correlates of creative behaviour: the role of leadership and personal factors

Can J Adm SciCopyright © 2010 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 41 28(1), 41–51 (2011)

Correlates of Creative Behaviour: The Role of Leadership and Personal Factors

Susan StricklandUniversity of Colorado at Denver

Canadian Journal of Administrative SciencesRevue canadienne des sciences de l’administration28: 41–51 (2011)Published online 3 August 2010 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/CJAS.157

*Please send correspondence to: Annette Towler, Associate Professor of Psychology, DePaul University, Department of Psychology, 2219 N. Kenmore Ave., Chicago, IL 60614. Email: [email protected]

AbstractAn organizational fi eld study was conducted to test the relationship between subordinate openness to experience, supervisor charismatic leadership, and creative behaviour. Data were collected from 167 employee-supervisor pairs of a manufacturing company that produces advertising spe-cialty products. Charismatic leadership related positively to subordinates’ creative behaviour only for subordinates low in openness to experience and not for their high openness to experience counterparts. Implications for theory and practice are discussed. Copyright © 2010 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

JEL classifi cations: J24, J29, M12, M54, M59

Keywords: creative behaviour, charismatic leadership, openness to experience

RésuméUne étude de terrain organisationnelle a été menée afi n d’évaluer le rapport entre l’attitude favorable des subal-ternes envers l’expérience, la direction charismatique des responsables et le comportement créatif. Les données ont été rassemblées auprès de 167 couples employé-respon-sable d’une compagnie manufacturière de production des cadeaux publicitaires. L’étude montre que la direction charismatique est positivement reliée au comportement créatif des subalternes uniquement chez les subalternes peu favorables à l’expérience et non chez les subalternes plus favorables à l’expérience. Ses implications théoriques et pratiques sont examinées. Copyright © 2010 ASAC. Pub-lished by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Mots clés : comportement créatif, direction charismatique, ouverture à l’idée d’expérience

Annette Towler*DePaul University

Thomas Hobbes once famously said the “life of man in nature is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (Hobbes, 1651). The focus on negative aspects of human behaviour has been a dominant theme within the behavioural sciences. However, within the organizational science arena there has been momentum in emphasizing the positive aspects of organizational life. This focus on positive organizational scholarship arose from positive psychology whereby leaders like Martin Seligman called for more study on the affi rma-tive side of human behaviour. Even when discussing issues concerning effective leadership, there are pockets of research that focus on the darker elements of leadership behaviour including issues of power and infl uence (e.g., Kets De Vries, 1989), the dark side of personality (e.g., Hogan & Hogan, 2001), and destructive leadership (e.g., O’Connor, Mumford,

Clifton, Gessner, & Connelly, 1995). While this approach is signifi cant and useful, a positive approach to organiza-tional leadership is useful in enabling understanding of how organizations can gain a competitive advantage through people. Previous research has tended to neglect this positive approach to organizational science (Cameron, Dutton, & Quinn, 2003).

As we move towards a knowledge-based economy with increased competition through globalization and rapid changes in technology, creativity becomes ever more vital in order for organizations to gain a competitive advantage through their human resources (Drucker, 1992). Creativity is the production of new ideas concerning products, pro-cesses, and procedures within an organization (Vincent, Decker, & Mumford, 2002). Several theorists and research-ers have advocated an interactionist approach to creativity by positing that creative behaviour is a combination of individual and organizational factors within a given situa-tion (Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffi n, 1993; Woodman & Schoenfeldt, 1990). In this study we focus on the positive

CORRELATES OF CREATIVE BEHAVIOUR: THE ROLE OF LEADERSHIP AND PERSONAL FACTORS STRICKLAND AND TOWLER


relationships between subordinate openness to experience, charismatic leadership, and creative behaviour.

There is considerable agreement among personality theorists and researchers that personality can be described in terms of fi ve factors (Wiggins & Trapnell, 1997). Inter-est in the Big Five, consisting of extraversion, agreeable-ness, conscientiousness, openness to experience, and emotional stability has been sustained through the demon-stration of the robustness of the fi ve factor model across different instruments (Costa & McCrae, 1988), dif-ferent theoretical frameworks (Goldberg, 1981), and a variety of samples (Digman, 1989). However, with a few exceptions (e.g., George & Zhou, 2001), little research has examined the relationship between the Big Five and creative behaviour. In this study we focus on the relation-ship between openness to experience and creative behaviour.

Managers can infl uence creative behaviour through their leadership style (Shin & Zhou, 2003), the level of feedback they provide to subordinates, and the amount of autonomy they provide to subordinates (George & Zhou, 2001). In the last twenty years, a large body of knowledge has accumulated on the positive effects of charismatic leaders. To summarize, charismatic leaders use visionary language, arouse followers’ motives, are excellent role models, project a positive self-image, and empower their followers (House & Shamir, 1993). The majority of studies have demonstrated the positive impact of charismatic lead-ership on subordinate performance (e.g. Howell & Frost, 1989; Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1996).

Our study contributes to the creativity literature through examining conditions under which individuals high in open-ness to experience are creative. We adopted previous approaches (e.g., Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Woodman & Schoenfeldt, 1990) by proposing that the highest forms of creative behaviour are achieved when highly creative individuals are placed in favourable organizational environ-ments. Specifi cally, we argue that individuals high in open-ness to experience are at their most creative when their supervisor is highly charismatic.

