A social identity perspective on leadership and ...

4 downloads 2489 Views 160KB Size Report
Education was measured on a 5-point scale (1 ¼ ''technical college,'' 5 ¼ ''PhD/. MBA''). ...... Chair Academy Conference, March 7–10, Jacksonville, Florida.
Journal of Organizational Behavior J. Organiz. Behav. (2009) Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/job.600

A social identity perspective on leadership and employee creativity GILES HIRST 1*, ROLF VAN DICK 2 AND DAAN VAN KNIPPENBERG 3 1 2 3

Summary

Monash University—Management, 6th Floor Building, N Caulfield Campus, Melbourne, Australia Goethe University—Institute of Psychology, Frankfurt, Germany Erasmus University, Rotterdam, Netherlands

This research uses a social identity analysis to predict employee creativity. We hypothesized that team identification leads to greater employee creative performance, mediated by the individual’s creative effort. We hypothesized that leader inspirational motivation as well as leader team prototypicality would moderate the relationship between identification and creative effort. Consistent with these predictions, data based on 115 matched pairs of employee-leader ratings in a research and development context showed an indirect relationship between team identification and creative performance mediated by creative effort. The analyses also confirmed the expected moderated relationships. Leader inspirational motivation enhanced the positive association between identification and creative effort, especially when leader prototypicality was high. We discuss the value of social identity analyses of employee creativity and of the integration of social identity and transformational leadership analyses. Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Introduction Many organizations rely on employee creativity for competitive advantage, adaptation, and survival (Nonaka, 1991; Zhou, 2003). Not surprisingly then, understanding the dynamics of creativity in organizations is a high priority for research in organizational behavior (Zhou & Shalley, 2008). Importantly, individual creative behavior at work is typically enacted in the context of a work team or group, where individual creative performance may be seen as a contribution to the team’s creative performance and achievement of team goals (Pirola-Merlo & Mann, 2004; Shin & Zhou, 2007). This means that individuals’ psychological relationship with their team (i.e., their identification with the team; Ashforth & Mael, 1989; van Knippenberg & van Schie, 2000) may influence the extent to which individuals are motivated to engage in creative efforts. While the team context has been recognized for its role promoting team creativity (Shin & Zhou, 2007; Taggar, 2002; West, 2002), applied research seems to have essentially overlooked the potentially important motivational influence of this context on individual creativity at work. Addressing this issue, in the present study we develop and test a social identity analysis of individual creativity that puts individuals’ team identification center-stage. * Correspondence to: Giles Hirst, Management, 6th Floor Building, N Caulfield Campus, Monash University, Melbourne 3145, Australia. E-mail: [email protected]

Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 23 November 2007 Revised 14 December 2008 Accepted 12 January 2009

G. Hirst et al.

In work teams involved in the development of new ideas, such as in advertising, art and design, and research and development (R&D), the success of these teams is highly contingent on the creativity of their solutions to applied problems (Shin & Zhou, 2007). An important way in which individual employees can thus contribute to their team’s success is by developing creative solutions to problems they encounter in the context of their work within the team. This means that in such contexts one factor that may motivate creative efforts is team members’ motivation to contribute to the success of the collective. Social identity analyses of organizational behavior highlight the role of team identification, the sense of oneness with and belongingness to the team (Mael & Ashforth, 1992), in engendering such motivation (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Dutton, Dukerich, & Harquail, 1994; van Dick, 2001; van Knippenberg, 2000a). In contexts where creative performance may be expected to serve team goals, we may thus expect individuals’ team identification to be positively related to their creative efforts and ultimately their creative performance. This is the basic hypothesis tested in the present study. Moreover, based on an integration of insights from the social identity analysis of leadership (Hogg & van Knippenberg, 2003; van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2003) and research in transformational and charismatic leadership (Bass, 1985; Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993), we further develop our analysis to include the role of leadership in ‘‘bringing out’’ the influence of identification on creative efforts. Specifically, we argue that leader team prototypicality—the extent to which the leader is perceived to embody the collective identity (Hogg, 2001)—and leader inspirational motivation—an aspect of transformational leadership reflecting advocating the value and quality of the team (Bass, 1985)—interact in strengthening the relationship between team identification and creative effort.

Team Identification, Creative Effort, and Creative Performance Following prior research, we define creative performance as employees’ generation of novel and useful ideas concerning products, procedures, and processes at work (Amabile, 1988; Oldham & Cummings, 1996). Creative performance at work typically is not a process unbound by practical restraints or goals but often engendered by problems and challenges that arise in the pursuit of work goals (Shalley, 1991). Accordingly, we study creative performance as the outcome of a creative problem solving process or in other words the extent to which an employee develops novel and useful solutions to applied problems in the pursuit of work goals. We also highlight the distinction between creative effort and creative performance, where creative effort is defined as the pro-active pursuit and learning of new ideas and approaches to improve one’s creative performance. Thus, creative performance is not primarily an idea generation process or an investment of effort but rather refers to the development of new, practical solutions to problems. Our conceptual model (see Figure 1) illustrates that high levels of identification will encourage creative effort and in turn promote creative performance. We acknowledge that there may be times when identification does not lead to these creative outcomes. This may be when the goals of the group are not salient or the individual does not completely agree with the group’s goals or ways to implement them (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). Furthermore, in addition to creative effort, identification may promote a range of creativity stimulating processes, such as task ownership or a positive outlook. There may even be cases when identification is detrimental to creativity, blocking the individual from considering approaches that contradict with the group’s own procedures. By and large, however, we anticipate that Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. Organiz. Behav. (2009) DOI: 10.1002/job

LEADERSHIP AND EMPLOYEE CREATIVITY

Figure 1. A social identity model of employee creativity

identification with one’s group encourages the individual to associate group goals with their own having a powerful energizing role encouraging effort and persistence—i.e., creative effort. The social identity approach (cf. Haslam, 2004; Haslam, van Knippenberg, Platow, & Ellemers, 2003; Hogg & Terry, 2000) proposes that an important part of our self-concept (i.e., the way we see ourselves) stems from our memberships in social groups (Hogg & Terry, 2000; Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Identification reflects a sense of oneness with the team whereby the individual subsumes the team’s aims and goals as their own (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Haslam, 2004)—they are internalized, creating a powerful and personal motivation to contribute to the team’s goals and successes (De Cremer & Van Vugt, 1999; van Knippenberg, 2000a). Indeed, perhaps the most important motivational consequence of identification stems from cognitive processes whereby individuals’ sense of self-worth is contingent on the group’s status and perceived value. Accordingly, the more individuals identify with their team (hereon described as team identification) the more they will work towards achieving the goals of the team (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Dutton et al., 1994; Haslam, 2004; van Dick, 2001; van Dick, Hirst, Grojean, & Wieseke, 2007; van Knippenberg, 2000a; van Knippenberg & Ellemers, 2003). The merging of an individual’s self-concept with their group identity provides an incentive for highly identifying employees to overcome barriers and road-blocks that may impede progress and potentially serve as threat to the group’s status. For highly identifying employees failure to overcome road-blocks poses a severe threat to their self-esteem particularly if failure has negative consequences for their group-based identity. This desire to avoid negative evaluations will stimulate highly identifying employees to invest sustained effort. This is a powerful motivational resource given that creative problem solving by definition involves uncertain and untested approaches which hold a high risk of error and even failure. The risk of failure in particular will have significant perceived negative consequences for highly identifying employees’ self-concept driving them to tackle these challenges. In turn, persistence and the investment of effort promote knowledge acquisition and deep processing strategies that facilitate the mastery of complex and uncertain tasks (Elliot & McGregor, 2001; Fisher & Ford, 1998) providing the basis for creative performance. Having established the motivating processes that identification inspires, it is only a small step to illustrate how this induces creative efforts. In work contexts where creativity is a central and a recognized part of the job such as in R&D teams, individual creative performance is a way to contribute to group goals and team success (Shin & Zhou, 2007), and individual identification may foster the motivation and desire to take on creative challenges. This desire will lead the individual to value the successful accomplishment of these creative challenges as a means to enhance the group’s status and in turn their self-concept. In addition to engendering task-related motivation, identification is also likely to foster a selfmotivating interest in work activities. While the motivational focus of highly identifying employees Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. Organiz. Behav. (2009) DOI: 10.1002/job

