment of time and resources for pilot testing or at least tolerance of early mistakes overwhelmingly tended to yield long-term success in excess of less tolerant attitudes towards experimentation.

In the same vein, problem finding, problem clarification, and problem-setting were found to be effective catalysts for experimentation (Füller et al., 2012 ; Montani et al., 2014 ; Susha et al., 2015 ). These initiatives were commonly found to be most effective when coupled with systematic evaluation strategies (Messmann & Mulder, 2014 ; Pihie, 2007 ). Demircioglu and Audretsch ( 2017 ) found that experimentation spurred innovative activity because it suited employee preference to feel in control over their actions. This recognition of the desire of innovators to be self-determining is congruent with the findings of decades of self-determination theory research (e.g., Deci & Ryan, 1987 ; Ryan & Deci, 2017 ). In summary, the contemporary thinking on encouraging experimentation is that it can be coupled with preliminary thinking exercises, consistent feedback, and then post-experimental systematic evaluations to be maximally effective in building innovators’ confidence, and thereby supporting innovation.

Leadership style: the effects of having innovation champions

Research within the business field has identified leadership style and the efficacy of champions as key-innovation confidence-building tools. Leaders who boldly pursued innovation (Hsu, 2009 ; Wang et al., 2018 ), ensured that a variety of employees and resources were brought to bear on a given challenge (Aarikka-Stenroos et al., 2017 ), held a tolerance for ambiguity (Koch et al., 2015 ; Shane et al., 2003 ), and, otherwise, made space temporally, attitudinally, and organizationally for innovation was effective in building the confidence of their work forces (Song et al., 2011 ). This mirrors findings elsewhere that transformative leadership (known colloquially as visionary leadership; Kandiko, 2013 ) was effective in making innovation more likely (Abbas et al., 2012 ; Bolderdijk et al., 2018 ; Sergeeva & Zanello, 2018 ; Y. Wang et al., 2018 ; Yidong & Xinxin, 2013 ). These same leaders were found to diminish the deleterious effects of external rewards by setting the focus on the interest of the task and teamwork (Bolderdijk et al., 2018 ; Chen, Li, & Leung, 2016 ; Yidong & Xinxin, 2013 ). Amabile ( 1997 ) in particular described this as leaders who nurture the spark of innovation and who would build confidence at the same time as they diminished perceived costs. These costs sometimes involved innovation taking the form of an emotional roller coaster: effective champions temper or incite enthusiasm when the situation calls for it (Pihlajamaa, 2017 ).

Similarly, leaders or managers who supported innovation tended to take a promotion focus (playing to win; Poskela & Martinsuo, 2009 ), rather than a loss prevention focus (playing not to lose; Manimala, Jose, & Thomas, 2006 ; Poskela & Martinsuo, 2009 ), thereby taking calculated risks and enabling their followers to do the same (Bowles & Hattie, 2013 ; Koch et al., 2015 ; Maria Stock, Zacharias, & Schnellbaecher, 2017 ; Sergeeva & Zanello, 2018 ; Spanjol & Tam, 2010 ). While a majority of studies found that the effect of champions was significant, Chen, Li, and Leung ( 2016 ) pointed out that two recent meta-analyses revealed that champions only had a small effect on the quantity of innovation by individuals. Naidoo and Sutherland ( 2016 ) gave nuance to this finding by determining in their sampling that the reported quality of innovations was increased rather than quantity when groups were led by champions. In summary, leaders who promoted confidence to innovate tended to provide the resources and spaces for innovation to occur and tended to lead efforts personally and model innovative behavior rather than delegating.

Collaboration

By far, the most common theme among analyzed research reports and papers and across disciplines was the widespread finding that collaboration served as a strategy for promoting innovation through building confidence (e.g., Bastian et al., 2018 ; Bergendahl et al., 2015 ; Curado et al., 2018 ; Curran & Walsworth, 2014 ; Fernandez & Pitts, 2011 ; Pihlajamaa, 2017 ). Effective collaboration was found to increase expectancies for innovation though necessitating the communication and subsequent discussion of ideas (Bastian et al., 2018 ; Curado et al., 2018 ; Fernandez & Pitts, 2011 ; Hartmann, 2006 ; Jiang & Thagard, 2014 ; Monge et al., 1992 ; Pihlajamaa, 2017 ). Collaboration was also found to involve diverse stakeholders (Aarikka-Stenroos et al., 2017 ; Costa et al., 2015 ; Kuznetsov & Kuznetsova, 2011 ; Sergeeva & Zanello, 2018 ; Wu et al., 2008 ), facilitate empowerment (Bolderdijk et al., 2018 ; Fernandez & Pitts, 2011 ), promote knowledge exchange (Aalbers et al., 2013 ; Antikainen & Vaataja, 2010 ; Bastian et al., 2018 ; Curado et al., 2018 ; Muninger et al., 2019 ; Naidoo & Sutherland, 2016 ), facilitate co-designing (Hartmann, 2006 ; Sorice & Donlan, 2015 ), inspire friendly competition between teams (Lam et al., 2010 ; Naidoo & Sutherland, 2016 ; Öberg & Shih, 2014 ), as well as help team and coalition building which ensure that a person does not have to go it alone (Costa et al., 2015 ; Dee et al., 2002 ; Kirsten & Du Preez, 2010 ; Mc Fadden & Gorman, 2016 ; Öberg & Shih, 2014 ). These outcomes of collaboration, such as networking (Mc Fadden & Gorman, 2016 ), all induced increases in confidence to innovate, especially in female entrepreneurial networks (Apergis & Pekka-Economou, 2010 ). Other studies chose to rely on outcome measures, such as Galia ( 2008 ) who found that the more innovative firms in their sample tended to make extensive use of teams, and Antikainen et al. ( 2010 ), who pointed to community satisfaction based on the inclusion on projects through collaboration.

While research has identified the significant benefits and articulated some risks of misusing collaboration, studies have shown that team chemistry is a key consideration in reaping the maximal benefit of collaboration to motivate innovation. Manimala et al. ( 2006 ) identified that loose or informal team formation decreased the confidence of the individuals in a group as well as the efficacy of the group. As well, striking a balance of collaboration and competition in a given work environment was seen as a way to make the most of team work while also encouraging accountability (Naidoo & Sutherland, 2016 ). Mehta et al. ( 2008 ) found that while it is often best to have a mixture of motivations and attitudes on teams when working under strict timelines or with budgetary concerns, having homogenous groups is typically the better decision. Indeed, actor diversity helps to ensure that many ideas are represented when working in teams (Aarikka-Stenroos et al., 2017 ; Bastian et al., 2018 ; Bolderdijk et al., 2018 ; Dietrich et al., 2016 ; Kung & Chao, 2019 ; Pihlajamaa, 2017 ). Pihlajamaa ( 2017 ) extends actor diversity to recommend that teams be composed of innovators and non-innovators in a hammer and anvil model, where innovators strike ideas and non-innovators provide support and stability. In summary, contemporary research on collaboration as a tool to support innovation has identified that it has a wide range of significantly impactful benefits but needs to be applied with caution, as too much dependence on collaboration can result in a decrease of accountability. In addition, optimal team composition is extremely sensitive to the personalities of the members and the goals of the innovation.

Support was a consistent consideration of research examining strategies that build expectancies and confidence to innovate (e.g., Kuznetsov & Kuznetsova, 2011 ). Common supports identified included creating a conducive innovation climate or culture (Dee et al., 2002 ; Hopkins, 2016 ; Kung & Chao, 2019 ; Montani et al., 2014 ; Susha et al., 2015 ), having reliable infrastructure (Susha et al., 2015 ), availability of mentoring (Apergis & Pekka-Economou, 2010 ), and inviting folks to engage with groups pursuing innovation (Apergis & Pekka-Economou, 2010 ; Curado et al., 2018 ; Messmann & Mulder, 2014 ; Radicic, Pugh, Hollanders, Wintjes, & Fairburn, 2016 ; Susha et al., 2015 ). Explicitly modelling flexibility and exploration (Amabile, 1997 ; Hartmann, 2006 ; Montani et al., 2014 ; Sorice & Donlan, 2015 ), breaking a task down into smaller, manageable pieces (Dietrich et al., 2016 ; Pihie, 2007 ), and providing ample time and financial resources (Aarikka-Stenroos et al., 2017 ; Hartmann, 2006 ; Hosseini & Narayanan, 2014 ; Ozorhon & Oral, 2017 ) were also found to be crucial supports for confidence to innovate.

Studies also examined the importance of feedback as a support that increased individual and group confidence when innovating (Demircioglu & Audretsch, 2017 ; Ford, 1999 ; Hartmann, 2006 ). Other supports included innovation policies (Ozorhon & Oral, 2017 ), active inclusion of a problem-solving curriculum (Pihie, 2007 ), and actively enforcing a high quality of life balance (Minarcine & Shaw, 2016 ; Sorice & Donlan, 2015 ).

In summary, supports were widely positioned as methods or tools to build confidence and heuristics to make innovation as a process easier; these supports tended to divide innovation into manageable segments, scaffold the process of innovating, and, otherwise, decrease the costs of innovation. These strategies were typically identified in the discussions of studies, rather than as the subjects of studies, and often lacked a concrete explanation as to what these supports would look like. For example, while an innovation supportive culture, climate, or policy was often identified as a necessary factor in building confidence to innovate, explanation and articulation of what constituted such a culture, climate, or policy remained sparsely defined.

Results for perceived values: What makes innovation worth doing?

Individuals tend to act in accordance with the perceived values that they see in the tasks at hand (Feather, 1992 ). The three value types such as intrinsic, attainment, and utility subjective task value lend themselves well to an analysis of a phenomenon like innovation, as it is perceived differently by different people with different values (Green, 2013 ). For instance, individuals might have a very different attainment valence than their peers regarding innovation. Some might see innovation as having a very high attainment value as it is of central importance to their sense of self or in constructing their identity. Similarly, innovation as an act may hold intrinsic value to some people as they enjoy the act of applying their ideas. People tend to be motivated to complete activities that they enjoy; hence, if they enjoy the task of innovating and its subtasks they are likely to continue to do so (intrinsic value). But what if an individual does not enjoy innovation yet still is motivated? This motivation might be a utility value. Even if people think they can innovate, they might not have the motivation to innovate unless they see what is in it for them. Innovation is often richly rewarded in society, even if many think innovation is a buzzword (Green, 2013 ; Lehmann-Ortega & Schoettl, 2005 ). This reward can be in the form of monetary pay, public recognition, and fame, although it varies widely by context. The lure of these rewards can beget a value for which individuals can strive, giving the act of innovation an inherent value for the individual who seeks these rewards. Of all these forms of value motivation, intrinsic is hypothesized to be the most powerful and most desired across a majority of contexts (Deci et al., 1999 ); however, the relative potency varies from individual to individual.

Intrinsic task value

Intrinsic task value is the subjective value of a task for enjoyment, interest, or fun (Barron & Hulleman, 2015 ; Eccles & Wigfield, 2002 ). Innovative activity has been known to have intrinsic value to individuals if they find the act enjoyable or interesting (Amabile & Kramer, 2011 ; Fischer et al., 2019 ). Research that addressed strategies that increased intrinsic task value were rare in the literature; instead, research tended to focus on tasks and their presentation to individuals.

Strategies for building intrinsic value

The lone strategies found in the literature were to foster the interests and encourage the drive of individuals who undertook innovative endeavours.

Interest, enjoyment, and novelty seeking as means to create drive

The few strategies that studies examined pertaining to stoking innovation through intrinsic task value focused solely on feeding individuals’ interest and drive. Strategies that motivated innovation tended to be enjoyable and, hence, very much specific to the interest of the participants (e.g., Antikainen & Vaataja, 2010 ; Bolderdijk et al., 2018 ; Galia, 2008 ; Wendelken et al., 2014 ). Powerful manifestations of this motivation included informal and recreational settings (Antikainen & Vaataja, 2010 ), flexibility of choice (Cordero et al., 2005 ; Fischer et al., 2019 ), efforts to make otherwise dull tasks enjoyable (Wendelken et al., 2014 ), and participating in events and programs with the focus of being enjoyable (Bolderdijk et al., 2018 ; Fischer et al., 2019 ; Zheng et al., 2011 ). The findings of the studies point to efforts to make meetings, programs, and work settings to be enjoyable through curated informal settings. Additionally, understanding that flexibility of choice and leader-led efforts to make tasks enjoyable tended to increase the intrinsic task value of a given task.

Personal interest and curiosity were found to be powerful motivators for innovation (Amabile, 1997 ; Bolderdijk et al., 2018 ; Fischer et al., 2019 ; Füller et al., 2012 ; Minarcine & Shaw, 2016 ; Öberg & Shih, 2014 ; Susha et al., 2015 ). When tasked with deriving new ideas, few other motivations matched the potency of being truly interested in the task (Amabile, 1997 ; Füller et al., 2012 ). In fact, interest was found to be one of the few intrinsic motivations that extrinsic motivation could not quell (Amabile, 1997 ; Minarcine & Shaw, 2016 ; Öberg & Shih, 2014 ). In summary, wherever possible, efforts should be made to strategically allocate personnel to tasks that they would find interesting.

Strategies that supported innovation were found to feed the novelty-seeking behavior of many innovators. Studies suggested task variety (Duverger, 2012 ; Montani et al., 2014 ), thrilling goals (Joy, 2004 ), imaginative involvement (Joy, 2004 ), and new experiences (Edwards et al., 2014 ; Joy, 2004 ; Wang et al., 2011 ) as motivating innovation. Leaders making the efforts to design their strategies to provide these opportunities tended to fulfil intrinsic task value through fulfilling the “need for new” that many innovators feel.

Attainment value

Attainment task value is the value perceived as a result of completing a task; this aligns with the internal extrinsic motivation of the Self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2017 ).

Strategies for building attainment value

Attainment value was a frequent finding in the literature on motivation to innovate. Common trends for promoting attainment value included strategies like fostering autonomy, investment, recognition, optimized challenge, and perceived importance of innovative endeavors.

Strategies for building autonomy focused on judicious delegation of decision-making processes and allowing workers to make planning decisions (Costa et al., 2015 ; Hartmann, 2006 ). Another tactic was encouraging followers to develop with new ideas and put them into practice as a means of fuelling initiative (Yidong & Xinxin, 2013 ). Shane et al. ( 2003 ) argued that initiative building facilitated the added benefit of encouraging workers to think of themselves as being capable, and this made innovation seem more valuable. While articles highlighted that providing autonomy was a way to increase the attainment value of innovation, the exact mechanism does not seem to be fully understood beyond the indication that giving people choice makes them more likely to commit to their new ideas.

Studies pointed to strategies that built investment to be highly effective in promoting innovation. These strategies included decision-making being proportional to the amount of investment in corporations where the board held a controlling interest in the company (Bessonova & Gonchar, 2017 ). When boards made up of employees held a controlling interest, innovation was more common than when they did not. Similar non-corporate situations where the decision makers were personally and sometimes monetarily invested in the outcome of an endeavor tended to also be more likely to support innovation (Bessonova & Gonchar, 2017 ; Hartmann, 2006 ; Wendelken et al., 2014 ). In situations where individuals were personally invested in their endeavors, innovation tended to increase.

Recognition

Recognition, past, present, and future was found to be an important consideration when making efforts to motivate innovating. Research has shown that motivation to gain reputation was a central consideration of many aspiring innovators in the public domain (Fischer et al., 2019 ; Zheng et al., 2011 ), and in the private business (Antikainen & Vaataja, 2010 ; du Toit, van Staden, & Steyn, 2011) and for teachers implementing problem-solving initiatives in their classrooms (Lam et al., 2010 ). This consideration was articulated as a combination of recognition of status, peer-respect dynamics, and enhancement of professional status (Fernandez & Pitts, 2011 ; Wendelken et al., 2014 ). Recognition of innovative efforts in the literature was split between being reported as a decisive factor in some articles, while not being a great consideration in others indicating that further study is needed to determine the dynamics mediating other factors.

Self-improvement, achievement, and optimized challenge

Research has also examined strategies for motivating innovation that involved feeding the desire of aspiring innovators to improve themselves. This strategy has been described as feeding a self-improvement drive (Aarikka-Stenroos et al., 2017 ; Antikainen & Vaataja, 2010 ; Piperopoulos et al., 2018 ) or as a hunger to take on new challenges (Edwards et al., 2014 ; Jain & Ali, 2012 ; Lopez & Snyder, 2003 ; Marvel et al., 2007 ). “Hunger” literature tended to portray innovators as constantly looking for what others say cannot or should not be done and are engaged when experiencing the right balance of challenge and support. This Vygotskian idea (Glassman, 2001 ; Vygotsky & Kozulin, 2011 ) is also inferred in the self-improvement literature through self-scaffolding and a leader’s frequent and tactical provision of skill development opportunities for employees.

