Professional Documents
Culture Documents
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 1 December 2009
Received in revised form 1 April 2010
Accepted 1 September 2011
Available online 28 October 2011
Keywords:
Psychological capital
Creativity
Authentic leadership
a b s t r a c t
Two hundred and one employees report their psychological capital, as well as their supervisors' authentic leadership. Supervisors describe the employees' creativity. The main ndings show that authentic leadership predicts
employees' creativity, both directly and through the mediating role of employees' psychological capital. The
study empirically validates theoretical arguments that suggest integrating authentic leadership and psychological capital in research, and indicates that both may foster employees' creativity, a crucial resource for helping organizations to face competitive challenges, take advantage of business opportunities, and improve organizational
effectiveness.
2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Authentic leadership (AL) is as a pattern of leader behavior that
draws upon and promotes both positive psychological capacities
and a positive ethical climate, to foster greater self-awareness, an internalized moral perspective, balanced processing of information, and
relational transparency on the part of leaders working with followers,
fostering positive self-development (Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner,
Wernsing, & Peterson, 2008: 94). In recent years, the topic is a target
of great interest both among scholars (e.g., Avolio & Gardner, 2005;
Walumbwa et al., 2008) and practitioners (e.g., George, 2003). Both
argue that AL promotes positive employees' attitudes and behaviors
and contributes to organizational performance. More empirical research is necessary for continuing to test this premise.
This paper merges the AL, psychological capital (PsyCap; Luthans,
Youssef, & Avolio, 2007), and creativity literatures, and shows how
AL predicts employees' creativity both directly and through the mediating role of PsyCap (Fig. 1). PsyCap is an individual's positive
The authors are grateful to Bruce J. Avolio, William L. Gardner, and Fred O.
Walumba for their permission to use the Authentic Leadership Questionnaire. They
are also grateful to Fred Luthans, Bruce J. Avolio, and Carolyn M. Youssef for their permission to use the PsyCap questionnaire. Miguel Cunha acknowledges support from
Nova Forum.
Corresponding author at: Departamento de Economia, Gesto e Engenharia Industrial, Universidade de Aveiro, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal. Tel.: + 351 234 370 024;
fax: + 351 234 370 215.
E-mail addresses: armenio.rego@ua.pt (A. Rego), msousa@esel.ipleiria.pt (F. Sousa),
smarques@utad.pt (C. Marques), mpc@novasbe.pt (M.P. Cunha).
1
Tel.: + 351 244 820 300; fax: + 351 244 820 310.
2
Tel.: + 351 259 302 200; fax: + 351 259 302 249.
3
Tel.: + 351 212 822 725; fax: + 351 213 873 973.
0148-2963/$ see front matter 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.10.003
430
Authentic
leadership
Employees
PsyCap
Employees
creativity
Gilson, 2004; Shin & Zhou, 2003; Tierney, Farmer, & Graen, 1999; Zhou,
2003; Zhang & Bartol, 2010; Zhou & George, 2003; Wang and Cheng,
2010). These behaviors include transformational leadership, emotional
intelligence, close monitoring, developmental feedback, supportive supervision, controlling supervision, benevolent leadership, leader encouragement of creativity, leader inspirational motivation, and empowering
leadership.
Studies also focus on employees' characteristics and attitudes that
make them more creative. For example, Amabile (1983) suggests
domain-relevant skills (knowledge and expertise), creativity-relevant
processes (including cognitive styles, cognitive strategies, and personality variables), and task motivation (attitudes and motivation, such as intrinsic motivation) as predictors of creativity. Woodman, Sawyer, and
Grifn (1993) model includes personality variables, cognitive factors,
intrinsic motivation, and knowledge. Ford (1996) includes sense making, motivation, knowledge and ability. According to Egan (2005), the
studies identify a consistent number of individual factors associated
with individual creativity, including esthetic sensitivity, attraction to
complexity, broad interests, intuition, and tolerance of ambiguity.
