In as a weak one will encourage poor

one study Sosik et al., (1998),
transformational leaders were found to be most operative at encouraging people
to create original ideas and elaborate solutions further, rather than
generating lots of ideas and solutions to problems. This indicates they valued
quality rather than quantity. Transformational behaviors are much more direct
and influential on creativity and innovativeness than simply having, for
example, a supportive climate, which may be too impersonal (Gumusluoglu &
Ilsev 2009). Bass and Riggio (2006) summarized the way that transformational
leaders influence creativity. They first focus on increasing intrinsic motivation
and then encourage followers to think “outside of the box”. This has
gained empirical support also in Finland. In a qualitative case study, Hyypiä
and Parjanen (2013) found that idealized influence and inspirational motivation
were used more in the beginning of the innovation process, while intellectual
stimulation was practiced more in the later stages. Individualized
consideration also fluctuated in different stages but should be used at all
times, according to subordinates.

leaders need to expect their subordinates to be creative (Qu, Janssen, &
Shi 2015). An MFI with strong
governance is one which has a board with the independence and authority to
ensure that the institution operates soundly and effectively, that is, it is
commercially sustainable and it achieves its objectives. Independence means
that the board is free of conflicts of interest (for example, directors who are
suppliers to the MFI or dependent on the favour of the chairman, or investors
who want quick returns) and is able to make its own judgments about what is
best for the business. Authority means that the board is composed of
individuals who have the knowledge and commitment to oversee and guide the
executive, to set policy and ensure that it is followed. An MFI with weak
governance is likely to have directors who lack the independence and knowledge
to make their own judgments, or a board which is dominated by a small number of
individuals who have special interests or which cannot control the executive. A
strong board is more likely to nurture a positive culture in an institution,
just as a weak one will encourage poor practices and a disregard for policy and
procedures. Finding good people to go on boards is not easy, even in the most
advanced economies. Directors need to be knowledgeable, independent-minded,
keen to challenge and explore, and undaunted by strong executives and
complicated business models. They also need to have the success of the
organization at heart and be good ambassadors for it outside.

conflicting results have been presented on whether transformational leadership
is the style that should be applied to enhance staff or team creativity and
innovativeness (Basu & Green 1997; Gumusluoglu & Ilsev 2009; Jaussi
& Dionne 2003; Jung, Chow, & Wu 2003b; Mumford, Scott, Gaddis, &
Strange 2002b; Shin & Zhou 2003). This implies that certain conditions need
to be fulfilled before transformational leadership can be effective (Wang &
Rode 2010; Rosing et al., 2011).
Jaussi and Dionne’s (2003) study suggested that there was no relationship, and
that transformational leadership might even have a negative impact on
creativity; the study suggested that unconventional, surprising behaviors on
the part of leaders are more helpful. Basu and Green (1997) suggested that
their unexpected results might have occurred because a charismatic style may be
too intimidating and cause stress for subordinates. Poor innovative behavior
might have also resulted because the more transformational leaders are, the
more negatively they will assess subordinates who do not meet the standards
that they have because of their own innovativeness (Basu & Green 1997).