Universität Konstanz
Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Sektion Fachbereich Psychologie
Antecedents of Employee Creativity
Dissertation
zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades des Doktors der Naturwissenschaften
(Dr. rer. nat.)
Vorgelegt im März 2013 von Nils Henker
Tag der mündlichen Prüfung: 17.06.2013
Erste Referentin: Prof. Dr. Sabine Sonnentag Zweite Referentin: Prof. Dr. Carmen Binnewies
Konstanzer Online-Publikations-System (KOPS) URL: http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bsz:352-242428
Meinen Eltern
Eigenabgrenzung
Die Dissertation besteht aus drei empirischen Studien, die in eigenen Kapiteln dargestellt sind. Durch die allgemeine Einleitung und die abschließende Diskussion werden diese Studien in einen gemeinsamen Zusammenhang gefügt. Die
inhaltlichen und konzeptionellen Arbeiten, Datenaufbereitung und Datenauswertung, Interpretation sowie die schriftliche Darstellung der Ergebnisse wurden eigenständig und ausschließlich von mir unter der Betreuung von Frau Prof. Dr. Sabine Sonnentag geleistet. Ich habe mich dabei keine anderen als der von mir gekennzeichneten Quellen und Hilfen genutzt und wörtlich oder inhaltlich übernommene Stellen als solche gekennzeichnet. Die Koautorin der ersten Studie, Dana Unger, trug als
Diskussionspartnerin und ihre Unterstützung bei der Datenerhebung zu Studie 1 bei.
Die Daten der Studie 1 und Studie 2 wurden im Rahmen des von der VW Stiftung geförderten Projekts „The Chronicle of an Idea“ erhoben. An der Datenerhebung dieser beiden Studien wirkten Annette Aßmann, Sylvia Dollinger, Ariane Mertens, Kathrin Niessalla und Isabelle Rek als studentische Hilfskräfte mit.
TABLE OF CONTENT
VORVERÖFFENTLICHUNGEN DER DISSERTATION ...3
Konferenzbeiträge ... 3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...4
ZUSAMMENFASSUNG ...5
SUMMARY ...8
GENERAL INTRODUCTION ... 10
STUDY 1 - TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND EMPLOYEE CREATIVITY: THE MEDIATING ROLE OF PROMOTION FOCUS AND CREATIVE PROCESS ENGAGEMENT ... 21
Summary ... 21
Introduction ... 22
Method ... 29
Results ... 34
Discussion ... 42
STUDY 2 - IS POSITIVE AFFECT ENOUGH FOR CREATIVITY? THE MODERATING ROLE OF RELATIONSHIP CONFLICTS ... 47
Summary ... 47
Introduction ... 48
Method ... 53
Results ... 56
Discussion ... 60
STUDY 3 - PROMOTION FOCUS AND EMPLOYEE CREATIVITY: THE MEDIATINGROLES OF DAY-SPECIFIC PROMOTION FOCUS AND DAY-SPECIFIC POSITIVE AFFECT ... 64
Summary ... 64
Introduction ... 65
Method ... 72
Results ... 75
Discussion ... 78
GENERAL DISCUSSION ... 83
REFERENCES ... 103
VORVERÖFFENTLICHUNGEN DER DISSERTATION Teilergebnisse dieser Dissertation wurden mit Genehmigung der Universität
Konstanz, vertreten durch Frau Prof. Dr. Sabine Sonnentag, in folgenden Beiträgen veröffentlicht:
Konferenzbeiträge
Henker, N., Sonnentag, S., & Unger, D. (2012, April) Promotion focus as a mediator between transformational leadership and creativity. Paper presented at the 27th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organization Psychology, San Diego, USA.
Henker, N. & Sonnentag, S. (2011, August). Is positive affect enough? The moderating role of relationship conflicts. Paper presented at the 71st Academy of Management Annual Meeting, San Antonio, USA.
Henker, N. & Sonnentag, S. (2010, September). The importance of spontaneous work-related ideas for the relationship between positive affect and creativity. Paper presented at the 47th Conference of the German Society of Psychology, Bremen, Germany.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I want to thank all people who contributed to this dissertation.
First of all, I want to thank Sabine Sonnentag for supervising this dissertation.
Thank you for supporting me throughout all stages of this dissertation. You provided me a great role model of how to do scientific research and helped me with your guidance and advice to complete this dissertation. I am grateful that I had the opportunity to be part of your research team. Without your constant support, this dissertation would not have been possible.
Additionally, I want to thank Prof. Dr. Carmen Binnewies for appraising my dissertation and Prof. Dr. Urte Scholz and Prof. Dr. Sabine Boerner for being part of my dissertation committee.
I thank Anne-Grit Albrecht, Stefanie Daniel, Sarah Kern, Jana Kühnel, Inga Nägel, Angela Neff, Alexander Pundt, Anita Starzyk, Dana Unger, Laura Venz, and Jieming Zhou for being such great colleagues. By discussing my ideas and sharing your opinions with me, you helped me to improve my research. Likewise, I thank the work group of Prof. Dr. Martin Kleinmann (University of Zurich) for the fruitful
discussions.
I also thank my research assistants Annette Aßmann, Sylvia Dollinger, Ariane Mertens, Kathrin Niessalla, and Isabelle Rek for helping me to collect the data.
Finally, I want to thank my parents for their unconditional support and for providing me so many opportunities in my life and Anne for her great patience and belief in me.
ZUSAMMENFASSUNG
Für Firmen, die in einem dynamischen, sich rasant entwickelnden Umfeld konkurrieren, ist Kreativität ein Schlüssel zum Erfolg. Kreative Mitarbeiter tragen zum Unternehmenserfolg bei, indem sie neue und nützliche Ideen erzeugen. In
Anbetracht der Bedeutung von Mitarbeiterkreativität, ist es wichtig mögliche
Ursprünge von Mitarbeiterkreativität zu identifizieren und Variablen zu untersuchen, die diesen Zusammenhang moderieren oder mediieren. Diese Dissertation hat zum Ziel, die bestehende Forschung in diesem Gebiet zu erweitern, indem sie die
Beziehung zwischen Kreativität und unterschiedlich stabilen Personen- bzw.
Kontextfaktoren untersucht. Der Fokus der Dissertation richtet sich auf
transformationale Führung, Promotion Focus und positivem Affekt als potenzielle Ursprünge von Mitarbeiterkreativität. Zusätzlich wird in dieser Dissertation
untersucht, ob zum einen das Erleben von zwischenmenschlichen Konflikten am Arbeitsplatz die Beziehung zwischen positivem Affekt und Mitarbeiterkreativität moderiert und zum anderen Promotion Focus den Zusammenhang zwischen transformationaler Führung und Mitarbeiterkreativität mediiert. Die Ergebnisse bezüglich positiven Affekts und Promotion Focus werden darüber hinaus in einem multiplen Mediationsmodell integriert. In diesem Modell mediieren die
tagesspezifischen Ausprägungen des positiven Affekts und des Promotion Focus den Zusammenhang zwischen allgemeinen Promotion Focus und
Mitarbeiterkreativität.