Importance, relevance, and clear need

The dominant attainment task value as gleaned from the literature is the importance, relevance, and clear need for innovative behavior and goals (Aarikka-Stenroos et al., 2017 ; Hosseini & Narayanan, 2014 ). To this end, studies suggested that clear links to desired goals like careers or mastery (Aarikka-Stenroos et al., 2017 ; Edwards et al., 2014 ; Sorice & Donlan, 2015 ; Xie & Reider, 2014 ) and easy to see logic to how the innovation would be important to society, with a particular emergent theme of social justice and conservation causes (Antikainen & Vaataja, 2010 ; Pihie, 2007 ; Reznickova & Zepeda, 2016 ; Sorice & Donlan, 2015 ). Leaders seeking to stoke innovation could infer from the literature that making the time to articulate the goals of an innovation and the way that it could benefit workers and society will increase engagement and increase the attainment value of the activity thus propelling the innovating of individuals and teams.

Utility value

Strategies for building utility value.

The lone strategy explored in the literature to build utility value was through the medium of rewards. Rewards were, however, an extremely common theme in the literature being explicitly and implicitly examined in a majority of studies.

Studies highlighted that offering monetary rewards for innovation encouraged participation in innovating collaborations (Aarikka-Stenroos et al., 2017 ; Antikainen & Vaataja, 2010 ; Fischer et al., 2019 ; Galia, 2008 ; Hartmann, 2006 ; Marvel et al., 2007 ; Smith & Sandberg, 2018 ; Susha et al., 2015 ; Zheng et al., 2011 ). Kandiko ( 2013 ) found that in higher education contexts, external rewards like grants were seen as necessary evils that created the space to innovate. Thus, the reward was a means to an end and not the desired outcome itself. The results of other studies supported this view of rewards as tools for creating space and opportunities for innovating (Wendelken et al., 2014 ; Xie & Reider, 2014 ). However, other studies pointed to the lack of empirical evidence on types of rewards outside of business case studies (Kay, 2011 ). The few studies on the empirical evidence of rewards argued that the most effective rewards tended to not be immediate in time, or directly in the form of monetary rewards (Baranchuk et al., 2014 ; Kay, 2011 ). Rather, rewards with a longer vesting period or with a longer duration before payoff tended to be more effective (Baranchuk et al., 2014 ; Lerner & Wulf, 2018 ). As a final level of complexity, Kay ( 2011 ) and Amabile ( 1997 ) found that the timing of rewards made a dramatic difference in the success of the innovation with early funding and rewards being much more effective in propelling innovations to success.

Indirect rewards work better than direct rewards

The findings of some studies offer nuances to this understanding, reflecting that while monetary rewards and other extrinsic motivators generally worked at some level, they were not as necessary as other motivations like career aspirations, fulfillment, interest, or non-monetary rewards. These in tandem with changes to organization or administration were considered to be more influential (Costa et al., 2015 ; Kandiko, 2013 ; Sorice & Donlan, 2015 ; Thapa et al., 2015 ; Wendelken et al., 2014 ). Curran and Walsworth ( 2014 ) found that pay-for-performance or high salaries were ineffectual in stoking the motivation to innovate, whereas indirect pay such as benefits or group pay increased motivation to innovate, findings corroborated elsewhere in the literature (Ederer & Manso, 2013 ; Lerner & Wulf, 2018 ; Ng & Feldman, 2013 ). The lone study to make concrete recommendations for indirect rewards was Hartmann ( 2006 ) who found that family health benefits, excursions, additional resources for their goal, and allowances for professional development were effective indirect rewards. Similarly, to the short-term rewards, performance pay was found to induce the feeling of being controlled, instigating decreased motivation to innovate; whereas, long-term goals created autonomous motivation (Ederer & Manso, 2013 ).

Variety of rewards

Further still, some studies found that outcome rewards in any form were detrimental to the motivation to innovate (Antikainen et al., 2010 ; Poskela & Martinsuo, 2009 ). These other studies’ results tended to find that including a variety of rewards was the best strategy if rewards were necessary (Bessonova & Gonchar, 2017 ; Cordero et al., 2005 ; Maria Stock et al., 2017 ). Curran and Walsworth ( 2014 ) found that it was sometimes possible to increase innovation with compensation, but only with the correct compensation, which connects to the arguments of Hopkins ( 2016 ), who calls for material, communal, or related incentives to foster innovative behavior. Hartmann ( 2006 ) analogously found that the major predictor of the efficacy of rewards was having a variety of rewards, findings echoed in those of other studies (Amabile, 1997 ; Cordero et al., 2005 ; Hopkins, 2016 ). In a study of innovation for participants and non-participants, the non-participants placed the most emphasis on monetary rewards, while the innovator participants placed more emphasis on other more internal motivators (Wendelken et al., 2014 ). In summary, there is substantial evidence in the literature that monetary rewards may not attract the desired motivations, and that the best course of action would be to offer a variety of rewards.

Results for cost in the literature: What is between me and what I want?

Whereas, expectancies and values are promotive constructs, costs are the hindering factors that make a task, in this case, innovation, less likely. The strategies discussed here are for mitigating the costs of innovating, such that there is more room for leaders to use expectancy and value-building strategies to motivate innovation. Diminishing the potential intrinsic, attainment, and utility value of innovating is the inherent costs of being an innovator. Innovation, like other complex tasks, while potentially rewarding, also has contextual material and psychological costs, such as additional effort, investment of time, pressure, the implications of failure, and loss of both relative stability from the status quo and availability of other options (Flake et al., 2015 ). For instance, the process of innovating may very well require the investment of additional time and resources to design and operationalize. However, doing things as they have been done in the past does not. The cost of the additional resources may serve to lessen the motivation or diminish the value of innovating. Innovation may itself place the individual or collaboration under pressure that may be undesirable for some individuals (Flake et al., 2015 ; Vansteenkiste et al., 2005 ; Wang et al., 2018 ). Innovation has been portrayed as a risky pursuit because of the possibility of failure, the stigma of being different, and a threat to the status quo (Green, 2013 ; Lehmann-Ortega & Schoettl, 2005 ). Even if someone innovates, the idea might not hold the same value to other people. Innovation does have a cost. To some, it constitutes the loss of non-innovative alternatives. To promote innovation development, the expectancies and values must exceed the costs, and this balancing act may be facilitated by the use of strategies or the design of environments.

Strategies for managing costs

In the literature, successful strategies for motivating innovation considered the costs of innovation including risk aversion and unbalanced focus on financial rewards. Costs are, by far, the least defined and studied strand from an EVC perspective on motivating innovation. Strategies informed and actively designed to mitigate the costs of innovation as identified in the findings of studies tended to be the most successful.

Risk aversion

Studies promoting innovation demonstrated that a crucial conundrum is the mitigation of the perception of risk; innovation is seen as a risky thing by many aspirants (Kinney et al., 2015 ; Phillips, 2004 ; Pihie, 2007 ). Study results pointed to risk as being needed to be managed by leaders for innovative behavior to occur (Poskela & Martinsuo, 2009 ; Skinner & Drake, 2003 ; Stewart Jr. et al., 1999 ; Wang & Huang, 2015 ). Another path to the same idea, the promotion of risk acceptance was seen as a way to combat the corrosive effects of risk on the motivation to innovate (Manimala et al., 2006 ; Marvel et al., 2007 ; Messmann & Mulder, 2014 ; Shane et al., 2003 ). Marvel et al. ( 2007 ) provided nuance to this understanding by showing that lack of risk aversiveness is shown to decrease motivation; however, risk acceptance was not shown to be particularly motivating. Risk acceptance is only visible in its absence; hence, it is a cost mitigation factor rather than an expectancy. Research into the effects of risk on innovation was limited to directionality and the consensus is that the magnitude of risk deters innovative behavior. However, this synthesis offers little insight into the strategies that leaders could use to mitigate the impact of risk.

Obsession with financial rewards

While financial incentives were hypothesized to have some positive benefits such as increasing interest, an organization or group with too much of a focus on monetary rewards actually increases the cost of innovating as a result of the cutthroat behavior of some workers (Sorice & Donlan, 2015 ). To combat this, extrinsic rewards once utilized need to be used with increasing frequency and magnitude (Bessonova & Gonchar, 2017 ; Maria Stock et al., 2017 ; Sorice & Donlan, 2015 ) in a manner that seems reminiscent of a pattern of addiction. To have the same effect, increased amounts of rewards needed to be utilized to sustain the pattern of behavior.

It is clear that there is an unbalanced primacy in the innovation literature in favor of business and corporate settings with very little representation from the arts or social justice sectors. There is also a common trend of using surveys of individuals within a single discipline, while interviews are rare. Although there is an emergent field of study on innovation education, this field has yet to consider the unique motivation of aspiring innovators. At the moment, innovation promotion is still very much disciplinary and siloed as shown by the complete absence of interdisciplinary research on environments or strategies. The gaps in understanding the effects of various environments and strategies are detrimental to efforts to support innovation. The paucity of studying costs of innovation in the literature is symptomatic of the primarily positive psychology approach taken by studies, rather than a framework like EVC which also looks at detractive factors like costs. Efforts to support innovation in a variety of settings including education need to have a deeper understanding of the costs and prices paid by innovators so that they can be mitigated and addressed.

In terms of methodology, the field is dominated by surveys of employees in business settings, rather than of bonafide innovators. This focus on survey research precludes the possibility of having concrete details and rich articulation of narration from innovators on their thinking. Another manifestation is the lack of specific strategies across the strategies and environments as the literature tends to focus on measurable outcomes rather than the latent considerations that underpin the decisions that aspiring innovators make and the supports and barriers that they consider. The literature offers many ideas about what motivates innovation, but there has been very little open-ended investigations directly asking innovators what factors motivated them to reach for their prospective goals, nor are innovators effectively asked about their education. For this reason, additional research is required to investigate the specific motivations of innovators in a variety of disciplines.

Numerous studies provide support for the notion that more internal motivations like intrinsic (e.g., interest) and attainment (e.g., importance, fulfilment) were more influential than external motivators like rewards as targets of strategies (Aarikka-Stenroos et al., 2017 ; Fernandez & Pitts, 2011 ). In an experimental study, Ederer and Manso ( 2013 ) found that pay for performance actively inhibited innovation precursor behaviors such as exploration and resulted in significantly fewer innovative events as compared to conditions where exploration was rewarded. Namely, internal motivations were more effective as they were not seen as being as controlling as external rewards showing that individuals tend to see through direct rewards and recognize them as forms of external control (Aarikka-Stenroos et al., 2017 ; Fernandez & Pitts, 2011 ; Galia, 2008 ; Gorozidis & Papaioannou, 2016 ; Hartmann, 2006 ; Jermias, 2007 ). That being said, the more related the reward is to the activity itself in terms of subject matter, the more effective the reward is in promoting the desired behavior (Cordero et al., 2005 ; Fernandez & Pitts, 2011 ). Rewarding someone who enjoys reading by giving them money would reduce internal motivation and might actually decrease the amount they read, as compared to rewarding someone for reading by giving them another book. These findings are supported by a history of research in the motivation literature (e.g., Kruglanski et al., 1975 ; Kruglanski et al., 1971 ; Ryan & Deci, 2017 ) , showing that the nascent research into reward effect on promoting innovation has research precedent elsewhere.

Leaders were urged to focus on topics that engaged curiosity, interest, and satisfaction (Antikainen et al., 2010 ; Kandiko, 2013 ; Shane et al., 2003 ; Wang & Huang, 2015 ; Wu et al., 2013 ). These strategies recommended that leaders only assign topics to innovators that were of interest to them. Such strategies would not be applicable in many situations where the topic is not flexible. Additional research is needed to determine how intrinsic task value can be applied in situations where topics are not intrinsically interesting for innovators as well as to determine the mechanisms of intrinsic value and how it works to motivate innovation.

Forward-thinking companies exemplified in the literature had moved away from direct rewards like monetary bonuses and had instead moved towards recognition and indirect rewards like vacation time, paying for the professional development of the employee’s choosing, and flexible work time (Curran & Walsworth, 2014 ; Gopal & College, 2011 ). The general trend among studies is that internal motivations and rewards that have longer vesting times or feed interest or attainment operate effectively long-term, while external motivations like direct rewards or pay for performance tend to have short-term effects that are reliant on consistent rewarding of behavior and can even actively hinder innovation. Leaders, if they choose to use rewards, should focus their strategies to give related rewards; otherwise, they risk sundering the internal motivation to innovate for already interested workers.

This manuscript consolidates the available knowledge from for leader-driven strategies for motivating innovation. By doing so, it provides avenues for discussion and ideas for implementation by leaders in context who seek to promote innovation. It identifies patterns from a range of disciplines to break the siloing of knowledge from different innovation-related areas of endeavor and makes it available for innovation promotion efforts. The most effective leader approaches to making innovation more likely combine maximizing promotive factors while also addressing and mitigating hindering factors. Effective leaders in organizations actively maximize confidence of their workers and account for the values that they see in innovating. These effective leaders in conjunction with approaches that promote innovating make decisions that mitigate or reduce the perceived costs of innovating. The optimal use of rewards in the workplace and learning setting are related to the task and are often not direct performance pay. This work points to the most effective approaches to motivating innovation being those that proactively build expectancies and values, while continuously working to mitigate the costs of innovating.

Availability of data and materials

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study. However, lists of analyzed articles are available in the manuscript.

Abbreviations

Expectancy–value–cost theory (Barron and Hulleman, 2015 ). A major theory of motivation that theorizes that the motivation for a task is the function of the expectancies (expectations of success, confidence, and self-efficacy) and the values (a direct or indirect, tangible or intangible benefit for performing the task) balanced against the perceived costs of performing the task.

Aalbers, R., Dolfsma, W., & Koppius, O. (2013). Individual connectedness in innovation networks: on the role of individual motivation. Research Policy, 42 (3), 624–634. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.10.007 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Aarikka-Stenroos, L., Jaakkola, E., Harrison, D., & Mäkitalo-Keinonen, T. (2017). How to manage innovation processes in extensive networks: a longitudinal study. Industrial Marketing Management, 67 , 88–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2017.09.014 .

Abbas, G., Iqbal, J., Waheed, A., & Riaz, M. N. (2012). Relationship between transformational leadership style and innovative work behavior in educational institutions. Journal of Behavioural Sciences, 22 (3), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13398-014-0173-7.2 .

Almond, K., & Power, J. (2018). Breaking the rules in pattern cutting: an interdisciplinary approach to promote creativity in pedagogy. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 17 (1), 33–50 Retrieved from 10.0.5.106/adch.17.1.33_1 .

Amabile, T. M. (1997). Motivating creativity in organizations: on doing what you love and loving what you do. California Management Review, 40 (1), 39–59. https://doi.org/10.2307/41165921 .

Amabile, T. M., & Kramer, S. (2011). The progress principle: using small wins to ignite joy, engagement, and creativity at work . Harvard Business Press.

Antikainen, M. J., Mäkipää, M., & Ahonen, M. (2010). Motivating and supporting collaboration in open innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 13 (1), 100–119. https://doi.org/10.1108/14601061011013258 .

Antikainen, M. J., & Vaataja, H. K. (2010). Rewarding in open innovation communities – how to motivate members. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 11 (4), 440. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEIM.2010.032267 .

Apergis, N., & Pekka-Economou, V. (2010). Incentives and female entrepreneurial activity: evidence from panel firm level data. International Advances in Economic Research, 16 (4), 371–387. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11294-010-9277-9 .

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: a social cognitive theory . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Google Scholar  

Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: an agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52 , 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1 .

Bandura, A. (2006). Toward a psychology of human agency. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1 (2), 164–180. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00011.x .

Baranchuk, N., Kieschnick, R., & Moussawi, R. (2014). Motivating innovation in newly public firms. Journal of Financial Economics, 111 (3), 578–588 Retrieved from 10.0.3.248/j.jfineco.2013.11.010 .

Baregheh, A., Rowley, J., & Sambrook, S. (2009). Towards a multidisciplinary definition of innovation. Management Decision, 47 (8), 1323–1339. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740910984578 .

Barron, K. E., & Hulleman, C. S. (2015). Expectancy-value-cost model of motivation. In J. S. Eccles & K. Salmelo-Aro (Eds.), International encyclopedia of social and behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Elsevier.

Bastian, B., Jetten, J., Thai, H. A., & Steffens, N. K. (2018). Shared adversity increases team creativity through fostering supportive interaction. Frontiers in Psychology , 9 (Article 2309), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02309

Bergendahl, M., Magnusson, M., & Björk, J. (2015). Ideation high performers: a study of motivational factors. Creativity Research Journal, 27 (4), 361–368. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2015.1088266 .

Bessonova, E., & Gonchar, K. (2017). Incentives to innovate in response to competition: the role of agency costs. Economic Systems, 41 (1), 26–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecosys.2016.09.002 .

