Authentic leadership promoting employees'psychological capital and creativity ☆
Arménio Rego a ,?,Filipa Sousa b ,1,Carla Marques c ,2,Miguel Pina e Cunha d ,3
a
Universidade de Aveiro,Portugal
b
Escola Superior de Educa??o e Ciências Sociais,Instituto Politécnico de Leiria,Morro do Lena,Alto do Vieiro,2411-901Leiria,Portugal c
Departamento de Economia,Sociologia e Gest?o,Universidade de Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro,Av.Almeida de Lucena,1,5000-660Vila Real,Portugal d
Nova School of Business and Economics,Rua Marquês de Fronteira,20,1099-038Lisboa,Portugal
a b s t r a c t
a r t i c l e i n f o Article history:
Received 1December 2009
Received in revised form 1April 2010Accepted 1September 2011
Available online 28October 2011Keywords:
Psychological capital Creativity
Authentic leadership
Two hundred and one employees report their psychological capital,as well as their supervisors'authentic lead-ership.Supervisors describe the employees'creativity.The main ?ndings show that authentic leadership predicts employees'creativity,both directly and through the mediating role of employees'psychological capital.The study empirically validates theoretical arguments that suggest integrating authentic leadership and psychologi-cal capital in research,and indicates that both may foster employees'creativity,a crucial resource for helping or-ganizations to face competitive challenges,take advantage of business opportunities,and improve organizational effectiveness.
?2011Elsevier Inc.All rights reserved.
1.Introduction
Authentic leadership (AL)is “as a pattern of leader behavior that draws upon and promotes both positive psychological capacities and a positive ethical climate,to foster greater self-awareness,an in-ternalized moral perspective,balanced processing of information,and relational transparency on the part of leaders working with followers,fostering positive self-development ”(Walumbwa,Avolio,Gardner,Wernsing,&Peterson,2008:94).In recent years,the topic is a target of great interest both among scholars (e.g.,Avolio &Gardner,2005;Walumbwa et al.,2008)and practitioners (e.g.,George,2003).Both argue that AL promotes positive employees'attitudes and behaviors and contributes to organizational performance.More empirical re-search is necessary for continuing to test this premise.
This paper merges the AL,psychological capital (PsyCap;Luthans,Youssef,&Avolio,2007),and creativity literatures,and shows how AL predicts employees'creativity both directly and through the medi-ating role of PsyCap (Fig.1).PsyCap is an individual's positive
psychological state of development characterized by:“(1)having con ?dence (self-ef ?cacy)to take on and put in the necessary effort to succeed at challenging tasks;(2)making a positive attribution (op-timism)about succeeding now and in the future;(3)persevering to-ward goals and,when necessary,redirecting paths to goals (hope)in order to succeed;and (4)when beset by problems and adversity,sus-taining and bouncing back and even beyond (resilience)to attain suc-cess ”(Luthans,Youssef,&Avolio,2007:3).The study answers calls to integrate AL and PsyCap literatures (Gardner,Avolio,Luthans,May,&Walumbwa,2005;Yammarino,Dionne,Schriesheim,&Dansereau,2008)and helps to understand the process through which AL contrib-utes to employees'creativity.
Studying the antecedents of employees'creativity is important be-cause,to survive and prosper,organizations need to take full advantage of their employees'creative potential,so that innovation,change,learn-ing,performance,and competitiveness can be sustained.Creativity in the workplace represents the production of novel and useful ideas or solutions concerning products,services,processes,and procedures (Amabile,1988,1997;Oldham &Cummings,1997).The goal of creative performance is to solve problems,to roll out new products and services,to take advantage of business opportunities,and to improve organiza-tional effectiveness.
Individual creativity is a function of individual and social/contextual factors (Egan,2005;Oldham &Cummings,1997;Shalley &Gilson,2004).One of the most relevant contextual factors is leadership.Several researchers focus on identifying the role of speci ?c leadership behaviors and leaders'characteristics in supporting,suppressing,facilitating,or inhi-biting creativity (e.g.,Hirst,van Dick,&van Knippenberg,2009;Mumford,Scott,Gaddis,&Strange,2002;Oldham &Cummings,1997;Rego,Sousa,Cunha,Correia,&Saur,2007;Reiter-Palmon and Illies,2004;Shalley &
Journal of Business Research 65(2012)429–437
☆The authors are grateful to Bruce J.Avolio,William L.Gardner,and Fred O.Walumba for their permission to use the Authentic Leadership Questionnaire.They are also grateful to Fred Luthans,Bruce J.Avolio,and Carolyn M.Youssef for their per-mission to use the PsyCap questionnaire.Miguel Cunha acknowledges support from Nova Forum.
?Corresponding author at:Departamento de Economia,Gest?o e Engenharia Indus-trial,Universidade de Aveiro,3810-193Aveiro,Portugal.Tel.:+351234370024;fax:+351234370215.
E-mail addresses:armenio.rego@ua.pt (A.Rego),msousa@esel.ipleiria.pt (F.Sousa),smarques@utad.pt (C.Marques),mpc@novasbe.pt (M.P.Cunha).1
Tel.:+351244820300;fax:+351244820310.2
Tel.:+351259302200;fax:+351259302249.3
Tel.:+351212822725;fax:+351213873
973.0148-2963/$–see front matter ?2011Elsevier Inc.All rights reserved.doi:
10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.10.003
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Journal of Business Research
Gilson,2004;Shin&Zhou,2003;Tierney,Farmer,&Graen,1999;Zhou, 2003;Zhang&Bartol,2010;Zhou&George,2003;Wang and Cheng, 2010).These behaviors include transformational leadership,emotional intelligence,close monitoring,developmental feedback,supportive su-pervision,controlling supervision,benevolent leadership,leader encour-agement of creativity,leader inspirational motivation,and empowering leadership.