Studie 1 untersuchte die Mechanismen, die transformationale Führung mit Mitarbeiterkreativität verbinden. In den Hypothesen wurde angenommen, dass Promotion Focus und das Engagement im kreativen Prozess den Zusammenhang
zwischen transformationaler Führung und Mitarbeiterkreativität vermitteln. An der Längsschnittstudie mit drei Erhebungszeiträumen (jeweils vier Wochen voneinander getrennt) nahmen 279 Arbeitnehmer teil. Zur Testung der Hypothesen wurden der Ansatz der kausalen Schritte und ein Struktur-Gleichungs-Modell angewendet. Die Ergebnisse stützen die Hypothesen und legen ein sequenzielles Mediationsmodell nahe. Arbeiternehmer, die ihre Führungskraft als transformational wahrgenommen haben, hatten einen stärker ausgeprägten Promotion Focus. Diese stärkere
Ausprägung des Promotion Focus war verbunden mit einem höheren Engagement im kreativen Prozess, das wiederum mit höherer Kreativität zusammenhing.
Studie 2 untersuchte den Zusammenhang von positivem Affekt und Kreativität und wie dieser Zusammenhang durch das Erleben von zwischenmenschlichen Konflikten am Arbeitsplatz moderiert wird. Es nahmen 101 Angestellte der
Werbeindustrie an der Tagebuchstudie über einen Zeitraum von fünf aufeinander folgenden Arbeitstagen teil. Eine hierarchischen Regressionsanalyse, die die Mehrebenenstruktur berücksichtigt, hat gezeigt, dass ein positiver Zusammenhang zwischen positivem Affekt und Mitarbeiterkreativität besteht. Jedoch zeigte sich dieser Zusammenhang nur an Tagen, an denen die Teilnehmer wenig
zwischenmenschliche Konflikte erlebten.
Studie 3 untersuchte welche Mechanismen dem Zusammenhang zwischen allgemeinem Promotion Focus und tages-spezifischer Kreativität zugrunde liegen. Es wurden Onlinedaten von 122 Arbeitnehmern in der Werbeindustrie an zwei
aufeinander folgenden Arbeitstagen gesammelt. Die Ergebnisse stützen ein multiples Mediationsmodell, in dem die tagesspezifischen Ausprägungen des Promotion Focus und des positiven Affekts den Zusammenhang zwischen allgemeinem Promotion Focus und tagesspezifischer Kreativität vermitteln.
Diese Dissertation erweitert die bestehende Forschung über potenzielle Ursprünge von Mitarbeiterkreativität. Es wurde untersucht, welche Rolle die
Kontextvariablen transformationale Führung und zwischenmenschliche Konflikte und die Personenvariablen positiver Affekt und Promotion Focus im Zusammenhang mit Mitarbeiterkreativität spielen, wobei diese Zusammenhänge in unterschiedlichen zeitlichen Abständen untersucht wurden. Darüber hinaus wurden in Studie 3 zentrale Befunde der ersten beiden Studien integriert, indem das Zusammenspiel der
Personenvariablen der ersten Studie (Promotion Focus) und der zweiten Studie (positiver Affekt) untersucht wurde. Zusammenfassend lässt sich feststellen, dass Kontext- und Personenvariablen im Zusammenhang mit Mitarbeiterkreativität stehen und dass diese Variablen auch untereinander zusammenhängen.
SUMMARY
For companies that compete in a dynamic, fast paced environment, creativity is a key to success. Creative employees contribute to the success of the organization by producing novel and useful ideas. Considering the importance of employee
creativity, it is critical to identify possible antecedents of employee creativity and to investigate variables that moderate or mediate these relationships. It is the aim of this dissertation to add to previous research by investigating the relationship between creativity and personal or contextual factors which vary in their degree of stability.
More specifically, this dissertation examined positive affect, transformational leadership, and promotion focus as antecedents of employee creativity. Moreover, this dissertation investigated the moderating role of relationship conflicts in the relationship between positive affect and employee creativity and tested promotion focus as a mediator in the relationship between transformational leadership and employee creativity. Finally, the present dissertation integrated the research on positive affect and promotion focus into a multiple mediation model, in which both day-specific positive affect and day-specific promotion focus mediate the relationship between a general tendency to be promotion-focused and employee creativity.
Study 1 investigated the mechanisms that link transformational leadership and employee creativity. Promotion focus and creative process engagement were
hypothesized as mediators in the relationship between transformational leadership and employee creativity. A sample of 279 employees provided longitudinal data with three measurement points (each separated by four weeks). The hypotheses were tested with the causal step approach and structural equation modeling. The results supported the hypotheses and indicated a sequential mediation model. Employees who indicated that they had a transformational supervisor were more promotion-
focused and in turn engaged more strongly in the creative process. This increased engagement was in turn related to higher creativity.
Study 2 examined positive affect as an antecedent of employee creativity and the moderating effect of relationship conflicts. A total of 101 employees from the advertising industry provided diary data over five consecutive working days. Results from a hierarchical regression analysis using a multilevel modeling approach showed that positive affect was positively related to employee creativity. However, this
relationship only emerged on days when employees experienced little relationship conflicts.
Study 3 investigated the underlying mechanisms of the relationship between general promotion focus and day-specific creativity. Online data was gathered on two consecutive working days from 122 employees of the advertising industry. The
results supported a multiple mediation model with day-specific promotion focus and day-specific positive affect as mediators in the relationship between general
promotion focus and day-specific creativity.
In conclusion, this dissertation extends research on the antecedents of employee creativity. Specifically, the roles of the contextual variables
transformational leadership and relationship conflicts and the person variables positive affect and promotion focus were examined and different timeframes were applied. Moreover, by investigating the person variables of Study 1 (promotion focus) and Study 2 (positive affect) together, Study 3 integrated key findings of the previous two studies. Taken together, the results of three empirical studies demonstrated that both contextual and person variables are antecedents of employee creativity and that these antecedents in turn related among each other.
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
Creativity has been the cornerstone for prosperity of science and arts (Feist, 1998). All inventions from Stone Age tools to modern aircrafts started as a creative idea. In many life situations, creativity plays a vital role. For example, being creative helps children to cope with everyday problems (Russ, 1998), fosters academic performance of students (Rindermann & Neubauer, 2004), and helps couples to maintain a healthy, long-term marriage (Livingston, 1999). In organizational research, scholars have stressed the importance of creativity for organizational success (Scott
& Bruce, 1994; Shalley, 1995; West, 2002). Organizations rely on creative
employees to face the challenges of a rapidly changing environment (Amabile, 1996).
Creative ideas are considered as both novel and useful (Amabile, 1988). These ideas can be related either to the organization’s business or to the organization itself
(Amabile, 1988). An example for an idea related to the organization’s business is a new product-idea, whereas an idea about how to improve the way the work is done is an example for an idea related to the organization itself.
Considering the importance of creativity, it is important to identify factors that are related to employee creativity (Shalley, Zhou, & Oldham, 2004). These factors can be classified into contextual and personal variables (Mumford, 2000; Oldham &
Cummings, 1996; Shalley et al., 2004). Contextual variables are part of the work environment, whereas personal variables are part of the person (Shalley et al., 2004). Previous research has demonstrated that both contextual and personal variables, such as leadership style or affective experience, are related to employee creativity (Baas, De Dreu, & Nijstad, 2011; Eisenbeiss, van Knippenberg, & Boerner, 2008). Shalley et al. (2004) argued that contextual and personal factors interact with
and influence each other. Thus, it is important to examine both moderating and mediating effects.
