Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Tobias Kollmann
Christoph Stckmann
Patrick Krell
ABSTRACT
Despite the importance of employees creativity as a means to foster innovation and
competitive advantages there is still a lack of knowledge about its antecedents.
Transformational leadership is an approach aiming at stimulating and encouraging
employees creativity. However, contradictory empirical findings indicate that the
relationship is more complex than a simple direct effect. This study adds to the understanding
of this linkage by analyzing mediating and moderating effects. Taking into account that the
effect of transformational leadership on creativity is circumvented by its dependency
enhancing effect, we integrate the mediating effect of dependency on the leader. Drawing on
interactionist approaches to creativity, we propose that the achievement motives are
important moderators in the leadership-dependency-creativity linkage.
Tobias Kollmann is a chaired professor for e-business and e-entrepreneurship at the University of
Duisburg-Essen, Germany. He graduated in 1995 from the University of Bonn, Germany, and
received his doctoral degree in 1997 from the University of Trier, Germany, with a thesis on the
acceptance of innovative telecommunication and multimedia systems. His research interests include e-
business, entrepreneurship, and, in particular, business venturing in TIMES industries.
Patrick Krell is research assistant and Ph.D. candidate at the University of Duisburg-Essen,
Germany. He received his graduate degree from the University of Wuppertal, Germany at the
Schumpeter School of Business and Economics in 2008. Moreover, he holds a Master of Business
Administration degree from the University of Birmingham, UK. His research interests include e-
business, e-entrepreneurship, entrepreneurship and trends within the Internet.
INTRODUCTION
Previous research suggests that enhancing employees creative performance is a necessary
step for organizations to achieve competitive advantages (e.g., Amabile, 1988). In his theory
on individual creative action, Ford identifies a diverse range of factors influencing creativity
and innovation (1996). Therefore, it is not surprising that creativity and innovation have been
studied from different research perspectives such as organization, environment and strategy
given their apparent impact on organizational performance (Mumford, Scott, Gaddis, and
Strange, 2002).
A distinct stream of research focuses on the relationship between leadership styles and
employees creativity. For example, existing research has analysed the motivational impact on
creativity (e.g., Shin and Zhou, 2003) as well as the interrelations between leaders behaviour
(e.g., Redmond, Mumford, and Teach, 1993) such as providing regular feedback (e.g., Zhou
and George, 2001) or support (e.g., Tierney and Farmer, 2002) on creativity. Theoretical
findings argue that transformational leadership encourage employees creativity (Bass and
Bass, 2008). However, empirical research has found contradictory results concerning the
effects of transformational leadership on creativity (e.g., Shin and Zhou, 2003 vs. Basu and
Green, 1997). Those contradictory empirical results indicate that the relationship between
transformational leadership and individual creativity is more complex than a simple direct
link. In line with these results, we propose that transformational leadership increases
followers dependency on the leader (Kark, Shamir, and Chen, 2003) and the latter may
decrease followers individual creativity (Yukl, 1998), which could potentially explain an
overall negative effect on employees creative performance. Drawing on current literature, we
propose that the achievement motives hope of success and fear of failure may enhance our
understanding and may reduce overcoming negative effects as they are strongly associated
with the individuals self-efficacy (Lang and Fries, 2006) and thus with the individuals belief
in his or her ability to successfully perform tasks (Bandura, 1986). The belief in his or her
ability should affect the followers willingness and ability to proceed with work to make
decision without the leaders guidance (Kark, Shamir, and Chen, 2003), thus also affecting his
or her willingness and ability to engage in creative and innovative tasks (Lang and Fries,
2006, Liao, Liu, and Loi, 2010).
This paper proceeds as follows: Initially, we present our theoretical framework linking
transformational leadership and individual creativity. We further integrate dependency on the
leader as mediating effect and achievement motives as moderating variable in the
transformational leadership-dependency-creativity relationship and formulate our hypotheses.
This section ends with our conceptual model shown in Figure 1. Subsequently, we present our
methodology and the results of our empirical study. Afterwards, we discuss our results,
highlight theoretical contributions and practical implications. At the end, we present our
research limitations and potential future research directions.
leader.
Hypothesis 1c: Dependency on the leader has a negative effect on individual creativity.
To conclude, we assume that integrating dependency and achievement motives may enhance
our understanding of the transformational leadership-creativity linkage. Figure 1 summarizes
our research model:
Transformational H1a (Direct effect) / H1d (Mediating effect) Individual
Leadership Creativity
Dependency
on the Leader
METHODOLOGY
Sample
The sample were disseminated using a German social network platform for business
professionals named Xing. Users at related network groups were asked to answer the
questionnaire and to send it forward to further network participants. The sample consists of
271 employees (164 men and 107 women), with a mean age of 36.55 years (SD = 8.73),
ranging from 22 to 61. The professional experience ranged from 1 year to 40 years with a
mean experience of 13.95 years (SD = 8.87). All participants were employed at the time of
data collection.