Bolderdijk, J. W., Brouwer, C., & Cornelissen, G. (2018). When do morally motivated innovators elicit inspiration instead of irritation? Frontiers in Psychology , 8 (Article 2362), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02362

Bowles, T., & Hattie, J. (2013). Towards positive adaptive change: the association of three typologies of agency with motivational factors. Australian Psychologist, 48 (6), 437–444. https://doi.org/10.1111/ap.12024 .

Carr, K., Kendal, R. L., & Flynn, E. G. (2016). Eureka!: What is innovation, how does it develop, and who does it? Child Development, 87 (5), 1505–1519. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12549 .

Chen, T., Li, F., & Leung, K. (2016). When does supervisor support encourage innovative behavior? Opposite moderating effects of general self-efficacy and internal locus of control. Personnel Psychology, 69 (1), 123–158. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12104 .

Cordero, R., Walsh, S. T., & Kirchhoff, B. A. (2005). Motivating performance in innovative manufacturing plants. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 16 (1), 89–99 Retrieved from 10.0.3.248/j.hitech.2005.06.005 .

Costa, S., Páez, D., Sánchez, F., Garaigordobil, M., & Gondim, S. (2015). Personal factors of creativity: a second order meta-analysis. Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 31 (3), 165–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rpto.2015.06.002 .

Cramond, B. L., & Fairweather, E. C. (2013). Future problem solving as education for innovation. In L. Shavinina (Ed.), Routledge international handbook of innovation education (pp. 212–222). London: United Kingdom: Routledge.

Curado, C., Muñoz-Pascual, L., & Galende, J. (2018). Antecedents to innovation performance in SMEs: a mixed methods approach. Journal of Business Research, 89 , 206–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.12.056 .

Curran, B., & Walsworth, S. (2014). Can you pay employees to innovate? Evidence from the Canadian private sector. Human Resource Management Journal, 24 (3), 290–306. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12036 .

De Clercq, D., & Pereira, R. (2019). Resilient employees are creative employees, when the workplace forces them to be. Creativity and Innovation Management , (May), 329–342. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12328

Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125 , 627–668. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.6.627 .

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). The support of autonomy and the control of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53 (6), 1024–1037. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.53.6.1024 .

Dee, J. R., Henkin, A. B., & Pell, S. W. J. (2002). Support for innovation in site-based-managed schools: developing a climate for change. Educational Research Quarterly, 25 (4), 36 Retrieved from http://proxy.queensu.ca/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=7600676&site=ehost-live .

Demircioglu, M. A., & Audretsch, D. B. (2017). Conditions for innovation in public sector organizations. Research Policy, 46 (9), 1681–1691. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.08.004 .

Dietrich, M., Znotka, M., Guthor, H., & Hilfinger, F. (2016). Instrumental and non-instrumental factors of social innovation adoption. Voluntas, 27 (4), 1950–1978. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-015-9639-2 .

du Toit, A. S. A., van Staden, R. J., & Steyn, P. D. (2011). South Africa’s future knowledge workers: a peep into their goals and motivations for innovation. African Journal of Library Archives and Information Science, 21 (2), 87–99.

Duverger, P. (2012). Variety is the spice of innovation: mediating factors in the service idea generation process. Creativity and Innovation Management, 21 (1), 106–119. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2011.00621.x .

Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53 (1), 109–132.

Ederer, F., & Manso, G. (2013). Is pay for performance detrimental to innovation? Management Science, 59 (7), 1496–1513. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1120.1683 .

Edwards, R. A., Kirwin, J., Gonyeau, M., Matthews, S. J., Lancaster, J., & DiVall, M. (2014). A reflective teaching challenge to motivate educational innovation. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 78 (5), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe785103 .

Feather, N. T. (1992). Expectancy-Value Theory and unemployment effects. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 65 (4), 315–330. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1992.tb00508.x

Fernandez, S., & Pitts, D. W. (2011). Understanding employee motivation to innovate: evidence from front line employees in United States federal agencies. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 70 (2), 202–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8500.2011.00726.x .

Fischer, C., Malycha, C. P., & Schafmann, E. (2019). The influence of intrinsic motivation and synergistic extrinsic motivators on creativity and innovation. Frontiers in Psychology , 10 (Art. 137.). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00137 .

Flake, J. K., Barron, K. E., Hulleman, C., McCoach, D. B., Welsh, M. E., McCoach, B. D., & Welsh, M. E. (2015). Measuring cost: the forgotten component of expectancy-value theory. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 41 , 232–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.03.002 .

Ford, C. M. (1999). Interpretive style, motivation, ability and context as predictors of executives’ creative performance. Creativity and Innovation Management, 8 (3), 188–196. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8691.00136 .

Füller, J., Matzler, K., Hutter, K., & Hautz, J. (2012). Consumers’ creative talent: Which characteristics qualify consumers for open innovation projects? An exploration of asymmetrical effects. Creativity and Innovation Management, 21 (3), 247–262. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2012.00650.x .

Galia, F. (2008). Intrinsic-extrinsic motivations and knowledge sharing in French firms. ICFAI Journal of Knowledge Management, 6 (1), 56–80.

Glassman, M. (2001). Dewey and Vygotsky: society, experience, and inquiry in educational practice. Educational Researcher, 30 (4), 3–14.

Gopal, G., & College, E. (2011). Using reward systems to motivate employees for innovation. Niall Hoarty, Medtronic Corporation, Galway, Ireland Dr. Gurram Gopal, Elmhurst College, Elmhurst, IL Dr. Laurence P. Elwood, Galway-Mayo Institute of Technology, Galway, Ireland. Global Education Journal , 56–67.

Gorozidis, G. S., & Papaioannou, A. G. (2014). Teachers’ motivation to participate in training and to implement innovations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 39 , 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.12.001 .

Gorozidis, G. S., & Papaioannou, A. G. (2016). Teachers’ achievement goals and self-determination to engage in work tasks promoting educational innovations. Learning and Individual Differences, 49 , 46–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.05.014 .

Green, E. (2013, June 20). Innovation: the history of a buzzword. The Atlantic. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/06/innovation-the-history-of-a-buzzword/277067/ .

Hartmann, A. (2006). The role of organizational culture in motivating innovative behaviour in construction firms. Construction Innovation, 6 (3), 159–172. https://doi.org/10.1108/14714170610710712 .

Hopkins, V. (2016). Institutions, incentives, and policy entrepreneurship. Policy Studies Journal, 44 (3), 332–348. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12132 .

Horkoff, J., Maiden, N. A., & Asboth, D. (2019). Creative goal modeling for innovative requirements. Information & Software Technology, 106 , 85–100. Retrieved from 10.0.3.248/j.infsof.2018.09.005 .

Hosseini, S. M. P., & Narayanan, S. (2014). Adoption, adaptive innovation, and creative innovation among SMEs in Malaysian manufacturing. Asian Economic Papers, 13 ( 2 ), 32. https://doi.org/10.1162/ASEP .

Hsu, Y. (2009). Exploring design innovation and performance: the roles of issue related to design strategy. Journal of Engineering Design, 20 (6), 555–569. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544820802043609 .

Jain, R., & Ali, S. W. (2012). Entrepreneurial and intrapreneurial orientation in Indian enterprises: an empirical study. South Asian Journal of Management, 19 ( iii ), 86–122 Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=83235884&site=ehost-live .

Jean, R.-J. “Bryan”, Kim, D., Chiou, J.-S., & Calantone, R. (2018). Strategic orientations, joint learning, and innovation generation in international customer-supplier relationships. International Business Review, 27 (4), 838–851. Retrieved from http://10.0.3.248/j.ibusrev.2018.01.007 .

Jermias, J. (2007). The effects of corporate governance on the relationship between innovative efforts and performance. European Accounting Review, 16 (4), 827–854 Retrieved from 10.0.4.56/09638180701707045 .

Jiang, M., & Thagard, P. (2014). Creative cognition in social innovation. Creativity Research Journal, 26 (4), 375–388. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2014.961774 .

Joy, S. (2004). Innovation motivation: the need to be different. Creativity Research Journal, 16 (2–3), 313–330. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2004.9651461 .

Kandiko, C. B. (2013). Leadership and creativity in higher education: the role of interdisciplinarity (H05). London Review of Education, 10 (2), 191–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/14748460.2012.691283 .

Kay, L. (2011). The effect of inducement prizes on innovation: evidence from the Ansari X Prize and the Northrop Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge. R and D Management, 41 (4), 360–377. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2011.00653.x .

Kinney, B., Laux, C., & Newman, P. (2015). Executive pay, innovation, and risk-taking. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 24 (2), 275–305. https://doi.org/10.1111/jems.12090 .

Kirsten, B., & Du Preez, R. (2010). Improvisational theatre as team development intervention for climate for work group innovation. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 36 (1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v36i1.862 .

Koch, A. R., Binnewies, C., & Dormann, C. (2015). Motivating innovation in schools: school principals’ work engagement as a motivator for schools’ innovation. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24 (4), 505–517. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2014.958471 .

Kruglanski, A. W., Friedman, I., & Zeevi, G. (1971). The effects of extrinsic incentive on some qualitative aspects of task performance. Journal of Personality, 39 (4), 606–617.

Kruglanski, A. W., Riter, A., Amitai, A., Margolin, B.-S., Shabtai, L., & Zaksh, D. (1975). Can money enhance intrinsic motivation? A test of the content-consequence hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31 (4), 744–750. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.31.4.744 .

Kung, F. Y. H., & Chao, M. M. (2019). The impact of mixed emotions on creativity in negotiation: an interpersonal perspective. Frontiers in Psychology , 9 (Article 2660), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02660

Kuznetsov, A., & Kuznetsova, O. (2011). Looking for ways to increase student motivation: internationalisation and value innovation. Higher Education Quarterly, 65 (4), 353–367. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2273.2011.00493.x .

Lam, S., Cheng, R. W., & Choy, H. C. (2010). School support and teacher motivation to implement project-based learning. Learning & Instruction, 20 (6), 487–497 Retrieved from 10.0.3.248/j.learninstruc.2009.07.003 .

Lehmann-Ortega, L., & Schoettl, J.-M. (2005). From buzzword to managerial tool: the role of business model in strategic innovation. In Paper presented at the CLADEA annual assembly . Santiago, Chile: CLADEA Retrieved from http://www.businessmodelcommunity.com/fs/Root/8jvaa-Businessmodelsantiago.pdf .

Lerner, J., & Wulf, J. (2018). Innovation and incentives: evidence from corporate R&D. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 89 (4), 634–644.

Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., & Moher, D. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Medicine, 6 (7), e1000100.

Lopez, S. J., & Snyder, C. R. R. (2003). Positive psychological assessment: A handbook of models and measures . Database. https://doi.org/10.1037/10612-000 .

Manimala, M. J., Jose, P. D., & Thomas, K. R. (2006). Organizational constraints on innovation and intrapreneurship: insights from public sector. Vikalpa: The Journal for Decision Makers, 31 (1), 49–60 10.1177%2F0256090920060104 .

Manso, G. (2017). Creating incentives for innovation. California Management Review, 60 (1), 18–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/0008125617725287 .

Maria Stock, R., Zacharias, N. A., & Schnellbaecher, A. (2017). How do strategy and leadership styles jointly affect co-development and its innovation outcomes? Journal of Product Innovation Management, 34 (2), 201–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12332 .

Marvel, M. R., Griffin, A., Hebda, J., & Vojak, B. (2007). Examining the technical corporate entrepreneurs’ motivation: voices from the field. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 31 (5), 753–768. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2007.00198.x .

Mc Fadden, T., & Gorman, M. (2016). Exploring the concept of farm household innovation capacity in relation to farm diversification in policy context. Journal of Rural Studies, 46 , 60–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2016.05.006 .

Mehta, A., Clayton, H., & Sankar, C. S. (2008). Impact of multi-media case studies on improving intrinsic learning motivation of students. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 36 (1), 79–103. https://doi.org/10.2190/ET.36.1.f .

Messmann, G., & Mulder, R. H. (2014). Exploring the role of target specificity in the facilitation of vocational teachers’ innovative work behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87 (1), 80–101. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12035 .

Minarcine, S., & Shaw, C. (2016). Motivations for entrepreneurship. International Journal of the Academic Business World, 10 (2), 47–56.

Monge, P. R., Cozzens, M. D., & Contractor, N. S. (1992). Communication and motivational predictors of the dynamic of organizational innovation. Organization Science.

Montani, F., Odoardi, C., & Battistelli, A. (2014). Individual and contextual determinants of innovative work behaviour: proactive goal generation matters. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87 (4), 645–670. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12066 .

Mudambi, R., Mudambi, S. M., & Navarra, P. (2007). Global innovation in MNCs: The effects of subsidiary self-determination and teamwork. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 24 (5), 442–455. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2007.00262.x

Muninger, M.-I., Hammedi, W., & Mahr, D. (2019). The value of social media for innovation: a capability perspective. Journal of Business Research, 95 , 116–127 Retrieved from 10.0.3.248/j.jbusres.2018.10.012 .

Naidoo, S., & Sutherland, M. (2016). A management dilemma: positioning employees for internal competition versus internal collaboration. Is competition possible? South African Journal of Business Management, 47 (1), 75–87 Retrieved from http://www.redi-bw.de/db/ebsco.php/search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=116077091&site=ehost-live .

Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2013). Does longer job tenure help or hinder job performance? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83 (3), 305–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2013.06.012 .

Nold, H. (2017). Using Critical Thinking Teaching Methods to Increase Student Success: An Action Research Project. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 29 (1), 17–32. Retrieved from http://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/ .

Öberg, C., & Shih, T. T. Y. (2014). Divergent and convergent logic of firms: barriers and enablers for development and commercialization of innovations. Industrial Marketing Management, 43 (3), 419–428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2013.12.010 .

Olivares, S., Saiz, C., & Rivas, S. F. (2013). Encouragement for Thinking Critically. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 11 (2), 367–394. https://doi.org/10.14204/ejrep.30.12168 .

Ozorhon, B., & Oral, K. (2017). Drivers of innovation in construction projects. J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 143 (4), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001234 .

Phillips, R. (2004). The global export of risk: finance and the film business. Competition & Change, 8 (2), 105–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/1024529042000271425 .

Pihie, Z. A. L. (2007). An analysis of academic experience to develop entrepreneurial attributes and motivation among at-risk students. The International Journal of Learning, 14 (6), 207–218. https://doi.org/10.18848/1447-9494/CGP/v14i06/45363 .

Pihlajamaa, M. (2017). Going the extra mile: managing individual motivation in radical innovation development. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 43 , 48–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2017.01.003 .

Piperopoulos, P., Wu, J., & Wang, C. (2018). Outward FDI, location choices and innovation performance of emerging market enterprises. Research Policy, 47 (1), 232–240 Retrieved from 10.0.3.248/j.respol.2017.11.001 .

Poskela, J., & Martinsuo, M. (2009). Management control and strategic renewal in the front end of innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26 (6), 671–684 Retrieved from 10.0.4.87/j.1540-5885.2009.00692.x .

Radicic, D., Pugh, G., Hollanders, H., Wintjes, R., & Fairburn, J. (2016). The impact of innovation support programs on small and medium enterprises innovation in traditional manufacturing industries: an evaluation for seven European Union regions. Environment & Planning C: Government & Policy , 34 (8), 1425–1452. Retrieved from 10.0.4.153/0263774X15621759

Reznickova, A., & Zepeda, L. (2016). Can self-determination theory explain the self-perpetuation of social innovations? A case study of slow food at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 26 , 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp .

Romero, I., & Martínez-Román, J. A. (2012). Self-employment and innovation. Exploring the determinants of innovative behavior in small businesses. Research Policy, 41 (1), 178–189. Retrieved from http://10.0.3.248/j.respol.2011.07.005 .

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness . New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: a path model of individual innovation in the workplace. The Academy of Management Journal, 37 (3), 580–607. https://doi.org/10.2307/256701 .

Senko, C., Hulleman, C. S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2011). Achievement goal theory at the crossroads: old controversies, current challenges, and new directions. Educational Psychologist, 46 (1), 26–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2011.538646 .

Sergeeva, N., & Zanello, C. (2018). Championing and promoting innovation in UK megaprojects. International Journal of Project Management, 36 (8), 1068–1081. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2018.09.002 .

Shane, S., Locke, E. A., & Collins, C. J. (2003). Entrepreneurial motivation. Human Resource Management Review , 13 (2), 257–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-4822 (03)00017-2

Skinner, N. F. (1996). Behavioral Implications of Public Service Motivation. Social Behavior and Personality, 24 (3), 231–234.

Skinner, N. F., & Drake, J. M. (2003). Behavioral implications of adaption-innovation: III. adaption-innovation, achievement motivation, and academic performance. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 31 (1), 101–105. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2003.31.1.101 .