This paper adds to such lines of research, answering to a call of
Shalley and Gilson (2004) for more research focusing on the interaction
between personal characteristics and work context. The study focuses
on how AL (a contextual factor) predicts employees' creativity, both directly and through the mediating role of employees' PsyCap (a personal
strength). The paper hypothesizes that AL promotes employees' creativity because authentic leaders encourage employees' PsyCap (Avolio,
Gardner, Walumbwa, Luthans, & May, 2004; Yammarino et al., 2008),
with employees with higher PsyCap being more creative (Avolio et al.,
2004; Bandura, 1997; Rego, Machado, Leal, & Cunha, 2009). The study
also posits direct relationships between AL and creativity because authentic leaders may promote employees' creativity through mechanisms other than PsyCap. For example, AL may improve the quality of
leadermember exchange, thus increasing employees' trust and the
sense of freedom to propose unconventional ideas, and introduce conicting opinions without fear (Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Avolio et al.,
2004; Brower, Schoormanb, & Tan, 2000; Ilies, Morgeson, & Nahrgang,
2005; Liden, Sparrowe, & Wayne, 1997; Prati, Douglas, Ferris, Ammeter,
& Buckley, 2003; Scott & Bruce, 1994). Employees may also feel psychologically safer, thus taking initiative for facing problems and opportunities in creative ways (Edmondson, 1999; Prati et al., 2003).
The remainder of the paper structures as follows. The second section
discusses arguments leading to the hypotheses. The third and fourth
sections present the method and results, respectively. The nal section
discusses the main ndings, the limitations of the research, and some
avenues for future research. The study seeks to contribute to enriching
a research stream that is in an early stage of development and to a literature that is still short on empirical studies (Walumbwa et al., 2008;
Yammarino et al., 2008). Considering that most studies about leadership come from the USA (House & Aditya, 1997), the paper also responds to a call for research in more culturally diverse samples
(Gelfand, Erez, & Aycan, 2007; Walumbwa et al., 2008).
how (s)he derives and makes sense of the world and is aware of his
or her strengths, limitations, how others see him or her, and how
(s)he impacts others (Kernis, 2003; Walumbwa et al., 2008); (2) Balanced processing is the degree to which the leader shows that (s)he
objectively analyzes the relevant data before coming to a decision
and solicits views that challenge deeply held positions (Gardner et
al., 2005; Walumbwa et al., 2008); (3) Internalized moral perspective
refers to the degree to which the leader sets a high standard for
moral and ethical conduct, guides actions by internal moral standards
and values (versus group, organizational, and societal pressures), and
expresses decision making and behaviors that are consistent with
such internalized values (Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Gardner et al.,
2005; Walumbwa et al., 2008); (4) Relational transparency is the degree to which the leader presents his/her authentic self (as opposed
to a false or distorted self) to others, openly shares information, and
expresses his/her true thoughts and feelings, reinforcing a level of
openness with others that provides them with an opportunity to be
forthcoming with their ideas, challenges, and opinions.
Empirical evidence (e.g., Kernis & Goldman, 2005; Walumbwa et
al., 2008, forthcoming) shows that a core AL factor can emerge from
the relationships among the four dimensions. Walumbwa et al.
(2008, forthcoming) nds that individual factors do not add any
meaningful incremental validity beyond the common core higher factor, thus suggesting that the variance attributable to overall AL is
more important than the variance imputable to each individual dimension of the AL construct. Considering AL as a core construct is
also conceptually plausible, the literature proposing that the four AL
dimensions are self-regulatory processes governed, partially, through
leaders' internal standards and their evaluations of their own behavior (Gardner et al., 2005).
Therefore, the study hypothesizes considerable overlap among the
four dimensions, and that the higher order AL construct will help to explain the conceptual and empirical overlap discussed above. Some research (Walumbwa, Luthans, Avey, & Oke, 2009; Walumbwa et al.,
2008) also nds effects of AL on important work attitudes and behaviors, after controlling the effects of ethical and transformational leadership. Although the present study cannot include these latter constructs
(because some organizations that participate in the study require applying a short survey), evidence suggests that the construct has incremental validity regarding those older leadership constructs.