Measures
All measures used in this study are based on applied and validated scales.
Transformational leadership
version (Felfe and Goihl, 2002) of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ 5x Short)
(Bass and Avolio, 1995). Despite some critiques, the MLQ is a generally accepted instrument
in leadership research (Tejada, Scandura, and Pillai, 2001). In addition to the original items
which are idealized influence (attributed and behavior), inspirational motivation,
German revised and extended version encompasses additional items explicitly capturing
charisma. The final transformational leadership scale consists of 24 items. All variables are
Individual creativity
Amabile (1983, 1988) developed what is likely the most well-known model of employees
creativity. As the theory of this research draws on this model, we measure individual
creativity with a modified version of the well-known instrument developed by Zhou and
George (2001) which is based on Amabiles work. Contrary to Zhou and George, we do not
rely on supervisor ratings; in fact, we asked the individual employees to rate their own
creativity. The 13 items were measured on 7-point Likert-scales (1=fully disagree, 7=fully
agree).
The measure of dependence on the leader is based on the instrument developed by Kark,
Shamir, and Chen (2003). Within this instrument, 10 items addressing individual dependence
on the leader as well as aspects of dependency on the team level. In the context of our study,
we adopt 8 items addressing individual dependence on the leader and slightly change these.
The 8 items were measured on 7-point Likert-scales (1=fully disagree, 7=fully agree).
Achievement motives
The Achievement Motives Scale (AMS; Gjesme and Nygard, 1970) is a well-established
scale to assess hope of success and fear of failure (Heckhausen, 1991). This study applies a
revised German short-version of the AMS that has provided an adequate fit to the
theoretically intended two-factor model in several studies (Lang and Fries, 2006). The 10
namely partial least squares (PLS) SEM (Chin, 1998), utilizing the software SmartPLS 2.0
(Ringle, Wende, and Will, 2005). While there are many reasons to favor one SEM technique
over the other, we applied PLS since it is particularly well suited to our at least to some extent
and since it suits particularly well when testing for interaction effects (Mitchell, Mitchell, and
Smith, 2008).
RESULTS
Before analyzing the hypothesized relationships, the reliability and validity of the
leadership, little consensus exists in literature about the exact components comprising
transformational leadership (for reviews see Avolio, Bass, and Jung, 1999; Lowe, Kroeck, and
analysis (principal axis with promax rotation method), which showed that the construct has a
one-dimensional structure (only two items from different theoretical components loaded
higher on a second factor and were removed). After eliminating those two items of the
transformational leadership scale and one item of the dependency scale which had a low
correlation with the respective other items, the measurement model shows satisfactory
reliability and validity. Table 1 summarizes means, standard deviations, Cronbachs alpha
values, composite reliability, and AVE, and correlations among all study variables. All
Cronbachs alpha values exceed the acceptable limit of .7, set by earlier researchers (e.g.,
Nunnally, 1978). Additionally, all composite reliabilities (threshold .7) and values for average
variance extracted (AVE) (threshold .5) are around or exceed the threshold values set forth by
prior studies (Chin, 1998). Finally, all factor loadings exceed the recommended level of .5
(Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, and Tatham, 2006), verifying the posited links among
indicators and constructs, and thus show convergent validity. For evidence of discriminant
validity, we initially applied principal axis factoring (PAF) with promax rotation method. The
PAF combined all items of the exogenous and endogenous multi-item latent variables and
reveals the factor number as well as structure derived from theory, and arranges the posited
links among indicators and constructs, indicating convergent and discriminant validity.
is above the critical level of .7 (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2007). Multicollinearity was also
tested using a VIF-index. A typical threshold value for the VIF-index is 10, and in this study
the value for each independent variable is below 1.7, suggesting that multicolinearity is not an
issue in this study. At the same time, we verified that for each latent variable, the average
variance extracted by its measure is larger than its shared variance with any other latent
Table 1. Means, standard deviations, Cronbachs alphas, composite reliabilities, and correlations among the
constructs
Construct Mean SD Cronbachs Composite AVE 1. 2. 3. 4.