Studies also focus on employees'characteristics and attitudes that make them more creative.For example,Amabile(1983)suggests domain-relevant skills(knowledge and expertise),creativity-relevant processes(including cognitive styles,cognitive strategies,and personal-ity variables),and task motivation(attitudes and motivation,such as in-trinsic motivation)as predictors of creativity.Woodman,Sawyer,and Grif?n(1993)model includes personality variables,cognitive factors, intrinsic motivation,and knowledge.Ford(1996)includes sense mak-ing,motivation,knowledge and ability.According to Egan(2005),the studies identify a consistent number of individual factors associated with individual creativity,including esthetic sensitivity,attraction to complexity,broad interests,intuition,and tolerance of ambiguity.
This paper adds to such lines of research,answering to a call of Shalley and Gilson(2004)for more research focusing on the interaction between personal characteristics and work context.The study focuses on how AL(a contextual factor)predicts employees'creativity,both di-rectly and through the mediating role of employees'PsyCap(a personal strength).The paper hypothesizes that AL promotes employees'crea-tivity because authentic leaders encourage employees'PsyCap(Avolio, Gardner,Walumbwa,Luthans,&May,2004;Yammarino et al.,2008), with employees with higher PsyCap being more creative(Avolio et al., 2004;Bandura,1997;Rego,Machado,Leal,&Cunha,2009).The study also posits direct relationships between AL and creativity because au-thentic leaders may promote employees'creativity through mecha-nisms other than PsyCap.For example,AL may improve the quality of leader–member exchange,thus increasing employees'trust and the sense of freedom to propose unconventional ideas,and introduce con-?icting opinions without fear(Avolio&Gardner,2005;Avolio et al., 2004;Brower,Schoormanb,&Tan,2000;Ilies,Morgeson,&Nahrgang, 2005;Liden,Sparrowe,&Wayne,1997;Prati,Douglas,Ferris,Ammeter, &Buckley,2003;Scott&Bruce,1994).Employees may also feel psycho-logically safer,thus taking initiative for facing problems and opportuni-ties in creative ways(Edmondson,1999;Prati et al.,2003).
The remainder of the paper structures as follows.The second section discusses arguments leading to the hypotheses.The third and fourth sections present the method and results,respectively.The?nal section discusses the main?ndings,the limitations of the research,and some avenues for future research.The study seeks to contribute to enriching a research stream that is in an early stage of development and to a liter-ature that is still short on empirical studies(Walumbwa et al.,2008; Yammarino et al.,2008).Considering that most studies about leader-ship come from the USA(House&Aditya,1997),the paper also re-sponds to a call for research in more culturally diverse samples (Gelfand,Erez,&Aycan,2007;Walumbwa et al.,2008).
2.Theory and hypotheses
2.1.The authentic leadership construct
The AL construct comprises four dimensions:(1)Self-awareness is the degree to which the leader demonstrates an understanding of how(s)he derives and makes sense of the world and is aware of his or her strengths,limitations,how others see him or her,and how (s)he impacts others(Kernis,2003;Walumbwa et al.,2008);(2)Bal-anced processing is the degree to which the leader shows that(s)he objectively analyzes the relevant data before coming to a decision and solicits views that challenge deeply held positions(Gardner et al.,2005;Walumbwa et al.,2008);(3)Internalized moral perspective refers to the degree to which the leader sets a high standard for moral and ethical conduct,guides actions by internal moral standards and values(versus group,organizational,and societal pressures),and expresses decision making and behaviors that are consistent with such internalized values(Avolio&Gardner,2005;Gardner et al., 2005;Walumbwa et al.,2008);(4)Relational transparency is the de-gree to which the leader presents his/her authentic self(as opposed to a false or distorted self)to others,openly shares information,and expresses his/her true thoughts and feelings,reinforcing a level of openness with others that provides them with an opportunity to be forthcoming with their ideas,challenges,and opinions.
Empirical evidence(e.g.,Kernis&Goldman,2005;Walumbwa et al.,2008,forthcoming)shows that a core AL factor can emerge from the relationships among the four dimensions.Walumbwa et al. (2008,forthcoming)?nds that individual factors do not add any meaningful incremental validity beyond the common core higher fac-tor,thus suggesting that the variance attributable to overall AL is more important than the variance imputable to each individual di-mension of the AL construct.Considering AL as a core construct is also conceptually plausible,the literature proposing that the four AL dimensions are self-regulatory processes governed,partially,through leaders'internal standards and their evaluations of their own behav-ior(Gardner et al.,2005).
Therefore,the study hypothesizes considerable overlap among the four dimensions,and that the higher order AL construct will help to ex-plain the conceptual and empirical overlap discussed above.Some re-search(Walumbwa,Luthans,Avey,&Oke,2009;Walumbwa et al., 2008)also?nds effects of AL on important work attitudes and behav-iors,after controlling the effects of ethical and transformational leader-ship.Although the present study cannot include these latter constructs (because some organizations that participate in the study require ap-plying a short survey),evidence suggests that the construct has incre-mental validity regarding those“older”leadership constructs.