2.2. The PsyCap construct
The PsyCap construct comprises four dimensions: self-efcacy, optimism, hope, and resilience. PsyCap meets conceptual and empirical criteria of being distinct from other constructs (Luthans, Avolio, Avey, &
Norman, 2007; Youssef & Luthans, 2007). While Peterson and Seligman's
(2004) character strengths and virtues are trait-like (relatively stable
and difcult to change), the PsyCap is state-like, and thus relatively malleable and open to development. Both theory-building and prior research
on hope, resilience, optimism, and efcacy indicate that such personal
strengths are amenable to development (Luthans, Avey, Avolio, Norman,
& Combs, 2006; Luthans, Avolio, Avey, & Norman, 2007; Luthans, Youssef,
& Avolio, 2007). Such a state-like nature also differentiates PsyCap from
positively-oriented organizational behavior trait-like constructs, such as
Big Five personality dimensions or core self-evaluations (Judge, Bono,
Erez, & Thoresen, 2003).
Earlier research suggests that commonalities among the four dimensions allow considering PsyCap as a core construct (Luthans, Avey, &
Patera, 2008; Luthans, Avolio, Avey, & Norman, 2007). This higherorder core construct has both conceptual (Luthans & Youssef, 2004;
Luthans, Youssef et al., 2007) and empirical (Luthans, Norman, Avolio,
& Avey, 2008; Luthans, Youssef, & Avolio, 2007) support. As a core construct, PsyCap represents one's positive appraisal of circumstances and
probability for success based on motivated effort and perseverance
(Luthans, Avolio, Avey, & Norman, 2007: 550).
431
432
(2008) suggest, AL potentially inuences positive psychological capabilities such as PsyCap. Hence: H2. Stronger authentic leadership associates with higher employees' PsyCap.
2.5. PsyCap as partial mediator of the relationship between AL and employees' creativity
The arguments above suggest that employees led by authentic
leaders develop higher PsyCap and that this psychological resource
drives them to be more creative. However, other mechanisms explain
why authentic leaders may nurture employees' creativity. Being selfaware, transparent with employees, guided by internal ethical standards, and able to analyze objectively all relevant data (including employees' dissenting opinions and proposals), authentic leaders
promote employees' trust and respect (Avolio et al., 2004; Deluga,
1994; Dirks & Ferrin, 2002; Gardner et al., 2005; Ilies et al., 2005;
Walumbwa et al., 2008). Trust and respect are important because
people experience greater emotional safety and feel free to propose
unconventional ideas and introduce conicting opinions without
fear (Avolio et al., 2004; Edmondson, 1999; Prati et al., 2003; Rego
et al., 2007). Considering their balanced processing and relational
transparency, authentic leaders feel less threatened by the changes
that employees' ideas may imply, and are more inclined to welcome
their creative suggestions (Michie & Gooty, 2005). Their selfawareness and balanced processing make them more cautious when
evaluating employees' ideas (Zhou & George, 2003) and more able
to understand how they are biased toward some people's ideas.
Due to their ethical self-guidance, relational transparency, and capacity for processing data in an unbiased way, authentic leaders are
able to provide constructive criticism and feedback in a fair, respectful, informational, and developmental (rather than controlling) manner (Avolio et al., 2004; Michie & Gooty, 2005; Zhou, 2003; Zhou &
George, 2003). These informational practices provide employees
with relevant information to improve their performance without
pressure for a particular outcome, and they are thus more inclined
to search for and propose creative ideas to face problems and opportunities. Authentic leaders also promote employees' intrinsic motivation (Ilies et al., 2005), which can act as a trigger of creativity
(Amabile, 1997; Deci & Ryan, 1985; Kernis, 2003; Oldham & Cummings, 1997; Tierney et al., 1999). Intrinsic motivation is crucial for
creativity because an intrinsically motivated person tends to be (a)
curious and learning oriented, (b) cognitively exible, (c) willing to
take risks, and (d) persistent when facing obstacles, challenges, and
opportunities (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Zhou, 2003).
Through positive social exchanges with their followers, authentic
leaders may also inspire them to work with more enthusiasm and excitement and to experience other positive emotions (Avolio et al.,
2004; Ilies et al., 2005; Prati et al., 2003; Zhou & George, 2003).