Therefore, the main goals of this dissertation are to investigate contextual and person variables that serve as antecedents of creativity and to unfold the
mechanisms behind these relationships. Specifically, this dissertation examines the contextual variable transformational leadership and the personal variables promotion focus and positive affect as antecedents of employee creativity. Moreover, it
examines the contextual variable relationship conflicts as a moderator in the relationship between positive affect and employee creativity. In addition to the distinction between personal and contextual variables, these variables vary in their degree of stability. Transformational leadership represents a rather stable variable (Bass, 1990) while experiencing positive affect and relationship conflicts are situation-specific variables (Fuller et al., 2003; Trougakos, Beal, Green, & Weiss, 2008). Promotion focus has both a stable and a situation-specific component and both components will be investigated in this dissertation (Higgins & Silberman, 1998;
Stam, van Knippenberg, & Wisse, 2010).
In the following section, I introduce these concepts in more detail and I
demonstrate the relevance of these concepts for the research on employee creativity.
I start with the introduction of the stable variable transformational leadership. Then, I illustrate the Regulatory Focus Theory with the concept of promotion focus (Higgins, 1997). Finally, I introduce the situation-specific variables positive affect and
relationship conflicts.
Transformational Leadership and Creativity
Research has identified leadership as an important antecedent of employee creativity (Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Tierney, Farmer, & Graen, 1999). Particularly,
transformational leadership has been associated with employee creativity (G. Wang, Oh, Courtright, & Colbert, 2011). Bass (1985) described transformational leadership as leadership behaviors that go beyond mere exchange processes in which a
supervisor rewards the subordinate’s performance. Rather, transformational leaders influence their subordinates by illustrating the importance of a task, activating higher order values, and leading the subordinates to disregard their self interests when these interests conflict with those of the organization (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990). Podsakoff et al. (1990) distinguish six behavior dimensions of transformational leadership: Providing intellectual stimulation, articulating a vision, providing an appropriate model, fostering the acceptance of group goals, expecting high performance, and providing individualized support.
Providing intellectual stimulation comprises challenging subordinates to take a different perspective on things and to reconsider the way the work is done.
Articulating a vision means that the supervisor inspires the subordinates with his or her vision of the organization’s future. Providing an appropriate model involves that the supervisor serves as a role model for the subordinates. Fostering the acceptance of group goals refers to behaviors that foster the cooperation among subordinates and that lead them to work together to achieve a common goal. Expecting high
performance adresses the expectation a supervisor has about the performance of his or her subordinates. Providing individualized support focuses on the subordinates’
feelings. Transformational leaders show respect for the feelings and needs of their subordinates.
Research has demonstrated that transformational leadership is an important antecedent of employee creativity (Gong, Huang, & Farh, 2009; Shin & Zhou, 2003).
Transformational leaders foster the creative self-concept of their employees (P.
Wang & Zhu, 2011), they encourage their subordinates to challenge the status quo
and to try out new approaches (Podsakoff et al., 1990; Shin & Zhou, 2003). Yet, the mediating mechanisms that link transformational leadership and employee creativity are not fully investigated. In this dissertation, I address this gap and I investigate promotion focus as a mediator in this relationship.
Promotion Focus and Creativity
Regulatory Focus Theory stems from the notion that people seek to approach pleasure and to avoid pain, known as the hedonistic principle (Higgins, 1997).
However, Higgins (1997) points out that self-regulatory processes differ depending on whether a person approaches a desired or avoids an undesired end-state. He introduces two different regulatory foci reflecting these different self-regulatory processes: Promotion focus represents an approach-regulation whereas prevention focus represents an avoidance-regulation. Depending on the regulatory focus people differ with respect to the needs they try to satisfy, the goals they try to achieve, and the situations which are salient to them (Brockner & Higgins, 2001). Promotion- focused people have developmental needs, they try to achieve goals associated with the image they consider as their ideal self, and situations related to positive
outcomes are salient for them (Brockner & Higgins, 2001). In contrast, prevention- focused people have security needs, their goals are linked to the expectations others place on them, and they are sensitive to situations with possible negative outcomes (Brockner & Higgins, 2001). Scholars consider promotion focus to be particularly relevant for the research on creativity (Kark & Van Dijk, 2007). Research has
demonstrated that promotion focus is associated with constructs related to creativity such as eagerness, willingness to take risks, openness to change, and attentional flexibility (Crowe & Higgins, 1997; Friedman & Förster, 2001, 2005; Liberman, Idson,
Camacho, & Higgins, 1999). In this dissertation, I want to add to this research by investigating the relationship between promotion focus and employee creativity.
The regulatory focus comprises a stable general component and a situation- specific component (Stam et al., 2010). The general component is developed during a person’s childhood and is influenced through the interaction with significant others such as parents (Higgins & Silberman, 1998). The general component reflects the tendency to be promotion or prevention-focused. However, experimental research has demonstrated that situational influences can have a short-term effect on a
person’s regulatory focus (Higgins, Shah, & Friedman, 1997). Thus, events that take place during a working day can cause changes in a person’s regulatory focus.
Leadership behavior is considered as a major antecedent of a person’s regulatory focus at work (Brockner & Higgins, 2001). Kark and Van Dijk (2007) encourage researchers to investigate transformational leadership as an antecedent of promotion focus. They argue that transformational leaders stimulate their employee’s growth and developmental needs which are associated with promotion focus and thus elicit promotion focus. In this dissertation, I answer this call and investigate if
transformational leaders foster employee creativity by inducing a promotion focus.
Moreover, I examine the processes that link promotion focus and creativity by investigating creative process engagement as mediator in this relationship. Scholars consider the creative outcome (novel and useful ideas) as a result of the creative process (Gilson & Shalley, 2004; Mumford, Mobley, Uhlman, & Reiter-Palmon, 1991). The creative process involves three stages (X. M. Zhang & Bartol, 2010): At the first stage, it starts with the identification of the problem, the next stage refers to the search and encoding of relevant information, and the final stages includes the generation of new ideas. Research found that supervisor behavior and engagement in the creative process are mutually related (X. M. Zhang & Bartol, 2010) and
scholars argue that supervisors can facilitate their employee’s engagement in the creative process (Reiter-Palmon & Illies, 2004). In this dissertation, I take a twofold look at creative process engagement. On the one hand, I investigate whether the relationship between transformational leadership and creative process engagement is mediated by promotion focus. On the other hand, I examine creative process engagement as a mediator in the relationship between promotion focus and employee creativity.
Positive Affect and Creativity
Previous research has demonstrated that affective experiences can influence a person’s creativity (Binnewies & Wörnlein, 2011; George & Zhou, 2002). The two major taxonomies of affect distinguish affective states according to their valence and arousal (Russell, 1980; Watson, Wiese, Vaidya, & Tellegen, 1999). Affect can have an either positive or negative valance and at the same time be either activating or deactivating. The importance of this distinction becomes apparent in the meta- analysis of Baas, Dr Dreu, and Nijstad (2008) that showed that only affect with a positive valance and high arousal fosters creativity, while deactivating positive affect is unrelated to creativity. This is why in this dissertation I focus on activating positive affect.