G. Hirst et al.

arguably is extrinsic in the sense that their actions are performed to attain group-related outcomes rather than for their inherent enjoyment, this motivational orientation shares many qualities with intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2000). When people identify with their group, they assimilate group aims into their sense of self, and so the goals of the group are internalized (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Evaluations of the likelihood of success and in particular expectancy of rewards that may influence whether extrinsically motivated individuals persist will be of much less importance than successful task accomplishment. Identification, like intrinsic motivation, is conducive to adaptive problem focused strategies which encourage the individual to view task accomplishment as an important end in itself (Deci & Ryan, 2000). These strategies provide an impetus for creative behavior. Moreover, the internalization of group aims will create a sense that the individual has control over their activities fulfilling a basic human need for self-control (Deci & Ryan, 2000) which in turn promotes enthusiasm and effort grappling with the task at hand. These similarities lead us to suggest that identification, like intrinsic motivation (Amabile, 1988; Tierney, Farmer, & Graen, 1999; Shin & Zhou, 2003), stimulates high levels of persistence and creative effort in work contexts where creativity is clearly valued. Having established a link between identification and creative effort, we now describe how creative efforts foster creative performance. Creative efforts lay the groundwork for creative performance in at least three ways: creative effort reflects the extent to which the individual seeks new information and ideas, whether they explore new approaches irrespective of their difficulty, and the levels of persistence in this information searching process. Extensive information searching and particularly exploring options that may be novel and uncertain both in their approach and likelihood of success will provide a greater understanding of the problem, thus laying the ground work for creativity. Sustained effort is particularly critical if one is to develop creative solutions to problems—a task which by its very nature is fraught with possible set-backs and even failure. Sustained effort is also necessary to build the network of knowledge and possible ‘‘wanderings’’ fostering the development of expertise, which is a key building block for creative behavior (Amabile, 1990). In concert information searching, exploration, and persistence provide the knowledge and motivation to stimulate creative performance. Thus, we propose Hypothesis 1(i): Team identification is positively related to individual creative effort. Hypothesis 1(ii): Creative effort is positively related to individual creative performance. Hypothesis 1(iii): Team identification has an indirect positive relationship with creative performance mediated by creative effort.

Leadership: Boosting Identification-Based Creative Effort While identification is associated with a greater willingness to exert oneself on behalf of the collective this does not mean that identification will always translate into action. Identification is not always salient, nor does it always guide and influence behavior towards a particular pattern of actions (Haslam, 2004; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987; van Knippenberg, 2000a). Thus, while highly identifying employees will be motivated to contribute towards group activities, leaders help catalyze this effort by both rendering the team and its goals salient, and further building the individual’s belief in the value and efficacy of the team. Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. Organiz. Behav. (2009) DOI: 10.1002/job

LEADERSHIP AND EMPLOYEE CREATIVITY

In contexts where meeting creative challenges is recognized as an important contribution to the team’s success, leadership may thus boost creative efforts by ‘‘bringing out’’ or accentuating the influence of team member identification. The social identity analysis of leadership (Hogg & van Knippenberg, 2003; van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2003) as well as Shamir et al.’s (1993) eminal analysis of transformational and charismatic leadership highlight the importance of leadership behavior that shift the orientation of individuals from self-interest to the interests of the collective. Based on an integration of insights from these analyses we identify two aspects of leadership that we propose are instrumental in bolstering the relationship between team identification and creative effort, leader team prototypicality (Hogg, 2001), and leader inspirational motivation (Bass, 1985). We propose that these aspects of leadership independently and in interaction strengthen the relationship between identification and creative effort. These proposed relationships (as well as those advanced in Hypothesis 1) are represented in Figure 1. Shamir et al. (1993) highlighted that charismatic and transformational leaders build followers collective sense of worth, esteem, and efficacy (cf. De Cremer & van Knippenberg, 2004; Kark, Shamir, & Chen, 2003; van Knippenberg, van Knippenberg; De Cremer, & Hogg, 2004). It is exactly this aspect of leadership that is captured by a dimension of transformational leadership identified by Bass (1985): inspirational motivation. Inspirational motivation refers to leadership that advocates the value and efficacy of the team. Inspirational motivation thus helps build followers sense of collective value, worth, and efficacy that may mobilize the influence of team identification. Inspirational motivation will strengthen the association between identification and creative effort in several ways. First, inspirational motivation will convey the value of group activities reinforcing identified employees own views, encouraging them to sustain high levels of effort to tackle challenging activities. Second, as inspirational motivation espouses collective aims it may render the team and its goals more salient (cf. Haslam, 2004; van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2003). This behavior will help team members prioritize their goals, tackling key challenges facing the team, channeling individual action and effort. Furthermore, positive messages conveyed by inspirational motivation will reinforce employees’ willingness to try new approaches encouraging them to perceive that errors will not be viewed negatively as well as increasing their expectancy of success. Moreover, as inspirational motivation reframes challenges as opportunities, this promotes an adaptive problem solving approach. In contexts where creative performance is clearly valuable to the team, inspirational motivation may thus bolster the relationship between team identification and creative efforts. Consistent with this rationale we put forward the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 2: The positive relationship between team identification and creative effort is stronger when leaders are perceived to engage in higher levels of inspirational motivation. In recognition of the fact that leadership is a process that takes place in the context of a team membership shared by leader and follower, and that follower identification with this team may therefore inform responses to leadership, Hogg and van Knippenberg (2003; van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2003) proposed a social identity analysis of leadership. This analysis puts leaders’ ability to connect with follower social identity center-stage (also see Platow, Haslam, Foddy, & Grace, 2003; Pierro, Cicero, Bonaiuto, van Knippenberg, & Kruglanski, 2005; Reicher & Hopkins, 2003; van Knippenberg, van Knippenberg, & Giessner, 2007; Wieseke, Ahearne, Lam, & van Dick, 2009). Core to this analysis is the concept of leader team prototypicality, the extent to which the leader is perceived to embody the shared social identity as captured by the team prototype, i.e., individuals’ mental representation of team-defining characteristics (Hogg, 2001; cf. Turner et al., 1987). The more people identify with a team, the more the team prototype becomes a source of information about social reality, team norms, and appropriate behavior, and thus a source of influence that guides team member attitudes and Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. Organiz. Behav. (2009) DOI: 10.1002/job