These positive emotions can broaden the employees' scope of attention (increasing the number of cognitive elements available for association) and the scope of cognition (increasing the breadth of those
elements that are treated as relevant to the problem), thus increasing
the probability of creative activities (Fredrickson, 2001). The following two hypotheses follow from this discussion: H3. Stronger authentic leadership associates with higher employees' creativity. H4.
Employees' PsyCap partially mediates the effect of AL on employees'
creativity.
3. Method
3.1. Sample and procedures
Participants in the study are 201 employees, working in 33 commerce organizations operating in Portugal. Organizations compete
in several sectors (e.g., food, clothing, appliances, sports, toys, footwear, and ofce materials, furniture, and equipment). All participants
(68.0% female) are shop assistants. Mean age is 26.4 years (standard
deviation: 4.1), and mean organizational tenure is 3.2 years (SD:
2.0). 8.4% of the individuals have nine or fewer years of schooling,
41.8% have between 10 and 12 years, and 49.8% have at least an undergraduate degree. The mean length of supervisor-employee contact
is 2.8 years (SD: 1.7).
After obtaining the permission of the organizations' leaders, the
researchers approach the employees in their workplaces. Individuals
report their supervisors' AL and their PsyCap. Supervisors rate the
employees' creativity at work (each supervisor rating only one of
their respective employees). Shalley and Gilson (2004: 35) argue
that managers play a key role in that they are often the individuals
best suited to make the determination of whether an employee's outcome should be regarded as creative. To avoid any form of embarrassment, subordinates and supervisors ll in their questionnaires in
separate locations. To guarantee anonymity, the participants deliver
their responses under sealed cover directly to the researchers. To reduce common method bias (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff,
2003), the study also uses different formats and/or ranges for the
AL, PsyCap, and creativity measures (see the next sub-sections).
433
Table 1
Employee-reported authentic leadership: Conrmatory factor analysis (completely
standardized solution).
1st-order
factor model
2nd-order
factor model
Cronbach
alphas
0.92
0.79
0.88
0.89
0.92
0.79
0.88
0.89
0.92
0.89
0.85
0.88
0.86
0.85
0.88
0.87
0.85
0.82
0.86
0.85
0.82
0.87
0.78
0.82
0.87
0.78
0.82
0.86
0.91
0.96
0.88
0.86
0.89
92.96
48
1.9
93.64
50
1.9
0.07
0.07
0.93
0.88
0.93
0.88
0.97
0.97
0.93
0.97
0.98
0.94
434
2nd-order
factor model
Cronbach
alphas
0.87
0.67
0.76
0.78
0.66
0.78
0.74
0.67
0.76
0.78
0.66
0.78
0.74
0.70
0.71
0.80
0.83
0.74
0.70
0.70
0.80
0.83
0.74
0.74
0.75
0.77
0.76
0.72
0.74
0.73
0.77
0.76
0.72
0.64
0.51
0.76
0.85
0.75
0.64
0.51
0.76
0.85
0.75
0.85
0.85
0.82
0.90
0.92
0.92
0.84
0.89
378.11
183
2.1
379.26
185
2.1
0.07
0.07
0.85
0.90
0.91
0.91
0.85
0.90
0.91
0.91
Item numbers are those of Luthans, Youssef, and Avolio (2007, pp. 237238).
respectively, 0.99, 0.98, and 0.98. For overall PsyCap, the correlation
between scores as computed with the initial versus the nal set of
items is 0.99.
3.4. Employees' creativity measurement
For measuring employees' creativity, the study uses four items
proposed by Zhou and George (2001), representing new and useful
ideas. Sample items are: (1) This employee comes up with new
and practical ideas to improve performance; (2) This employee suggests new ways to increase quality. Rego et al.'s (2007) Portuguese
translation is used. Supervisors report how frequently the employee
adopts the ve behaviors, on a scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (frequently). Cronbach Alpha is 0.90.