Despite claims effective leadership plays an important role in promoting employee creativity, empirical research has been relatively scarce (Amabile, Schatzel, Moneta, & Kramer, 2004; Tierney, Farmer, & Graen, 1999). More specifi cally, there is a paucity of research examining the effect of charismatic leadership on creative behaviour. Several researchers have argued the need for models that examine why interactions of individual differences and contextual factors infl uence creative behaviour (e.g., Shalley, Zhou, & Oldham, 2004; Tierney & Farmer, 2002). We focus on creative self-effi cacy as a mediator of charis-matic leadership’s infl uence on creativity. Creative self-effi cacy has emerged as an important correlate of creative behaviour (e.g., Gong, Huang, & Farh, 2009; Tierney & Farmer, 2002).

The Role of Leadership and Personal Factors

Individuals who are high in openness to experience tend to be imaginative, independent thinkers and prefer variety and depth of experience (McCrae, 1996). In contrast, individuals who are low in openness to experience prefer familiarity, simplicity, and closure (McCrae, 1996). Previ-ous research suggests a positive relationship between open-ness to experience and creative behaviour (e.g., George & Zhou, 2001; King, Walker, & Broyles, 1996).

However, organizations can create situations that defl ate the contribution of creative employees. For example, a controlling supervisor can reduce the creative efforts of employees who are high in openness to experience (George & Zhou, 2001). In a study examining the conditions under which openness to experience predicts creative behaviour, George and Zhou (2001) found that the highest creative behaviour was achieved when subordinates who were high in openness to experience received positive supervisor feed-back and performed tasks that had unclear ends. Oldham and Cummings (1996) found that individuals who had high scores on the creative personality scale (CPS), whose super-visors were supportive and did not micromanage, had the highest number of patent disclosures and creativity ratings. These studies suggest that individuals who are high in open-ness to experience value environments where supervisors are supportive of creative endeavours.

In recent years, leadership scholars have focused on the role of charismatic leadership in enhancing individual and organizational effectiveness. Charismatic leaders are inspi-rational, visionary, and project a positive self-image (Conger & Kanungo, 1998). There are several ways in which char-ismatic leadership stimulates creative behaviour in the workplace. Firstly, charismatic leaders promote creativity through the articulation of an idealized vision. The promo-tion of creative behaviour is triggered by the charismatic leader’s vision, which emphasizes desired future states (Locke & Kirkpatrick, 1995). Charismatic leaders are com-mitted to their vision because they believe these long-term goals that challenge traditional thinking are benefi cial to the organization (Sternberg, Kaufman, & Pretz, 2004). By artic-ulating a vision that emphasizes long-term over short-term business outcomes (e.g., growth and value rather than quar-terly profi t), leaders can infl uence employees’ creative behaviours (Amabile, 1996).

Charismatic leaders can shake established practices through crafting an idealized vision that is discrepant from the status quo. Charismatic leaders encourage followers to be unconventional in their thinking through articulating a vision that appeals to followers’ ideals and values. Because idealized visions are appealing to followers, they will be intrinsically motivated to adopt unconventional work prac-tices to achieve the charismatic leader’s mission (Conger & Kanungo, 1998). For example, imagine a new CEO in charge of a chain of restaurants who wishes to cultivate a



climate for quality service in contrast to previous manage-ment that encouraged more customer traffi c to increase profi ts. The manager appeals to employees’ values through emphasizing the importance of quality over quantity and motivates employees to perform at their highest levels. Because the vision of quality is broad and is appropriate to all persons working in restaurants, the vision can be achieved using a variety of creative strategies. For example, chefs can generate new ways to present food, general managers can conceive of new ways to improve offi ce services, and servers can suggest new ways on how to provide quality service to customers. Because the vision is broad and rejects previous practices, employees who are infl uenced by this charismatic leader are likely to produce useful and new ideas to attain this vision of quality. Through the use of long-term, idealized visions, charismatic leaders can increase followers’ levels of intrinsic motivation and cre-ative self-effi cacy. Intrinsic motivation and creative self-effi cacy are positively associated with creative behaviour (Amabile, Hill, Hennessey, & Tighe, 1994; Tierney & Farmer, 2002)

The second way in which charismatic leaders promote creative behaviour is through their ability to be effective role models (Jaussi & Dionne, 2003). The use of role models is one mechanism through which fi gures in authority can boost self-effi cacy (Gist & Mitchell, 1992). Charismatic leaders are excellent role models because they set a personal example by displaying behaviours congruent with the vision they espouse; these visions, although typically convention-breaking, are within the standards of accepted behaviour (Conger & Kanungo, 1998). Creativity is related to uncon-ventional behaviour because creative behaviour involves unconventional acts that require the rejection or change of previously accepted ideas (Newell, Shaw, & Simon, 1958). This suggests that charismatic leaders engage in creative behaviour because they are unconventional in their thinking. Because charismatic leaders act as creative role models, this may encourage their subordinates to “think outside the box” and form original ideas contrary to organizational policies and procedures. Because followers admire and respect these charismatic leaders, they are more likely to engage in cre-ative acts to emulate them (Jaussi & Dionne).