Positive affect can be induced by everyday events such as positive feedback or a small present (Isen & Baron, 1991). Watson, Clark and Tellegen (1988) describe activating positive affect as a state of feeling excited and active and being energized, concentrated, and pleasurably engaged. Scholars proposed different ways how positive affect fosters creativity. First, the Broaden-and-Build Theory assumes that the experience of positive affect broadens a person’s scope of attention, cognition, and action and builds a person’s intellectual resources (Fredrickson, 1998, 2001).
Consequently, people who experience positive affect are more likely to explore new ways and to take different perspectives and thus are more creative. Second,
neuropsychologists argue that positive affect is associated with an increased dopamine level (Ashby, Isen, & Turken, 1999). From this perspective, people who experience positive affect are more creative because the increased dopamine level facilitates the executive attention system and improves cognitive flexibility. Third, positive affect has been shown to have an information value (Schwarz & Clore,
1983). Positive affect signals a person that the situation is safe. Thus, a person might be more likely to take risks and try out new approaches when experiencing positive affect. Yet, findings on the positive affect – creativity relationship are mixed. While many studies found support for this relationship (Amabile, Barsade, Mueller, & Staw, 2005; Binnewies & Wörnlein, 2011), other studies did not (George & Zhou, 2002;
Kaufmann & Vosburg, 1997). To gain further understanding under which
circumstances positive affect fosters creativity, Kaufmann (2003b) suggested to identify factors that moderate the relationship between positive affect and creativity.
This dissertation follows this call and investigates relationship conflicts as a moderator in this relationship.
Regulatory Focus Theory proposes that a person’s affective experience is influenced by the person’s regulatory focus (Brockner & Higgins, 2001; Higgins, 1997). Promotion-focused people are cheerful when they achieve their goals and dejected in cases they miss their goals. By contrast, prevention-focused people feel quiescent after they achieve their goals and agitated when the fall short of their goals (Brockner & Higgins, 2001; Higgins, 1997). With regard to the two major taxonomies of affect (Russell, 1980; Watson et al., 1999), promotion focus affect has either positive valence/high arousal (success) or negative valence/low arousal (failure), while affect associated with prevention focus has either positive valence/low arousal
(success) or negative valence/high arousal (failure). Following the assumptions of Regulatory Focus Theory, activating positive affect is strongly linked to promotion focus (Brockner & Higgins, 2001). Thus, promotion-focused employees are more likely to experience activating positive affect. This dissertation investigates the
mediating mechanisms in the relationship between general promotion focus and day- specific creativity. I propose that this relationship is mediated by the situational, day- specific promotion focus and the day-specific experience of activating positive affect.
Research Goals
The goal of this dissertation is to extent the research on employee creativity in several ways. First, I aim to identify antecedents of employee creativity. Second, I investigate variables that moderate or mediate the relationships between those antecedents and employee creativity. Third, I intend to integrate these findings to enable a more comprehensive understanding how the antecedents of employee creativity might act together. For this purpose, I conducted three independent empirical studies in which I examined how contextual and person variables that are related to employee creativity: In the first study, I examine the relationship between transformational leadership and employee creativity. More specifically, I test
promotion focus and engagement in the creative process as mediators in this relationship. Moreover, by applying a sequential mediation model, I investigate whether creative process engagement mediates the relationship between promotion focus and creativity.
In the second study, I investigate the day-specific relationship between positive affect and creativity and the moderating role of relationship conflicts. I test whether employees are more creative during work when they experience positive
affect at the beginning of the working day and how this relationship is shaped by the experience of relationship conflicts.
In Study 3, I integrate the findings of the first two dissertation studies on positive affect and promotion focus. To bring these two research streams together, I build on two assumptions of Regulatory Focus Theory (Brockner & Higgins, 2001;
Higgins, 1997). First, promotion focus is associated with the experience of activating positive affect. Second, a person’s promotion focus has a stable, general component that reflects the general tendency to be promotion-focused and a situation-specific component that reflects the situational influence on a person’s promotion focus. By applying a multiple mediation model (Preacher & Hayes, 2008), I investigate day- specific promotion focus and day-specific experience of activating positive affect as multiple mediators in the relationship between general promotion focus and day- specific creativity.
I apply different research designs and different methodological approaches to enhance the generalizability of my findings. To minimize concerns related to common method variance (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003), all studies include more than one measurement point. Study 1 applies a longitudinal design with three measurement occasions each separated by four weeks, Study 2 is a diary study over the course of one working week, and Study 3 is an empirical study with two
measurement points. This selection of different study designs enables me to contribute to existing research in this field. First, by using different time frames in each study, I am able to capture the varying stability of the variables investigated in this dissertation. Second, by using both between-person (Study 1 and Study 3) and within –person (Study 2) designs, I am able to take a broader view on the
antecedents of employee creativity. On the one hand, between-person designs enable me to investigate variables that generally foster creativity. On the other hand,
within-person designs explain under which circumstances employees are relatively more creative.
Dissertation Outline
This dissertation includes three empirical studies that investigate the
antecedents of employee creativity. These studies are presented in Chapter 2 to 4.
Study 1 (Chapter 2) investigates the mediating mechanisms underlying the relationship between transformational leadership and employee creativity. On the basis of Regulatory Focus Theory (Higgins, 1997), my co-authors and I propose promotion focus as a mediator in this relationship. We argue that transformational leaders strengthen the promotion focus of their employees who in turn are more creative. Moreover, we hypothesize that promotion-focused employees are more creative because they are more engaged in the creative process. We propose a sequential mediation model with promotion focus and creative process engagement as mediators in the relationship between transformational leadership and employee creativity. The hypotheses are tested with longitudinal data from 279 employees who filled in three online questionnaires each separated by four weeks.
Study 2 (Chapter 3) examines the relationship between positive affect and employee creativity and how this relationship is shaped by the experience of
relationship conflicts. Based on the Broaden-and-Build Theory (Fredrickson, 2001), a neuropsychological theory of positive affect (Ashby et al., 1999), and the Mood as Input Theory (Schwarz & Clore, 1983), my co-author and I propose that the
experience of positive affect in the morning fosters creativity during the working day.
Moreover, we hypothesize that the experience of relationship conflicts attenuates this relationship. We argue that the experiences of positive affect and relationship
conflicts have diametrally opposed consequences and thus inhibit each other. These
hypotheses are tested with diary data over the course of one working week from 101 employees from the advertising industry.
Study 3 (Chapter 4) integrates the findings regarding positive affect and promotion focus from Study 1 and Study 2. Based on the assumption of Regulatory Focus Theory (Brockner & Higgins, 2001; Higgins, 1997), my coauthor and I examine positive affect associated with promotion focus as a mediator in the relationship between promotion focus and creativity. In this study, we distinguish between the general and the situational component of promotion focus. We argue that the
relationship between general promotion focus and creativity on a specific day is due to the day-specific promotion focus and the day-specific experience of positive affect.
We test a multiple mediation model (Preacher & Hayes, 2008) with data gathered from 122 employees from the advertising industry over two consecutive working days.