3.5. Conrmatory factor analyses for testing discriminant validity and
common source effects
The study carries out a series of dimension-level conrmatory factor analyses to examine whether the three variables of the study capture distinct constructs versus common source effects. The threefactor model ts the data well (e.g., RMSEA: 0.08; GFI: 0.91; NNFI:
0.95; CFI: 0.96; IFI: 0.96). The study tests three other models: (1) A
two-factor model, where employees' PsyCap and creativity merge
into a single factor, does not t the data satisfactorily (e.g., RMSEA:
0.16; GFI: 0.78); (2) Another two-factor model, where AL and employees' PsyCap merge into a single factor, also does not t the data
satisfactorily (e.g., RMSEA: 0.19; GFI: 0.74); (3) The single factor
model also does not t the data satisfactorily (e.g., RMSEA: 0.22;
GFI: 0.67). These ndings provide support for the discriminant validity of AL, PsyCap, and creativity.
Following Podsakoff et al. (2003), the study compares two models
for examining the extent to which the results are due to common
methods variance. The rst model includes three factors: four indicators loading on the AL factor, four indicators loading on the PsyCap
factor, and four items loading on the creativity factor. The second
model is identical to the rst except for the addition of a latent method variance factor comprising the 12 items/indicators. No substantive
difference exists between the t indices of either model (e.g., RMSEA
for both models is the same). These ndings suggest that common
source bias does not constitute a serious threat to the validity of the
study.
3.6. Controlling for clustering the data
For assessing if aggregating individual scores at the organizational
level is statistically justiable, the study uses intraclass correlation
(ICC). ICC is a measure of within-group consensus, the median value
in organizational research typically being 0.12 (James, 1982). For AL,
PsyCap, and creativity, ICC is lower than 0.01. These ndings suggest
that aggregating scores is not justied.
4. Results
Table 3 presents means, standard deviations, and correlations.
Several control variables intercorrelate, but none correlates signicantly with AL, PsyCap, or creativity. AL relates positively with employees' PsyCap and creativity. Employees' PsyCap and creativity
intercorrelate positively. Therefore: (a) employees with higher PsyCap are more creative and (b) employees with higher PsyCap and creativity are those whose leaders are more authentic.
Structural equation modeling (using LISREL with the maximum
likelihood estimation method) tests the causal model, considering
both the nal and the initial set of items for measuring AL and PsyCap.
The study uses employees' gender, age, schooling, tenure, and length
of supervisorsubordinate contact as control. The ndings (see Fig. 2,
435
Table 3
Means, standard deviations, and correlations.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Mean
SD
26.4
2.4
3.2
2.8
2.9
3.7
3.0
4.12
0.64
2.06
1.71
0.72
0.63
0.81
0.16
0.36
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.07
0.01
0.45
0.55
0.44
0.03
0.00
0.01
0.04
0.08
0.01
0.12
0.09
0.72
0.02
0.01
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.13
(0.91)
0.65
0.65
(0.90)
0.71
(0.90)
0.67***
(0.68***)
Authentic
leadership
R2: 0.04 (0.03)
Employees
PsyCap
R2: 0.45 (0.47)
0.34***
(0.37***)
0.49***
(0.46***)
Employees
creativity
R2: 0.59 (0.59)
436
References
Amabile TM. The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1983;45:35776.
Amabile TM. A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In: Staw BM, Cummings
LL, editors. Research in organizational behavior, vol. 10. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press; 1988.
p. 12367.
Amabile TM. Motivating creativity in organizations: On doing what you love and loving
what you do. California Management Review 1997;40(1):3958.
Avey HB, Wernsing TS, Luthans F. Can positive employees help positive organizational
change? Impact of psychological capital and emotions on relevant attitudes and
behaviors. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 2008;44(1):4870.
Avolio BJ, Gardner WL. Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly 2005;16:31538.
Avolio BJ, Gardner WL, Walumbwa FO, Luthans F, May DR. Unlocking the mask: A look
at the process by which authentic leaders impact follower attitudes and behaviors.
The Leadership Quarterly 2004;15:80123.
Bagozzi RP, Baumgartner H. The evaluation of structural equation models and hypothesis testing. In: Bagozzi RP, editor. Principles of marketing research. Oxford: Blackwell; 1994. p. 386422.