Theory and research also suggest that charismatic leaders empower their followers through expressing confi -dence in their ability to perform at an exceptionally high level (Conger, Kanungo, & Menon, 2000; Kark, Shamir, & Chen, 2003; Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1996). Through vision-ary language, charismatic leaders articulate high levels of optimism and confi dence in followers’ ability to achieve future goals. Because creative behaviour is a risky endeav-our, boosting subordinates’ confi dence increases their will-ingness to be creative. Indeed, charismatic leadership relates positively to leader visions that build confi dence and opti-mism (Berson, Shamir, Avolio, & Popper, 2001). Locke and Kirkpatrick (1995) have suggested that visionary language

can encourage creative behaviour by emphasizing the importance of innovation; the promotion of creative behav-iour is triggered by the charismatic leader’s vision, which emphasizes desired future states (Locke & Kirkpatrick, 1996). Because creative behaviour is unstructured, novel, and poorly defi ned, leader articulated visions are most likely to catalyze creativity when they are broadly defi ned in terms of larger organizational objectives. Mumford, Scott, Gaddis, and Strange (2003) have suggested that char-ismatic leaders foster creative behaviour through articulat-ing a mission-based vision that provides an overarching theme to motivate employees. In a survey of 183 entrepre-neurs in the woodworking industry, Baum, Locke, and Kirkpatrick, (1998) found that company visions that were effectively written, communicated throughout the organiza-tion, and contained attributes of future orientation and challenge affected subsequent venture growth. Charismatic leaders also have strong visions that articulate high levels of optimism and confi dence in followers’ ability to achieve future goals. Because creative behaviour is a risky endeav-our, boosting subordinates’ confi dence levels should increase their willingness to be creative. As previously noted, Berson et al. (2001) found that charismatic leadership associated positively with visions that built confi dence and optimism.

There are few studies linking charismatic leadership to creative behaviour. Keller (1992) implemented a longitudi-nal design to examine the effects of charismatic leadership and intellectual stimulation on project group performance in three research and development (R&D) organizations. The work conducted in these organizations involved either producing new knowledge or new projects either from scratch or from redevelopment of existing knowledge or product. In other words, the work involved creative behav-iour. The combined effects of charismatic leadership and intellectual stimulation on project quality were positive both at the time of the study and one year later.

Bass and Riggio (2006) used the term “transforma-tional” to describe leaders who elicit change within organi-zations through their charisma, intellectual stimulation, and consideration of their followers. Transformational leader-ship includes two facets of leadership—individual consid-eration and intellectual stimulation—that are not included in descriptions of charismatic leadership. In this respect, transformational leadership differs from charismatic leader-ship. However, a focus on transformational leadership is useful because charisma is a central component of transfor-mational leadership, accounting for the largest percentage of common variance in transformational leadership ratings (Bass, 1988).

Shin and Zhou (2003) conducted a study among Korean employees working in 46 R&D and venture capital compa-nies. They examined whether conservatism—a tendency to value security, stability, and having respect for a traditional society’s customs and practices—moderated the infl uence



of transformational leadership on creative behaviour. They found a two-way interaction such that the highest creative behaviour was achieved when conservatism and transforma-tional leadership were high.

Gong et al. (2009) conducted a study among insurance agents in Taiwan to examine whether employee learning orientation and transformational leadership predicted cre-ative performance. They found that these variables were positively related to creativity. Moreover, creative self- effi cacy fully mediated the relationship between employee learning orientation and transformational leadership on cre-ative performance.

A laboratory study examined effects of low and high transformational leadership on group creativity (Sosik, Avolio, & Kahai, 1998). Groups working under higher levels of transformational leadership generated more origi-nal solutions than groups working under lower levels of transformational leadership. However, these effects were moderated by anonymity with transformational leadership having stronger effects under conditions where the leader had not been identifi ed. A recent laboratory study also examined the effects of transformational leadership on sub-ordinate performance on a creative task that involved think-ing of a name and slogans for a new restaurant; participants who viewed a transformational versus nontransformational leader were more creative (Bono & Judge, 2003).

Hypothesis 1: Openness to experience moderates the effect of charismatic leadership on creative behaviour such that for individuals high in openness to experience, charismatic leadership will have a stronger positive relationship with creative behaviour than for individuals low in openness to experience.

We also examined creative self-effi cacy as a mediator through which openness to experience and charismatic lead-ership are linked to creative behaviour. Creative self-effi cacy is “the belief one has the ability to produce creative outcomes” (Tierney & Farmer, 2002, p, 1138). Tierney and Farmer (2002) established creative self-effi cacy as a new construct and demonstrated its relationship to creative behaviour. To our knowledge, there is no evidence linking openness to experience to creative self-effi cacy. However, research and theory suggests a possible linkage.

Firstly, individuals high in openness to experience tend to be confi dent that they can perform well across a variety of domains (Judge, Thoresen, Pucik, & Welbourne, 1999). They are also creative and enjoy unstructured tasks (McCrae, 1996) suggesting they are confi dent in exhibiting creative behaviour. Because individuals high in openness to experi-ence are creative, fl exible, and open to new ideas, it seems probable they would hold positive evaluations of their ability to be creative. There is empirical evidence to suggest a relationship between openness to experience and creative self-effi cacy, although research has focused on work-related self-effi cacy. A recent meta-analysis found a population

correlation of .22 between openness to experience and task or job-specifi c self-effi cacy (Judge, Jackson, Shaw, Scott, & Rich, 2007). In a learning context where students partici-pated in a decision-making simulation, openness to experi-ence related positively to task self-effi cacy, accounting for 3.7% of the variance (Gully, Payne, Coles, & Whiteman, 2002). Judge et al. (1999) examined the relationship between personality and reactions to change during organizational downsizing, and found that openness to experience related positively to general self-effi cacy (r = .42).

Research also suggests a positive association between charismatic leadership behaviours and creative self-effi cacy. In their study testing the validity of a creative self-effi cacy measure, Tierney and Farmer (2004) found that subordi-nates experienced higher creative self-effi cacy when their supervisor was a role model able to persuade them that they had the potential to be creative. In a study among 140 R&D employees, Tierney and Farmer (2004) examined how supervisor behaviours infl uenced subordinates’ levels of creative self-effi cacy and creative behaviour. They found a positive relationship between supervisors’ support of their subordinates’ creative behaviour and subordinates’ creative self-effi cacy. Subordinates’ creative self-effi cacy positively related to subordinates’ views of creativity expectations, which in turn was positively associated with subordinates’ creative behaviour.