Smith, G., & Sandberg, J. (2018). Barriers to innovating with open government data: exploring experiences across service phases and user types. Information Polity: The International Journal of Government & Democracy in the Information Age, 23 (3), 249–265 Retrieved from 10.0.12.161/IP-170045 .

Soleas, Eleftherios K. (2020). Expectancies, values, and costs of innovating identified by Canadian innovators : a motivational basis for supporting innovation talent development. Journal of Advanced Academics , 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X20904772 .

Soleas, Eleftherios Kyprianos. (2018a). True “innovation” generates ideas, not wealth. The Conversation . Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/amp/true-innovation-generates-ideas-not-wealth-103590 .

Soleas, E. K. (2018b). Get off my lawn: why capitalism’s monopoly on innovation is bad for us all and what educators can do about it. Graduate Student Symposium Selected Papers, 12 , 91–107.

Song, M., Im, S., Van Der Bij, H., & Song, L. Z. (2011). Does strategic planning enhance or impede innovation and firm performance? Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28 (4), 503–520. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2011.00822.x .

Sorice, M. G., & Donlan, C. J. (2015). A human-centered framework for innovation in conservation incentive programs. Ambio, 44 (8), 788–792. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-015-0650-z .

Spanjol, J., & Tam, L. (2010). To change or not to change: how regulatory focus affects change in dyadic decision-making. Creativity and Innovation Management, 19 (4), 346–363. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2010.00575.x .

Stewart Jr., W. H., Watson, W. E., Carland, J. C., & Carland, J. W. (1999). A proclivity for entrepreneurship: a comparison of entrepreneurs, small business owners, and corporate managers. Journal of Business Venturing, 14 (2), 189–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(97)00070-0 .

Susha, I., Grönlund, A., & Janssen, M. (2015). Driving factors of service innovation using open government data: an exploratory study of entrepreneurs in two countries. Information Polity, 20 (1), 19–34. https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-150353 .

Thapa, B. E. P., Niehaves, B., Seidel, C. E., & Plattfaut, R. (2015). Citizen involvement in public sector innovation: government and citizen perspectives. Information Polity, 20 (1), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-150351 .

The Campbell Collaboration. (2017). Campbell systematic reviews: policies and guidelines. Campbell Policies and Guidelines Series No. 1, 10 ( 1 ), 1–44. https://doi.org/10.4073/cpg.2016.1 .

Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., Witte, H., & Feather, N. T. (2005). Understanding unemployed people’s job search behaviour, unemployment experience and well-being: a comparison of expectancy-value theory and self-determination theory. British Journal of Social Psychology, 44 (2), 269–287.

Vygotsky, L. S., & Kozulin, A. (2011). The dynamics of the schoolchild’s mental development in relation to teaching and learning. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 10 (2), 198–211. https://doi.org/10.1891/1945 .

Wang, C. K. J., Liu, W. C., Koh, C., Tan, O. S., & Ee, J. (2011). A motivational analysis of project work in Singapore using self-determination theory. The International Journal of Research and Review, 7 (1), 45–66.

Wang, G., & Huang, H. (2015). Effect of Chinese employees’ emotional creativity on their innovative performance. Social Behavior and Personality, 43 (7), 1147–1160. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2015.43.7.1147 .

Wang, Y., Liu, J., Zhu, Y., & Bastian, B. (2018). Humble leadership, psychological safety, knowledge sharing, and follower creativity: a cross-level investigation. Frontiers in Psychology , 9 (Article 1727), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01727 .

Wendelken, A., Danzinger, F., Möslein, K., & Rau, C. (2014). Innovation without me: why employees do (not) participate in organizational innovation communities. R&D Management, 44 (2), 217–236. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12042 .

Wigfield, A. (1994). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation: a developmental perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 6 (1), 49–78.

Wigfield, A., Tonks, S., & Klauda, S. L. (2009). Expectancy-value theory. In K. R. Wentzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 55–75). New York, NY: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1015 .

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Wu, A., Su, J., & Wang, H. (2013). Internal innovation or external innovation? An organizational context-based analysis in China. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 24 (2), 118–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hitech.2013.09.006 .

Wu, H. L., Su, W. C., & Lee, C. Y. (2008). Employee ownership motivation and individual risk-taking behaviour: a cross-level analysis of Taiwan’s privatized enterprises. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19 (12), 2311–2331. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190802479546 .

Xie, Y., & Reider, D. (2014). Integration of innovative technologies for enhancing students’ motivation for science learning and career. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23 (3), 370–380. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-013-9469-1 .

Yidong, T., & Xinxin, L. (2013). How ethical leadership influence employees’ innovative work behavior: a perspective of intrinsic motivation. Journal of Business Ethics, 116 (2), 441–455. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1455-7 .

Zheng, H., Li, D., & Hou, W. (2011). Task design, motivation, and participation in crowdsourcing contests. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 15 (4), 57–88. https://doi.org/doi . https://doi.org/10.2753/JEC1086-4415150402 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to thank all research assistants for their work of reviewing and extracting data from the articles. Their siloed work made the analysis of available knowledge and the authorship of this manuscript possible. This systematic review is dedicated to the memory of Dr. John G. Freeman, a friend, mentor, and advocate for graduate students everywhere.

Not applicable for this study

This study was funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Education, Queen’s University, Kingston, Canada

Eleftherios K. Soleas

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

This manuscript was authored solely by the corresponding author. The author read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eleftherios K. Soleas .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The author reports no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Soleas, E.K. Leader strategies for motivating innovation in individuals: a systematic review. J Innov Entrep 9 , 9 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-020-00120-w

Download citation

Received : 14 August 2019

Accepted : 15 April 2020

Published : 12 May 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-020-00120-w

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Expectancy–value theory
• Systematic review
• Leader approaches
• Innovation education

• 1(877)219-7556 1(877)733-3925

Fully unique works only

Your privacy is our concern

Writing that is plagiarism free

Free Leadership for Innovation Essay Sample

Leadership is the process of putting up a technique for people to throw in their efforts to make something happen. In a nutshell, leadership is perceived to mean the capacity to put in order a group of people to accomplish a common objective. The kind of a leader that an organization has will determine the direction that the organization will take in terms of development. Visionary and exemplary leaders will steer an organization to prosperity and success, while inefficient leaders will drive the organization to disarray and disorder. The people under a leader will often derive their modes of behaviour from their leader. They always look upon the leader to give them directions and instructions that are aimed at steering the organization forward.

Innovation is a new idea that can be put into practice. Therefore, innovation entails intelligence since intelligence plays a key role toward the development of new ideas. Whenever intelligence fails to be in line with innovation, its function towards innovation is realized. There are various hypotheses that are connected to the modern day business and innovation management.

Leadership for Innovation

Every leader knows that an organization really needs innovation and more creativity in order to sustain itself. Innovation is thus, regarded as the backbone of any organization. Creativity brings about new ideas that are greatly beneficial to the survival and sustainability of the organization. It is, therefore, imperative for any leader to focus on ideas or programs that supersede the current ones that the organization is based upon. Leaders, therefore have various methods to employ so as to foster innovation into an organization. These methods vary from organization to organization due to the different nature of their needs. The best way is to create a favorable environment in the workplace so as stimulate creativity and innovation.

It is important for leaders to foster creativity and innovation in an organization in order to improve on the level of production and also to maintain the identity and the existence of the organization. When an organization is short of new ideas then it will be forced to continue using the old ideas. These old ideas do not add any value to the organization, thus contributing to the obsolescence of the organization. Innovation entails merging known ideas and practices with new ideas that have never been considered before. Change is a widespread feature in the life of a business and the capability to handle such changes is the core competence of success in the organization.

The main drivers of organizational changes over the last two decades have been globalization, advancement in technology, and fluctuation in global economy. This has led to distressed exploration of mechanisms for achieving competitive advantage through increased radical forms of change. Additionally, Cortese recommends that organizational strategies must take the form of a process of continuous learning, in which at the limit, preparation and execution becomes impossible to tell apart. He proposes that organizations should generate, develop, and maintain excellent business designs that are capable of taking advantage of their strategic landscape and business environment beyond the lifetime series of changes. This can only be achieved through self-organizing process of the individual employees. He acknowledges the role of strategic planning and the formation of networks since individual errors may have severe impact in the organization as a whole.

The ever changing global economy calls for new innovations and strategies in different organizations in order to maintain competitive advantage. These include training and development of the human resource to enhance productivity and overall business performance. Organizations are taking huge risks by investing heavily on human resource training and development. Business leaders and executives view innovation as one of their top most agenda toward the realization of a perfect business model. Many studies have found out that training and development is the main instrument for breaking new ground and bringing changes in an organization.  These changes include change in workers behavior and competency, upholding innovations, and adopting new technologies. The best design and strategy in professional training must be all inclusive, continuous in nature, and should integrate training with other elements of the organizations.

Senge, Smith, Kruschwitz, Laur, & Schley, explain how individuals and organizations work jointly to create a sustainable planet. He developed new ideologies related to leadership using an organized approach. The systematic approach views the entire organization as a complex system with interconnected parts. The constituents of an organization include the management, general employees, and the stakeholders. He describes sustainable thinkers as innovators who work relentlessly to create regenerative economy in the future and are capable of viewing and understanding the system in which they live and work. There vision is beyond the events and organizational boundaries thus, they make critical choices incorporate the natural and societal edge so as to create sustainable cycles of innovation.

Our features

300 words per page instead of 280

Free revision (on demand)

Discount system

Affiliate program

VIP services

Round-the-clock support

High performing organizations nowadays are acknowledging the significance of utilizing effective training and development systems to improve their competitive advantage in the industry. Training and development of the human resource is a critical factor to any organization, if the value and potential of the human resources are to be harnessed and grown. It creates a big opportunity for the workers to come up with new ideas that can improve the face of the organization, and also the mode of operation. Leaders normally want the best from their employees or subjects, thus, they ensure that the training activities are innovative. Many studies have underscored the apparent correlation between a soundly designed and strategic training and the overall success of the organization.  The general image of the industry and workers is also influenced by the level and quality of training and development. In our contemporary business climate, most companies are faced with stiff competition for their quality staffs. Human resource experts assert that companies which invest heavily on training and development benefit from enriched working environment with a low level of staff exodus as well as enhanced creativity, innovation, productivity, and organizational performance.

In order to maintain a competitive advantage and retention of high quality staff, companies must ensure that training and development of their human resources is not taken lightly. Investing in professional training guarantees stability and productivity in an organization. One of the most significant aspects of human resource development is helping employees to become more effective in their work and to be able to adapt other jobs within the company.  However, in order for training strategies and policies to be effective they must correspond to the company’s goals and objective. Major changes in an organization are brought about by change in workers behavior and competency. Willingness of the employees to embrace changes in an organization is influenced by numerous factors such as organizational structure, performance evaluation system, organization’s culture, among others. Training department is the one with the strongest position to integrate the above elements and direct top leaders through change initiatives. 

Efficient leadership strategies are essential in an organization since they define where the organization is heading to. An efficient leader builds up strategies which aim to develop the staff and create new ideas to the organization. Democratic leadership style makes it necessary to define goals for the staff members and also allows the members of the staff to develop and get promotions. Achievements are distinguished and rewarded accordingly. Highly experienced staff members make it easy for this leadership style to hold since there is improved coordination and communication in the organization. Democratic style of leadership is most applicable when team building is required in the organization. When staff members are needed in the decision making process, this kind of leadership is relevant. This kind of leadership style makes it possible for easy problem solving and objective decision making in an organization.

Business entities that seek to find out advanced and innovative solutions are often successful in today’s society. The correlation between advancement in business ideas and triumph of a business organization plays a major role towards building a successful business empire or business world. For instance, it is very true to say that the advancements in technologies such as the invention of gun powder or satellite radar, transformed totally what warfare meant to be; alternatively, the introduction of the printing press services extremely contributed towards the revolution of education system due to the availability of books that were used towards achieving an academic goal or objective. Training and development are the main instruments for breaking new grounds, thus, bringing changes to an organization. The expertise acquired through professional training not only helps in getting accustomed to the new technology but also contributes to the new innovations. Professional training must take place within a framework of partnership between the training department, the organization as a whole, and the human resources. This will ensure that the training offered is in line with all the stakeholders view/ interest.  Therefore, training brings all the stakeholders together and the common interest is identified and worked upon.

One of the major obstacles to innovation in businesses is complacency. Most managers after budding through the ranks to the top most positions forget about training.  They usually turn to training departments usually after making all the key decision within unreasonable time frame. In order for training department to accomplish its task successfully, it needs time to design programs, invite workers for training, carry out the training and allow a sample to experiment what they have learnt in order to produce results. This often leads to waste of time and company resources. It is only through professional training that an organization can avoid wastage of time and exasperation by assisting the top management to embrace training practices that leads to innovation and change in a business. Many managers always apply a top-down style of leadership which has proven to be ineffective in the businesses nowadays.  In this case, the manager designs the business strategies, sets goals and objectives, sets deadlines, delegate duties among other functions without consultation. In such cases, training department only executes duties assigned by the top management. Generally, training and human resources development should be a continuous process rather than a spontaneous process. Some of the business managers always think they know everything about the business and understand the effect of a change on the workers and their roles in the company and how the change should be managed to produce optimal results.  More so, some managers still believe that consultation is a major obstacle to quick adoption of innovations; thus, they always avoid performance barriers which are a threat to new innovations.

Organizational strategies must take the form of a continuous learning, in which at the limit, preparation and execution becomes impossible to tell apart. They should generate, develop, and maintain excellent business designs capable of taking advantage of its strategic landscape and business environment beyond the lifetime series of changes in an organization. Strategic planning and the formation of networks are very significant since individual errors may have severe impact in the organization. Strategic planning of a business organization should take the form of value-chain and the competitive advantage analysis. Value chain analysis ensures exceptional business processes and enables the business organization to compete and improve on its portfolio. Competitive advantage analysis highlights various opportunities that an organization can take advantage of within its region. It also provides various strengths that the organization has in order to compete in the industry.

Leadership is a key component to the survival of any organization. Mediocre leadership pulls the business unit backward rather than pushing it forward. An organization with a stable and efficient leadership will be in a better position to stay ahead of its competitors with regard to all aspects of the business. The business environment is very competitive in nature and any slight shortcoming with regards to leadership or management could possibly contribute to the downfall or collapse of an organization. Due to this many modern organizations across the world have stipulated high standards in terms of qualifications of candidates to be considered for the top management posts. An efficient leader will highly invest on the research and development department in order to foster innovation with the intention to stay far much ahead of the competitors and drive the business towards maturity. Leadership and management, therefore play a vital role toward upholding the values and philosophies of a business entity. Innovation comes with a wide range of opportunities which are viewed to be of great importance and valuable to modern business. However, it is worth to note that lately, firms with inefficient leadership standards have been on the forefront to initiate innovative activities. The decision makers here feel that everything should be done so as to promote innovative activities.

Leadership has evolved continuously throughout the years, passing through various stages. The evolution of leadership can be traced from the pre-industrialization period to the modern internet era. Business innovation cuts across various sectors of the world’s economy and plays a major role toward development and fostering of growth opportunities. Many organizations have resorted to training their staff as a way of adapting to the changing modern business world. The best human resource training and development is the one that is all inclusive and continuous in nature. All inclusive in this case means participation without discrimination and consensus building.  Professional training should be done on a regular basis and not on a spontaneous basis. The training should aim at establishing the solutions to the current looming challenges and developing new ideas/ innovation. Human beings are always skeptical in nature when it comes to innovations. Therefore, besides developing new strategies and ideas, professional training should act as a means of communication between the management and the employees. This will provide the employees with confidence, trust, and belief when implementing the new strategies/ideas. The employees in this case understand the benefits of the new ideas/strategy and its challenges. The best design and strategy in professional training must integrate training with other elements of the organizations such as organizational structure, performance evaluation system, organization’s culture, and among others. This is the only way to achieve sustainability and organizational success.

Have NO Inspiration to write your essay?

Ask for Professional help

Search Free Essay

Please note!

Some text in the modal.

• Published April 1, 2024
• 9 Minute Read

The Characteristics of a Good Leader

Leaders shape our teams, organizations, communities, and world.

We need good leaders to help guide us and make the essential decisions, big and small, that keep things moving forward.

Our society is usually quick to identify a bad leader, but how can you identify a good one? What would most people say are the qualities of a good leader?

What Good Leadership Looks Like

Based upon our decades of research and experience working with leaders at thousands of organizations around the world, we’ve found that the best leaders consistently possess certain fundamental qualities and skills. Here are 12 essential leadership traits.