alpha reliability
1. Dependency 2.50 1.23 .90 .92 .62 -/-
2. Fear of Failure 3.19 1.3 .88 .91 .72 .26*** -/-
3. Transformational 4.27 1.53 .98 .98 .68 .50*** .03 -/-
leadership
4. Hope of Success 6.10 .71 .88 .91 .68 -.27*** -.22*** -.10 -/-
5. Individual 5.67 .93 .96 .96 .65 -.32*** -.31*** -.02 .49***
creativity
***p < .001 **p < .01 *p < .05 p < .1 (two-sided test)
Evaluation of structural models and testing of hypotheses
We present our analysis hierarchically by calculating two different models. In the mediated
model, the independent variables account for 13 percent of the variance in individual
creativity and 26 percent of the variance in dependency on the leader. The direct effect of
transformational leadership on individual creativity has a significant positive value (.20; p <
leadership positively affects (.51; p < .001) dependency, while the latter negatively influences
(-.42; p < .001) individual creativity, underlining the importance of acknowledging that the
enhancing effect. In line with this suggestion, the total effect of transformational leadership on
individual creativity is negative, but not significant (-.02; n.s.). A significant Sobel test result
(p < .001) underlines the assumption of a mediation effect and gives support to hypothesis 1d.
The second model adds the moderating effects of hope of success and fear of failure to the
mediation model. The three direct effects change only slightly. However, the detailed analysis
of the moderating effects helps to get the most valuable insights from the research. Against
hypotheses 2a and 3a, neither hope of success (-.04; n.s.) nor failure of failure (-.09; n.s.)
creativity. However, both moderators are of great importance with respect to the problematic
dependency. Supporting hypotheses 2b and 2c, hope of success (-.13; p < .01) negatively
moderates the linkage of transformational leadership and dependency as well as positively the
relationship between the latter and creativity (.30; p < .001). In line with hypothesis 3b, fear
dependency (.15; p < .01) and, in contrast to hypothesis 3c, positively affects the linkage of
dependency and creativity (.11; p < .1). In this model, the independent variables account for
38 percent of the variance in individual creativity and 38 percent of the variance in
DISCUSSION
The present study aims to further explain the relationship between transformational
underline this assumption as the direct effect of transformational leadership is positive when
the mediating effect of dependency is partialled out. As hypothesized, our data reveal
and fear of failure in the equation in order to countervail the increase of dependency caused
positive effect on creativity, which enhance creativity. Furthermore, fear of failure has a
positive effect on dependency, thus increase dependency and a positive effect on creativity,
which enhances creativity. Therefore, on the one hand, hope of success counteract the
negative effects of dependency and has a positive effect on creativity and on the other hand,
fear of failure has a negative effect on dependency, but a positive effect on creativity. In line
with this, the positive and negative effects of fear of failure has no total positive nor negative
This study provide some interesting findings for researchers and practitioners. The
reduced through dependency on the leader. This finding contributes to the ongoing discussion
revealing the moderating effect of hope of success and fear of failure. The results of the
present study are generally consistent with existing interactionist approaches to creativity
(Amabile, 1987; Woodman and Schoenfeldt, 1989; Oldham and Cummings, 1996) suggesting
that the managerial practice should consider both contextual factors such as leadership styles
sum, when transformational leaders aim to increase individual creativity, they also should
consider dependency on the leader as well as hope of success and fear of failure.
Several limitations that illuminate meaningful directions for future research deserve a deeper
discussion. Our cross-sectional data do not permit causal inferences about the longitudinal
interplay between the variables applied in this study. A longitudinal design, where the
transformational leadership style, hope of success, fear of failure, dependency and creativity
are measured at different points in time could give additional insights. On the one hand, Zhou
and George (2001) argue that to analyse employees creativity it is better to ask supervisors to
rate the level of creativity of each employee to avoid a self-serving bias, but on the other
hand, it could also be that a supervisor do not like one employee and therefore rate his level of
creativity bad, thats why we decided to let every employee rate the creativity by himself.
Anyhow, objective measures like number of new products developed could have been
adopted, but this could have been very difficult, because every department within a company
has different opportunities to show creative performances. Despite its widely accepted
importance, it has to be acknowledged that creativity is only the first step toward
organizational innovation. Although employees creativity may not always lead to the
successful implementation of creative ideas at the organizational level, it often provides the
starting point for such innovation (Zhou and George, 2001). Against this background and
consistent with the creativity literature (e.g., Amabile, 1988), the present study focused on
respectively in future studies may further develop our understanding of fostering and
REFERENCES
Avolio, B. J., Bass B. M., and Jung, D. I. (1999). Re-examining the components of
transformal and transactional leadership using the multifactor leadership questionnaire,
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 441-462.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Bass, B. M., and Avolio, B. J. (1995). MLQ Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Technical
report. Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden.
Bass, B. M., and Bass, R. (2008). The Bass Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and
Managerial Applications (4th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.