In the final chapter (Chapter 5), I summarize the findings of the three studies.
In addition, I discuss the theoretical implications of these findings and outline how the findings contribute to research on the antecedents of employee creativity. At the end of this chapter, I point out the practical implications of these findings as well as directions for future research.
STUDY 1
TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND EMPLOYEE CREATIVITY: THE MEDIATING ROLE OF PROMOTION FOCUS AND CREATIVE PROCESS
ENGAGEMENT
Summary
We conducted a three-wave longitudinal study with 279 employees to investigate the processes underlying the relationship between transformational leadership and employee creativity. Using Regulatory Focus Theory, we hypothesized that
promotion focus mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and employee creativity and that creative process engagement mediates the relationship between promotion focus and employee creativity. We used regression analysis and structural equation modeling to test our hypotheses. Our results provide support for a sequential mediation model. Promotion focus mediated the relationship between transformational leadership and employee creativity. Creative process engagement partially mediated the relationship between promotion focus and employee creativity.
This study contributes to the literature by identifying the mediating mechanism for the relationship between transformational leadership and employee creativity and
providing a comprehensive model that illustrates the importance of the different stages within the creative process as antecedents of employee creativity.
Introduction
Creativity is beneficial for organizational success (Oldham & Cummings, 1996;
Scott & Bruce, 1994). Therefore, one major concern of research on creativity is to identify factors that promote employee creativity (Baas et al., 2008; Binnewies &
Wörnlein, 2011; Hülsheger, Anderson, & Salgado, 2009). Studies found
transformational leadership to be positively related to employee creativity (Eisenbeiss et al., 2008; Wu, McMullen, Neubert, & Yi, 2008; A. Y. Zhang, Tsui, & Wang, 2011).
Transformational leadership involves behaviors that encourage employees to take a different view on how they do their work and that challenge them to try out new approaches (Podsakoff et al., 1990). Shin and Zhou (2003) found that
transformational leaders strengthen the intrinsic motivation of their followers and thus foster their creativity. Yet, the underlying psychological processes that link
transformational leadership and employee creativity are not fully investigated.
Scholars see employees’ regulatory focus as a possible mediator in this relationship (Kark & Van Dijk, 2007). Regulatory Focus Theory distinguishes two different foci which shape the needs a person seeks to satisfy and the goals the person wants to achieve (Brockner & Higgins, 2001). According to Regulatory Focus Theory, leaders influence employee behavior by inducing either a promotion or a prevention focus (Brockner & Higgins, 2001; Neubert, Kacmar, Carlson, Chonko, & Roberts, 2008).
Promotion focus is associated with developmental needs and goals related to the ideal self (Brockner & Higgins, 2001) and is beneficial for creative behavior
(Friedman & Förster, 2001). In our study, we test the assumption that promotion focus serves as a mediator in the relationship between transformational leadership and employee creativity (Kark & Van Dijk, 2007).
Scholars consider creativity as the outcome of a process that involves the stages of problem identification, information search and encoding, and idea
generation (Gilson & Shalley, 2004; Mumford, 2000). The more employees engage in the creative process, the more likely it is that they produce outcomes that can be considered as creative (X. M. Zhang & Bartol, 2010). We propose that creative process engagement mediates the relationship between promotion focus and creativity as outcome.
The aim of our study is twofold. First, we investigate promotion focus as a mediator in the relationship between transformational leadership and employee creativity. Thereby, we fill a gap in the literature by examining the relationship
between transformational leadership and employee promotion focus, which has been proposed some time ago, but has not been empirically tested yet (Brockner &
Higgins, 2001; Kark & Van Dijk, 2007). Second, we take a closer look at the relationship between promotion focus and employee creativity. We investigate creative process engagement as the intervening process that links promotion focus to employee creativity. While previous research has pointed out the importance of engaging in the creative process as a whole (X. M. Zhang & Bartol, 2010), we look at the process in more detail and examine how the different stages of the creative process are related to employee creativity. Thus, we can specify the relative importance of the single stages of the creative process.
Transformational Leadership and Creativity
Creativity is considered as the production of novel and useful ideas (Amabile, 1988). These ideas are either related to the organization’s business, such as new products, or to the organization itself, such as new procedures (Gilson & Shalley, 2004). Creativity is a continuum (Amabile, 1996) with minor adoptions of existing ideas at the low and radical new ideas at the high end (Perry-Smith & Shalley, 2003).
It is in the nature of this conceptualization that less creative ideas are more common than highly creative ideas.
Previous research found transformational leadership to be crucial for employee creativity (Gong et al., 2009; Shin & Zhou, 2003). Transformational leadership is associated with a climate that supports creativity (Sarros, Cooper, &
Santora, 2008). Transformational leaders encourage employees to challenge the status quo and to try new approaches that foster employee creativity (Kark & Van Dijk, 2007; Shin & Zhou, 2003). According to Podsakoff et al. (1990),
transformational leadership comprises six key behaviors: Providing intellectual stimulation, articulating a vision, providing an appropriate model, fostering the
acceptance of group goals, expecting high performance, and providing individualized support. Transformational leadership involves behaviors that stimulate employees to question their current assumptions about their work and to figure out different ways how it can be performed (Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1999; Podsakoff et al., 1990). Bass (1988) states that transformational leadership provides intellectual stimulation and moves employees “towards a creative synthesis by generating various possible solutions” (p. 29). By providing intellectual stimulation, employees see difficulties as problems to be solved (Bass, 1990) and increase their efforts on subsequent tasks (Bass, 1988). Transformational leaders strengthen the creative self-concept of their employees (P. Wang & Zhu, 2011). They motivate their employees by providing a desirable vision, expressing high performance expectations, and providing
individualized support (Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993).
Following the reasoning described above, we want to replicate previous findings that transformational leadership fosters employee creativity.
Hypothesis 1: Transformational leadership is positively related to employee creativity.
Promotion Focus
The underlying principle of Regulatory Focus Theory is that people are either motivated to approach pleasure or to avoid pain (Higgins, 1997). Regulatory Focus Theory distinguishes between two self-regulatory foci: A promotion focus, which is associated with the motivation to achieve desired end-states and a prevention focus, which is associated with the motivation to avoid undesired end-states (Higgins, 1997). Both foci refer to behaviors and self-conceptions people apply to align themselves with appropriate goals or standards (Higgins, 1997; Kark & Van Dijk, 2007). Promotion and prevention focus differ in terms of the needs people wish to satisfy, the goals and standards they try to achieve, and the perceived situations that matter to them (Brockner & Higgins, 2001). When people are promotion-focused, they seek to satisfy their growth and developmental needs. They are motivated to achieve goals representing their belief of their ideal self. Thus, situations critical for these goals are especially salient when people are promotion-focused (Brockner &
Higgins, 2001). When people are prevention-focused, their security needs become most salient, they follow goals representing how they ought to be, and situations with possible negative outcomes become salient for them (Brockner & Higgins, 2001). In this regard, the basic underlying motivation of promotion focus is change and the underlying motivation of prevention focus is stability (Kark & Van Dijk, 2007).