2.2.The PsyCap construct
The PsyCap construct comprises four dimensions:self-ef?cacy,opti-mism,hope,and resilience.PsyCap meets conceptual and empirical cri-teria of being distinct from other constructs(Luthans,Avolio,Avey,& Norman,2007;Youssef&Luthans,2007).While Peterson and Seligman's (2004)character strengths and virtues are“trait-like”(relatively stable and dif?cult to change),the PsyCap is“state-like,”and thus relatively mal-leable and open to development.Both theory-building and prior research on hope,resilience,optimism,and ef?cacy indicate that such personal strengths are amenable to development(Luthans,Avey,Avolio,Norman, &Combs,2006;Luthans,Avolio,Avey,&Norman,2007;Luthans,Youssef, &Avolio,2007).Such a state-like nature also differentiates PsyCap from positively-oriented organizational behavior trait-like constructs,such as “Big Five”personality dimensions or core self-evaluations(Judge,Bono, Erez,&Thoresen,2003).
Earlier research suggests that commonalities among the four dimen-sions allow considering PsyCap as a core construct(Luthans,Avey,& Patera,2008;Luthans,Avolio,Avey,&Norman,2007).This higher-order core construct has both conceptual(Luthans&Youssef,2004; Luthans,Youssef et al.,2007)and empirical(Luthans,Norman,Avolio, &Avey,2008;Luthans,Youssef,&Avolio,2007)support.As a core con-struct,PsyCap represents“one's positive appraisal of circumstances and probability for success based on motivated effort and perseverance”(Luthans,Avolio,Avey,&Norman,2007:550).
Fig.1.Hypothesized model.
430 A.Rego et al./Journal of Business Research65(2012)429–437
Empirical?ndings show that PsyCap predicts variables such as job satisfaction,organizational commitment,and work performance (Larson&Luthans,2006;Luthans,Avolio,Avey,&Norman,2007; Luthans,Norman,Avolio,&Avey,2008;Youssef&Luthans,2007). Next,the paper discusses how employees'PsyCap may work as par-tial mediator in the relationship between AL and employees' creativity.
2.3.PsyCap as predictor of creativity
2.3.1.Self-ef?cacy
Self-ef?cacious people believe in their abilities to mobilize the mo-tivation,cognitive resources,and courses of action necessary to suc-cessfully perform a speci?c task within a given context(Stajkovic& Luthans,1998).Those individuals are likely to choose challenging tasks and endeavors,apply their efforts and motivational resources to accomplish their goals,and persevere in the face of obstacles and dif?culties(Bandura,1997;Luthans,2002;Luthans&Youssef, 2004).This combination of challenging goals,motivational energy, and perseverance motivates individuals to propose new and useful ideas for reaching goals.Self-ef?cacy is a generative capability,with Bandura(1997)suggesting that this psychological strength is essen-tial for creative productivity.Several studies reveal positive relation-ships between self-ef?cacy and creativity(e.g.,Choi,2004;Prabhu, Sutton,&Sauser,2008;Tierney&Farmer,2004).
2.3.2.Hope
Being resolute in pursuing goals,hopeful employees tend to be risk-takers and look for alternative pathways when the old ones are blocked(Snyder,1994,2002).Most hopeful individuals enjoy goal pursuit,being more intrinsically motivated and looking for creative ways when implementing their“agency energy”(Amabile,1988, 1997;Oldham&Cummings,1997;Shalley&Gilson,2004;Snyder, 2002).When hopeful individuals do not attain goals,they use the feedback to improve goal pursuit thoughts and strategies,thus being more energetic and prone to look for alternative and creative ways to overcome obstacles(Rego et al.,2009).In short,hope feeds creativity(Rego et al.,2009).
2.3.3.Optimism
Optimists take credit for favorable events in their lives,strengthen-ing their self-esteem and morale,which in turn may lead to greater cre-ativity(Goldsmith&Matherly,2000;Lyubomirsky,Tkach,&DiMatteo, 2006).Optimists distance themselves from unfavorable life events, thus diminishing the likelihood of experiencing depression,guilt,self-blame,and despair.Thus,optimists are less likely to give up and more likely to have a more positive outlook on stressful situations,to experi-ence positive emotions,to persevere when facing dif?culties,and to look for creative ways to solve problems and take advantage of oppor-tunities(Fredrickson,2001;Youssef&Luthans,2007).
2.3.4.Resilience
Resilient people are able“to overcome,steer through,bounce back and reach out to pursue new knowledge and experiences,deeper rela-tionships with others and[?nd]meaning in life”(Luthans,Youssef,& Avolio,2007:123).Research suggests that resilience relates to creativity (Cohler,1987;Helson,1999).Resilient employees have zestful and en-ergetic approaches to life,are curious and open to new experiences (Tugade,Fredrickson,&Barrett,2004),and improvise in situations pre-dominantly characterized by change and uncertainty(Youssef& Luthans,2007).As such,resilient employees are likely to develop new ways of doing things when facing dif?culties,failures,and opportuni-ties.They are more able to recover from negative emotional experiences and more prone to experience positive emotions in the midst of stress-ful events.Literature suggests that positive emotions relate to creativity (Fredrickson,2001;Philippe,Lecours,&Beaulieu-Pelletier,2009; Tugade et al.,2004).