G. Hirst et al.

behavior (Turner et al., 1987). Accordingly, the more people identify with a team, the more leaders who are seen to represent the shared identity and reality are influential as their attributes are consistent with employee’s schemas of the group (Hains, Hogg, & Duck, 1997; Hogg, 2001; Platow & van Knippenberg, 2001). Because team prototypical leaders are seen as representing the collective identity, they are more trusted to have the collective’s best interest at heart (Giessner & van Knippenberg, 2008; van Knippenberg & van Knippenberg, 2005). As a consequence, highly identifying employees will be both more attentive to their appeals and more willing to be influenced by them (cf. van Knippenberg, 2000b; van Knippenberg, Lossie, & Wilke, 1994). We propose that leader prototypicality will strengthen the positive association between highly identifying employees’ motivation and their behavior. Leaders by their position often act as a reference point to define team characteristics and so make the identity of the collective more salient. Increased salience, in turn, helps followers define what the team exactly stands for, thereby focusing and encouraging higher levels of effort to bolster this more tangible collective identity and its related goals. For example in an R&D context, a leader who is prototypical of the research group, e.g., is a research scientist, will tend to reinforce employees’ perceptions that the team’s ‘‘raison d’eˆtre’’ is to conduct research. This will encourage identified employees to invest further effort in their research to develop creative solutions to problems thereby elevating the status of the research team. These leader attributes will make the behaviors and desired actions of highly identifying employees even clearer helping to catalyze effort and energy. The influence context is likely to differ for leaders who are less prototypical of the group. For example, a project manager appointed to lead a team of research scientists while not discouraging effort may possess few characteristic that increase the salience of the group and so encourage effort. A second means by which team prototypical leaders will influence follower behavior is that followers will be more inclined to view them as favorable role models. Role models sustain effort and energy as employees are inclined to emulate their work habits, positive attitudes, and goals (Rich, 1997). Thus, a prototypical leader who possesses desirable group attributes will serve as a marker for individual’s effort and future desired selves. Indeed, social learning theory (Bandura, 1977) illustrates the powerful role of observation and modeling of others’ behavior both as means to develop new skills and to sustain energy doing so. Furthermore, observational learning will help guide employees so that they learn more quickly engaging in creative behaviors (Bandura, 1977). Role models will be particularly influential for highly identifying employees, as they will be sensitive to the collective identity and be motivated to invest further effort. In the context of teams in which creative performance is an integral part of the job, and leadership is responsible for engendering creative performance, leader team prototypicality may enhance leaders’ effectiveness in motivating creative efforts by bringing out highly identifying team members’ motivation to contribute to the collective’s success. In other words, identification will be more strongly related to creative effort the more team prototypical the leader is. Hypothesis 3: The positive relationship between team identification and creative effort is stronger when leaders are perceived to be more team prototypical. Importantly, while the team prototypicality of the leader in and of itself may add to the leader’s effectiveness in motivating highly identifying followers, prototypicality may also add to the effectiveness of leader inspirational motivation. Inspirational motivation entails appeals to the team’s value, and these in particular may carry more weight the more team prototypical the leader is perceived to be. Because inspirational motivation involves claims to the collective’s value and efficacy, team prototypical leaders’ association with the collective identity renders them more credible sources of evaluations of the collective. This in turn will render followers more willing to accept and internalize Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. Organiz. Behav. (2009) DOI: 10.1002/job

LEADERSHIP AND EMPLOYEE CREATIVITY

these evaluations, in effect increasing the influence of leader inspirational motivation. In the context of teams involved in meeting creative challenges, we may thus expect that Hypothesis 4: The interaction between follower team identification and leader inspirational motivation on creative effort is stronger when leaders are perceived to be more team prototypical.

Method Research setting, participants, and procedure Data were collected as part of a cross-national R&D leadership development initiative within a large multi-national pharmaceutical company. The initiative provided program leaders with developmental feedback in relation to employee’s aggregated perceptions of their leadership behavior as well as research team processes. Two waves of data collection were used 6 months apart. After the first wave leaders received feedback reports and attended leadership development workshops. Six months later a follow-up survey was provided to both employees and program leaders. Data reported here comprises the second follow-up survey only. Creativity ratings were not made available to either supervisors or employees. R&D within the pharmaceutical company comprised eight divisions and corresponding therapeutic areas such as cancer, psychiatric disorders, or cardio-vascular disease problems. These eight divisions were relatively independent and often comprised employees with different skills, backgrounds, and knowledge. Furthermore, as several of the research areas had grown through mergers and strategic acquisitions, these divisions were not only dissimilar in research expertise but also had differing cultural norms. Four divisions participated. Divisional heads nominated program leaders who were leading large strategic programs that required innovative leadership. Based on these criteria, we recruited program leaders that led research teams who were developing new therapeutic treatments, technology initiatives, or were modeling biological compounds. The drivers for program development varied from pure research and incremental innovations to fast follower initiatives seeking to develop new treatments in response to competitor releases. There was considerable variation in the way research was performed in these teams. Research teams (also termed research groups) tended to comprise members with an array of different skills who in turn worked in relatively fluid sub-teams reporting to the program leader. On average, these teams had 10 members (range 3–25) who had worked together for 3 years and 6 months. Program leaders tended to fulfill many managerial roles, directing and facilitating research as well as taking on program boundary spanning functions (e.g., lobbying for resources, presenting to senior managers and potential partners). In general, leaders had relatively limited time to engage in ‘‘hands-on’’ lab research. Rather, experimentation and testing were performed by research team members. Thus, it was essential for employees to develop creative solutions to problems and for program leaders to motivate them in this process. Online surveys were distributed to all R&D technical and research staff who worked with the nominated program leaders. Administrative or clerical staff were not surveyed. Participants were asked to complete the online questionnaire, entering their name in this form, providing demographic details and ratings of independent variables included within the study. Program leaders (N ¼ 23) were emailed a separate questionnaire which asked them to rate employee creative behavior. Data from the two sources were matched. This procedure provided 115 matched pairs of employee–supervisor ratings Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. Organiz. Behav. (2009) DOI: 10.1002/job

G. Hirst et al.

who were based at four research divisions in three countries (US, UK, and Sweden) reflecting a response rate of 56 and 100 per cent of employees and leaders, respectively.