Depending on a person’s regulatory focus, the person interprets a situation as
challenging or threatening. In the context of creativity, particularly promotion focus is relevant because promotion focus is associated with eagerness and risk-taking (Brockner & Higgins, 2001; Kark & Van Dijk, 2007), and thus is beneficial for individual creativity (Amabile, 1988; Friedman & Förster, 2001). Promotion focus broadens the attentional scope and fosters the accessibility of cognitive
representations (Baas et al., 2008). In laboratory settings, promotion focus fostered
idea generation and creative insight (Crowe & Higgins, 1997; Higgins, 1997). In a field study, Neubert et al. (2008) demonstrated that employees’ promotion focus was related to creative behavior. In line with this previous research, we propose a positive relation between promotion focus and creativity.
Hypothesis 2: Promotion focus is positively related to employee creativity.
Brockner and Higgins (2001) consider everyday interaction with organizational authorities as a major antecedent of the regulatory focus at work. Transformational leadership encourages growth and development of the employee and is eligible to induce a promotion focus (Kark & Van Dijk, 2007). Employees who share a vision with their leader are more likely to create an ideal self and employees with
transformational leaders are assumed to focus stronger on positive outcomes (Kark
& Van Dijk, 2007; Stam et al., 2010). Similarly, Shin and Zhou (2003) stated that transformational leaders provide an environment in which employees are interested and focused on their tasks instead of security concerns. Therefore, we propose that transformational leaders influence their employees by activating their ideal self and by making positive outcomes more salient (Kark & Van Dijk, 2007; Stam et al., 2010) and thus induce a promotion focus. As displayed in Figure 2.1, we hypothesize that employees’ promotion focus fosters employee creativity and serves as a mediator in the relationship between transformational leadership and employee creativity.
Transformational leadership should be related to a higher level of promotion focus, which in turn will be related to a higher level of employee creativity.
Hypothesis 3: Promotion focus mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and employee creativity.
Creative Process Engagement
The creative process precedes the creative outcome (Gilson & Shalley, 2004;
Mumford et al., 1991). Engagement in the creative process represents a necessary first step towards creativity (Gilson & Shalley, 2004; Shalley, 1991, 1995)
The creative process involves three stages: (1) Problem identification, (2) information search and encoding, and (3) idea generation (X. M. Zhang & Bartol, 2010). The creative process starts with problem identification (Davis, 2009; X. M.
Zhang & Bartol, 2010). At this stage, the employee defines the problem (Mumford, 2000). The employee has to structure the problem and has to identify goals, procedures, restrictions, and information relevant for the solution of the problem (Reiter-Palmon & Illies, 2004). Research found that the amount of time spent on this first stage of the creative process is positively related to the quality and originality of the solution (Reiter-Palmon, Mumford, Boes, & Runco, 1997). Taking more effort at the stage of problem identification enables employees to develop a more accurate representation of the problem and is positively related to more original ideas (Redmond, Mumford, & Teach, 1993; Reiter-Palmon, Mumford, & Threlfall, 1998).
Thus, we propose that engagement in the stage of problem identification fosters creativity. In turn, problem identification benefits from considering diverse
environmental input related to the problem (Reiter-Palmon et al., 1998). We assume that promotion focus fosters problem identification, because people are more likely to consider additional, new alternatives when they are promotion-focused (Liberman et al., 1999). As displayed in Figure 2.1, we hypothesize that engagement in the stage of problem identification serves as a mediator between promotion focus and creativity as outcome.
Hypothesis 4: Problem identification mediates the relationship between promotion focus and employee creativity.
After the problem is identified, the person moves toward collecting and processing relevant information (X. M. Zhang & Bartol, 2010). This second stage involves the search for information and concepts relevant for an advanced
understanding of the identified problem (Mumford, 2000). Information search and encoding involves both the consideration of already existing concepts and the development of new concepts by using information from the memory and external sources (Reiter-Palmon & Illies, 2004). Time spent on information search and encoding is positively related to solution quality (Illies & Reiter-Palmon, 2004) and thus, is likely to increase creativity (Reiter-Palmon & Illies, 2004). When employees are promotion-focused, they apply an elaboration style which allows them to see unobvious relations and this elaboration style is associated with an integrative
ideation (Zhu & Meyers-Levy, 2007). Thus, we propose that engagement in the stage of information search and encoding serves as a mediator between promotion focus and creativity as outcome.
Hypothesis 5: Information search and encoding mediates the relationship between promotion focus and employee creativity.
Considering and developing concepts related to the problem and integrating the relevant information triggers the third stage of the creative process: The
generation of ideas and alternatives (X. M. Zhang & Bartol, 2010). The combination and reorganization of the gathered information fosters a new understanding and the exploration of applications and implications of this new understanding leads
ultimately to a set of new ideas (Mumford, 2000). When people are promotion- focused, they have a stronger inclination to produce many alternatives in order to increase the chances to match their desired end-state (Crowe & Higgins, 1997).
Likewise, we propose that promotion-focused employees show higher engagement in
the stage of idea generation, which involves the generation of different possible solutions and alternatives (X. M. Zhang & Bartol, 2010).
Following this reasoning, we hypothesize that engagement in the stage of idea generation serves as a mediator between promotion focus and creativity as outcome.
Hypothesis 6: Idea generation mediates the relationship between promotion focus and employee creativity.
Figure 2.1. Conceptual model.
Method Participants
The study was conducted in Germany as an online panel survey with three measurement points, each separated by four weeks. Participants worked within the fields of information technology, human resources, research and development,
technical support, executive management, strategy, and public relations. Because we investigated the relationship with leadership behavior, participants had to have a direct supervisor. Additionally, we focused on employees working full-time in project- work settings because transformational leadership is particularly important for project teams (Keller, 1992). The first questionnaire was completed by 1,173 participants, the second one by 584 participants and the third one by 332 participants. Since inattentiveness is a problem in web-based data collection (Johnson, 2005), we applied the idea of semantic antonyms (Goldberg & Kilkowski, 1985) to identify careless responses. This led to the exclusion of 53 participants.
Our final sample comprised 279 employees (196 men and 83 women) who participated in all three waves of data collection. Participants’ mean age was 39.69 years (SD = 10.33). Most participants worked in the area of information technology (42 %), followed by human resources (16 %), research and development (13 %), technical support (10 %), executive management (10 %), strategy (8 %), and public relations (2%). On average, participants worked 10.63 years (SD = 8.39) in their field of occupation and 45 % held a leadership position. As their highest educational level, 140 participants held a college degree, 63 participants a high school degree, 70 participants a secondary school degree, 2 participants held no degree at all, and 4 participants indicated they held a different type of degree.
Because of the considerable attrition in our sample, we tested whether the means of the study variables at Time 1 and Time 2 differed in the final sample compared to the dropouts at the respective measurement point. We found no differences for transformational leadership (M = 3.36 vs. M = 3.33, t = 0.58, ns), promotion focus (M = 3.23 vs. M = 3.23, t = 0.11, ns) and the creative process
engagement subscale problem identification (M = 3.01 vs. M = 3.11, t = 1.38, ns) and information search and encoding (M = 3.24 vs. M = 3.32, t = 1.01, ns). Yet,
participants who filled in all three questionnaires indicated significantly higher scores on job control (M = 3.79 vs. M = 3.65, t = 2.43, p < .05) and lower scores for the third creative process engagement subscale idea generation (M = 2.98 vs. M = 3.15, t = 2.16, p < .05). According to Cohen (1992), the effect sizes of the differences for both job control (d = .17) and idea generation (d = .18) were small. Therefore, we assume that the dropout did not systematically bias our results.
