Leading for innovation : an assessment of employee perceptions about leadership behaviours among senior and middle management staff at Rhodes University Library

Abstract

Organisations require a leadership cohort that can drive transformation from within, if they wish to adapt innovatively towards ensuring sustainable relevance in a volatile and highly competitive global market. The same applies to academic library services that serve the needs of their respective institutions. Yet, as indicated by various studies, little attention is paid to the nature of leadership required to take academic libraries forward in an age where, especially in the South African academic environment, the maxim of “business unusual” holds true.

Transformational leadership is described as visionary and adaptive leadership aimed at increasing morale and motivation of staff, with an emphasis on follower development and empowerment towards self-leadership, driving entrepreneurial activities (Goethals, Soreson and Burns 2004b: 1558). The study explores aspects of the nature of transformational leadership, as well as the extent to which transformational leadership behaviours and attributes are perceived as being evident among the middle and senior library staff members at the Rhodes University Library.

The Full Range Leadership Model (FRLM) provided the framework for this study, and the Team Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (TMLQ) was adapted and administered (via the Mind Garden Transform Hosting Solution) to all 42 staff members of the Rhodes Library. The data analysis was done based on the collated on the Mind Garden Transform Hosting Solution.

Based on the analysis of the data, it was concluded that the RUL leadership team is perceived as being predominantly transformational in nature, but with evidence to suggest that transactional and non-leadership behaviours occur more frequently than are conducive towards innovation. This conclusion is supported by the assessment of the perceptions of leadership outcomes that indicate perceived levels of some ineffectiveness, some dissatisfaction and insufficient extra effort on the side of the leadership team.