Measures Team identification Using the 4-item scale developed by Doosje, Ellemers, and Spears (1995) respondents rated team identification on a 7-point scale from 1 ¼ do not agree at all to 7 ¼ agree completely. The items are as follows: ‘‘I see myself as a member of this research group,’’ ‘‘I am pleased to be a member of my research group,’’ ‘‘I feel strong ties with members of my research group,’’ and ‘‘I identify with other members of my research group.’’ Inspirational motivation Using the 3-item scale developed by Rafferty and Griffin (2004) respondents rated inspirational motivation on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 ¼ strongly disagree to 5 ¼ strongly agree. The items are as follows: ‘‘Says things that make employees proud to be part of this research group,’’ ‘‘Says positive things about the research group,’’ and ‘‘Encourages people to see changing environments as situations full of opportunities.’’ Leader team prototypicality was assessed with the 5-item scale reported by van Knippenberg and van Knippenberg (2005) using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 ¼ strongly disagree to 5 ¼ strongly agree. The items are as follows: ‘‘The program leader is a good example of the kind of people that are members of my team,’’ ‘‘The program leader has very much in common with the members of my team,’’ ‘‘The program leader represents what is characteristic of the team,’’ ‘‘The program leader is very similar to the members of my team,’’ and ‘‘The program leader resembles the members of my team.’’ Creative effort was assessed by a 3-item scale rated on a on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 ¼ very strongly disagree to 7 ¼ very strongly agree. These items are as follows: ‘‘I have invested considerable effort to identify ways to enhance my research,’’ ‘‘I frequently seek new information and ideas,’’ and ‘‘I try new approaches in my work even if they are unproven or risky.’’ Creative performance Using the 9-item measure developed by Tierney et al. (1999) program leaders rated employees’ creative performance on a 6-point rating scale ranging from 1 ¼ not at all correct to 6 ¼ completely correct. These items are as follows ‘‘Demonstrated originality in his/her work,’’ ‘‘Took risks in terms of producing new ideas in doing job,’’ ‘‘Found new uses for existing methods or equipments,’’ ‘‘Solved problems that had caused other difficulty,’’ ‘‘Tried out new ideas and approached to problems,’’ ‘‘Identified opportunities for new products/processes,’’ ‘‘Generated novel, but operable work-related ideas,’’ ‘‘Served as a good role model for creativity,’’ and ‘‘Generated ideas revolutionary to our field.’’ Control variables We controlled for gender, education, and tenure as each of these variables has been found to relate to employee creativity (Farmer, Tierney, & Kung-McIntyre, 2003; George & Zhou, 2001; Tierney & Farmer, 2002). Education was measured on a 5-point scale (1 ¼ ‘‘technical college,’’ 5 ¼ ‘‘PhD/ MBA’’). We also controlled for the nationality (i.e., US, UK, or Swedish). In order to control for these national differences nation of origin was coded as a dummy variable (US or Swedish origin were included as two controls in regression models with a value of one or zero). We also replicated these analyses controlling for division, i.e., the UK comprised two divisions, with one each in Sweden Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. Organiz. Behav. (2009) DOI: 10.1002/job

LEADERSHIP AND EMPLOYEE CREATIVITY

and the US. These analyses provided significant findings and patterns of interactions that are consistent with those reported in full in the Results Section.

Results Table 1 display means, standard deviations, scale reliabilities, and correlations among the study variables. US nationality, education, tenure, and creative effort were significantly correlated with creative performance. Identification was positively related to creative effort. Team identification, inspirational motivation, and leader team prototypicality were all positively and significantly correlated with each other. First we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis to test whether creative effort and creative behavior indeed represent distinguishable constructs. In the first step, we calculated a single factor model (x2 ¼ 163.28, df ¼ 52, CFI ¼ 0.87, RMSEA ¼ 0.14), the second model assumed the hypothesized two correlated latent factors representing the underlying dimensions (x2 ¼ 96.97, df ¼ 51, CFI ¼ 0.95, RMSEA ¼ 0.09). Fit indicators showed that this second model fit the data reasonably well and significantly better (Dx2 ¼ 66.31, df ¼ 1, p < .001) than the uni-dimensional model. While our framework was conceptualized at the individual level we also considered an alternative multi-level data structure, i.e., whether leadership acted as a group level variable interacting with individual level constructs. We used the Rwg(j) statistic (James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1984) to assess the extent of consensus and interrater agreement, (Klein & Kozlowski, 2000; Kozlowski & Hattrup, 1992). Mean Rwg(j) values for both inspirational motivation and prototypicality, calculated using a normal distribution, were low (0.45, 0.37 respectively) (James et al., 1984). This indicates individuals in teams do not have a shared reference and so we did not aggregate these measures. These results are also consistent with theory, namely (a) dyadic models of leadership (inspirational motivation), and (b) the notion that perceptions of prototypicality are rooted in follower self-definition and may differ between followers (cf. Pierro et al., 2005). Based on the previous discussion, individual level multivariate regression analyses are reported subsequently.

Table 1. Means, standard deviations, scale reliabilities, and correlations M (SD) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

US Sweden Gender Education Tenure (months) Creative effort Team identification Inspirational motivation Leader prototypicality Creative performance

0.35 0.41 0.52 4.11 30.18 5.21 5.81 3.75 3.26 4.08

1

2

(0.48) (0.49) .17 (0.65) .20 .20 (1.07) .12 .10 (43.72) .24 .06  (0.98) .35 .26 (1.04) .03 .06 (0.91) .20 .01 (0.99) .26 .17 (0.94) .27 .04

3

4

.05 .11 .27 .02 .07 .08 .17 .28 .07 .03 .05 .00 .30

5

6

7

.09 .06 .13 .17 .27

(.74) .26 .13 .12 .27

8

9

10

(.87) .55 (.86) .37 .50 (.94) .08 .11 .09 (.94)

 p < .05; p < .01. N ranges from 111 to 114 because of missing data. Cronbach alphas in parentheses.

Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. Organiz. Behav. (2009) DOI: 10.1002/job

G. Hirst et al.

Hypothesis 1 states that team identification has an indirect and positive relationship with creativity mediated by creative effort (i.e., implying positive relationships between identification and creative efforts and between creative efforts and creative performance). To provide a full test of this mediation model and the distal nature of the association between team identification and employee creativity, we followed the structural equation modeling approach suggested by James, Mulaik, and Brett (2006). We used EQS 6.1 to model the mediation with latent variables for each of the concepts. Overall model fit was reasonable, x2 ¼ 235.4, df ¼ 99, CFI ¼ 0.92, RMSEA ¼ 0.09. First, there was a significant path from team identification to creative effort, b ¼ .49, p < .01, supporting Hypothesis 1(i). Second, the path from creative effort to creativity was significant with b ¼ .19, p < .05, confirming Hypothesis 1(ii). Finally, and in support of Hypothesis 1(iii), there was an indirect relationship of team identification with creativity via creative effort of b ¼ .10, p < .05. Bootstrapping with 500 resamples revealed a 95% confidence interval of .001 < b < .319. Thus, Hypothesis 1 was fully supported.1 Hypotheses 2–4 were tested using moderated regression analyses. Control variables were entered first. Team identification, inspirational motivation, and leader prototypicality were standardized and entered in the second step, and the two-way interaction to be tested in the third step. The three-way interaction predicted in Hypothesis 4 was entered in a fourth step in an analysis in which all two-way interaction terms were entered in the model. Hypothesis 2 predicts that team identification has a stronger positive relationship with employees’ creative effort when inspirational motivation is high. These results are displayed in Table 2. Overall, the Table 2. Results of multiple regression analysis for creative effort Variables Block 1: Controls US Sweden Gender Education Tenure Block 2: Main effects Team identification (TID) Inspiration (INS) Prototypicality (PR) Block 3: Two-way interactions TID  INS TID  PR INS  PR Block 4: Three-way interactions TID  INS  PR DR2b F for DR2b R2 F

Controls

Main effects

Two-way

Two-way

Two-way

Three-way

.20 .04 .07 .14 .01

.19 .03 .03 .18 .00

.18 .04 .02 .15 .00

.34 .23 .00 .12 .03

.30 .22 .04 .14 .02

.36 .13 .06 .19 .04

.39 .01 .07

.46 .03 .11

.42 .15 .02

.27 .03 .03

.36 .01 .14

.30

.26 .20 .32

.07 6.69 .32 3.44

.41 .06 6.25 .44 4.08

.22

.06 1.08 .06 1.08

.13 4.27 .19 2.36

.04 3.72 .23 2.58

.24

.05 5.04 .31 3.19

Note: b ¼ The change in variance explained beyond the null or previous model.  p < .05. N ¼ 111.