12 Essential Leadership Qualities

• Self-Awareness
• Communication
• Learning Agility
• Collaboration

1. Self-Awareness

While this is a more inwardly focused trait, self-awareness and humility are paramount qualities of leadership. The better you understand yourself and recognize your own strengths and weaknesses, the more effective you can be as a leader. Do you know how other people view you and understand how you show up at work and at home? Take the time to learn about the 4 aspects of self-awareness and how to strengthen each component.

Treating people with respect on a daily basis is one of the most important things a leader can do. It helps ease tensions and conflict, fosters trust, and improves your effectiveness.  Creating a culture of respect  is about more than just the absence of disrespect. Respectfulness can be shown in many different ways, but it often starts with showing you truly value others’ perspectives and making an effort to build belonging in the workplace — both critical components of supporting equity, diversity, and inclusion.

3. Compassion

Compassion is one of the most powerful and important acts of leadership. It’s more than simply showing empathy or even listening and seeking to understand — as compassion requires leaders to act on what they learn. After someone shares a concern or speaks up about something, they won’t feel truly heard if their leader doesn’t then take some type of meaningful action on the information, our researchers have found. This is the core of compassionate leadership , and it helps to build trust, increase collaboration, and decrease turnover across organizations.

Motivating others and garnering commitment are essential parts of leadership. Purpose-driven leaders ensure they connect their team’s daily tasks and the values of individual team members to the overall direction of the organization. This can help employees find meaning in their work — which increases engagement, inspires trust, and drives priorities forward. You’ll want to communicate the vision in ways that help others understand it, remember it, and go on to share it themselves.

5. Communication

Effective leadership and effective communication are intertwined . The best leaders are skilled communicators who can communicate in a variety of ways, from transmitting information and storytelling to soliciting input and using active listening techniques . They can communicate well both orally and in writing, and with a wide range of people from different backgrounds, roles, levels, geographies, and more. The quality and effectiveness of communication among leaders at your organization will directly affect the success of your business strategy, too.

6. Learning Agility

Learning agility is the ability to know what to do when you don’t know what to do. If you’re a “quick study” or are able to excel in unfamiliar circumstances, you might already be learning agile. But anybody can foster and increase learning agility through intentional practice and effort. After all, great leaders are really great learners.

7. Collaboration

The most effective leaders can work with a variety of colleagues of different social identities , locations, roles, and experiences. As the world has become more complex and interconnected, good leaders find themselves spanning boundaries and learning to work across various types of divides and organizational silos. When leaders value and embrace collaboration, whether within their teams or cross-functionally, several benefits arise — including increased innovation, higher-performing teams, and a more engaged and empowered workforce.

8. Influence

For some people, “influence” may sound unseemly. But as a leader, you must be able to influence others to get the work done — you cannot do it all alone. Being able to persuade people through thoughtful use of appropriate influencing tactics is an important trait of inspiring, effective leaders. Influence is quite different from manipulation, and it needs to be done authentically and transparently. It requires high levels of emotional intelligence and trust.

9. Integrity

Integrity is an essential leadership trait for the individual and the organization. It’s especially important for top-level executives who are charting the organization’s course and making countless other significant decisions. Our research has found that leader integrity is a potential blind spot for organizations , so make sure you reinforce the importance of honesty and integrity to managers at all levels.

10. Courage

It can be hard to speak up at work, whether you want to voice a new idea, provide feedback to a direct report, or flag a concern for someone above you. That’s part of the reason courage is a key leadership trait — it takes courage to do what’s right! Leaders who promote high levels of psychological safety in the workplace enable their people to speak up freely and share candid concerns without fear of repercussions. This fosters a  coaching culture that supports courage and truth-telling . Courage enables both team members and leaders to take bold actions that move things in the right direction.

11. Gratitude

Being thankful can lead to higher self-esteem, reduced depression and anxiety, and better sleep. Sincere gratitude can even make you a better leader. Yet few people regularly say “thank you” in work settings, even though most people say they’d be willing to work harder for an appreciative boss. The best leaders know how to show frequent gratitude in the workplace .

12. Resilience

Resilience is more than the ability to bounce back from obstacles and setbacks — it’s the ability to respond adaptively to challenges. Practicing resilient leadership means you’ll project a positive outlook that will help others maintain the emotional strength they need to commit to a shared vision, and the courage to move forward and overcome setbacks. A good leader focuses on resilience, both taking care of themselves and also prioritizing leading employee wellbeing , too — thereby enabling better performance for themselves and their teams.

Download a PDF action guide and summary of these characteristics of a good leader, so you always have a visual reminder available of these 12 qualities of good leadership.

Develop the Characteristics of a Good Leader in Yourself & Others

Our 3 core beliefs about leadership & leadership development.

At the Center for Creative Leadership (CCL)®, we’ve been researching the qualities of a good leader and the role of leadership for over 5 decades. Here are 3 of our core beliefs about good leaders and effective leadership.

Good leaders are made, not born.

First, we believe that leaders are made, not born. Put another way, leadership is a skill that can be developed . Good leaders are molded through experience, continued study, intentional effort, and adaptation. So you can strengthen any of these 12 characteristics of a good leader, if you’re open to growth, use your experiences to fuel development , and put in the time and effort toward self-improvement.

Similarly, organizations can help their people hone these top leadership qualities by providing ample opportunities for training, offering support for learning from challenges, and providing access to coaching and mentoring programs .

Leadership is a social process.

It’s also essential to recognize that  leadership is less about one strong or charismatic individual, and more about a group of people working collectively to achieve results together . If you demonstrate several of the characteristics of a good leader, but fail to grasp this key point, chances are you won’t get very far on your own. You may be well-liked and respected, but it will be challenging to accomplish team or organizational goals. At CCL, we like to say that the  outcomes of leadership are about creating direction, alignment, and commitment, or DAC , within a group.

Good leadership never stops.

Also, we believe that leadership isn’t a destination, it’s a journey   — it’s something that you’ll have to work at regularly throughout your career, regardless of what level you reach in your organization or what industry you work in. Different teams, projects, and situations will provide different challenges and require different leadership qualities and competencies to succeed. So you will need to be able to continue to apply these leadership characteristics in different ways throughout your career. Just continually keep learning and growing, and you’ll be an agile learner with a long career .

We Can Help You Develop the Qualities of a Good Leader

Organizations can strengthen leadership qualities and foster deeper levels of engagement at work through providing a variety of on-the-job learning experiences, mentoring, and formal development opportunities. At CCL, we have many award-winning leadership solutions with clients around the world, and we’d be honored to work with you and your organization as well.

But individuals don’t have to wait to begin strengthening these leadership characteristics within themselves. If you decide you want to work proactively on developing your leadership qualities and skills,  download our action guide & visual summary  of this content. And get our tips on how to  convince your boss to make an investment in you  and your future. We’re here to support you every step of the way on your journey to becoming a better leader!

Ready to Take the Next Step?

After you download the 12 Characteristics of a Good Leader , keep on learning and growing: never miss our exclusive leadership insights and tips — subscribe to our newsletters to get our research-based articles, webinars, resources, and guides delivered straight to your inbox. 

Keep these qualities of a good leader top of mind in the future: download a PDF summary of this article as an action guide and visual reminder of the leadership qualities to nurture in yourself, on your team, and at your organization in the future.

• PDF & Print-Friendly Version
• Download as PDF

Based on Research by

With over a decade of experience in education, Micela provides internal research and evaluation support to build our capacity as a provider of evidence-based leadership solutions in the field of education. She is particularly interested in youth leadership development, using research and evaluation to help improve program implementation, and the role of trust as a critical ingredient for organizational change. She has also co-authored 2 books on youth leadership development: Social-Emotional Leadership: A Guide for Youth Development and Building Bridges: Leadership for You and Me .

Stephanie is a researcher with a background in developmental and educational psychology. Her research at CCL focused primarily on promoting equitable and inclusive organizational cultures, exploring collective leadership through networks, and enhancing motivation and empowerment for leaders across their professional journeys.

Table of Contents

Don't miss a single insight! Get our latest cutting-edge, research-based leadership content sent directly to your inbox.

Related Topics

What to explore next.

With over 30 pages of insights gleaned from our research, this collection of resources includes actionable tips and team discussion questions to help you become a (better) leader with a focus on compassion, wellbeing, and belonging.

This introduction to our leadership philosophy explains how direction, alignment, and commitment (the elements of our DAC framework) are key in how leadership works, connecting exponential potential with collective progress.

Want to set yourself apart as a leader? Arm yourself with these 6 essential skills. Our global research study found that organizations will need these 6 key qualities that their leaders presently lack.

Do you know how to effectively communicate at work? It's the core of everything we do, and yet many of us have significant room for improvement. Get our top tips for leaders.

Stepping into a management role requires a fundamental shift of identity. Learn how to be an effective boss and succeed in your new role with our leadership tips for first-time managers.

Related Solutions

Learn more about our flagship Leadership Development Program (LDP)®, the most widely known and longest-running leadership development training in the world.

Professional leadership coaching deepens and sustains leadership development. Learn more about our world-class leadership coaching services.

Learn more about our leadership training courses, which are targeted to develop the skills leaders need to succeed at all levels of your organization.

At the Center for Creative Leadership, our drive to create a ripple effect of positive change underpins everything we do. For 50+ years, we've pioneered leadership development solutions for everyone from frontline workers to global CEOs. Consistently ranked among the world's top providers of executive education, our research-based programs and solutions inspire individuals in organizations across the world — including 2/3 of the Fortune 1000 — to ignite remarkable transformations.

What is leadership?

All leaders, to a certain degree, do the same thing. Whether you’re talking about an executive, manager, sports coach, or schoolteacher, leadership is about guiding and impacting outcomes, enabling groups of people to work together to accomplish what they couldn’t do working individually. In this sense, leadership is something you do, not something you are. Some people in formal leadership positions are poor leaders, and many people exercising leadership have no formal authority. It is their actions, not their words, that inspire trust and energy.

Get to know and directly engage with senior McKinsey experts on leadership

Aaron De Smet is a senior partner in McKinsey’s New Jersey office, Carolyn Dewar is a senior partner in the Bay Area office, Scott Keller is a senior partner in the Southern California office, and Vik Malhotra and Ramesh Srinivasan are senior partners in the New York office.

What’s more, leadership is not something people are born with—it is a skill you can learn. At the core are mindsets, which are expressed through observable behaviors , which then lead to measurable outcomes. Is a leader communicating effectively or engaging others by being a good listener? Focusing on behaviors lets us be more objective when assessing leadership effectiveness. The key to unlocking shifts in behavior is focusing on mindsets, becoming more conscious about our thoughts and beliefs, and showing up with integrity as our full authentic selves.

There are many contexts and ways in which leadership is exercised. But, according to McKinsey analysis of academic literature as well as a survey of nearly 200,000 people in 81 organizations all over the world, there are four types of behavior that account for 89 percent of leadership effectiveness :

• being supportive
• operating with a strong results orientation
• seeking different perspectives
• solving problems effectively

Effective leaders know that what works in one situation will not necessarily work every time. Leadership strategies must reflect each organization’s context and stage of evolution. One important lens is organizational health, a holistic set of factors that enable organizations to grow and succeed over time. A situational approach  enables leaders to focus on the behaviors that are most relevant as an organization becomes healthier.

Senior leaders must develop a broad range of skills to guide organizations. Ten timeless topics are important for leading nearly any organization, from attracting and retaining talent  to making culture a competitive advantage. A 2017 McKinsey book, Leading Organizations: Ten Timeless Truths (Bloomsbury, 2017), goes deep on each aspect.

How is leadership evolving?

In the past, leadership was called “management,” with an emphasis on providing technical expertise and direction. The context was the traditional industrial economy command-and-control organization, where leaders focused exclusively on maximizing value for shareholders. In these organizations, leaders had three roles: planners (who develop strategy, then translate that strategy into concrete steps), directors (who assign responsibilities), or controllers (who ensure people do what they’ve been assigned and plans are adhered to).

What are the limits of traditional management styles?

Traditional management was revolutionary in its day and enormously effective in building large-scale global enterprises that have materially improved lives over the past 200 years. However, with the advent of the 21st century, this approach is reaching its limits.

For one thing, this approach doesn’t guarantee happy or loyal managers or workers. Indeed, a large portion of American workers—56 percent— claim their boss is mildly or highly toxic , while 75 percent say dealing with their manager is the most stressful part of their workday.

For 21st-century organizations operating in today’s complex business environment, a fundamentally new and more effective approach to leadership is emerging. Leaders today are beginning to focus on building agile, human-centered, and digitally enabled organizations able to thrive in today’s unprecedented environment and meet the needs of a broader range of stakeholders (customers, employees, suppliers, and communities, in addition to investors).

What is the emerging new approach to leadership?

This new approach to leadership is sometimes described as “ servant leadership .” While there has been some criticism of the nomenclature, the idea itself is simple: rather than being a manager directing and controlling people, a more effective approach is for leaders to be in service of the people they lead. The focus is on how leaders can make the lives of their team members easier—physically, cognitively, and emotionally. Research suggests this mentality can enhance both team performance and satisfaction.

In this new approach, leaders practice empathy, compassion, vulnerability, gratitude, self-awareness, and self-care. They provide appreciation and support, creating psychological safety so their employees are able to collaborate, innovate, and raise issues as appropriate. This includes celebrating achieving the small steps on the way to reaching big goals and enhancing people’s well-being through better human connections. These conditions have been shown to allow for a team’s best performance.

More broadly, developing this new approach to leadership can be expressed as making five key shifts that include, build on, and extend beyond traditional approaches:

• beyond executive to visionary, shaping a clear purpose that resonates with and generates holistic impact for all stakeholders
• beyond planner to architect, reimagining industries and innovating business systems that are able to create new levels of value
• beyond director to catalyst, engaging people to collaborate in open, empowered networks
• beyond controller to coach, enabling the organization to constantly evolve through rapid learning, and enabling colleagues to build new mindsets, knowledge, and skills
• beyond boss to human, showing up as one’s whole, authentic self

Together, these shifts can help a leader expand their repertoire and create a new level of value for an organization’s stakeholders. The last shift is the most important, as it is based on developing a new level of consciousness and awareness of our inner state. Leaders who look inward  and take a journey of genuine self-discovery make profound shifts in themselves and their lives; this means they are better able to benefit their organization. That involves developing “profile awareness” (a combination of a person’s habits of thought, emotions, hopes, and behavior in different circumstances) and “state awareness” (the recognition of what’s driving a person to take action). Combining individual, inward-looking work with outward-facing actions can help create lasting change.

Introducing McKinsey Explainers : Direct answers to complex questions

Leaders must learn to make these five shifts at three levels : transforming and evolving personal mindsets and behaviors; transforming teams to work in new ways; and transforming the broader organization by building new levels of agility, human-centeredness, and value creation into the entire enterprise’s design and culture.

An example from the COVID-19 era offers a useful illustration of this new approach to leadership. In pursuit of a vaccine breakthrough, at the start of the pandemic Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel increased the frequency of executive meetings  from once a month to twice a week. The company implemented a decentralized model enabling teams to work independently and deliver on the bold goal of providing 100 million doses of vaccines in 12 months. “The pace was unprecedented,” Bancel said.

What is the impact of this new approach to leadership?

This new approach to leadership is far more effective. While the dynamics are complex, countless studies show empirical links among effective leadership, employee satisfaction, customer loyalty, and profitability.

How can leaders empower employees?

Empowering employees , surprisingly enough, might mean taking a more hands-on leadership approach. Organizations whose leaders successfully empower others through coaching are nearly four times more likely to make swift, good decisions and outperform other companies . But this type of coaching isn’t always natural for those with a more controlling or autocratic style.

Here are five tips to get started  if you’re a leader looking to empower others:

• Provide clear rules, for example, by providing guardrails for what success looks like and communicating who makes which decisions. Clarity and boundary structures like role remits and responsibilities help to contain any anxiety associated with work and help teams stay focused on their primary tasks.
• Establish clear roles, say, by assigning one person the authority to make certain decisions.
• Avoid being a complicit manager—for instance, if you’ve delegated a decision to a team, don’t step in and solve the problem for them.
• Address culture and skills, for instance, by helping employees learn how to have difficult conversations.
• Begin soliciting personal feedback from others, at all levels of your organization, on how you are experienced as a leader.

How can leaders communicate effectively?

Good, clear communication is a leadership hallmark. Fundamental tools of effective communication  include:

• defining and pointing to long-term goals
• listening to and understanding stakeholders
• creating openings for dialogue
• communicating proactively

And in times of uncertainty, these things are important for crisis communicators :

• give people what they need, when they need it
• communicate clearly, simply, and frequently
• choose candor over charisma
• revitalize a spirit of resilience
• distill meaning from chaos
• support people, teams, and organizations to build the capability for self-sufficiency

Learn more about our People & Organizational Performance Practice .

Is leadership different in a hybrid workplace?