Bandura A. Self-efcacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman; 1997.
Barsade SG. The ripple effect: Emotional contagion and its inuence on group behavior.
Administrative Science Quarterly 2002;47(4):64475.
Brief AB, Weiss HM. Organizational behavior: Affect in the workplace. Annual Review
of Psychology 2002;53:279307.
Brislin RW, Lonner W, Thorndike RM. Cross-cultural research methods. New York: John
Wiley and Sons; 1973.
Brower HH, Schoormanb FD, Tan HH. A model of relational leadership: The integration of
trust and leadermember exchange. The Leadership Quarterly 2000;11(2):22750.
Choi JM. Individual and contextual predictors of creative performance: The mediating
role of psychological processes. Creativity Research Journal 2004;16(2/3):18799.
Cohler BJ. Adversity, resilience, and the study of lives. In: Anthony EJ, Cohler BJ, editors.
The invulnerable child. New York: Guilford; 1987. p. 363404.
De Hoogh AHB, Den Hartog DN. Ethical and despotic leadership, relationships with leader's social responsibility, top management team effectiveness and subordinates'
optimism: A multi-method study. The Leadership Quarterly 2008;19:297311.
Deci EL, Ryan RM. Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New
York: Plenum; 1985.
Deluga RJ. Supervisor trust building, leader-member exchange and organizational citizenship
behavior. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 1994;67:31526.
Dirks KT, Ferrin DL. Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic ndings and implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology 2002;87(4):61128.
Edmondson A. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly 1999;44:35083.
Egan TM. Factors inuencing individual creativity in the workplace: An examination of
quantitative empirical research. Advances in Developing Human Resources 2005;7
(2):16081.
Ford CM. A theory of individual creative action in multiple social domains. Academy of
Management Review 1996;21:111242.
Fredrickson BL. The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-andbuild theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist 2001;56(3):21826.
Fredrickson BL. Positive emotions and upward spirals in organizational settings. In:
Cameron KS, Dutton JE, Quinn RE, editors. Positive organizational scholarship.
San Francisco: Berrett Koehler; 2003. p. 16375.
Gardner WL, Schermerhorn Jr JR. Unleashing individual potential: Performance gains
through positive organizational behavior and authentic leadership. Organizational
Dynamics 2004;33(3):2709.
Gardner WL, Avolio BJ, Luthans F, May DR, Walumbwa FO. Can you see the real me? A
self-based model of authentic leader and follower development. The Leadership
Quarterly 2005;16:34372.
Gelfand MJ, Erez M, Aycan Z. Cross-cultural organizational behavior. Annual Review of
Psychology 2007;58:479514.
George B. Authentic leadership: Rediscovering the secrets to creating lasting value. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass; 2003.
Goldsmith RE, Matherly TA. Creativity and self-esteem: A multiple operationalization
validity study. Journal of Psychology 2000;122(1):4756.
Helson R. A longitudinal study of creative personality in women. Creativity Research
Journal 1999;12(2):89-101.
Hirst G, van Dick R, van Knippenberg D. A social identity perspective on leadership and
employee creativity. Journal of Organizational Behavior 2009;30(7):96382.
Hofstede G. Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London: McGraw-Hill; 1991.
House RJ, Aditya RN. The social scientic study of leadership: Quo vadis? Journal of
Management 1997;23:40973.
House R, Hanges P, Javidan M, Dorfman P, Gupta V, editors. Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2004.
Ilies R, Morgeson FP, Nahrgang JD. Authentic leadership and eudaemonic well-being:
Understanding leaderfollower outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly 2005;16:
37394.
James LR. Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual measures. Journal of Applied Psychology 1982;67:21929.
Judge TA, Bono JE, Erez A, Thoresen CJ. The core self-evaluations scale (CSES): Development of a measure. Personnel Psychology 2003;56(2):30331.
Kernis MH. Toward a conceptualization of optimal self-esteem. Psychological Inquiry
2003;14:1-26.