1 We also tested a model adding all control variables and regressing them on creative behavior. Although the model had unspecified paths and did not fit the data well (x2 ¼ 629.1, df ¼ 169, CFI ¼ 0.78, RMSEA ¼ 0.10), SEM revealed very similar relationships between the latent factors (team identification – creative effort: b ¼ .49, p < .01; creative effort – creative behavior: b ¼ .11, p < .05; indirect effect: b ¼ .05, p < .10).

Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. Organiz. Behav. (2009) DOI: 10.1002/job

LEADERSHIP AND EMPLOYEE CREATIVITY

control variables did not explain a significant amount of the variance in creative effort, F(5, 106) ¼ 1.08, ns. When the independent variables were entered into the regression equation, the model explained significant amounts of the variance in creative effort, F(8, 103) ¼ 2.36, p < .01. Next, we entered the two-way interaction of team identification and inspirational motivation. The model, F(9, 102) ¼ 2.58, p < .05, and the interaction term, b ¼ .22, p < .05, were significant. In Figure 2 we plotted this interaction. Using the procedures described by Aiken and West (1991), we tested the simple slopes for respondents with higher inspirational motivation (one standard deviation above the mean) and respondents with lower inspirational motivation (one standard deviation below the mean) to determine the nature of the team identification  inspirational motivation interaction. While team identification was not significantly related to creative effort for lower inspirational motivation, b ¼ .25, t ¼ 1.63, p ¼ .10, this relationship was significant and positive for higher levels of leader inspirational motivation, b ¼ .65, t ¼ 6.85, p < .001. The results thus supported Hypothesis 2. Hypothesis 3 states that team identification has a stronger positive relationship with employees’ creative effort when leader prototypicality is high. Results for the test of Hypothesis 3 are displayed in Table 2. As the first steps including the control variables and the main effects were consistent with those reported for the previous hypothesis we discuss the two-way interactions relevant to Hypotheses 2 and 3 only. When we entered the two-way interaction of team identification and leader prototypicality, the model, F(9, 102) ¼ 3.19, p < .01, and the interaction term, b ¼ .24, p < .05, were significant. While team identification was positively but not significantly related to creative effort for respondents led by less prototypical leaders, b ¼ .19, t ¼ 1.28, ns, this relationship was stronger and significant for leaders high in prototypicality, b ¼ .52, t ¼ 4.84, p < .001 (see Figure 3). These results supported Hypothesis 3. The three-way interaction predicted in Hypothesis 4 implies that there may also be a two-way interaction of inspirational motivation and prototypicality, and we also tested a model including this interaction. When we entered the two-way interaction of leader inspirational motivation and prototypicality, the model, F(9, 102) ¼ 3.44, p < .05, and the interaction term, b ¼ .30, p < .05, were significant. Consistent with the implications of Hypothesis 4, inspirational motivation was positively related to creative effort only when leaders were high in prototypicality, b ¼ .46, t ¼ 4.20, p < .01, but not when leaders were low in prototypicality, b ¼ .10, t ¼ .55, ns (see Figure 4). Hypothesis 4 predicts that leader prototypicality moderates the interaction between team identification and inspirational motivation, such that identification has a stronger positive relationship

Figure 2. Interaction of team identification and inspirational motivation on creative effort Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. Organiz. Behav. (2009) DOI: 10.1002/job

G. Hirst et al.

Figure 3. Interaction of team identification and leader prototypicality on creative effort

with employee’s creative effort when both inspirational motivation and prototypicality are high. The final column of Table 2 provides the results with all two-way interaction terms included in the model. In the final step we added the three-way interaction term. The model was significant, F(12, 99) ¼ 4.08, p < .01, and explained an additional six per cent of the variance. The three-way interaction was significant, b ¼ .41, p < .05. Hypothesis 4 postulated a priori differences in pairs of slopes, such that slopes at high levels of inspirational motivation and leader prototypicality are different from any other combination of inspirational motivation and leader prototypicality. To test this hypothesis accurately, we examined whether slopes at high levels of inspirational motivation and leader prototypicality differed significantly from any other pair of slopes, using the slope difference test by Dawson and Richter

Figure 4. Interaction of inspirational motivation and leader prototypicality on creative effort Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. Organiz. Behav. (2009) DOI: 10.1002/job

LEADERSHIP AND EMPLOYEE CREATIVITY

Figure 5. Three-way interaction of team identification, inspirational motivation, and leader prototypicality on creative effort

(2006). Slopes at high levels of both inspirational motivation and leader prototypicality differed significantly from any other pair of slopes (see Figure 5). The slopes differed when inspirational motivation was high for varying conditions of leader prototypicality, t ¼ 3.29, p < .01. The slopes differed when prototypicality was high for varying conditions of inspirational motivation, t ¼ 3.35, p < .01. Finally, high conditions of both inspirational motivation and prototypicality were also significantly different from low conditions of both inspirational motivation and prototypicality, t ¼ 2.90, p < .01.

Discussion Recent creativity studies (e.g., Hirst, van Knippenberg, & Zhou, 2009; Taggar, 2002) have recognized that individual creative behavior is often embedded in the context of a team and so a greater focus on team-related variables will advance the creativity literature. Even so, individual team members’ identification with the team, the psychological linkage between their team membership and their sense of self and identity (Ashforth & Mael, 1989) has so far been a neglected element in the creativity literature. We developed and tested a model in order to shed light on whether an individual’s attraction to their team is an important stimulus for creativity as well as examining leadership factors that may strengthen this association. Consistent with predictions, identification was positively related to individuals’ creative effort, which in turn predicted creative performance (Hypothesis 1). Extending this social identity analysis of creative effort with insights from the social identity analysis of leadership and analyses of transformational and charismatic leadership, we also identified two aspects of leadership that independently (Hypotheses 2 and 3) and interactively (Hypothesis 4) bolster the Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. Organiz. Behav. (2009) DOI: 10.1002/job

G. Hirst et al.

relationship between identification and creative effort—leader inspirational motivation and leader team prototypicality. These results testify to the viability and promise of a social identity analysis of creativity at work. This analysis also nicely complements the personality–contextual approaches that predominate the creativity literature (Shalley, Zhou, & Oldham, 2004). Whereas personality and individual differences are by definition stable and less malleable to contextual influences, identification is by definition tied to a specific team membership and may differ over time and situations. The study of identification thus points to a different set of theoretical and practical considerations and implications that extend the dominant person-contextual focus in creativity research in interesting and important ways.