There is additional evidence that creative self-effi cacy predicts job performance (Tierney & Farmer, 2002). Crea-tive self-effi cacy explained 5% of the variance in job per-formance among white-collar workers who worked in a large consumer products organization. Creative self-effi cacy was also positively related to job performance among manu-facturing workers of an information technology fi rm, though the shared variance between these two variables was a mere 1%. Gong et al. (2009) also found that creative self-effi cacy was related to creative behaviour.

Hypothesis 2: Creative self-effi cacy mediates the inter-active effects of openness to experience and charismatic leadership on creative behaviour.

Method

Participants, Setting, and Procedure

Employees of a manufacturing company that produces advertising specialty products participated in the study. Par-ticipants were employed at the organization’s two US sites. The company is small-to-medium size, with less than two thousand employees worldwide. Employees from a variety of functional areas participated in the study, including fi nance, customer service, and information technology. Ini-tially, 629 employees were invited to participate. A letter was distributed to employees using the organization’s inter-nal mail system. In the letter, they were informed that their



participation was voluntary and that they could withdraw at any time. We collected data from two sources: subordinates and their supervisors. Supervisors completed a measure of their subordinates’ level of creative behaviour. Subordinates completed measures of openness to experience and creative self-effi cacy, ratings of their supervisor’s charismatic lead-ership behaviours, and demographic items.

In matching supervisor and subordinate responses, we coded the questionnaires with a number unique to a group of employees with the same supervisor followed by a number unique to each subordinate in the group. The cre-ativity rating forms included the name of the employee to be rated, with the instruction to supervisors to cut off the employee name before returning the form. No names were attached to the completed questionnaires and an envelope was included to mail the completed questionnaire to the authors’ university. Participants were told that their infor-mation would be held in strictest confi dence by the research-ers and that their responses would not be reported with any personally identifying information. We received 167 paired usable questionnaires, which is 27.2% of those invited to participate. Of these usable questionnaires, fi ve question-naires had missing data and were excluded. Consequently, we used 162 matched pairs in our statistical analyses. Of the subordinate questionnaires, 217 were returned or 34% of the total. Of the supervisor forms, 467 were returned or 74% of the total. Of the paired usable responses, an average of three employees supplied charismatic leadership ratings for each supervisor (the range was 1 through 9). Supervisors sup-plied creative behaviour ratings for an average of two sub-ordinates each (the range was also 1 through 9). Because we had missing data, we compared data from the 162 matched pairs to the data for the missing cases we had dropped—specifi cally, the self-report data. There were no differences between the two groups with respect to employee demographics, openness to experience, or ratings of impor-tance of creativity.

Participants were employed in a range of functional areas including fi nance, information technology, marketing, art departments (20% across the four departments), cus-tomer service (17.6%), sales (13.5%), manufacturing (31.2%), and other (17.1%); .6% across all departments did not respond.. The sample was 70% female and 83% Cauca-sian. Length of education ranged from high school/high school diploma (32.9%), college/technical school (40%), and four-year degree or higher (26.4%). Thirty-four percent had been with the company for more than ten years, and 40% had been with their current supervisor for one to three years. In terms of age, 21% were 18–30 years, 30.6% were 41–50 years, and 26.5% were over 50.

Measures

Openness to experience. Eight items from the Saucier personality measure were used to assess openness to experi-

ence (Saucier, 1994). This measure has been used in previ-ous research (Gully et al., 2002). Coeffi cient alpha in our study was α = .70. We used the Saucier measure rather than the more commonly used NEO measure (McCrae & Costa, 2004) because the Saucier is a short scale that takes less time to complete than the NEO. The NEO takes about 30–45 minutes to complete depending on which version is used; the Saucier is a short ten minute measure. Given the psy-chometric properties of the Saucier and its brevity, it served as an ideal measure for us to use with full-time employees. Employees assessed the extent to which they could be described by a series of adjectives ranging from 1 = “extremely inaccurate” to 9 = “extremely accurate.” The Saucier measure consists of 40 items, with eight items for the openness to experience factor, and also includes adjective markers such as “creative,” “complex,” and “intellectual.”

Charismatic leadership. To assess the extent to which supervisors exhibited charismatic leadership behaviours, we used items from the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) (Bass & Avolio, 1995). This scale has 11 items on a fi ve-point Likert scale that assess attributed charisma, inspirational motivation, and idealized infl uence (Bass & Avolio, 1995). Bass and Avolio distinguished between attributed charisma and two behavioural components—idealized infl uence and inspirational motivation. Idealized infl uence involves the leader as a credible role model. Inspi-rational motivation refers to the leader motivating and inspiring followers to go beyond what they thought they could perform. Criticisms have been raised over the validity of the MLQ, yet it is the most extensively used and validated measure of charismatic leadership available (Bass & Avolio, 1995). A principal axis analysis with varimax rotation was performed on the MLQ scales yielding one factor. Coeffi -cient alpha for the measure was α = .92. In terms of inter-rater reliability, Rwg scores met the required standards for subordinates rating the same supervisor (M = .92).

Creative self-effi cacy. Tierney and Farmer’s (2002) measure of creative self-effi cacy was used. The measure consists of three items on a seven-point Likert scale. A sample item is “I have confi dence in my ability to solve problems creatively.” Tierney and Farmer reported high levels of reliability for this scale with alphas of .83 and .87 in their two samples. As suggested by Pamela Tierney, an item was added to the original scale for a total of four items (personal communication, November 2003). The item added was: “I am good at fi nding creative ways to solve prob-lems.” In the current study, alpha for this scale was .82.