A leader’s role may look slightly different in remote or hybrid workplace settings . Rather than walking around a physical site, these leaders might instead model what hybrid looks like, or orchestrate work based on tasks, interactions, or purpose. Being communicative and radiating positivity  can go a long way. Leaders need to find other ways to be present and accessible, for example, via virtual drop-in sessions, regular company podcasts, or virtual townhalls. Leaders in these settings may also need to find new ways to get authentic feedback. These tactics can include pulse surveys or learning to ask thoughtful follow-up questions that reveal useful management insights.

Additional considerations, such as making sure that in-person work and togetherness has a purpose, are important. Keeping an eye on inclusivity in hybrid work  is also crucial. Listening to what employees want, with an eye to their lived experience, will be vital to leaders in these settings. And a focus on output, outcomes, results, and impact—rather than arbitrary norms about time spent in offices— may be a necessary adaptation in the hybrid era .

How should CEOs lead in this new world?

Just as for leadership more broadly, today’s environment requires CEOs to lead very differently. Recent research indicates that one-third to one-half of new CEOs fail within 18 months.

What helps top performers thrive today? To find out, McKinsey led a research effort to identify the CEOs who achieved breakaway success. We examined 20 years’ worth of data on 7,800 CEOs—from 3,500 public companies across 70 countries and 24 industries. The result is the McKinsey book CEO Excellence: The Six Mindsets That Distinguish the Best Leaders from the Rest (Scribner, March 2022). Watch an interview with the authors for more on what separates the best CEOs from the rest .

Getting perspective on leadership from CEOs themselves is enlightening—and illustrates the nuanced ways in which the new approach to leadership described above can be implemented in practice. Here are a few quotes drawn from McKinsey’s interviews with these top-level leaders :

• “I think the fundamental role of a leader is to look for ways to shape the decades ahead, not just react to the present, and to help others accept the discomfort of disruptions to the status quo.” — Indra Nooyi , former chairman and CEO of PepsiCo
• “The single most important thing I have to do as CEO is ensure that our brand continues to be relevant.” — Chris Kempczinski , CEO of McDonald’s
• “Leaders of other enterprises often define themselves as captains of the ship, but I think I’m more the ship’s architect or designer. That’s different from a captain’s role, in which the route is often fixed and the destination defined.” — Zhang Ruimin , CEO of Haier
• “I think my leadership style [can be called] ‘collaborative command.’ You bring different opinions into the room, you allow for a really great debate, but you understand that, at the end of the day, a decision has to be made quickly.” — Adena Friedman , CEO of Nasdaq
• “We need an urgent refoundation of business and capitalism around purpose and humanity. To find new ways for all of us to lead so that we can create a better future, a more sustainable future.” — Hubert Joly , former chairman and CEO of Best Buy

What is leadership development?

Leaders aren’t born; they learn to lead over time. Neuroplasticity refers to the power of the brain to form new pathways and connections through exposure to novel, unfamiliar experiences. This allows adults to adapt, grow, and learn new practices throughout our lifetimes.

When it comes to leadership within organizations, this is often referred to as leadership development. Programs, books, and courses on leadership development abound, but results vary.

Leadership development efforts fail for a variety of reasons. Some overlook context; in those cases, asking a simple question (something like “What, precisely, is this program for?”) can help. Others separate reflections on leadership from real work, or they shortchange the role of adjusting leaders’ mindsets, feelings, assumptions, and beliefs, or they fail to measure results.

So what’s needed for successful leadership development? Generally, developing leaders is about creating contexts where there is sufficient psychological safety in combination with enough novelty and unfamiliarity to cultivate new leadership practices in response to stimuli. Leadership programs that successfully cultivate leaders are also built around “placescapes”—these are novel experiences, like exploring wilderness trails, practicing performing arts, or writing poetry.

When crafting a leadership development program, there are six ingredients to incorporate  that lead to true organizational impact:

• Set up for success:
• Focus your leadership transformation on driving strategic objectives and initiatives.
• Commit the people and resources needed.
• Be clear about focus:
• Engage a critical mass of leaders to reach a tipping point for sustained impact.
• Zero in on the leadership shifts that drive the greatest value.
• Execute well:
• Architect experiential journeys to maximize shifts in mindsets, capabilities, and practices.
• Measure for holistic impact.

A well-designed and executed leadership development program can help organizations build leaders’ capabilities broadly, at scale. And these programs can be built around coaching, mentoring, and having people try to solve challenging problems—learning skills by applying them in real time to real work.

What are mentorship, sponsorship, and apprenticeship?

Mentorship, sponsorship, and apprenticeship can also be part of leadership development efforts. What are they? Mentorship refers to trusted counselors offering guidance and support on various professional issues, such as career progression. Sponsorship is used to describe senior leaders who create opportunities to help junior colleagues succeed. These roles are typically held by more senior colleagues, whereas apprenticeship could be more distributed. Apprenticeship  describes the way any colleague with domain expertise might teach others, model behaviors, or transfer skills. These approaches can be useful not only for developing leaders but also for helping your company upskill or reskill employees quickly and at scale.

For more in-depth exploration of these topics, see McKinsey’s insights on People & Organizational Performance . Learn more about McKinsey’s Leadership & Management  work—and check out job opportunities if you’re interested in working at McKinsey.

Articles referenced include:

• “ Author Talks: What separates the best CEOs from the rest? ,” December 15, 2021, Carolyn Dewar , Scott Keller , and Vik Malhotra
• “ From the great attrition to the great adaptation ,” November 3, 2021, Aaron De Smet  and Bill Schaninger
• “ The boss factor: Making the world a better place through workplace relationships ,” September 22, 2020, Tera Allas  and Bill Schaninger
• " Leading agile transformation: The new capabilities leaders need to build 21st century organizations ," October 1, 2018, Aaron De Smet , Michael Lurie , and Andrew St. George
• " Leading Organizations: Ten Timeless Truths ," 2017, Scott Keller  and Mary Meaney
• “ Leadership in context ,” January 1, 2016, Michael Bazigos, Chris Gagnon, and Bill Schaninger
• “ Decoding leadership: What really matters ,” January 1, 2015, Claudio Feser, Fernanda Mayol, and Ramesh Srinivasan

Want to know more about leadership?

Related articles.

Reimagining HR: Insights from people leaders

What is leadership: Moving beyond the C-Suite

CEO Excellence

• Business Essentials
• Leadership & Management
• Credential of Leadership, Impact, and Management in Business (CLIMB)
• Entrepreneurship & Innovation
• Digital Transformation
• Finance & Accounting
• Business in Society
• For Organizations
• Support Portal
• Media Coverage
• Founding Donors
• Leadership Team

• Harvard Business School →
• HBS Online →
• Business Insights →

Business Insights

Harvard Business School Online's Business Insights Blog provides the career insights you need to achieve your goals and gain confidence in your business skills.

• Career Development
• Communication
• Decision-Making
• Earning Your MBA
• Negotiation
• News & Events
• Productivity
• Staff Spotlight
• Student Profiles
• Work-Life Balance
• AI Essentials for Business
• Alternative Investments
• Business Analytics
• Business Strategy
• Business and Climate Change
• Design Thinking and Innovation
• Digital Marketing Strategy
• Disruptive Strategy
• Economics for Managers
• Entrepreneurship Essentials
• Financial Accounting
• Global Business
• Launching Tech Ventures
• Leadership Principles
• Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Accountability
• Leading Change and Organizational Renewal
• Leading with Finance
• Management Essentials
• Negotiation Mastery
• Organizational Leadership
• Power and Influence for Positive Impact
• Strategy Execution
• Sustainable Business Strategy
• Sustainable Investing
• Winning with Digital Platforms

6 Characteristics of an Effective Leader

• 04 Oct 2018

Although there isn’t a single right way to effectively lead a team, there are several characteristics common among successful leaders and managers you should consider when developing your leadership skills .

Incorporating these abilities into your professional development can enable you to make difficult decisions, align your organization on common goals, and lead your team to success.

Why Effective Leadership Is Important in Business

Ineffective leadership can cost companies more than just morale. According to research from Gallup , 24 percent of employees are actively disengaged as a result of poor management, leading to teams that are less productive, less profitable, and more likely to cause turnover. And that turnover adds up quick: translating into nearly two times the annual salary of every employee who quits.

That’s why effective leadership skills are important. In order to retain employees, satisfy customers, and improve company productivity, you need people who can effectively communicate the company’s vision, guide teams, and influence change.

If you aspire to be that person, here's how you can become a more effective leader.

Access your free e-book today.

Characteristics of an Effective Leader

1. ability to influence others.

“[Leadership] is all about influencing people,” said Kirstin Lynde, founder of leadership development firm Catalyze Associates, in a Facebook Live interview .

Early in your career, you might exercise authority by being the go-to person on a certain subject within your organization, or by actively listening and building consensus among your team. As you advance, you may exert influence by knowing how to articulate the direction you think the company should head in next.

According to the online course Power and Influence for Positive Impact , influence is “the ability to produce effects on other people’s behavior.” Influencing others requires building a strong sense of trust with your colleagues.

“This means [you] need to understand the types of resources people value when it comes to achieving safety and self-esteem,” says Harvard Business School Professor Julie Battilana in her course Power and Influence for Positive Impact .

Focus on understanding their motivations and encourage them to share their opinions. You can use that knowledge to make change and show their voice matters.

2. Transparency—to an Extent

Part of building trust is being transparent. The more open you are about the organization’s goals and challenges, the easier it is for employees to understand their role and how they can individually contribute to the company’s overall success. That sense of value and purpose translates into higher levels of employee engagement .

“To get people on board, they need to grasp what you’re conveying so they’re excited to join you in turning that direction into a reality,” says HBS Professor Anthony Mayo in the online course Organizational Leadership . “Your communication should meet people where they are, give them a sense of where the organization is going, and then give them a roadmap for how they can bridge the gap from where the organization is now to where you want to take it.”

While transparency is often intended to promote collaboration, knowledge sharing, and accountability, too much of it can have the opposite effect, according to Ethan Bernstein, an associate professor of organizational behavior at HBS.

“Wide-open workspaces and copious real-time data on how individuals spend their time can leave employees feeling exposed and vulnerable,” writes Bernstein in the Harvard Business Review . “Being observed changes their conduct. They start going to great lengths to keep what they’re doing under wraps, even if they have nothing bad to hide.”

Bernstein encourages balancing transparency with privacy and setting different types of boundaries to still foster experimentation and collaboration.

3. Encourage Risk-Taking and Innovation

Experimentation is critical to establishing and maintaining your company’s competitive advantage. Great leaders recognize this and encourage risk-taking and innovation within their organization.

“You can’t wave a wand, dictate to people that they need to be more creative, and wake up the next day to find people taking risks and trying new things,” Mayo says in Organizational Leadership .

Instead, leaders must actively foster a culture of innovation by supporting experimentation, challenging unwritten rules, and embracing mistakes. These steps, backed by data, can yield innovations that wouldn’t have otherwise surfaced.

By creating a culture that embraces failure and experimentation, employees are more emboldened to test theories or propose new ideas, because they see that creativity is valued. For example, Google’s innovation lab, X, offered bonuses to each team member who worked on a project the company ultimately decided to kill as soon as evidence suggested it wouldn’t scale, in an effort to “make it safe to fail.”

After all, big breakthroughs don’t happen when companies play it safe; experimentation is needed to reach lofty business goals. If well-intentioned, failures often become valuable lessons.

Related: How to Be an Effective Leader at Any Stage of Your Career

4. Integrity and Accountability

One of the most important aspects of leadership is demonstrating integrity. In a survey by consulting firm Robert Half , 75 percent of employees ranked “integrity” as the most important attribute of a leader. In a separate survey by Sunnie Giles , creator of Quantum Leadership, 67 percent of respondents ranked “high moral standards” as the most important leadership competency. Yet, it can be easy for leaders to deprioritize integrity when faced with organizational power. The ability to balance power and accountability can set successful leaders apart from ineffective ones.

“It’s precisely these two levers—sharing power and accountability—that enable workplaces and societies to keep power in check,” Battilana says in Power and Influence for Positive Impact .

Employees want to know that their manager will advocate for them, treat them fairly, and, ultimately, do what’s right for the business. As a leader, it’s important to not only avoid the consolidation of power but also any decision-making that could negatively affect others. Doing so can foster trust within your team and model behavior for others in the organization. The culmination of these factors can help you build a successful team.

5. Act Decisively

In today’s fast-changing, complex business environment, effective leaders need to make strategic decisions quickly—even before any definitive information is available.

Once you make a choice, stick with it, unless there’s a compelling reason to shift focus. Your goal is to move the organization forward, but that won’t happen if you can’t make a decision without wavering.

While timely decision-making is essential for any effective leader, it’s important to remember that decision-making is a process.

“The majority of people think about making decisions as an event,” says HBS Professor Len Schlesinger in the online course Management Essentials . “It’s very rare to find a single point in time where a ‘decision of significance’ is made and things go forward from there. What we’re really talking about is a process. The role of the manager in overseeing that process is straightforward, yet, at the same time, extraordinarily complex.”

By acting decisively, continuously evaluating, and pivoting when necessary, you can lead your organization through the ever-changing business landscape.

6. Demonstrate Resilience

Every decision you make won’t result in success. There will be times when you’re met with failure; it’s your job as a leader to exercise resiliency.

Consider the example of Antarctic explorer Ernest Schackleton presented in HBS Online’s sample business lesson on resilient leadership , led by HBS Professor Nancy Koehn.

When Shackleton’s ship, the Endurance, was trapped and crushed by icebergs, the original mission—traversing Antarctica—suddenly became irrelevant. The new mission was to get his team of 28 men home alive. To do so, he needed to quickly lead his team through crisis.

The lesson outlines three key components of Shackleton’s approach that all leaders can learn from when facing major challenges:

• Continuously assess and reassess your leadership approach
• Commit to your primary objective while exercising flexibility
• Maintain belief in the team’s mission by managing collective and individual energies

Effective leaders don’t avoid hard truths or difficult challenges. Instead, they take responsibility for their decisions, maintain optimism, and focus on charting a new course of action. They also help others cope with organizational change and address issues quickly, so that problems don’t fester and escalate.

Assessing Your Strengths

Becoming an effective leader doesn’t happen overnight. It’s an iterative process and requires you to assess your strengths and evaluate who you are as a communicator and collaborator.

“In many cases, it’s your strong performance as an individual contributor that lays the foundation for your leadership roles,” says Mayo in the course Leadership Principles . “But what got you there won’t get you to the next level. As you shift from doing the work yourself to creating the conditions in which others excel, your identity is less about your individual accomplishments and tasks and more about the collective work of the group.”

With that shift in mind, you can take action to develop your leadership style and become the type of leader your organization needs.

Do you want to enhance your leadership skills? Download our free leadership e-book and explore our flowchart to see which online leadership and management course can help you become a more effective leader and unleash the potential in yourself and others.

This post was updated on February 17, 2023. It was originally published on October 4, 2018.

About the Author

• Open access
• Published: 01 June 2024

Biomarkers for personalised prevention of chronic diseases: a common protocol for three rapid scoping reviews

• E Plans-Beriso   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9388-8744 1 , 2   na1 ,
• C Babb-de-Villiers 3   na1 ,
• D Petrova 2 , 4 , 5 ,
• C Barahona-López 1 , 2 ,
• P Diez-Echave 1 , 2 ,
• O R Hernández 1 , 2 ,
• N F Fernández-Martínez 2 , 4 , 5 ,
• H Turner 3 ,
• E García-Ovejero 1 ,
• O Craciun 1 ,
• P Fernández-Navarro 1 , 2 ,
• N Fernández-Larrea 1 , 2 ,
• E García-Esquinas 1 , 2 ,
• V Jiménez-Planet 7 ,
• V Moreno 2 , 8 , 9 ,
• F Rodríguez-Artalejo 2 , 10 , 11 ,
• M J Sánchez 2 , 4 , 5 ,
• M Pollan-Santamaria 1 , 2 ,
• L Blackburn 3 ,
• M Kroese 3   na2 &
• B Pérez-Gómez 1 , 2   na2  

Systematic Reviews volume  13 , Article number:  147 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

241 Accesses

2 Altmetric

Metrics details

Introduction

Personalised prevention aims to delay or avoid disease occurrence, progression, and recurrence of disease through the adoption of targeted interventions that consider the individual biological, including genetic data, environmental and behavioural characteristics, as well as the socio-cultural context. This protocol summarises the main features of a rapid scoping review to show the research landscape on biomarkers or a combination of biomarkers that may help to better identify subgroups of individuals with different risks of developing specific diseases in which specific preventive strategies could have an impact on clinical outcomes.

This review is part of the “Personalised Prevention Roadmap for the future HEalThcare” (PROPHET) project, which seeks to highlight the gaps in current personalised preventive approaches, in order to develop a Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda for the European Union.