Theoretical implications While the creativity literature has sought to establish a consistent empirical link between intrinsic motivation and creativity (e.g., Shin & Zhou, 2003; Tierney et al., 1999), other motivational resources have been somewhat neglected and overlooked. This has hampered the development of a more complete understanding of the different types of motivation that may facilitate creativity. For example, while Eisenberger and Rhoades (2001) illustrated extrinsic rewards may actually be beneficial to creativity, few subsequent theoretical or empirical pieces have latched onto the potential significance of these results. The present study extends this investigation into different motivational processes, illustrating that the way in which one see’s oneself is also an important motivational driver for creativity. This means that individuals invest effort and develop creative solutions not because they necessarily enjoy the task (i.e., are intrinsically motivated) but because they see the group as an important part of their self-concept and so invest creative effort, striving to achieve group goals. The actions of crew members led by the explorer, Ernest Schackleton illustrate this point in practice (see Simon, 2007). Having attempted to circumnavigate the Antartic, the expedition’s boat became embedded ice, and was crushed by glacial movements leaving the crew stranded on ice with no visible means of escape. This necessitated much creativity adapting to this predicament. An often remarked characteristic of the group was the strong sense of identity and a willingness to try new things including sacrificing one’s own safety to develop creative solutions to problems. This resolve was tested when a smaller contingent, who went ahead to find help, found themselves at the summit of a South Georgia glacier, 4500 feet above sea level. As night approached temperatures began to plummet and it became apparent they were vulnerable to freezing high altitude conditions and moreover delays would diminish the larger parties’ chance of survival. In this circumstance highly committed team members decided they were willing to risk their own safety to press on at a much accelerated rate. Team members created a makeshift toboggan from 50 feet of rope, held tightly onto each other, and slid some 2000 feet into the darkness. This risky and creative move paid off. After a harrowing slide, they arrived safely at the bottom. In reflection it is clear that the creativity of these individuals is unlikely to be due to their intrinsic interest in the task, rather a strong sense of camaraderie spurred them to invest cognitive effort considering a wider range of possibilities than would be expected under normal circumstances, ultimately resulting in the development of an extreme but also highly creative solution to the problem at hand. Consistent with self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000) the previous example and the results indicate that identity-based regulation should also be considered an important potential antecedent for the creative process. Thus, research and theory may be well placed to encourage the study of a greater spectrum of motivational resources as stimulants of the creative process. These may for example include the extent to which the individual perceives their actions are self-determined either due to an Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. Organiz. Behav. (2009) DOI: 10.1002/job

LEADERSHIP AND EMPLOYEE CREATIVITY

intrinsic interest in the work or an inclination stemming from their sense of professional or collective identity. By and large creativity researchers have concluded that supervisors play an important role in facilitating and promoting employee creativity (Shalley et al., 2004) and that follower personality and values may enhance the links between leader behavior and employee creativity (George & Zhou, 2001; Shin & Zhou, 2003). The research of Shin and Zhou (2003) in particular sign-posts the importance of studying leader behavior in concert with follower perceptions and beliefs. We extend this perspective by showing that the same reasoning may apply to leaders’ role in mobilizing the potential inherent in follower identification, and highlighting the role of two aspects of leadership that follow from this social identity analysis—leader inspirational motivation and leader team prototypicality. We theorized that leader team prototypicality would encourage highly identifying employees to be open to their influence and so encourage them to invest greater effort. The social identity analysis in this respect identifies not only leader team prototypicality, but also leader team-oriented behavior—acts of leadership that serve the team, such as leader self-sacrifice on behalf of the collective (van Knippenberg & van Knippenberg, 2005)—as an important determinant of highly identifying employees openness to leader influence (van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2003). Accordingly, future research might also explore the role of leader team-oriented behavior in mobilizing the creative potential inherent in team member identification. Issues of creativity set aside, the present findings are also relevant to leadership research. First, the current focus on the interplay of leader and follower characteristics is consistent with a plea for more balanced, less leader-centric approaches to leadership in the broader leadership research (cf. Howell & Shamir, 2005). Supporting Howell and Shamir’s (2005) theorizing, the results show that the effectiveness of leaders influence attempts depends on follower’s identification (see also Ullrich, Christ, & van Dick, 2009). In that sense, the present findings may be interpreted as testifying to the validity of the argument advanced by Howell and Shamir and others. Second, by studying the interactive effect of inspirational motivation as an aspect of transformational leadership and leader team prototypicality, we integrate insights from transformational leadership research and social identity research. As van Knippenberg and Hogg (2003) argue, there are important points where social identity analyses of leadership and theories of charismatic and transformational leadership meet, but the empirical studies to explore the potential for integration (as well as differentiation) have hardly been undertaken (cf. van Knippenberg & van Knippenberg, 2005). The current findings for the interactive effect of leader inspirational motivation and leader team prototypicality testify to the value of integrating these approaches to leadership.

Practical implications As the team seems to be where organizational behavior primarily takes place (Riketta & van Dick, 2005; van Knippenberg & van Schie, 2000), and organizations themselves may, from a social psychological perspective, be viewed as social groups, the relevance of the social identity approach to the study of organizational behavior is readily apparent (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Dutton et al., 1994; Haslam et al., 2003; Hogg & Terry, 2000). This approach substantially extends the existing creativity literature. Creativity research (e.g., George & Zhou, 2001; Zhou, 2003) has sought to identify personality characteristics that distinguish creative individuals and to identify contextual influences that enhance the creativity of these individuals. The focus on individual differences suggests that some but not others are more pre-disposed to creative behaviors, and that it may be difficult to change this. Unfortunately, not all organizations have the opportunity to recruit and select individuals solely according to a set of desirable characteristics. Furthermore, hi-tech or entrepreneurial organizations Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. Organiz. Behav. (2009) DOI: 10.1002/job

G. Hirst et al.

may need all employees to display some degree of creativity. The study of employees’ self-concept addresses this challenge. The way we see ourselves and our sense of belonging to a particular team is likely to be relatively changeable and amenable to the influences of the team. Research has reliably found it is possible to increase the identification of individuals to focal teams by emphasizing the team’s distinctiveness, comparing in-groups with out-groups, or more generally by rendering the social context salient (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Dutton et al., 1994; van Dick, Wagner, Stellmacher, & Christ, 2005). All these actions increase identification and, as our data show, in turn promote creative effort and creative performance. Our findings also illustrate that leaders mobilize the creativity-motivating potential inherent in identification by engaging in inspirational motivation and by conveying an image of team prototypicality. Field experiments show that transformational leadership (e.g., inspirational motivation) can be developed (Barling, Weber, & Kelloway, 1996). Moreover, anecdotal evidence also suggests that leaders may to some extent influence the extent to which they are perceived as team prototypical (Reicher & Hopkins, 2003; van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2003). This suggests that organizations may not only increase the chances of harvesting the creative potential in identification by selecting transformational leaders who are representative of the organizational identity but also by leadership development programs that enhance leaders’ inspirational motivation skills and their ability to convey an image of team prototypicality.