Creative behaviour. Supervisors rated their subordi-nates’ creative behaviour. Items were adapted from Scott and Bruce’s (1994) measure. Creative behaviour in organi-zations has frequently been measured with supervisory ratings (e.g., George & Zhou, 2001; Oldham & Cummings, 1996). Supervisor ratings tend to correlate positively with objective measures of creativity (e.g., Scott & Bruce, 1994;



Tierney et al., 1999). Supervisors’ ratings of employee cre-ativity consisted of six items, each requiring responses on a fi ve-point Likert scale (1 = “very inaccurate” to 5 = “very accurate”). Sample items include: “Comes up with creative ideas related to work” and “Develops suffi cient plans for implementing new ideas” (α = .92).

Control variables. We included a number of control variables. Firstly, because we sampled from a variety of job positions, we controlled for the importance of creativity for each job position. We included two items designed to measure the importance of creativity for each job position, which were completed by the subordinates: “Creativity is important in this job position” and “Creativity is a valuable asset in this job position,” with responses ranging from 1 = “very inaccurate” to 5 = “very accurate.” Coeffi cient alpha was .97. We also controlled for tenure with company and tenure with current supervisor. Tenure with the company was coded into fi ve values representing (1) less than one year, (2) one to three years, (3) three to fi ve years, (4) fi ve to ten years, and (5) more than ten years. Tenure with current supervisor was coded into three values: (1) less than one year, (2) one to three years, and (3) more than three years. Level of education was coded into three values rep-resenting (1) high school diploma or less, (2) some college or technical school, and (3) four-year degree or more.

Results

Overview

Means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlations are displayed in Table 1. We tested our hypotheses using the hierarchical linear model (HLM) function in SPSS (version 14.0). HLM is an appropriate method of analysis to test relations when individual data are nested within groups (Bryk & Raudenbush, 1992). For nested data such as this, multilevel analysis is superior to ordinary regression analyses because it does not assume independence of obser-

vations but allows for dependent observations within their higher level data structure. In our study, the dependent vari-able was an individual level variable (creative behaviour), the independent variables were individual (subordinate openness to experience) and group level (aggregated ratings of charismatic leader behaviours). Consequently, HLM is an appropriate method given the different levels of analysis. For all main effects analysis, we grand mean centered all variables because centering reduces multicollinearity issues (Hoffman & Gavin, 1998). For the interaction term of open-ness to experience (level 1) and charismatic leadership (level 2), we used group mean centering because it guards against spurious cross-level interaction effects (Hofmann & Gavin). Because we had directional hypotheses, we used one-tailed signifi cance tests.

Table 2 shows the HLM results. In support of hypoth-esis 1, there was an interaction effect of openness to experi-ence and charismatic leadership on creative behaviour, (t = −1.73, p < .05, one-tailed). We conducted simple slope tests

Table 1Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations of all Variables

Variables Mean Sd 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Importance of creativity (1) 3.72 1.16 –Tenure with fi rm (2) 3.50 1.41 .19* –Tenure with supervisor (3) 1.96 0.94 .17* .40** –Education (4) 1.98 .94 −.04 −.06 .08 –Openness to experience (5) 3.73 0.55 .04 .01 .20* .24** –Charismatic leadership (6) 2.71 0.89 .17* .15* .17* −.04 .13 –Creative self-effi cacy (7) 5.50 0.86 .24** .12 .28** .21** .55** .21** –Creative behaviour (8) 3.31 0.90 .56** .26** .27** .03 .16* .13 .35** –

Note: * p < .05, ** p < .01.

Table 2Slopes-as-Outcomes Model in Hierarchical Linear Modelling

Independent variables Coeffi cient SE t ratio

Level 1 variables Intercept 1.08 .30 3.54** Importance of creativity .46 .06 7.63** Tenure with company .08 .08 1.95* Tenure with supervisor .05 .04 .65 Education .07 .06 1.16 Openness to experience .15 .10 1.49 Charismatic leadership .01 .06 .16Level 2 variables Charismatic leadership X −.19 .11 −1.73* Openness to experience

Note: Level 1 n = 162; Level 2 n = 47.* p < .05 (one-tailed) ** p < .01.



and plotted the interaction following the procedure sug-gested by Aiken and West (1991). We plotted the HLM equation at conditional values of openness to experience (one SD below the mean and one SD above the mean). Figure 1 shows the plot of the interaction.

The simple slope test revealed that charismatic leader-ship was not related to creative behaviour at high levels of openness to experience (t = 1.67, p = .05) but charismatic leadership was related to creative behaviour at low levels of openness to experience (t = 2.36, p = .019, two-tailed). This fi nding is in the opposite direction hypothesized.

Test of Mediation

To test whether self-effi cacy mediated the relationship between the interactive effect (between charismatic leader-ship and openness to experience) and creative behaviour, we used the mediated moderation procedures recommended by Muller, Judd, and Yzerbyl (2005) and employed the HLM function in SPSS. The fi rst criterion—that the inde-pendent variable to be related to the dependent variable—

was met by prior analyses, which showed that the interaction (between charismatic leadership and openness to experi-ence) signifi cantly predicted creative behaviour. However, the second criterion—that the interaction term be related to the mediator—was unsatisfi ed because the interaction term did not signifi cantly predict creative self-effi cacy.