Measures
The data collection took place at three points in time, separated by four weeks each. To minimize common methods variance (Podsakoff et al., 2003), we measured transformational leadership, promotion focus, and job control at Time 1, creative process engagement at Time 2, and creativity as outcome at Time 3. All measures were in German.
Transformational leadership. We assessed transformational leadership at Time 1 with the measure developed by Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, and Fetter (1990). The measure included the subscales identifying and articulating a vision with five items (e.g., ”My supervisor inspires others with his/her plan for the future”), providing an appropriate model with three items (e.g., ”My supervisor leads by doing, rather than by telling”), fostering the acceptance of group goals with four items (e.g.,
”My supervisor gets the group to work together for the same goal”), high performance expectations with three items (e.g., ”My supervisor will not settle for the second best”), providing individualized support with four items (e.g., ”My supervisor shows respect for my personal needs”), and intellectual stimulation with four items (e.g., ”My supervisor challenges me to think about old problems in new ways”). Participants gave their responses on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (completely).
We computed the overall transformational leadership measure without the two
reverse coded items of the individualized support subscale because negatively coded items are less internally consistent and less strongly associated with the overall scale (Carlson et al., 2011) and thus might impair the model fit. The correlation between the reduced scale and the full scale was r = .99, p < .001. Cronbach’s α for the remaining overall 21-item scale was .96.
Promotion focus. We used the Work Regulatory Focus Scale (Neubert et al., 2008) to measure promotion focus at Time 1. The promotion focus scale includes three sub-dimensions with three items for each dimension. Example items are: “I tend to take risks at work in order to achieve success” (gains); “I focus on
accomplishing job tasks that will further my advancement” (achievement); “My work priorities are impacted by a clear picture of what I aspire to be” (ideals). A 5-point scale was used to assess to what extend the statements apply, ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (completely). In our analyses, we used an overall promotion focus score (Cronbach’s α = .90).
Job control. In our analyses, we controlled for the level of job control because research found job control to be related to creative behavior (Janssen, 2000; Ohly, Sonnentag, & Pluntke, 2006) and to moderate the relation between leadership behavior and creative behavior (Volmer, Spurk, & Niessen, 2012). To measure job control, we used a three-item scale developed by Spreitzer (1995). Participants reported on three items how much control they had about the way they perform their tasks at work (e.g. “I can decide by myself how to do my work”; Cronbach’s α = .90).
Because we measured transformational leadership, promotion focus, and job control at the same time, we conducted a Confirmatory Factor Analysis to determine whether the three scales represented distinct constructs, modeling transformational leadership and promotion focus as higher order factors with their respective
subscales. This three-factor model showed a sufficient fit, χ2 (483) = 999.78, CFI = .93, RMSEA = .062, SRMR = .06 and a better fit than the best fitting two-factor model χ2 (485) = 1270.12, CFI = .89, RMSEA = .076, SRMR = .10; ∆χ2 (2; N = 279) =
270.34, p < .001 and a better fit than the one-factor model χ2 (487) = 1812.17, CFI = .81, RMSEA = .099, SRMR = .122; ∆χ2 (4; N = 279) = 812.39, p < .001.
Creative process engagement. We assessed creative process engagement at Time 2 with 11 items developed by Zhang and Bartol (2010). The creative process comprises the stages of problem identification (three items, e.g., “I thought about the problem from multiple perspectives”; Cronbach’s α = .88), information searching and encoding (three items, e.g., “I consulted a wide variety of information”; Cronbach’s α
= .88), and idea generation (five items, e.g., “I looked for connections with solutions used in seeming diverse areas”; Cronbach’s α = .91). Participants indicated for each item how often they engaged in this behavior over the past four weeks, using a 5- point scale ranging from “never” to “very frequently”.
Because the three sub-dimensions of creative process engagement represent related constructs, we conducted a Confirmatory Factor Analysis to determine
whether the distinction between the three constructs was valid. The three-factor model showed a fairly good model fit, χ2 (41) = 153.42, CFI = .96, RMSEA = .099, SRMR = .04, and fit the data better than the best fitting two-factor model χ2 (43) = 193.87, CFI = .94, RMSEA = .112, SRMR = .04; ∆χ2 (2; N = 279) = 40.45, p < .001, and a better fit than the one-factor-model χ2 (44) = 273.91, CFI = .90, RMSEA = .137, SRMR = .05; ∆χ2 (3; N = 279) = 120.49, p < .001.
Self-rated creativity. We assessed creativity as outcome at Time 3 with nine items from Tierney, Farmer, and Graen (1999), which were adapted to a self-rating format in earlier research (Carmeli & Schaubroeck, 2007). Participants were asked to
rate the extent to which they had shown creative approaches at work during the last four weeks. A sample item is “During my work I tried out new ideas and approached to problems”. Cronbach’s alpha was .95.
To test whether the three measures of creative process engagement and the measure of creativity were distinct constructs, we conducted an additional
Confirmatory Factor Analysis. The four-factor model showed a good model fit, χ2 (164) = 418.70, CFI = .95, RMSEA = .075, SRMR = .04, and fit the data better than the best fitting three-factor model χ2 (167) = 814.50, CFI = .87, RMSEA = .118, SRMR = .09; ∆χ2 (3; N = 279) = 395.80, p < .001. Thus, creativity as outcome is distinct from creative process engagement.
Results Descriptive Statistics
Table 2.1 displays the means, standard deviations, and correlations among all variables used in the path model.
Table 2.1. Means, standard deviations, and correlations among the study variables (N = 279)
Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5
1 Transformational leadership 3.22 0.93 -
2 Promotion focus 3.23 0.77 .44 -
3 CPE: Problem identification 3.01 0.93 .27 .42 -
4 CPE: Information searching and encoding 3.24 0.94 .33 .42 .70 -
5 CPE: Idea generation 2.98 0.94 .32 .47 .84 .80 -
6 Creativity 3.08 0.89 .32 .52 .65 .49 .66
Note. N = 279. All correlations higher than .10 are significant at p < .05. CPE = Creative process engagement.
Hypotheses Testing
We hypothesized that promotion focus mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and creativity as outcome and that the engagement in the different stages of the creative process mediates the relationship between promotion focus and creativity as outcome. To test our hypotheses, we used two approaches. As a first approach, we conducted a hierarchical regression analysis following the procedure suggested by Baron and Kenny (1986). According to the causal step approach, for a mediation three conditions have to be met: (1) The independent variable has to be related to the mediator, (2) the independent variable has to be related to the outcome variable, and (3) when both the independent variable and the mediator are added to the regression the mediator has to become significant while the independent variable becomes non-significant. As a second approach, we used structural equation modeling to test the postulated model. The advantage of this approach is that it allowed us to estimate the indirect effect directly (Preacher & Hayes, 2008).