Limitations and future directions Our study has a few limitations that should be considered. First and foremost perhaps, we should recognize that our analysis revolves around the motivation to undertake creative efforts. While motivation is clearly of great importance to creativity (Amabile, 1983, 1988; Zhou & Shalley, 2008), it is not the only influence on creativity, and our analysis has no claims to cover all relevant factors that impact creativity. It is a motivational analysis, and does not claim to be more. Many scholars have argued that a comprehensive study of the antecedents of employee creativity must include not only motivation, but also skills and experience (e.g., Amabile, 1983; Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993). Thus, we would expect the impact of identification on individual creativity to be stronger when the interaction of these factors is taken into account. As R&D employees are charged with the development of creative solutions to applied problems we assumed creativity would be important for employees in these teams. Nonetheless we did not assess whether the individual’s work required creativity or whether team norms or identity encouraged creativity. Future research may thus bolster the confidence in our conclusions by including such measures and shedding more light on the specific processes occurring. In other contexts where teams engage in more routine tasks, creativity will be less critical to task performance and the team’s success. As a consequence the association between identification and creativity as well as creative effort may depend on whether team norms encourage creativity and innovation. Thus, while contextual influences, and particularly those extrinsic to the team, encourage creative outcomes in the R&D context, in more routine settings this link may be established only when team norms promote creativity. Accordingly, the generalization and identification of boundary conditions of the current findings to other work contexts is an important avenue of investigation. Moreover there may be circumstances when selfserving individual creative behavior works to the detriment of team creativity. In considering differing creative behaviors, we should thus also be open to the possibility that at least certain forms of creativity, e.g., computer hacking and fraud, are undesirable. When measuring creative effort we asked employees to rate the extent to which employees sought out new ideas and solutions to problems, while one of the items measuring creative performance Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. Organiz. Behav. (2009) DOI: 10.1002/job

LEADERSHIP AND EMPLOYEE CREATIVITY

contained a similar item structure. Despite CFAs indicating the distinctiveness of the constructs, this is a potential limitation of the research. While acknowledging this limitation, we also note that the choice of respondent (i.e., employee vs. supervisor) influences how the question is answered. A question asking employees whether they try out new approaches can reasonably be interpreted as an indicator of how much effort they intend to invest in these activities. A willingness to engage in the creative activities does not necessarily deliver creative outcomes. On the other hand asking a separate observer, like a supervisor, whether the individual has tried these new approaches’ can be reasonably interpreted as an observable indicator of the extent of the individuals creative output. While the collection of data from three different nations (US, UK, and Sweden), provided greater confidence in the generalizability of the findings to other Anglo-European cultures, differing organizational events occurred in the facilities and countries. For example one of the facilities was in an expansionary phase, while others were reducing head-count. To some extent we sought to mitigate this issue controlling for country and as well as division in separate analyses. This provided similar results so that these differences could not be found to account for the results. The completion of the survey in English by the Swedish respondents is a limitation of the research. The participating organization preferred surveys in English because company communications and global research heads communicated objectives and strategic initiatives in English and the Swedish sample displayed high levels of English proficiency. One further limitation (and a need for further research) concerns the causality suggested in the findings. Because the data used in this research are cross-sectional in nature, evidence of causality through experimental studies (or approximations obtained in longitudinal studies) is needed. To conclude, the present study testifies to the viability of a leadership and social identity approach to understand employee creativity. It thus suggests that the application and extension of social identity theory and research (e.g., Haslam et al., 2003; Hogg & Terry, 2000) may enrich the study of creativity at work. This theory-driven research also seems of considerable practical value for a variety of creative settings. By definition any work that involves groups engenders some degree of follower identification and so one’s identification with this group is an ever-present motivational lever which is changeable and amenable to the influence of the manager.

Author biographies Giles Hirst is a Senior Lecturer at Monash University Faculty of Business and Economics, Australia. He received his PhD. from the Melbourne Business School. His research interests include social networks, cross-cultural and cross-level influences on creativity. Prior to joining Monash, Giles was a faculty member at the Aston Business School, UK. Rolf van Dick is a Professor of Social Psychology at the Goethe-University Frankfurt (Germany). Prior to his current position he was a Professor of Social Psychology and Organizational Behavior at Aston Business School Birmingham (UK). He received his PhD in social psychology from PhilippsUniversity Marburg (Germany). His research interests center on the application of social identity theory in organizational settings. Rolf served as Associate Editor of the European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology and is currently editor-in-chief of the British Journal of Management and the Journal of Personnel Psychology. His work has been published in outlets including the Academy of Management Journal, Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Marketing, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Journal of Vocational Behavior, and Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. Organiz. Behav. (2009) DOI: 10.1002/job

G. Hirst et al.

Daan van Knippenberg (PhD Leiden University, The Netherlands) is Professor of Organizational Behavior at the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands. His research interests include leadership, work group diversity, group decision-making, creativity and innovation, and social identity processes in organizations. He is an Associate Editor of Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes and Journal of Organizational Behavior.

References Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. New York: Sage. Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York: Springer. Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In B. M. Staw, & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 10, pp. 123–167). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Amabile, T. M. (1990). Cataloguing creativity. Contemporary Psychology, 35, 451. Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14, 20–39. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Barling, J., Weber, T., & Kelloway, E. K. (1996). Effects of transformational leadership training on attitudinal and financial outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 827–832. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press. Dawson, J. F., & Richter, A. W. (2006). A significance test of slope differences for three-way interactions in moderated multiple regression analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 917–926. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The ‘‘what’’ and ‘‘why’’ of goal pursuits: Human needs and the selfdetermination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268. De Cremer, D., & van Knippenberg, D. (2004). Leader self-sacrifice and leadership effectiveness: The moderating role of leader self-confidence. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 95, 140–155. De Cremer, D., & Van Vugt, M. (1999). Social identification effects in social dilemmas: A transformation of motives. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 871–893. Doosje, B., Ellemers, N., & Spears, R. (1995). Perceived intrateam variability as a function of team status and identification. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 410–436. Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. V. (1994). Organizational images and member identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 239–263. Eisenberger, R., & Rhoades, L. (2001). Incremental effects of reward on creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 728–741. Elliot, A., & McGregor, H. (2001). A 2  2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 501–519. Farmer, S. M., Tierney, P., & Kung-McIntyre, K. (2003). Employee creativity in Taiwan: An application of role identity theory. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 618–630. Fisher, S. L., & Ford, J. K. (1998). Differential effects of learner effort and goal orientation on two learning outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 51, 397–420. George, J. M., & Zhou, J. (2001). When openness to experience and conscientiousness are related to creative behavior: An interactional approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 513–524. Giessner, S. R., & van Knippenberg, D. (2008). ‘‘License to fail’’: Goal definition, leader team prototypicality, and perceptions of leadership effectiveness after leader failure. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 105, 14–35. Hains, S. C., Hogg, M. A., & Duck, J. M. (1997). Self-categorization and leadership: Effects of team prototypicality and leader stereotypicality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1087–1100. Haslam, S. A. (2004). Psychology in organizations: The social identity approach (2nd ed.). London: Sage. Haslam, S. A., van Knippenberg, D., Platow, M., & Ellemers, N. (2003). Social identity at work: Developing theory for organizational practice. New York: Psychology Press. Hirst, G., van Knippenberg, D., & Zhou, J. (2009). A multi-level perspective on employee creativity: Goal orientation, team learning behavior, and individual creativity. The Academy of Management Journal, 52, 2. Hogg, M. A. (2001). A social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 184–200. Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. Organiz. Behav. (2009) DOI: 10.1002/job