Discussion

Summary

The aim of the present study was to propose and test an interactionist model of creative behaviour. In particular, the interactive effects of openness to experience and char-ismatic leadership on creative behaviour were tested within an organizational setting. Creative self-effi cacy was pro-posed and tested as a mediator of the interactive effects of openness to experience and charismatic leadership on cre-ative behaviour. While the interactive term predicted cre-ative behaviour, we found no support for the mediating

2.001.00

Charismatic leadership

3.50

3.40

3.30

3.20

3.10

Cre

ati

ve b

eh

avio

rHigh

Low

Openess to experience

Figure 1.The interaction of charismatic leadership and openness to experience on creative behaviour



effect of creative self-effi cacy. With respect to the interac-tion effect, we found a positive relationship between char-ismatic leadership and creative behaviour only when openness to experience was low. This fi nding was in the opposite direction predicted by our hypothesis.

Contributions to Scholarship

Our study is one of few to: (a) focus on creative behav-iour as a criterion in an organizational setting; (b) examine the effects of charismatic leadership in relation to subordi-nates’ personality; and (c) examine why these effects occur through examining creative self-effi cacy as a mediator. We have extended previous research in several ways. Previous researchers (Gong et al., 2009; Shin & Zhou, 2003) focused on the effects of transformational leadership on creative behaviour. They did not differentiate charisma from other components of transformational leadership. Dvir, Eden, Avolio, and Shamir (2002) have pointed out that: “Examin-ing the effects of global transformational leadership renders it impossible to pinpoint the specifi c components of trans-formational leadership that contributed to the effects pro-duced” (p. 19). We also focused on openness to experience as one of the Big Five personality traits. To our knowledge, this is one of the fi rst studies to suggest that subordinates who are high in openness to experience are creative at work. While Barrick and Mount’s (1991) meta-analytic study did not fi nd an association between openness to experience and job performance, our research is consistent with studies reporting that employees high in openness to experience do well on unfamiliar tasks (e.g., King et al., 1996; Thoresen, Bradley, Bliese, & Thoresen, 2004).

Our fi ndings also support previous fi ndings that indi-vidual and situational factors are related to creative behav-iour. Suprisingly, the interaction effect observed was in the opposite direction we hypothesized. Specifi cally, our fi nd-ings suggest that individuals who are low in openness to experience are more likely to display creative behaviour in response to a charismatic leader than are individuals high on this attribute. Shin and Zhou (2003) found that the highest creative behaviour was achieved when conservatism and transformational leadership were high. They suggested that highly conservative individuals are more likely to be infl uenced by transformational leaders because they are more likely to follow the norms established by the leader and are motivated to be creative because they are more respectful of the power distance between themselves and their supervisor.

One possible reason for our fi nding is that individuals high in openness to experience are less likely to be infl u-enced by a charismatic leader because they are naturally more creative from the start (i.e., are less dependent on externally motivated cues than are individuals low in open-ness to experience). Research suggests that individuals low in a particular attribute tend to gain more from an interven-

tion aimed to prime that attribute. Stewart, Carson, and Cardy (1996) examined the effects of conscientiousness and self-leadership training on employee self-direction (i.e., behaviour that demonstrates internal control). Conscien-tiousness moderated the effects of self-leadership training in that low conscientious trainees improved their self-directed behaviour more than did high conscientiousness trainees. Stewart et al. argued that high conscientious indi-viduals engage in self-directed behaviour and, consequently, perceive less need for additional change.

Another important question pertaining to the effects of leadership on subordinate work-related outcomes is why these effects occur. We have extended prior research (e.g., Gong et al., 2009) through focusing on creative self-effi cacy, a relatively new construct, as a possible mediator. In our study, creative self-effi cacy did not mediate the inter-active effects of openness to experience and charismatic leadership on creative behaviour. One reason for this is that individuals who are high in openness to experience are probably more likely to be confi dent that they can be cre-ative particularly when their manager is transformational. Our interaction result was not in this hypothesized direction. There is some evidence for linkages between openness to experience, creative self-effi cacy, and creative behaviour. Table 1 shows a statistically signifi cant correlation between openness to experience and creative self-effi cacy. It also shows a positive relationship between creative self-effi cacy and creative behaviour. We conducted a post-hoc analysis in HLM to test this relationship and found that openness to experience was related to creative self-effi cacy (beta = .76, p < .01) and that creative self-effi cacy was related to cre-ative behaviour (beta = .23, p < .01). Although we did not fi nd a full-mediation effect, this post-hoc fi nding suggests a linkage between openness to experience, creative self-effi cacy, and creative behaviour. In fact, James and his colleagues suggest that this linkage between variables dem-onstrates a mediated model (James, Mulaik, & Brett, 2004). They argued that demonstrating a relationship between the independent variable and the dependent variable is not nec-essary and that full mediation is demonstrated through the linkage, IV→M→DV. Consequently, our fi ndings lend some support for a two-stage linkage model. This supports the notion that subordinates who are high in openness to experience feel confi dent in trying out new and novel ways to accomplish everyday tasks. Further, it suggests that employees high in openness to experience feel confi dent about their creativity because they have gained mastery in creative endeavours (King et al., 1996).

Applied Implications

Our fi ndings suggest that individuals who are low on openness to experience are likely to be more creative in the presence of a highly charismatic leader. Consequently, organizations wishing to enhance creative behaviours



among their employees are likely to benefi t from training their leaders to be charismatic. Training in charisma can be successfully incorporated into leadership skill development programs (e.g., Frese, Beimel, & Schoenborn, 2003).

Limitations and Future Research Directions

There are several limitations to this study. Our fi rst limitation is in our measurement of creative behaviour. We used Scott and Bruce’s (1994) measure of innovation rather than an established measure of creativity. These are distinct constructs because creativity is defi ned as the creation of ideas whereas innovation is defi ned as the implementation of ideas (Scott & Bruce). However, apart from one item on innovative behaviour, all of our items focused on the cre-ation of ideas. Given that all these items loaded on one factor suggests that, by and large, they were measuring creative behaviour.