We conducted regression analyses to test whether transformational leadership and promotion focus predict their respective mediators. Because scholars suggested testing mediations with the bootstrap approach (Shrout & Bolger, 2002), we applied bootstrapping in all our regressions. The results show that transformational
leadership was positively related to promotion focus (β = .40, p < .001), while controlling for job control. Likewise, promotion focus was positively related to the creative process measures problem identification (β = .51, p < .001), information search and encoding (β = .50, p < .001), and idea generation (β = .57, p < .001), while controlling for job control.
We conducted a hierarchical regression analysis to predict creativity as
outcome. The results are shown in Table 2.2. In the first step, we entered job control as a control variable. In the second step, we entered transformational leadership. In line with Hypothesis 1, transformational leadership was positively related to creativity as outcome. In the next step, we added promotion focus as a predictor. The
relationship between transformational leadership and creativity as outcome became insignificant and promotion focus became a significant predictor for creativity as outcome. These results support Hypothesis 2 and are in line with Hypothesis 3 that promotion focus mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and creativity as outcome. In the last step, we added the creative process measures to the regression. The results show that problem identification and idea generation become significant predictors, while information search and encoding was unrelated to creativity as outcome. Even though the strength of promotion focus as a predictor was reduced by the inclusion of the creative process measures (no overlapping confidence intervals), it still remained significant, indicating a partial mediation. Thus, our results support Hypotheses 4 and 6, but not Hypothesis 5.
Table 2.2. Hierarchical regression analyses predicting creativity as outcome (N = 279)
β 95% Confidence interval Lower End Upper End Step 1
Job control .04 -.10 .17
R2 .00
F .37
Step 2
Job control -.03 -.16 .11
Transformational leadership .29*** .14 .44
R2 .06
F 8.67
∆R2 .06***
∆F 16.95***
Step 3
Job control -.02 -.14 .09
Transformational leadership .06 -.08 .20
Promotion focus .57*** .44 .70
R2 .27
F 34.08
∆R2 .21***
∆F 79.96***
Step 4
Job control .01 -.08 .11
Transformational leadership .02 -.09 .14
Promotion focus .30*** .17 .42
Problem identification .29*** .13 .45
Information search and encoding -.15 -.32 .02
Idea generation .39*** .19 .57
R2 .53
F 50.66
∆R2 .26***
∆F 49.28***
*** p < .001; ** p < .01; * p < .05
We computed a structure equation model with manifest variables to estimate the indirect effects in the model, using Mplus software (Muthén & Muthén, 2007). In this analysis, we took into account that the creative process does not follow a strict sequential order (Reiter-Palmon & Illies, 2004). For instance, a person being at the stage of idea generation might realize that she or he does not have sufficient information and goes back to the stage of information search and encoding.
Therefore, we added correlations among each stage of the creative process.
Because creative process engagement did not fully mediate the relationship between promotion focus and creativity as outcome, we added a direct path between
promotion focus and creativity as outcome to the model. This model fitted the data well, χ2 (4, N = 279) = 4.41, CFI = 1, RMSEA = .019, SRMR = .02, and had a better fit than the model fit without a direct path, χ2 (5, N = 279) = 34.69, CFI = .96, RMSEA
= .15, SRMR = .05, ∆χ2 (1; N = 279) = 30.28, p < .001.
Table 2.3. Indirect effects on creativity as outcome (N = 279)
Path β 95% Confidence interval
Lower End Upper End
TF PF Creativity .12*** .07 .18
PF PI Creativity .13*** .07 .24
PF Sea Creativity -.02 -.07 .01
PF IG Creativity .03* .01 .08
TF PF PI Creativity .06** .02 .10
TF PF Sea Creativity -.01 -.03 .01
TF PF IG Creativity .02* .01 .03
*** p < .001; ** p < .01; * p < .05. TF = Transformational leadership; PF = Promotion focus; Creativity = Creativity as outcome; PI = Problem identification; Sea = Information search and encoding; IG = Idea generation
Figure 2.2 displays the model and the estimates. The results for the indirect effects are shown in Table 2.3. The indirect effect of transformational leadership through promotion focus on creativity as outcome was significant, supporting Hypothesis 3. Also, indirect effects of promotion focus on creativity as outcome through problem identification and idea generation were significant, but the indirect effect through information search and encoding was not significant. These findings support Hypotheses 4 and 6 and contradict Hypothesis 5. The findings are in line with the results from the hierarchical regression analysis that the relationship
between promotion focus and creativity as outcome is partially mediated by problem identification and idea generation. Additionally, we found sequential indirect effects of transformational leadership on creativity as outcome through promotion focus and problem identification and through promotion focus and idea generation.
Figure 2.2. Path estimates of the final model.
*** p < .001; ** p < .01; * p < .05
Discussion
The aim of our study was to investigate the mediating processes of the relationship between transformational leadership and employee creativity. Results support a sequential mediation model: Transformational leadership is positively related to promotion focus, which in turn is linked to increased creativity as outcome, both directly and indirectly via creative process engagement. Thus, our findings extend previous research that stressed the importance of leadership style for employee creativity (Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Tierney et al., 1999), particularly transformational leadership (Shin & Zhou, 2003).
Our study goes beyond previous research by examining promotion focus as a mechanism that mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and employee creativity. The results are in line with the assumption that transformational leaders evoke a promotion focus in their employees who in turn are more creative (Kark & Van Dijk, 2007).
In our study, we extend previous research and provide a more comprehensive model by taking the whole creative process into account. We showed that the relation between promotion focus and creativity as outcome is partially mediated by creative process engagement. This finding is in line with the assumption of Regulatory Focus Theory that promotion-focused employees use approach strategies to achieve their desired end-states (Brockner & Higgins, 2001). We found that promotion focus is associated with a higher engagement in the creative process. Promotion-focused employees think of a problem from multiple perspectives, they consult various information, and they consider solutions found in other areas. Our results reveal indirect relations between transformational leadership and creativity as outcome through promotion focus and problem identification and through promotion focus and idea generation. Spending effort on identifying the problem and generating ideas are
positively related to the creative outcome. Thereby, our results highlight the importance of getting an accurate representation of the problem and generating possible solution for the creative outcome. Yet, we found no indirect relations including a path through the stage of information search and encoding. These findings contradict previous research that found increased information search resulting in more original and more appropriate solutions (Illies & Reiter-Palmon, 2004). This missing link through the information search and encoding stage might be due to the difficulty to draw an exact line between problem identification and
information search and encoding on the one hand and between information search and encoding and idea generation on the other hand. Because the creative process is no isolated consecutive sequence, information search and encoding processes may start before the problem is completely identified and the idea generation may be triggered while the information search and encoding processes are still going on (Reiter-Palmon & Illies, 2004). Thus, information search and encoding might still be beneficial for creativity as outcome by fostering problem identification and idea
generation, as it is suggested by the positive correlation between the different stages of the creative process (see Table 2.1).
Limitations and Future Research
Our study has some limitations that suggest avenues for future research. We measured both the predictor variable (transformational leadership) and the mediator (promotion focus) at the same time. One might argue that relations between these two variables could also be turned around in the way that promotion-focused employees appraise their leader as more transformational. Yet, the fact that only promotion focus becomes a significant predictor for creativity, when both variables