LEADERSHIP AND EMPLOYEE CREATIVITY

Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25, 121–140. Hogg, M. A., & van Knippenberg, D. (2003). Social identity and leadership processes in teams. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 35, pp. 1–52). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Howell, J. M., & Shamir, B. (2005). The role of followers in the charismatic leadership process: Susceptibility, social construction, and leader empowerment. Academy of Management Review, 30, 96–112. James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 85–89. James, L. R., Mulaik, S. A., & Brett, J. M. (2006). A tale of two methods. Organizational Research Methods, 9, 233–244. Kark, R., Shamir, B., & Chen, G. (2003). The two faces of transformational leadership: Empowerment and dependency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 246–255. Klein, K. J., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2000). From micro to meso: Critical steps in conceptualizing and conducting multilevel research. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 211–236. Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Hattrup, K. (1992). A disagreement about within-group agreement: Disentangling issues of consistency versus consensus. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 161–167. Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 103–123. Nonaka, I. (1991). The knowledge-creating company. Harvard Business Review, 69, 96–104. Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 607–634. Pierro, A., Cicero, L., Bonauito, M., van Knippenberg, D., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2005). Leader team prototypicality and leadership effectiveness: The moderating role of need for cognitive closure. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 503–516. Pirola-Merlo, A., & Mann, L. (2004). The relationship between individual creativity and team creativity: Aggregating across people and time. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 235–257. Platow, M. J., Haslam, S. A., Foddy, M., & Grace, D. M. (2003). Leadership as the outcome of self-categorization processes. In D. van Knippenberg, & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Leadership and power: Identity processes in teams and organizations (pp. 34–47). London: Sage. Platow, M. J., & van Knippenberg, D. (2001). A social identity analysis of leadership endorsement: The effects of leader inteam prototypicality and distributive interteam fairness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1508–1519. Rafferty, A. E., & Griffin, M. A. (2004). Dimensions of transformational leadership: Conceptual and empirical extensions. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 329–354. Reicher, S., & Hopkins, N. (2003). On the science and art of leadership. In D. van Knippenberg, & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Leadership and power: Identity processes in teams and organizations (pp. 197–209). London: Sage. Rich, G. A. (1997). The sales manager as a role model: Effects on trust, job satisfaction, and performance of salespeople. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25, 319–328. Riketta, M., & van Dick, R. (2005). Foci of attachment in organizations: A meta-analysis comparison of the strength and correlates of work-team versus organizational commitment and identification. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67, 490–510. Shalley, C. E. (1991). Effects of productivity goals, creativity goals, and personal discretion on individual creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 179–185. Shalley, C., Zhou, J., & Oldham, G. (2004). The effects of personal and contextual characteristics on creativity: Where should we go from here? Journal of Management, 30, 933–958. Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A selfconcept based theory. Organizational Science, 4, 577–594. Shin, S., & Zhou, J. (2003). Transformational leadership, conservation, and creativity: Evidence from Korea. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 703–714. Shin, S., & Zhou, J. (2007). When is educational specialization heterogeneity related to creativity in research and development teams? Transformational leadership as a moderator. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1709– 1721. Simon, M. C. (2007). Leadership at the edge: Ernest Shackleton and authentic leadership. Paper presented at the Chair Academy Conference, March 7–10, Jacksonville, Florida. Taggar, S. (2002). Individual creativity and group ability to utilize individual creative resources: A multilevel model. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 315–330.

Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. Organiz. Behav. (2009) DOI: 10.1002/job

G. Hirst et al.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social of identity theory of inter-team behaviour. In S. Worchel, & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of interteam relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson. Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2002). Creative self-efficacy: Potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 1137–1148. Tierney, P., Farmer, S. M., & Graen, G. B. (1999). An examination of leadership and employee creativity. The relevance of traits and relationships. Personnel Psychology, 52, 591–620. Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group. Oxford: Blackwell. Ullrich, J., Christ, O., & van Dick, R. (2009). Substitutes for procedural fairness: Prototypical leaders are endorsed whether they are fair or not. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 235–244. van Dick, R. (2001). Identification and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts: Linking theory and research from social and organizational psychology. International Journal of Management Reviews, 3, 265–283. van Dick, R., Hirst, G., Grojean, M. W., & Wieseke, J. (2007). Relationships between leader and follower organizational identification and implications for follower attitudes and behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 80, 133–150. van Dick, R., Wagner, U., Stellmacher, J., & Christ, O. (2005). Category salience and organizational identification. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78, 273–285. van Knippenberg, B., & van Knippenberg, D. (2005). Leader self-sacrifice and leadership effectiveness: The moderating role of leader prototypicality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 25–37. van Knippenberg, D. (2000a). Work motivation and performance: A social identity perspective. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49, 357–371. van Knippenberg, D. (2000b). Team norms, prototypicality, and persuasion. In D. J. Terry, & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Attitudes, behavior, and social context: The role of norms and team membership (pp. 157–170). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. van Knippenberg, D., & Ellemers, N. (2003). Social identity and team performance: Identification as the key to team-oriented efforts. In S. A. Haslam, D. van Knippenberg, M. J. Platow, & N. Ellemers (Eds.), Social identity at work: Developing theory for organizational practice (pp. 29–42). New York: Psychology Press. van Knippenberg, D., & Hogg, M. A. (2003). A social identity model of leadership effectiveness in organizations. In B. Staw, & R. M. Kramer (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 25, pp. 245–297). Greenwich, Conn: JAI Press. van Knippenberg, D., Lossie, N., & Wilke, H. (1994). In-team prototypicality and persuasion: Determinants of heuristic and systematic message processing. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 289–300. van Knippenberg, D., van Knippenberg, B., De Cremer, D., & Hogg, M. A. (2004). Leadership, self, and identity: A review and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 825–856. van Knippenberg, D., van Knippenberg, B., & Giessner, S. R. (2007). Extending the follower-centered perspective: Leadership as an outcome of shared social identity. In B. Shamir, R. Pillai, M. C. Bligh, & M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.), Follower-centered perspectives on leadership: A tribute to the memory of James R. Meindl (pp. 51–70). Greenwich, CO: Information Age Publishing. van Knippenberg, D., & van Schie, E. C. M. (2000). Foci and correlates of organizational identification. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73, 137–147. West, M. A. (2002). Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model of creativity and innovation implementation in work groups. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51, 355–387. Wieseke, J., Ahearne, M., Lam, S. K., & van Dick, R. (2009). The role of leaders in internal marketing. Journal of Marketing, 73, 123–145. Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18, 293–321. Zhou, J. (2003). When the presence of creative coworkers is related to creativity: Role of supervisor close monitoring, developmental feedback, and creative personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 413–422. Zhou, J., & Shalley, C. E. (2008). Expanding the scope and impact of organizational creativity research. In J. Zhou, & C. E. Shalley, (Eds.), Handbook of organizational creativity (pp. 347–368). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. Organiz. Behav. (2009) DOI: 10.1002/job