On the other hand, an asset of our study lies in our sample having been comprised of participants who held a wide variety of different jobs; creative behaviour could potentially come from a variety of sources so our inclusion of job incumbents across a range of jobs strengthens the generalizability of our fi ndings. At the same time, had the sample been limited to job categories where creativity was central to success, such as in advertising or R&D, the impact of charismatic leadership on creativity may have been more pronounced. Research is required to test our proposed rela-tionships in organizations where large numbers of people are clearly doing creative work (e.g., advertising agencies or scientifi c research fi rms).

There are several future directions for research. Firstly, our fi ndings support the idea that under certain conditions, charismatic leadership is an important predictor of creative behaviour. In our study, openness to experience moderated the effect of charismatic leadership on creative behaviour. Future research could focus on other variables that attenuate the relationship between these two behaviours. Previous research has focused on situational variables that moderate the effect of charismatic leadership but have not examined both situational and person trait as moderators. For example, research suggests that charismatic leadership is most effec-tive during a crisis. In a unique laboratory study, Pillai (1996) found that crises promoted the emergence of charis-matic leaders; in addition, these leaders were rated as more effective than group leaders in noncrisis situations. Given that individuals who are high in openness to experience enjoy unstructured tasks and are fl exible (McCrae, 1996), it is probable that they will do well during a crisis and are less likely to require a charismatic leader than those who are low in openness to experience. Examining the role of context and person constraints as moderators of charismatic leader-ship on creative behaviour is likely to prove an enriching avenue to explore.

References

Aiken, L.S., & West, S.G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Amabile, T.M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Amabile, T.M., Hill, K.G., Hennessey, B.A., & Tighe, E.M. (1994). The work preference inventory: Assessing intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations. Journal of Personal-ity and Social Psychology, 66, 950–967.

Amabile, T.M., Schatzel, E.A., Moneta, G.B., & Kramer, S.J. (2004). Leader behaviours and the work environment for cre-ativity: Perceived leader support. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 5–32.

Barrick, M.R., & Mount, M.K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26.

Bass, B.M. (1988). Evolving perspectives on charismatic leader-ship. In J.A. Conger, R.N. Kanungo, & Associates (Eds.), Charismatic leadership (pp. 40–77). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bass B.M., & Avolio B.J. (1995). Manual for the multifactor leadership questionnaire: Rater form (5x Short). Palo Alto, CA: Sage.

Bass, B.M., & Riggio, R.E. (2006). Transformational leadership (2nd. Ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Baum, I.R., Locke, E.A., & Kirkpatrick, S.A. 1998. A longitudinal study of the relation of vision and vision communication to venture growth in entrepreneurial fi rms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 43–54.

Berson, Y., Shamir, B., Avolio, B.J., & Popper, M. (2001). The relationship between vision strength, leadership style and context. Leadership Quarterly, 12, 53–73.

Bono, J.E., & Judge, T.A. (2003). Self-concordance at work: Understanding the motivational effects of transformational leaders. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 554–571.

Bryk, A.D., & Raudenbush, S.W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Cameron, K.S , Dutton, J.E., & Quinn, R.E. (2003). Positive Orga-nizational Scholarship; Foundations of a New Discipline. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

Conger, J.A., & Kanungo, R.N. 1998. Charismatic leadership in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Conger, J.A., Kanungo, R.N., & Menon, S.T. (2001). “Charismatic Leadership and Follower Effects”, Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 21, 747–767.

Costa, P.T., Jr., & McCrae, R.R. (1988). From catalog to classifi ca-tion: Murray’s needs and the fi ve-factor model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1266–1282.

Digman, J.M. (1989). Five robust trait dimensions: Development, stability, and utility. Journal of Personality, 57, 195–214.

Drucker, P. (1992, September–October). The new society of orga-nizations. Harvard Business Review, 95–104.

Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B.J., & Shamir, B. (2002). Impact of transformational leadership on follower development and per-formance: A fi eld experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 735–744.

Frese, M., Beimel, S., & Schoenborn, S. (2003). Action training for charismatic leadership: two evaluations of studies of a



commercial training module on inspirational communication of a vision. Personnel Psychology, 56, 671–699.

George, J.M., & Zhou, J. (2001). When openness to experience and conscientiousness are related to creative behaviour: An interactional approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 513–524.

Gist, M.E., & Mitchell, T.R. (1992). Self-Effi cacy: A Theoretical Analysis of Its Determinants and Malleability. The Academy of Management Review, 17, 183–211.

Goldberg, L.R. (1981). Language and individual differences: The search for universals in personality lexicons. In L. Wheeler. (Ed.), Review of Personality and Social Psych-ology Vol 2, pp 141–166). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Gong, Y., Huang, J.C., & Farh, J.L (2009). Employee learning orientation, transformational leadership and creativity: The mediating role of employee creative self-effi cacy. The Academy of Management Journal, 52, 765–778.

Gully, S.M., Payne, S.C., Koles, K.L.K., & Whiteman, J.K. (2002). The impact of error training and individual differences on training outcomes: An attribute-treatment interaction per-spective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 143–155.

Hobbes, T. (1651). Leviathan. London: Crooke.Hofmann, D.A., & Gavin, M.B. (1998). Centering decision in

hierarchical linear models: Implications for research in orga-nizations. Journal of Management, 24, 723–744.

Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (2001). Assessing leadership: A view from the dark side. International Journal of Selection & Assess-ment, 9, 40–51.