2.3.5.PsyCap
As discussed above,theoretical and empirical reasons allow con-sidering self-ef?cacy,optimism,hope,and resilience as important facets of a core PsyCap construct,rather than focusing on any one in-dividual dimension in particular.One can expect that the combined motivational effects of the four dimensions will be broader and more in?uential than any one of the constructs individually(Luthans, Avolio,Avey,&Norman,2007).Synergistic effects among the four components may occur.Resilience allows employees to re-establish self-ef?cacy after experiencing a failure in trying to creatively solve a problem or taking advantage of an opportunity.Optimism allows employees to keep their self-ef?cacy intact after realizing that a crea-tive proposal did not work.Optimistic,hopeful,and self-ef?cacious people are potentially more resilient to adversity(Bandura,1997; Luthans,Youssef,&Avolio,2007).If a self-ef?cacious employee is more creative because(s)he accepts signi?cant challenges and carries out cognitive and creative efforts to achieve goals,such a propensity is stronger if(s)he also has high hope(Luthans,Avolio,Avey,&Nor-man,2007):(s)he does not only accept challenges and make an effort to achieve goals,but also identi?es subgoals and creative pathways to achieve those goals,and overcomes such obstacles by pursuing mul-tiple and creative pathways.As Luthans,Avolio,Avey,and Norman, (2007:551)point out,“employees who embody high levels of overall PsyCap may be stronger performers because of the number and level of positive psychological constructs manifested through their cogni-tions,motivation,and ultimately their behavior than would those who only exhibit hope,or resilience,or optimism,or self-ef?cacy in a given situation”.Hence:H1:employees with higher PsyCap are more creative.
2.4.AL as predictor of PsyCap
Several reasons support the prediction that AL in?uences em-ployees'PsyCap.Gardner et al.(2005:345)argue that authentic leaders“draw from the positive psychological states that accompany optimal self-esteem and psychological well-being,such as con?dence, optimism,hope and resilience,to model and promote the develop-ment of these states in others”.
2.4.1.Self-ef?cacy
Observing exemplary behaviors and psychological strengths in au-thentic leaders(i.e.,through vicarious learning),and receiving con-structive criticism and feedback in a respectful and developmental manner from them,employees may develop more con?dence in their abilities to pursue goals(Ilies et al.,2005;Luthans&Youssef, 2004;Luthans,Youssef,&Avolio,2007).When authentic leaders so-licit views that challenge deeply held positions and openly share in-formation with employees,one may expect that employees become more self-con?dent(Kirkman&Rosen,1999;Walumbwa et al., 2008).Considering that authentic leaders focus on followers' strengths,unleash their potential(Gardner&Schermerhorn,2004), and constantly emphasize their growth,employees'self-ef?cacy po-tentially develops through the effect of the self-ful?lling prophecy (Avolio et al.,2004;Gardner et al.,2005;Luthans,Youssef,&Avolio, 2007).
2.4.2.Hope
Avolio et al.(2004:809)observe:“Because authentic leaders have the ability to remain realistically hopeful and trustworthy,such leaders can enhance followers'hope by establishing not only their willpower,but also by including in their comments positive aspects of the waypower or directions to pursue that enhance a follower's sense of self-ef?cacy”.Authentic leaders provide senses of self-
431
A.Rego et al./Journal of Business Research65(2012)429–437
determination,security,and trust,which enable followers to focus their energies on goal-related endeavors and on?nding different pathways for solving problems and bene?tting from opportunities (Avolio et al.,2004;Edmondson,1999;Ilies et al.,2005).Over time, because authentic leaders are viewed as more credible sources of input and feedback(Walumbwa et al.,2008),employees likely perse-vere toward goals and,when necessary,redirect paths to goals in order to succeed.Positive emotions and self-ef?cacy that employees develop when led by authentic leaders may also make them more able to sustain their willpower and to develop waypower for reaching challenging goals(Avolio et al.,2004;Gardner&Schermerhorn,2004; Luthans,Youssef,&Avolio,2007).
2.4.
3.Optimism
Several authors suggest that AL fosters employees'optimism (Avolio et al.,2004;De Hoogh&Den Hartog,2008;Gardner&Scher-merhorn,2004;McColl-Kennedy&Anderson,2002).For example, Gardner and Schermerhorn(2004:275)note that one“task of the au-thentic leaders is to raise optimism”.Avolio et al.(2004)stress that authentic leaders in?uence employees'optimism by increasing their identi?cation with the leaders and encouraging their positive emo-tions.De Hoogh and Den Hartog(2008)reveal that ethical leadership (an authentic-like leadership;Avolio et al.,2004)relates signi?cantly with employees'optimism about their future.In their view,by being fair,caring about followers'feelings,promoting transparent and open communication,rewarding ethical conduct,and investing followers with voice,such leaders make employees more positive and optimis-tic about their organization and work situation,and more willing to remain and contribute to its success.In short,because authentic leaders tend to use more active,adaptive,and positive approaches to-ward problem solving,they are more likely to motivate and challenge employees to do the same(Peterson,2000;Walumbwa et al.,2009).
2.4.4.Resilience
Gardner and Schermerhorn(2004:277)argue that one“task of the authentic leaders is strengthening resilience”.These leaders may carry out such a task through several routes(Gardner et al.,2005; Luthans&Youssef,2004;Luthans,Youssef,&Avolio,2007),includ-ing:(a)promoting good interpersonal relationships,thus developing conditions so that employees receive social support in adverse times, this support being important for sustaining resilience;(b)increasing employees'self-con?dence and psychological safety,which makes them more able to face problems and adversities with resilience;(c) promoting employees'positive emotions,these emotions helping to develop resilience(Tugade et al.,2004).As the authors argue(p. 278),“[a]uthentic leaders capitalize on individual resilience by ensur-ing that others have the support they need to(1)recover from adver-sity,and(2)not only withstand but thrive when faced with high levels of positive change.They anticipate potential adversity or strains,make contingency plans to support and help employees cope with them,and are available and responsive when such persons reach out to them.”