Conger J. A., and Kanungo, R. N. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory and
practice, The Academy of Management Review, 13 (3), 471-482.
Farmer, S., Tierney, P., and Kung-Mcintyre, K. (2003). Employee creativity in Taiwan: An
application of role identity theory, Academy of Management Journal, 46 (5), 618-630.
Felfe, J., and Goihl (2002). Deutsche berarbeitete und ergnzte Version des "Multifactor
Leadership Questinnaire" (MLQ). In A. Glckner-Rist (Ed.), ZUMA Informationssysteme.
Elektronisches Handbuch sozialwissenschaftlicher Erhebungsinstrumente Version 5.00,
Frankfurt/Main.
Fornell, C., and Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with
unobservable variables and measurement error, Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (1), 39
50.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., and Tatham, R.L. (2006). Multivariate
data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Janssen, O., and Yperen van, N. W. (2004). Employees goal orientations, the quality of
leader member exchange, and the outcomes of job performance and job satisfaction,
Academy of Management Journal, 47 (3), 368-384.
Jaussi, K. S., and Dionne, S. D. (2003). Leading for creativity: The role of unconventional
leader behavior, The leadership quarterly, 14, 475-498.
Kark, R., Shamir, B., and Chen, G. (2003). The two faces of transformational leadership:
Empowerment and dependency, Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (2), 246-255.
Kets de Vries, M. F. (1988). Origins of charisma: Ties that bind the leader and the led. In J.
A. Conger & R. N. Kanungo (Eds.), Charismatic leadership, 237-252. San-Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Lang, J., and Fries, S. (2006). A revised 10-item version of the achievement motives scale:
Psychometric properties in German-speaking samples, European Journal of Psychological
Assessment, 22, 216-224.
Liao, H., Liu, D., and Loi, R. (2010). Looking at both sides of the social exchange coin: A
social cognitive perspective on the joint effects of relationship quality and differentiation on
creativity, Academy of Management Journal, 53 (5), 1090-1109.
McClelland, D. C., Atkinson, J. W., Clark, R. A., and Lowell, L. (1953). The achievement
motive. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Mitchell, R. K., Mitchell, J. R., and Smith, J. B. (2008). Inside opportunity formation:
Enterprise failure, cognition, and the creation of opportunities, Strategic Entrepreneurship
Journal, 2, 225242.
Mumford, M. D., Scott, G. M., Gaddis B., and Strange, J. M. (2002). Leading creative
people: Orchestrating expertise and relationships, The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 705-750.
Oldham, G. R., and Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual
factors at work, Academy of Management Journal, 39 (3), 607-634.
Pillai, R., Schriesheim, C. A., and Williams, E. S. (1999). Fairness perceptions and trust as
mediators for transformational and transactional leadership: A two-sample study, Journal of
Management, 27 (6), 897-933.
Redmond, M. R., Mumford, M. D., and Teach, R. (1993). Putting creativity to work: Effects
of leader behavior on subordinate creativity, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 55, 120-151.
Ringle, C., Wende, S., and Will, A. (2005). Smart-PLS 2.0, University of Hamburg,
Hamburg.
Shamir, B. (1991). The charismatic relationship: Alternative explanations and predictions,
The Leadership Quarterly, 2 (2), 81-102.
Shin, J. S., and Zhou, J. (2003). Transformational leadership, conservation, and creativity:
Evidence from Korea, Academy of Management Journal, 46 (6), 703-714.
Tabachnick, B. G., and Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. Boston, MA:
Pearson.
Tejeda, M.J., Scandura, T.A., and Pillai, R. (2001). The MLQ revisited. Psychometric
properties and recommendations, The Leadership Quarterly, 12, 31-52.
Tierney, P., and Farmer, S. M. (2002). Creative self-efficacy: Potential antecedents and
relationship to creative performance, Academy of Management Journal, 45 (6), 1137-1148.
Tsai, W., Chen, H., and Cheng, J. (2009). Employee positive moods as a mediator linking
transformational leadership and employee work outcomes, The International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 20 (1), 206-219.
Wang, H., Law, K. S., Hackett, R. D., Wang, D., and Chen, Z. X. (2005). Leader-Member
Exchange as a mediator of the relationship between transformational leadership and followers
performance and organizational citizenship behavior, Academy of Management Journal, 48
(3), 420-432.
Weber, M. (1947). The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. Glencoe, Illinois: Free
Press.
Yukl, G. A. (1998). Leadership in Organizations (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall.
Zhou, J., and George, J., M. (2001). When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity:
Encouraging the expression of voice, Academy of Management Journal, 44 (4), 682-696.