House, R.J., & Shamir, B (1993). Toward the integration of trans-formational, charismatic and visionary theories. In M.M. Chemers & R. Ayman (Eds.), Leadership Theory and Research: Perspectives and Directions. San Diego: Aca-demic Press.

Howell, J.M., & Frost, P.J. (1989). A Laboratory Study of Char-ismatic Leadership. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 43, 243–269.

James, L.R., Mulaik, S.A., & Brett, J.M. (2006). A tale of two methods. Organizational Research Methods, 9, 233–244.

Jaussi, K.S., & Dionne, S.D. (2003). Leading for creativity: The role of unconventional leader behaviour, Leadership Quar-terly, 14, 475–498.

Judge, T.A., Jackson, C.L., Shaw, J.C., Scott, B.A. & Rich, B.L. (2007). Self-Effi cacy and Work-Related Performance; the Integral Role of Individual Differences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 107–127.

Judge, T.A., Thoresen, C.J., Pucik, V., & Welbourne, T.M. (1999). Managerial coping with organizational change a dispositional perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 107–122.

Kark, R., Shamir, B., & Chen, G. (2003). The two faces of trans-formational leadership: empowerment and dependency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 2, 246–255.

Keller, R.T. (1992). Transformational Leadership and the Perfor-mance of Research and Development Project Groups. Journal of Management, 18, 489–501.

Kets de Vries, M.F. (1989). Leaders who self-destruct: The causes and cures. Organizational Dynamics, 17, 5–17.

King, L.A., Walker, L.M., & Broyles, S.J. (1996). Creativity and the fi ve-factor model. Journal of Research in Personality, 30, 189–203.

Kirkpatrick, S.A., & Locke, E.A. (1996). Direct and indirect effects of three core charismatic leadership components on performance and attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 36–51.

Locke, E.A., & Kirkpatrick, SA. (1995). Promoting creativity in organizations. In C.M. Ford & D.A. Gioia (Eds.), Creative action in organizations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

McCrae, R.R. (1996). Social consequences of experiential open-ness. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 323–337.

McCrae, R.R., & Costa, P.T. (2004). “A contemplated revision of the NEO Five-Factor Inventory”. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 587–596.

Muller, D., Judd, C.M., & Yzerbyt, V.Y. (2005). When moderation is meditated and when mediation is moderated. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 852–863.

Mumford, M.D., Scott, G.M., Gaddis, B., & Strange, J.M. (2002). Leading creative people: Orchestrating expertise and relation-ships. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 705–750.

Newell A., Shaw J.C., Simon, H.A. (1958). Elements of a theory of human problem solving, Psychological Review, 65, 151–166.

O’Connor, J., Mumford, M.D., Clifton, T.C., Gessner, T.L., & Connelly, M.S. (1995). Charismatic leaders and destructive-ness: A historiometric study. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 529–555

Oldham, G.R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Per-sonal and contextual factors at work. Academy of Manage-ment Journal, 39, 607–634.

Pillai, R. (1996). Crisis and the emergence of charismatic leader-ship in groups: An experimental investigation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 543–562.

Saucier, G. (1994). Mini-Markers: A brief version of Goldberg’s unipolar Big-Five markers. Journal of Personality Assess-ment, 63, 506–516.

Scott, S.G., & Bruce, R.A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behaviour: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 580–607.

Shalley, C.E., Zhou, Z., & Oldham, G.R. (2004). The effects of personal and contextual characteristics on creativity: Where should we go from here? Journal of Management, 30, 933–958.

Shin, S.J., & Zhou, J. (2003). Transformational leadership, con-servation, and creativity: Evidence from Korea. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 703–718.

Sosik, J.J., Avolio, B.J., & Kahai, S.S. (1998). Inspiring group creativity: Comparing anonymous and identifi ed electronic brainstorming. Small Group Research, 29, 3–31.

Sternberg, R.J., Kaufman, J.C., & Pretz, J.E. (2004). A Propulsion Model of Creative Leadership. Creativity and Innovation Management, 13, 145–152.

Stewart, G.L., Carson, K.P., & Cardy, R.L. (1996). The joint effects of conscientiousness and self-leadership training on employee self-directed behaviour in a service setting. Person-nel Psychology, 49, 143–164.

Thoresen, C.J., Bradley, J.C., Bliese, P.D., & Thoresen, J.D. (2004). The Big Five personality traits and individual perfor-mance growth trajectories in maintenance and transitional job stages. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 835–853.

Tierney, P. (November, 2003). Personal communication.



Tierney, P., & Farmer, S.M. (2002). Creative self-effi cacy: Poten-tial antecedents and relationship to creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 1137–1148.

Tierney, P., & Farmer, S.M. (2004). The Pygmalion Process and Employee Creativity. Journal of Management, 30, 413–432.

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.

Vincent, A.H., Decker, B.D., & Mumford, M.D. (2002). Divergent thinking, intelligence, and expertise: a test of alternative models. Creativity Research Journal, 14, 163–178.

Wiggins, J.S., & Trapnell, P.D. (1997). Personality structure: The return of the Big Five. In R. Hogan, J.A. Johnson, & S.R. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 737–765). San Diego: Academic Press.

Woodman, R.W., Sawyer, J.E., & Griffi n, R.W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18, 293–321.

Woodman, R.W., & Schoenfeldt, L.F. (1990). Individual differ-ences in creativity: An interactionist perspective. In J.A. Glover, R.R. Ronning, & C.R. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of Creativity (pp. 77–92). New York: Plenum Press.

correlates of creative behaviour: the role of leadership and personal factors

Documents