2.4.5.PsyCap
Due to the reasons explained above,synergistic effects upon the several PsyCap capabilities may occur when leaders are authentic. For example,when developing the employees'self-ef?cacy,hope, and optimism,authentic leaders also increase the employees'psycho-logical resources that help them to bounce back when facing dif?cul-ties,drawbacks,and failures.Resilience and optimism encouraged by an authentic leader may allow employees to keep their self-ef?cacy intact or re-establish self-ef?cacy after experiencing a failure.Opti-mistic,hopeful,and self-ef?cacious people are potentially more resil-ient.Through contagion effects(Ilies et al.,2005;Norman,Luthans,& Luthans,2005),the psychological strengths of authentic leaders may promote the employees'overall PsyCap.In short,as Yammarino et al.(2008)suggest,AL potentially in?uences positive psychological capa-bilities such as PsyCap.Hence:H2.Stronger authentic leadership asso-ciates with higher employees'PsyCap.
2.5.PsyCap as partial mediator of the relationship between AL and em-ployees'creativity
The arguments above suggest that employees led by authentic leaders develop higher PsyCap and that this psychological resource drives them to be more creative.However,other mechanisms explain why authentic leaders may nurture employees'creativity.Being self-aware,transparent with employees,guided by internal ethical stan-dards,and able to analyze objectively all relevant data(including em-ployees'dissenting opinions and proposals),authentic leaders promote employees'trust and respect(Avolio et al.,2004;Deluga, 1994;Dirks&Ferrin,2002;Gardner et al.,2005;Ilies et al.,2005; Walumbwa et al.,2008).Trust and respect are important because people experience greater emotional safety and feel free to propose unconventional ideas and introduce con?icting opinions without fear(Avolio et al.,2004;Edmondson,1999;Prati et al.,2003;Rego et al.,2007).Considering their balanced processing and relational transparency,authentic leaders feel less threatened by the changes that employees'ideas may imply,and are more inclined to welcome their creative suggestions(Michie&Gooty,2005).Their self-awareness and balanced processing make them more cautious when evaluating employees'ideas(Zhou&George,2003)and more able to understand how they are biased toward some people's ideas.
Due to their ethical self-guidance,relational transparency,and ca-pacity for processing data in an unbiased way,authentic leaders are able to provide constructive criticism and feedback in a fair,respect-ful,informational,and developmental(rather than controlling)man-ner(Avolio et al.,2004;Michie&Gooty,2005;Zhou,2003;Zhou& George,2003).These informational practices provide employees with relevant information to improve their performance without pressure for a particular outcome,and they are thus more inclined to search for and propose creative ideas to face problems and oppor-tunities.Authentic leaders also promote employees'intrinsic motiva-tion(Ilies et al.,2005),which can act as a trigger of creativity (Amabile,1997;Deci&Ryan,1985;Kernis,2003;Oldham&Cum-mings,1997;Tierney et al.,1999).Intrinsic motivation is crucial for creativity because an intrinsically motivated person tends to be(a) curious and learning oriented,(b)cognitively?exible,(c)willing to take risks,and(d)persistent when facing obstacles,challenges,and opportunities(Deci&Ryan,1985;Zhou,2003).
Through positive social exchanges with their followers,authentic leaders may also inspire them to work with more enthusiasm and ex-citement and to experience other positive emotions(Avolio et al., 2004;Ilies et al.,2005;Prati et al.,2003;Zhou&George,2003). These positive emotions can broaden the employees'scope of atten-tion(increasing the number of cognitive elements available for asso-ciation)and the scope of cognition(increasing the breadth of those elements that are treated as relevant to the problem),thus increasing the probability of creative activities(Fredrickson,2001).The follow-ing two hypotheses follow from this discussion:H3.Stronger authen-tic leadership associates with higher employees'creativity.H4. Employees'PsyCap partially mediates the effect of AL on employees' creativity.
3.Method
3.1.Sample and procedures
Participants in the study are201employees,working in33com-merce organizations operating in https://www.doczj.com/doc/8e962190.html,anizations compete in several sectors(e.g.,food,clothing,appliances,sports,toys,foot-wear,and of?ce materials,furniture,and equipment).All participants
432 A.Rego et al./Journal of Business Research65(2012)429–437
(68.0%female)are shop assistants.Mean age is26.4years(standard deviation:4.1),and mean organizational tenure is3.2years(SD: 2.0).8.4%of the individuals have nine or fewer years of schooling, 41.8%have between10and12years,and49.8%have at least an un-dergraduate degree.The mean length of supervisor-employee contact is2.8years(SD:1.7).
After obtaining the permission of the organizations'leaders,the researchers approach the employees in their workplaces.Individuals report their supervisors'AL and their PsyCap.Supervisors rate the employees'creativity at work(each supervisor rating only one of their respective employees).Shalley and Gilson(2004:35)argue that“managers play a key role in that they are often the individuals best suited to make the determination of whether an employee's out-come should be regarded as creative.”To avoid any form of embar-rassment,subordinates and supervisors?ll in their questionnaires in separate locations.To guarantee anonymity,the participants deliver their responses under sealed cover directly to the researchers.To re-duce common method bias(Podsakoff,MacKenzie,Lee,&Podsakoff, 2003),the study also uses different formats and/or ranges for the AL,PsyCap,and creativity measures(see the next sub-sections).