To systematically map and review the evidence of biomarkers that are available or under development in cancer, cardiovascular and neurodegenerative diseases that are or can be used for personalised prevention in the general population, in clinical or public health settings.

Three rapid scoping reviews are being conducted in parallel (February–June 2023), based on a common framework with some adjustments to suit each specific condition (cancer, cardiovascular or neurodegenerative diseases). Medline and Embase will be searched to identify publications between 2020 and 2023. To shorten the time frames, 10% of the papers will undergo screening by two reviewers and only English-language papers will be considered. The following information will be extracted by two reviewers from all the publications selected for inclusion: source type, citation details, country, inclusion/exclusion criteria (population, concept, context, type of evidence source), study methods, and key findings relevant to the review question/s. The selection criteria and the extraction sheet will be pre-tested. Relevant biomarkers for risk prediction and stratification will be recorded. Results will be presented graphically using an evidence map.

Inclusion criteria

Population: general adult populations or adults from specific pre-defined high-risk subgroups; concept: all studies focusing on molecular, cellular, physiological, or imaging biomarkers used for individualised primary or secondary prevention of the diseases of interest; context: clinical or public health settings.

Systematic review registration

https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/7JRWD (OSF registration DOI).

Peer Review reports

In recent years, innovative health research has moved quickly towards a new paradigm. The ability to analyse and process previously unseen sources and amounts of data, e.g. environmental, clinical, socio-demographic, epidemiological, and ‘omics-derived, has created opportunities in the understanding and prevention of chronic diseases, and in the development of targeted therapies that can cure them. This paradigm has come to be known as “personalised medicine”. According to the European Council Conclusion on personalised medicine for patients (2015/C 421/03), this term defines a medical model which involves characterisation of individuals’ genotypes, phenotypes and lifestyle and environmental exposures (e.g. molecular profiling, medical imaging, lifestyle and environmental data) for tailoring the right therapeutic strategy for the right person at the right time, and/or to determine the predisposition to disease and/or to deliver timely and targeted prevention [ 1 , 2 ]. In many cases, these personalised health strategies have been based on advances in fields such as molecular biology, genetic engineering, bioinformatics, diagnostic imaging and new’omics technologies, which have made it possible to identify biomarkers that have been used to design and adapt therapies to specific patients or groups of patients [ 2 ]. A biomarker is defined as a substance, structure, characteristic, or process that can be objectively quantified as an indicator of typical biological functions, disease processes, or biological reactions to exposure [ 3 , 4 ].

Adopting a public health perspective within this framework, one of the most relevant areas that would benefit from these new opportunities is the personalisation of disease prevention. Personalised prevention aims to delay or avoid the occurrence, progression and recurrence of disease by adopting targeted interventions that take into account biological information, environmental and behavioural characteristics, and the socio-economic and cultural context of individuals. These interventions should be timely, effective and equitable in order to maintain the best possible balance in lifetime health trajectory [ 5 ].

Among the main diseases that merit specific attention are chronic noncommunicable diseases, due to their incidence, their mortality or disability-adjusted life years [ 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 ]. Within the European Union (EU), in 2021, one-third of adults reported suffering from a chronic condition [ 10 ]. In addition, in 2019, the leading causes of mortality were cardiovascular disease (CVD) (35%), cancer (26%), respiratory disease (8%), and Alzheimer's disease (5%) [ 11 ]. For all of the above, in 2019, the PRECeDI consortium recommended the identification of biomarkers that could be used for the prevention of chronic diseases to integrate personalised medicine in the field of chronicity. This will support the goal of stratifying populations by indicating an individuals’ risk or resistance to disease and their potential response to drugs, guiding primary, secondary and tertiary preventive interventions [ 12 ]; understanding primary prevention as measures taken to prevent the occurrence of a disease before it occurs, secondary prevention as actions aimed at early detection, and tertiary prevention as interventions to prevent complications and improve quality of life in individuals already affected by a disease [ 4 ].

The “Personalised Prevention roadmap for the future HEalThcare” (PROPHET) project, funded by the European Union’s Horizon Europe research and innovation program and linked to ICPerMed, seeks to assess the effectiveness, clinical utility, and existing gaps in current personalised preventive approaches, as well as their potential to be implemented in healthcare settings. It also aims to develop a Strategy Research and Innovation Agenda (SRIA) for the European Union. This protocol corresponds to one of the first steps in the PROPHET, namely a review that aims to map the evidence and highlight the evidence gaps in research or the use of biomarkers in personalised prevention in the general adult population, as well as their integration with digital technologies, including wearable devices, accelerometers, and other appliances utilised for measuring physical and physiological functions. These biomarkers may be already available or currently under development in the fields of cancer, CVD, and neurodegenerative diseases.

There is already a significant body of knowledge about primary and secondary prevention strategies for these diseases. For example, hypercholesterolemia or dyslipidaemia, hypertension, smoking, diabetes mellitus and obesity or levels of physical activity are known risk factors for CVD [ 6 , 13 ] and neurodegenerative diseases [ 14 , 15 , 16 ]; for cancer, a summary of lifestyle preventive actions with good evidence is included in the European code against cancer [ 17 ]. The question is whether there is any biomarker or combination of biomarkers that can help to better identify subgroups of individuals with different risks of developing a particular disease, in which specific preventive strategies could have an impact on clinical outcomes. Our aim in this context is to show the available research in this field.

Given the context and time constraints, the rapid scoping review design is the most appropriate method for providing landscape knowledge [ 18 ] and provide summary maps, such as Campbell evidence and gap map [ 19 ]. Here, we present the protocol that will be used to elaborate three rapid scoping reviews and evidence maps of research on biomarkers investigated in relation to primary or secondary prevention of cancer, cardiovascular and neurodegenerative diseases, respectively. The results of these three rapid scoping reviews will contribute to inform the development of the PROPHET SRIA, which will guide the future policy for research in this field in the EU.

Review question

What biomarkers are being investigated in the context of personalised primary and secondary prevention of cancer, CVD and neurodegenerative diseases in the general adult population in clinical or public health settings?

Three rapid scoping reviews are being conducted between February and June 2023, in parallel, one for each disease group included (cancer, CVD and neurodegenerative diseases), using a common framework and specifying the adaptations to each disease group in search terms, data extraction and representation of results.

This research protocol, designed according to Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) Checklist [ 20 , 21 , 22 ] was uploaded to the Open Science Framework for public consultation [ 23 ], with registration DOI https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/7JRWD . The protocol was also reviewed by experts in the field, after which modifications were incorporated.

Eligibility criteria

Following the PCC (population, concept and context) model [ 21 , 22 ], the included studies will meet the following eligibility criteria (Table  1 ):

Rationale for performing a rapid scoping review

As explained above, these scoping reviews are intended to be one of the first materials produced in the PROPHET project, so that they can inform the first draft of the SRIA. Therefore, according to the planned timetable, the reviews should be completed in only 4 months. Thus, following recommendations from the Cochrane Rapid Review Methods Group [ 24 ] and taking into account the large number of records expected to be assessed, according to the preliminary searches, and in order to meet these deadlines, specific restrictions were defined for the search—limited to a 3-year period (2020–2023), in English only, and using only MEDLINE and EMBASE as possible sources—and it was decided that the title-abstract and full-text screening phase would be carried out by a single reviewer, after an initial training phase with 10% of the records assessed by two reviewers to ensure concordance between team members. This percentage could be increased if necessary.

Rationale for population selection

These rapid scoping reviews are focused on the general adult population. In addition, they give attention to studies conducted among populations that present specific risk factors relevant to the selected diseases or that include these factors among those considered in the study.

For cancer, these risk (or preventive) factors include smoking [ 25 ], obesity [ 26 ], diabetes [ 27 , 28 , 29 ], Helicobacter pylori infection/colonisation [ 30 ], human papillomavirus (HPV) infection [ 30 ], human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection [ 30 ], alcohol consumption [ 31 ], liver cirrhosis and viral (HVB, HVC, HVD) hepatitis [ 32 ].

For CVD, we include hypercholesterolemia or dyslipidaemia, arterial hypertension, smoking, diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease, hyperglycaemia and obesity [ 6 , 13 ].

Risk groups for neurodegenerative diseases were defined based on the following risk factors: obesity [ 15 , 33 ], arterial hypertension [ 15 , 33 , 34 , 35 ], diabetes mellitus [ 15 , 33 , 34 , 35 ], dyslipidaemia [ 33 ], alcohol consumption [ 36 , 37 ] and smoking [ 15 , 16 , 33 , 34 ].

After the general search, only relevant and/or disease-specific subpopulations will be used for each specific disease. On the other hand, pregnancy is an exclusion criterion, as the very specific characteristics of this population group would require a specific review.

Rationale for disease selection

The search is limited to diseases with high morbidity and mortality within each of the three disease groups:

Cancer type

Due to time constraints, we only evaluate those malignant neoplasms with the greatest mortality and incidence rates in Europe, which according to the European Cancer Information System [ 38 ] are breast, prostate, colorectum, lung, bladder, pancreas, liver, stomach, kidney, and corpus uteri. Additionally, cervix uteri and liver cancers will also be included due to their preventable nature and/or the existence of public health screening programs [ 30 , 31 ].

We evaluate the following main causes of deaths: ischemic heart disease (49.2% of all CVD deaths), stroke (35.2%) (this includes ischemic stroke, intracerebral haemorrhage and subarachnoid haemorrhage), hypertensive heart disease (6.2%), cardiomyopathy and myocarditis (1.8%), atrial fibrillation and flutter (1.7%), rheumatic heart disease (1.6%), non-rheumatic valvular heart disease (0.9%), aortic aneurism (0.9%), peripheral artery disease (0.4%) and endocarditis (0.4%) [ 6 ].

In this scoping review, specifically in the context of CVD, rheumatic heart disease and endocarditis are not considered because of their infectious aetiology. Arterial hypertension is a risk factor for many cardiovascular diseases and for the purposes of this review is considered as an intermediary disease that leads to CVD.

• Neurodegenerative diseases

The leading noncommunicable neurodegenerative causes of death are Alzheimer’s disease or dementia (20%), Parkinson’s disease (2.5%), motor neuron diseases (0.4%) and multiple sclerosis (0.2%) [ 8 ]. Alzheimer’s disease, vascular dementia, frontotemporal dementia and Lewy body disease will be specifically searched, following the pattern of European dementia prevalence studies [ 39 ]. Additionally, because amyotrophic lateral sclerosis is the most common motor neuron disease, it is also included in the search [ 8 , 40 , 41 ].

Rationale for context

Public health and clinical settings from any geographical location are being considered. The searches will only consider the period between January 2020 and mid-February 2023 due to time constraints.

Rationale for type of evidence

Qualitative studies are not considered since they cannot answer the research question. Editorials and opinion pieces, protocols, and conference abstracts will also be excluded. Clinical practice guidelines are not included since the information they contain should be in the original studies and in reviews on which they are based.

Pilot study

We did a pilot study to test and refine the search strategies, selection criteria and data extraction sheet as well as to get used to the software—Covidence [ 42 ]. The pilot study consisted of selecting from the results of the preliminary search matrix 100 papers in order of best fit to the topic, and 100 papers at random. The team comprised 15 individual reviewers (both in the pilot and final reviews) who met daily to revise, enhance, and reach consensus on the search matrices, criteria, and data extraction sheets.

Regarding the selected databases and the platforms used, we conducted various tests, including PubMed/MEDLINE and Ovid/MEDLINE, as well as Ovid/Embase and Elsevier/Embase. Ultimately, we chose Ovid as the platform for accessing both MEDLINE and Embase, utilizing thesaurus Mesh and EmTrees. We manually translated these thesauri to ensure consistency between them. Given that the review team was spread across the UK and Spain, we centralised the search results within the UK team's access to the Ovid license to ensure consistency. Additionally, using Ovid exclusively for accessing both MEDLINE and Embase streamlined the process and allowed for easier access to preprints, which represent the latest research in this rapidly evolving field.

Identification of research

The searches are being conducted in MEDLINE via Ovid, Embase via Ovid and Embase preprints via Ovid. We also explored the feasibility of searching in CDC-Authored Genomics and Precision Health Publications Databases [ 43 ] . However, the lack of advanced tools to refine the search, as well as the unavailability of bulk downloading prevented the inclusion of this data source. Nevertheless, a search with 15 records for each disease group showed a full overlap with MEDLINE and/or Embase.

Search strategy definition

An initial limited search of MEDLINE via PubMed and Ovid was undertaken to identify relevant papers on the topic. In this step, we identified keytext words in their titles and abstracts, as well as thesaurus terms. The SR-Accelerator, Citationchaser, and Yale Mesh Analyzer tools were used to assist in the construction of the search matrix. With all this information, we developed a full search strategy adapted for each included database and information source, optimised by research librarians.

Study evidence selection

The complete search strategies are shown in Additional file 3. The three searches are being conducted in parallel. When performing the search, no limits to the type of study or setting are being applied.

Following each search, all identified citations will be collated and uploaded into Covidence (Veritas Health Innovation, Melbourne, Australia, available at www.covidence.org ) with the citation details, and duplicates will be removed.

In the title-abstract and full-text screening phase, the first 10% of the papers will be evaluated by two independent reviewers (accounting for 200 or more papers in absolute numbers in the title-abstract phase). Then, a meeting to discuss discrepancies will lead to adjusting inclusion and exclusion criteria and to acquire consistency between reviewers’ decisions. After that, the full screening of the search results will be performed by a single reviewer. Disagreements that arise between reviewers at each stage of the selection process will be resolved through discussion, or with additional reviewers. We maintain an active forum to facilitate permanent contact among reviewers.

The results of the searches and the study inclusion processes will be reported and presented in a flow diagram following the PRISMA-ScR recommendations [ 22 ].

Expert consultation

The protocol has been refined after consultation with experts in each field (cancer, CVD, and neurodegenerative diseases) who gave input on the scope of the reviews regarding the diverse biomarkers, risk factors, outcomes, and types of prevention relevant to their fields of expertise. In addition, the search strategies have been peer-reviewed by a network of librarians (PRESS-forum in pressforum.pbworks.com) who kindly provided useful feedback.

Data extraction

We have developed a draft data extraction sheet, which is included as Additional file 4, based on the JBI recommendations [ 21 ]. Data extraction will include citation details, study design, population type, biomarker information (name, type, subtype, clinical utility, use of AI technology), disease (group, specific disease), prevention (primary or secondary, lifestyle if primary prevention), and subjective reviewer observations. The data extraction for all papers will be performed by two reviewers to ensure consistency in the classification of data.

Data analysis and presentation

The descriptive information about the studies collected in the previous phase will be coded according to predefined categories to allow the elaboration of visual summary maps that can allow readers and researchers to have a quick overview of their main results. As in the previous phases, this process will be carried out with the aid of Covidence.

Therefore, a summary of the extracted data will be presented in tables as well as in static and, especially, through interactive evidence gap maps (EGM) created using EPPI-Mapper [ 44 ], an open-access web application developed in 2018 by the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Coordinating Centre (EPPI-Centre) and Digital Solution Foundry, in partnership with the Campbell Collaboration, which has become the standard software for producing visual evidence gap maps.

Tables and static maps will be made by using R Studio, which will also be used to clean and prepare the database for its use in EPPI-Mapper by generating two Excel files: one containing the EGM structure (i.e. what will be the columns and rows of the visual table) and coding sets, and another containing the bibliographic references and their codes that reviewers had added. Finally, we will use a Python script to produce a file in JSON format, making it ready for importation into EPPI-Reviewer.

The maps are matrixes with biomarker categories/subcategories defining the rows and diseases serving as columns. They define cells, which contain small squares, each one representing each paper included in it. We will use a code of colours to reflect the study design. There will be also a second sublevel in the columns, depending on the map. Thus, for each group of diseases, we will produce three interactive EGMs: two for primary prevention and one for secondary prevention. For primary prevention, the first map will stratify the data to show whether any or which lifestyle has been considered in each paper in combination with the studied biomarker. The second map for primary prevention and the map for secondary prevention will include, as a second sublevel, the subpopulations in which the biomarker has been used or evaluated, which are disease-specific (i.e. cirrhosis for hepatic cancer) researched. The maps will also include filters that allow users to select records based on additional features, such as the use of artificial intelligence in the content of the papers. Furthermore, the EGM, which will be freely available online, will enable users to view and export selected bibliographic references and their abstracts. An example of these interactive maps with dummy data is provided in Additional file 5.

Finally, we will elaborate on two scientific reports for PROPHET. The main report, which will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) recommendations, will summarise the results of the three scoping reviews, will provide a general and global interpretation of the results and will comment on their implication for the SRIA, and will discuss the limitations of the process. The second report will present the specific methodology for the dynamic maps.