Kernis MH, Goldman BM. From thought and experience to behavior and interpersonal
relationships: A multicomponent conceptualization of authenticity. In: Tesser A,
Wood JV, Stapel D, editors. On building, defending and regulating the self: A psychological perspective. New York: Psychology Press; 2005. p. 3152.
Kirkman BL, Rosen B. Beyond self-management: Antecedents and consequences of
team empowerment. Academy of Management Journal 1999;42:5874.
Larson M, Luthans F. Potential added value of psychological capital in predicting work
attitudes. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies 2006;13(1):4562.
Liden RC, Sparrowe RT, Wayne SJ. Leadermember exchange theory: the past and potential for the future. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management
1997;15:47-119.
Luthans F. Positive organizational behavior: Developing and managing psychological
strengths. The Academy of Management Executive 2002;16(1):5772.
Luthans F, Avolio BJ. Authentic leadership: A positive developmental approach. In:
Cameron KS, Dutton JE, Quinn RE, editors. Positive organizational scholarship.
San Francisco, CA: Barrett-Koehler; 2003. p. 24161.
Luthans F, Youssef CM. Human, social, and now positive psychological capital management: Investing in people for competitive advantage. Organizational Dynamics
2004;33:14360.
437
Scott SG, Bruce RA. Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal 1994;37(3):580607.
Shalley CE, Gilson LL. What leaders need to know: A review of social and contextual
factors that can foster or hinder creativity. The Leadership Quarterly 2004;15(1):
3353.
Shin SJ, Zhou J. Transformational leadership, conservation, and creativity: Evidence
from Korea. Academy of Management Journal 2003;46(6):70314.
Snyder CR. The psychology of hope: You can get there from here. New York: Free Press; 1994.
Snyder CR. Hope theory: Rainbows in the mind. Psychological Inquiry 2002;13:24975.
Stajkovic A, Luthans F. Self-efcacy and work-related performance: A meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin 1998;124:24061.
Tierney P, Farmer SM. The Pygmalion process and employee creativity. Journal of Management 2004;30(3):41332.
Tierney P, Farmer SM, Graen GB. An examination of leadership and employee creativity: The relevance of traits and relationships. Personnel Psychology 1999;52:
591620.
Tugade MM, Fredrickson BL, Barrett LM. Psychological resilience and positive emotional granularity: Examining the benets of positive emotions on coping and health.
Journal of Personality 2004;72(6):116190.
Walumbwa FO, Avolio BJ, Gardner WL, Wernsing TS, Peterson SJ. Authentic leadership:
Development and validation of a theory-based measure. Journal of Management
2008;34(1):89-126.
Walumbwa FO, Wang P, Wang H, Schaubroeck J, Avolio BJ. Psychological processes
linking authentic leadership to follower behaviors. Leadership Quarterly 2010;21
(5):90114.
Wang A, Cheng B. When does benevolent leadership lead to creativity? The moderating
role of creative role identity and job autonomy. Journal of Organizational Behavior
2010;31(1):10621.
Walumbwa FO, Wang P, Wang H, Schaubroeck J, Avolio BJ. Psychological processes linking
authentic leadership to follower behaviors. Leadership Quarterly (forthcoming).
Woodman RW, Sawyer JE, Grifn RW. Toward a theory of organizational creativity.
Academy of Management Review 1993;18:292321.
Yammarino FJ, Dionne SD, Schriesheim CA, Dansereau F. Authentic leadership and positive organizational behavior: A meso, multi-level perspective. The Leadership
Quarterly 2008;19(6):693707.
Youssef CM, Luthans F. Positive organizational behavior in the workplace: The impact
of hope, optimism, and resilience. Journal of Management 2007;33(5):774800.
Zhang X, Bartol K. Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: The inuence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process engagement. Academy of Management Journal 2010;53(1):10728.
Zhou J. When the presence of creative coworkers is related to creativity: Role of supervisor close monitoring, developmental feedback, and creative personality. Journal
of Applied Psychology 2003;88(3):41322.
Zhou J, George JM. When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: Encouraging the expression of voice. Academy of Management Journal 2001;44(4):68296.
Zhou J, George JM. Awakening employee creativity: The role of leader emotional intelligence. The Leadership Quarterly 2003;14:54568.