3.2.Authentic leadership measurement
The study uses the16?ve-point items of the Authentic Leadership Questionnaire(Copyright?2007Authentic Leadership Questionnaire (ALQ)by Bruce J.Avolio,William L.Gardner,and Fred O.Walumbwa. All rights reserved in all media.Distributed by Mind Garden,Inc. https://www.doczj.com/doc/8e962190.html,)for measuring AL.The questionnaire measures four dimensions:self-awareness,relational transparency,internalized moral perspective,and balanced processing.Sample items are:(a) Seeks feedback to improve interactions with others(self-awareness);
(b)Says exactly what he or she means(relational transparency);(c) Demonstrates beliefs that are consistent with actions(internalized moral perspective);(d)Listens carefully to different points of view be-fore coming to conclusions(balanced processing).A?rst translator translates the items from English to Portuguese,and a second translator independently back-translates them to English.Both translators discuss discrepancies between the original and the back-translated versions.
Two bilingual Portuguese scholars again discuss the?nal version,and the authors make?nal adjustments.
Individuals report the frequency(0:“not at all”;4:“frequently,if not always”)with which their supervisors adopt the16behaviors/at-titudes.Con?rmatory factor analysis(using LISREL with the maxi-mum likelihood estimation method)tests the four-factor model. Because?t indices are unsatisfactory(e.g.,RMSEA:0.12;GFI:0.82), the study uses standardized residuals and modi?cation indices for lo-cating sources of misspeci?cation(Bagozzi&Baumgartner,1994). After deliberation based on both techniques,the study discards four items(one regarding internalized moral perspective,two regarding relational transparency,and one regarding balanced processing).A well-?tted12-item model emerges(Table1).All Cronbach Alphas are higher than0.70.A second-order factor model,where the four AL dimensions load on a higher AL factor,?t the data satisfactorily (Table1).Comparison of the?rst-and second-order models shows no signi?cant change inχ2relative to the difference in degrees of free-dom(Δχ2(2)=0.68;p=0.71).The?t indices of the single latent fac-tor(all12items loading on a single factor model)are unsatisfactory (e.g.,RMSEA:0.15).The comparison of this single latent factor with the second-order factor model shows a signi?cant change inχ2rela-tive to the difference in degrees of freedom(Δχ2(4)=190.66; p b0.001).Taking these?ndings into account,the study considers AL as a core construct.To obtain a composite AL score:(1)the study averages the items for each of the four subscales to arrive at a com-posite average for each subscale;(2)then,the study averages the av-erages for each of the four subscales.Cronbach Alpha is0.91.
For testing the impact of removing items on the internalized moral perspective,relational transparency,and balanced processing dimen-sions,the study correlates scores as computed with the?nal versus the original set of items.Correlations are,respectively,0.99,0.96 and0.95.For overall AL,the correlation between scores as computed with the initial versus the?nal set of items is0.99.
3.3.Psychological capital measurement
For measuring PsyCap,the study uses the questionnaire proposed by Luthans,Youssef,and Avolio(2007),comprising24six-point items(1:“strongly disagree”;…;6:“strongly agree”)and measuring self-ef?cacy, optimism,hope,and resilience(six items per dimension).Sample items are:(a)I feel con?dent in representing my work area in meetings with management(self-ef?cacy);(b)When things are uncertain for me at work,I usually expect the best(optimism);(c)I can think of many ways to reach my current work goals(hope);(d)I usually take stressful things at work in stride(resilience).Two bilingual individuals,working independently,translate the scales to the Portuguese language.Both in-dividuals develop an iterative discussion for solving disagreements and for reaching a single version.Two other bilingual individuals,working independently,back-translate the Portuguese version to English.The ?rst author compares these back-translated versions with the original, and solves disagreements and discrepancies through an iterative dis-cussion with both individuals.The?rst author also consults and dis-cusses the?nal version with three organizational members(Brislin, Lonner,&Thorndike,1973).
Table1
Employee-reported authentic leadership:Con?rmatory factor analysis(completely standardized solution).
1st-order
factor model
2nd-order
factor model
Cronbach
alphas
Lambdas Fit indices Lambdas Fit indices
Self-awareness0.92
Item#130.790.79
Item#140.880.88
Item#150.890.89
Item#160.920.92
Balanced processing0.85
Item#110.890.88
Item#120.850.86
Internalized moral
perspective
0.88
Item#60.870.86
Item#80.850.85
Item#90.820.82
Relational transparency0.86
Item#10.870.87
Item#30.780.78
Item#40.820.82
Authentic leadership0.91
Self-awareness0.96
Relational transparency0.88
Internalized moral
perspective
0.86
Balanced processing0.89
Chi-square92.9693.64
Degrees of freedom4850
Chi-square/degrees
of freedom
1.9 1.9
Root mean square error
of approximation
0.070.07
Goodness of?t index0.930.93
Adjusted goodness
of?t index
0.880.88
Comparative?t index0.970.97
Incremental?t index0.970.98
Relative?t index0.930.94
In brackets and bold:Cronbach alphas.
Item numbers are those of ALQ.
433
A.Rego et al./Journal of Business Research65(2012)429–437
A con?rmatory factor analysis(using LISREL with the maximum likelihood estimation method)tests how the four-factor model?ts the data.Although RMSEA is satisfactory(0.08),several other?t indi-ces are not(e.g.,GFI:0.82)and two Lambdas are lower than0.50.The study removes these two items and,after analyzing standardized re-siduals and modi?cation indices for locating sources of misspeci?ca-tion,removes a third one.A reasonably well-?tted21-item model emerges(Table2).All Lambdas are higher than0.50.All reliabilities are higher than0.80.The?t indices of a second-order factor model, with the four factors loading onto an overall PsyCap factor,are satis-factory(Table2).Comparison of the?rst-and second-order shows no signi?cant change inχ2relative to the difference in degrees of free-dom(Δχ2(2)=1.12;p=0.56).The?t indices of a single latent factor (all21items loading on a single factor)are unsatisfactory(e.g., RMSEA:0.11).The comparison of this single latent factor with the second-order factor model shows a signi?cant change inχ2relative to the difference in degrees of freedom(Δχ2(4)=227.67;p b0.001). Taking these?ndings into account,the study considers PsyCap as a core construct.To obtain a composite PsyCap score:(1)the study av-erages the items for each of the four subscales to arrive at a composite average for each subscale;(2)then,the study averages the averages for each of the four subscales.Cronbach Alpha is0.90.