This protocol summarises the procedure to carry out three parallel rapid scoping reviews to provide an overview of the available research and gaps in the literature on biomarkers for personalised primary and secondary prevention for the three most common chronic disease groups: cancer, CVD and neurodegenerative diseases. The result will be a common report for the three scoping reviews and the online publication of interactive evidence gap maps to facilitate data visualisation.

This work will be complemented, in a further step of the PROPHET project, by a subsequent mapping report on the scientific evidence for the clinical utility of biomarkers. Both reports are part of an overall mapping effort to characterise the current knowledge and environment around personalised preventive medicine. In this context, PROPHET will also map personalised prevention research programs, as well as bottlenecks and challenges in the adoption of personalised preventive approaches or in the involvement of citizens, patients, health professionals and policy-makers in personalised prevention. The overall results will contribute to the development of the SRIA concept paper, which will help define future priorities for personalised prevention research in the European Union.

In regard to this protocol, one of the strengths of this approach is that it can be applied in the three scoping reviews. This will improve the consistency and comparability of the results between them, allowing for better leveraging of efforts; it also will facilitate the coordination among the staff conducting the different reviews and will allow them to discuss them together, providing a more global perspective as needed for the SRIA. In addition, the collaboration of researchers with different backgrounds, the inclusion of librarians in the research team, and the specific software tools used have helped us to guarantee the quality of the work and have shortened the time invested in defining the final version of this protocol. Another strength is that we have conducted a pilot study to test and refine the search strategy, selection criteria and data extraction sheet. In addition, the selection of the platform of access to the bibliographic databases has been decided after a previous evaluation process (Ovid-MEDLINE versus PubMed MEDLINE, Ovid-Embase versus Elsevier-Embase, etc.).

Only 10% of the papers will undergo screening by two reviewers, and if time permits, we will conduct kappa statistics to assess reviewer agreement during the screening phases. Additionally, ongoing communication and the exchange and discussion of uncertainties will ensure a high level of consensus in the review process.

The main limitation of this work is the very broad field it covers: personalised prevention in all chronic diseases; however, we have tried to maintain decisions to limit it to the chronic diseases with the greatest impact on the population and in the last 3 years, making a rapid scoping review due to time constraints following recommendations from the Cochrane Rapid Review Methods Group [ 24 ]; however, as our aim is to identify gaps in the literature in an area of growing interest (personalisation and prevention), we believe that the records retrieved will provide a solid foundation for evaluating available literature. Additionally, systematic reviews, which may encompass studies predating 2020, have the potential to provide valuable insights beyond the temporal constraints of our search.

Thus, this protocol reflects the decisions set by the PROPHET's timetable, without losing the quality and rigour of the work. In addition, the data extraction phase will be done by two reviewers in 100% of the papers to ensure the consistency of the extracted data. Lastly, extending beyond these three scoping reviews, the primary challenge resides in amalgamating their findings with those from numerous other reviews within the project, ultimately producing a cohesive concept paper in the Strategy Research and Innovation Agenda (SRIA) for the European Union, firmly rooted in evidence-based conclusions.

Council of European Union. Council conclusions on personalised medicine for patients (2015/C 421/03). Brussels: European Union; 2015 dic. Report No.: (2015/C 421/03). Disponible en: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52015XG1217(01)&from=FR .

Goetz LH, Schork NJ. Personalized medicine: motivation, challenges, and progress. Fertil Steril. 2018;109(6):952–63.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

FDA-NIH Biomarker Working Group. BEST (Biomarkers, EndpointS, and other Tools) Resource. Silver Spring (MD): Food and Drug Administration (US); 2016 [citado 3 de febrero de 2023]. Disponible en: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK326791/ .

Porta M, Greenland S, Hernán M, dos Silva I S, Last JM. International Epidemiological Association, editores. A dictionary of epidemiology. 6th ed. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press; 2014. p. 343.

Google Scholar  

PROPHET. Project kick-off meeting. Rome. 2022.

Roth GA, Mensah GA, Johnson CO, Addolorato G, Ammirati E, Baddour LM, et al. Global burden of cardiovascular diseases and risk factors, 1990–2019. J Am College Cardiol. 2020;76(25):2982–3021.

Article   Google Scholar  

GBD 2019 Cancer Collaboration, Kocarnik JM, Compton K, Dean FE, Fu W, Gaw BL, et al. Cancer incidence, mortality, years of life lost, years lived with disability, and disability-adjusted life years for 29 cancer groups from 2010 to 2019: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2019. JAMA Oncol. 2022;8(3):420.

Feigin VL, Vos T, Nichols E, Owolabi MO, Carroll WM, Dichgans M, et al. The global burden of neurological disorders: translating evidence into policy. The Lancet Neurology. 2020;19(3):255–65.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

GBD 2019 Collaborators, Nichols E, Abd‐Allah F, Abdoli A, Abosetugn AE, Abrha WA, et al. Global mortality from dementia: Application of a new method and results from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. A&D Transl Res & Clin Interv. 2021;7(1). Disponible en: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/trc2.12200 . [citado 7 de febrero de 2023].

Eurostat. ec.europa.eu. Self-perceived health statistics. European health interview survey (EHIS). 2022. Disponible en: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Self-perceived_health_statistics . [citado 7 de febrero de 2023].

OECD/European Union. Health at a Glance: Europe 2022: State of Health in the EU Cycle. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2022. Disponible en: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/social-issues-migration-health/health-at-a-glance-europe-2022_507433b0-en .

Boccia S, Pastorino R, Ricciardi W, Ádány R, Barnhoorn F, Boffetta P, et al. How to integrate personalized medicine into prevention? Recommendations from the Personalized Prevention of Chronic Diseases (PRECeDI) Consortium. Public Health Genomics. 2019;22(5–6):208–14.

Visseren FLJ, Mach F, Smulders YM, Carballo D, Koskinas KC, Bäck M, et al. 2021 ESC Guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice. Eur Heart J. 2021;42(34):3227–337.

World Health Organization. Global action plan on the public health response to dementia 2017–2025. Geneva: WHO Document Production Services; 2017. p. 27.

Norton S, Matthews FE, Barnes DE, Yaffe K, Brayne C. Potential for primary prevention of Alzheimer’s disease: an analysis of population-based data. Lancet Neurol. 2014;13(8):788–94.

Mentis AFA, Dardiotis E, Efthymiou V, Chrousos GP. Non-genetic risk and protective factors and biomarkers for neurological disorders: a meta-umbrella systematic review of umbrella reviews. BMC Med. 2021;19(1):6.

Schüz J, Espina C, Villain P, Herrero R, Leon ME, Minozzi S, et al. European Code against Cancer 4th Edition: 12 ways to reduce your cancer risk. Cancer Epidemiol. 2015;39:S1-10.

Tricco AC, Langlois EtienneV, Straus SE, Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research, World Health Organization. Rapid reviews to strengthen health policy and systems: a practical guide. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2017. Disponible en: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/258698 . [citado 3 de febrero de 2023].

White H, Albers B, Gaarder M, Kornør H, Littell J, Marshall Z, et al. Guidance for producing a Campbell evidence and gap map. Campbell Systematic Reviews. 2020;16(4). Disponible en: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cl2.1125 . [citado 3 de febrero de 2023].

Aromataris E, Munn Z. editores. JBI: JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis; 2020.

Peters MDJ, Marnie C, Tricco AC, Pollock D, Munn Z, Alexander L, et al. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth. 2020;18(10):2119–26.

Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73.

OSF. Open Science Framework webpage. Disponible en: https://osf.io/ . [citado 8 de febrero de 2023].

Garritty C, Gartlehner G, Nussbaumer-Streit B, King VJ, Hamel C, Kamel C, et al. Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews. Journal Clin Epidemiol. 2021;130:13–22.

Leon ME, Peruga A, McNeill A, Kralikova E, Guha N, Minozzi S, et al. European code against cancer, 4th edition: tobacco and cancer. Cancer Epidemiology. 2015;39:S20-33.

Anderson AS, Key TJ, Norat T, Scoccianti C, Cecchini M, Berrino F, et al. European code against cancer 4th edition: obesity, body fatness and cancer. Cancer Epidemiology. 2015;39:S34-45.

Barone BB, Yeh HC, Snyder CF, Peairs KS, Stein KB, Derr RL, et al. Long-term all-cause mortality in cancer patients with preexisting diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2008;300(23):2754–64.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Barone BB, Yeh HC, Snyder CF, Peairs KS, Stein KB, Derr RL, et al. Postoperative mortality in cancer patients with preexisting diabetes: systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetes Care. 2010;33(4):931–9.

Noto H, Tsujimoto T, Sasazuki T, Noda M. Significantly increased risk of cancer in patients with diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Endocr Pract. 2011;17(4):616–28.

Villain P, Gonzalez P, Almonte M, Franceschi S, Dillner J, Anttila A, et al. European code against cancer 4th edition: infections and cancer. Cancer Epidemiology. 2015;39:S120-38.

Scoccianti C, Cecchini M, Anderson AS, Berrino F, Boutron-Ruault MC, Espina C, et al. European Code against Cancer 4th Edition: Alcohol drinking and cancer. Cancer Epidemiology. 2016;45:181–8.

El-Serag HB. Epidemiology of viral hepatitis and hepatocellular carcinoma. Gastroenterology. 2012;142(6):1264-1273.e1.

Li XY, Zhang M, Xu W, Li JQ, Cao XP, Yu JT, et al. Midlife modifiable risk factors for dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 34 prospective cohort studies. CAR. 2020;16(14):1254–68.

Ford E, Greenslade N, Paudyal P, Bremner S, Smith HE, Banerjee S, et al. Predicting dementia from primary care records: a systematic review and meta-analysis Forloni G, editor. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(3):e0194735.

Xu W, Tan L, Wang HF, Jiang T, Tan MS, Tan L, et al. Meta-analysis of modifiable risk factors for Alzheimer’s disease. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2015;86(12):1299–306.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Guo Y, Xu W, Liu FT, Li JQ, Cao XP, Tan L, et al. Modifiable risk factors for cognitive impairment in Parkinson’s disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. Mov Disord. 2019;34(6):876–83.

Jiménez-Jiménez FJ, Alonso-Navarro H, García-Martín E, Agúndez JAG. Alcohol consumption and risk for Parkinson’s disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Neurol agosto de. 2019;266(8):1821–34.

ECIS European Cancer Information System. Data explorer | ECIS. 2023. Estimates of cancer incidence and mortality in 2020 for all cancer sites. Disponible en: https://ecis.jrc.ec.europa.eu/explorer.php?$0-0$1-AE27$2-All$4-2$3-All$6-0,85$5-2020,2020$7-7,8$CEstByCancer$X0_8-3$CEstRelativeCanc$X1_8-3$X1_9-AE27$CEstBySexByCancer$X2_8-3$X2_-1-1 . [citado 22 de febrero de 2023].

Bacigalupo I, Mayer F, Lacorte E, Di Pucchio A, Marzolini F, Canevelli M, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis on the prevalence of dementia in Europe: estimates from the highest-quality studies adopting the DSM IV diagnostic criteria Bruni AC, editor. JAD. 2018;66(4):1471–81.

Barceló MA, Povedano M, Vázquez-Costa JF, Franquet Á, Solans M, Saez M. Estimation of the prevalence and incidence of motor neuron diseases in two Spanish regions: Catalonia and Valencia. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):6207.

Ng L, Khan F, Young CA, Galea M. Symptomatic treatments for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis/motor neuron disease. Cochrane Neuromuscular Group, editor. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2017;2017(1). Disponible en: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/14651858.CD011776.pub2 . [citado 13 de febrero de 2023].

Covidence systematic review software. Melbourne, Australia: Veritas Health Innovation; 2023. Disponible en: https://www.covidence.org .

Centre for Disease Control and Prevention. Public Health Genomics and Precision Health Knowledge Base (v8.4). 2023. Disponible en: https://phgkb.cdc.gov/PHGKB/specificPHGKB.action?action=about .

Digital Solution Foundry and EPPI Centre. EPPI Centre. UCL Social Research Institute: University College London; 2022.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful for the library support received from Teresa Carretero (Instituto de Salud Carlos III, ISCIII) and, from Concepción Campos-Asensio (Hospital Universitario de Getafe, Comité ejecutivo BiblioMadSalud) for the seminar on the Scoping Reviews methodology and for their continuous teachings through their social networks.

Also, we would like to thank Dr. Héctor Bueno (Centro Nacional de Investigaciones Cardiovasculares (CNIC), Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre) and Dr. Pascual Sánchez (Fundación Centro de Investigación de Enfermedades Neurológicas (CIEN)) for their advice in their fields of expertise.

The PROPHET project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon Europe research and innovation program under grant agreement no. 101057721. UK participation in Horizon Europe Project PROPHET is supported by UKRI grant number 10040946 (Foundation for Genomics & Population Health).

Author information

Plans-Beriso E and Babb-de-Villiers C contributed equally to this work.

Kroese M and Pérez-Gómez B contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

Department of Epidemiology of Chronic Diseases, National Centre for Epidemiology, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, Spain

E Plans-Beriso, C Barahona-López, P Diez-Echave, O R Hernández, E García-Ovejero, O Craciun, P Fernández-Navarro, N Fernández-Larrea, E García-Esquinas, M Pollan-Santamaria & B Pérez-Gómez

CIBER of Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBERESP), Madrid, Spain

E Plans-Beriso, D Petrova, C Barahona-López, P Diez-Echave, O R Hernández, N F Fernández-Martínez, P Fernández-Navarro, N Fernández-Larrea, E García-Esquinas, V Moreno, F Rodríguez-Artalejo, M J Sánchez, M Pollan-Santamaria & B Pérez-Gómez

PHG Foundation, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

C Babb-de-Villiers, H Turner, L Blackburn & M Kroese

Instituto de Investigación Biosanitaria Ibs. GRANADA, Granada, Spain

D Petrova, N F Fernández-Martínez & M J Sánchez

Escuela Andaluza de Salud Pública (EASP), Granada, Spain

Cambridge University Medical Library, Cambridge, UK

National Library of Health Sciences, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, Spain

V Jiménez-Planet

Oncology Data Analytics Program, Catalan Institute of Oncology (ICO), L’Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, 08908, Spain

Colorectal Cancer Group, ONCOBELL Program, Institut de Recerca Biomedica de Bellvitge (IDIBELL), L’Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, 08908, Spain

Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain

F Rodríguez-Artalejo

IMDEA-Food Institute, CEI UAM+CSIC, Madrid, Spain

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

BPG and MK supervised and directed the project. EPB and CBV coordinated and managed the development of the project. CBL, PDE, ORH, CBV and EPB developed the search strategy. All authors reviewed the content, commented on the methods, provided feedback, contributed to drafts and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to E Plans-Beriso .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

There are no conflicts of interest in this project.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1: glossary., additional file 2: glossary of biomarkers that may define high risk groups., additional file 3: search strategy., additional file 4: data extraction sheet., additional file 5: example of interactive maps in cancer and primary prevention., rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Plans-Beriso, E., Babb-de-Villiers, C., Petrova, D. et al. Biomarkers for personalised prevention of chronic diseases: a common protocol for three rapid scoping reviews. Syst Rev 13 , 147 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-024-02554-9

Download citation

Received : 19 October 2023

Accepted : 03 May 2024

Published : 01 June 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-024-02554-9

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Personalised prevention
• Precision Medicine
• Precision prevention
• Cardiovascular diseases
• Chronic diseases

Systematic Reviews

ISSN: 2046-4053

• Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
• General enquiries: [email protected]

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

6 Common Leadership Styles — and How to Decide Which to Use When

• Rebecca Knight

Being a great leader means recognizing that different circumstances call for different approaches.

Research suggests that the most effective leaders adapt their style to different circumstances — be it a change in setting, a shift in organizational dynamics, or a turn in the business cycle. But what if you feel like you’re not equipped to take on a new and different leadership style — let alone more than one? In this article, the author outlines the six leadership styles Daniel Goleman first introduced in his 2000 HBR article, “Leadership That Gets Results,” and explains when to use each one. The good news is that personality is not destiny. Even if you’re naturally introverted or you tend to be driven by data and analysis rather than emotion, you can still learn how to adapt different leadership styles to organize, motivate, and direct your team.

Much has been written about common leadership styles and how to identify the right style for you, whether it’s transactional or transformational, bureaucratic or laissez-faire. But according to Daniel Goleman, a psychologist best known for his work on emotional intelligence, “Being a great leader means recognizing that different circumstances may call for different approaches.”

• RK Rebecca Knight is a journalist who writes about all things related to the changing nature of careers and the workplace. Her essays and reported stories have been featured in The Boston Globe, Business Insider, The New York Times, BBC, and The Christian Science Monitor. She was shortlisted as a Reuters Institute Fellow at Oxford University in 2023. Earlier in her career, she spent a decade as an editor and reporter at the Financial Times in New York, London, and Boston.

Partner Center