For testing the impact of removing items on the hope,resilience, and optimism dimensions,the study correlates scores as computed with the?nal versus the original set of items.Correlations are,respectively,0.99,0.98,and0.98.For overall PsyCap,the correlation between scores as computed with the initial versus the?nal set of items is0.99.
3.4.Employees'creativity measurement
For measuring employees'creativity,the study uses four items proposed by Zhou and George(2001),representing new and useful ideas.Sample items are:(1)“This employee comes up with new and practical ideas to improve performance”;(2)“This employee sug-gests new ways to increase quality”.Rego et al.'s(2007)Portuguese translation is used.Supervisors report how frequently the employee adopts the?ve behaviors,on a scale ranging from1(never)to5(fre-quently).Cronbach Alpha is0.90.
3.5.Con?rmatory factor analyses for testing discriminant validity and common source effects
The study carries out a series of dimension-level con?rmatory fac-tor analyses to examine whether the three variables of the study cap-ture distinct constructs versus common source effects.The three-factor model?ts the data well(e.g.,RMSEA:0.08;GFI:0.91;NNFI: 0.95;CFI:0.96;IFI:0.96).The study tests three other models:(1)A two-factor model,where employees'PsyCap and creativity merge into a single factor,does not?t the data satisfactorily(e.g.,RMSEA: 0.16;GFI:0.78);(2)Another two-factor model,where AL and em-ployees'PsyCap merge into a single factor,also does not?t the data satisfactorily(e.g.,RMSEA:0.19;GFI:0.74);(3)The single factor model also does not?t the data satisfactorily(e.g.,RMSEA:0.22; GFI:0.67).These?ndings provide support for the discriminant valid-ity of AL,PsyCap,and creativity.
Following Podsakoff et al.(2003),the study compares two models for examining the extent to which the results are due to common methods variance.The?rst model includes three factors:four indica-tors loading on the AL factor,four indicators loading on the PsyCap factor,and four items loading on the creativity factor.The second model is identical to the?rst except for the addition of a latent meth-od variance factor comprising the12items/indicators.No substantive difference exists between the?t indices of either model(e.g.,RMSEA for both models is the same).These?ndings suggest that common source bias does not constitute a serious threat to the validity of the study.
3.6.Controlling for clustering the data
For assessing if aggregating individual scores at the organizational level is statistically justi?able,the study uses intraclass correlation (ICC).ICC is a measure of within-group consensus,the median value in organizational research typically being0.12(James,1982).For AL, PsyCap,and creativity,ICC is lower than0.01.These?ndings suggest that aggregating scores is not justi?ed.
4.Results
Table3presents means,standard deviations,and correlations. Several control variables intercorrelate,but none correlates signi?-cantly with AL,PsyCap,or creativity.AL relates positively with em-ployees'PsyCap and creativity.Employees'PsyCap and creativity intercorrelate positively.Therefore:(a)employees with higher Psy-Cap are more creative and(b)employees with higher PsyCap and cre-ativity are those whose leaders are more authentic.
Structural equation modeling(using LISREL with the maximum likelihood estimation method)tests the causal model,considering both the?nal and the initial set of items for measuring AL and PsyCap. The study uses employees'gender,age,schooling,tenure,and length of supervisor–subordinate contact as control.The?ndings(see Fig.2,
Table2
Psychological capital:Con?rmatory factor analysis(completely standardized solution).
Four-factor model 2nd-order
factor model
Cronbach
alphas
Lambdas Fit indices Lambdas Fit indices
Self-ef?cacy0.87
Item#10.670.67
Item#20.760.76
Item#30.780.78
Item#40.660.66
Item#50.780.78
Item#60.740.74
Hope0.85
Item#70.700.70
Item#90.710.70
Item#100.800.80
Item#110.830.83
Item#120.740.74
Resilience0.85
Item#140.740.74
Item#150.750.73
Item#160.770.77
Item#170.760.76
Item#180.720.72
Optimism0.82
Item#190.640.64
Item#20?0.51?0.51
Item#210.760.76
Item#220.850.85
Item#240.750.75
PsyCap0.90
Self-ef?cacy0.92
Hope0.92
Resilience0.84
Optimism0.89
Chi-square378.11379.26
Degrees of freedom183185
Chi-square/Degrees
of freedom ratio
2.1 2.1
Root mean square error
of approximation
0.070.07
Goodness of?t index0.850.85
Non-normed?t index0.900.90
Comparative?t index0.910.91
Incremental?t index0.910.91
Item numbers are those of Luthans,Youssef,and Avolio(2007,pp.237–238).
434 A.Rego et al./Journal of Business Research65(2012)429–437
depicting standardized path coef ?cients)show that all predicted paths are signi ?cant,for both models.The model is saturated,and the ?t is perfect,also for both models.
The ?t indices of a full mediated model,without the path between AL and employees'creativity,are unsatisfactory (e.g.,RMSEA is 0.36and 0.38,respectively,when the study considers the ?nal and the original set of items for measuring AL and PsyCap).The ?ndings sup-port the four hypotheses,suggesting that AL predicts employees'cre-ativity both directly and through the mediating role of employees'PsyCap.
5.Discussion and conclusions 5.1.Main ?ndings
Creativity is the ?rst step in innovation,and innovation is crucial for long-term organizational success (Amabile,1997).Thus,organiza-tions need to take advantage of and facilitate the creativity of their employees.This study may help organizations and researchers to identify ways to address these needs.The ?ndings suggest that AL is an important predictor of employees'creativity and help to under-stand the processes through which the relationship operates.Authen-tic leaders promote employees'creativity because employees develop higher PsyCap,thus being more creative.The ?ndings also show di-rect relationships between AL and employees'creativity,suggesting that other variables/mechanisms than PsyCap operate in the process that makes the employees led by authentic leaders more creative.Fu-ture studies may explore the in ?uence of variables such as identi ?ca-tion with the supervisor,psychological empowerment,work engagement,trust,feelings of meaningful work,intrinsic motivation,positive emotions,leader –member exchange,and followers'authen-ticity.For example,do authentic leaders promote employees'creativ-ity because the employees feel empowered,engaged,happier,
intrinsically motivated,and develop greater commitment toward their leaders?
The predictive value of AL for employees'PsyCap is also important because PsyCap relates with variables such as job satisfaction,organiza-tional commitment,happiness at work,and in-role and extra-role per-formance (Avey,Wernsing,&Luthans,2008;Luthans,Avolio,Avey,&Norman,2007;Luthans,Norman,Avolio,&Avey,2008;Youssef &Luthans,2007).Therefore,the study indirectly corroborates theoretical and empirical evidence showing that authentic leaders may be able to foster employee ?ourishing and performance (Gardner et al.,2005;Walumbwa et al.,2008).This is a contribution to a ?eld where empirical studies remain scarce (Walumbwa et al.,2008;Yammarino et al.,2008),mainly regarding the mediating variables that explain the impact of AL in outcomes with organizational relevance.5.2.Limitations and future studies
The study is not without its limitations and future studies are neces-sary for a better understanding of why authentic leaders impact em-ployees'creativity.First:the data do not allow an unquestionable determination of the hypothesized causality,other causal links and ex-planations being plausible.For example,employees with higher PsyCap and creativity levels may motivate leaders to reciprocate and to be more transparent with them and to solicit views that challenge deeply held positions.Leaders may feel free to behave more authentically if they perceive high levels of psychological and creative resources in their em-ployees.Performing creativity acts may induce positive emotions of pride and achievement in employees (Fredrickson,2003),making them more prone to describe their leaders positively (Brief &Weiss,2002).Such employees'positive emotions may also in ?uence the leaders'emotions through emotional contagion (Barsade,2002),thus motivating leaders to behave more authentically toward subordinates (Ilies et al.,2005).A supervisor may report more creativity in his/her subordinates,not because subordinates are necessarily more creative,but because the subordinates'PsyCap improves the quality of leader –member exchange,and creates a halo effect that induces the supervisor to be more benevolent when reporting the employees'creativity.The relationship between employee PsyCap and creativity may emerge be-cause creative employees develop solutions and make proposals that make them feel more optimistic and self-ef ?cacious.Authentic leaders may experience more positive emotions,thus being more benevolent while describing the employees'creativity,regardless of the real crea-tive behaviors.Future studies may use longitudinal and experimental or quasi-experimental methods for having a clearer picture of the cau-sality nexus.
Second:the study uses a convenience sample,including only em-ployees working in commerce.Future studies may test the
Table 3
Means,standard deviations,and correlations.
Mean
SD 123
4
5
6
7
8
1.Employees'gender (a)–––
2.Employees'age
26.4 4.120.16?–
3.Employees'schooling (b) 2.40.640.36???0.45???–
4.Employees'tenure
3.2 2.06?0.030.55????0.04–
5.Subordinate-supervisor length of contact (years) 2.8 1.71?0.030.44???0.080.72???–
6.Authentic leadership
2.90.72?0.02?0.03?0.01?0.020.04(0.91)7.Employees'overall PsyCap
3.70.630.070.000.12?0.010.030.65???(0.90)8.
Employees'creativity
3.0
0.81
?0.01
?0.01
0.09
0.04
0.13
0.65???
0.71???
(0.90)
In brackets:Cronbach alphas.(a)0:female;1:male.
(b)1:nine or fewer years of schooling;2:10–12years;3:at least an undergraduate degree.In brackets:Cronbach alphas.?p b 0.05.???p b 0.001.
Fig.2.Structural equation modeling for predicting employees'creativity (standardized path coef ?cients).***p b 0.001.The paths related to the control variables (gender,age,schooling,tenure,and the length of supervisor –subordinate contact)are not shown.Numbers outside (in)brackets represent the model as estimated with the ?nal (initial)set of items of the authentic leadership and the PsyCap measures.
435
A.Rego et al./Journal of Business Research 65(2012)429–437
hypothesized model with employees from other types of organizations and industries.Third:only one mediating variable is included.Future studies may include other mediating variables for explaining why au-thentic leaders tend to promote their employee's creativity.Fourth:fu-ture studies may also test the degree to which some personal characteristics(e.g.,propensity to trust,positive and negative affect,in-dividualistic/collectivistic values,and personal virtues and strengths such as gratitude,forgiveness,compassion,love,kindness,and honesty) moderate the relationships between AL and employees'creativity.For example,are employees with higher scores on gratitude,compassion, and forgiveness more/less sensitive to AL?Are in-group collectivistic employees more sensitive to perceptions of AL than individualistic ones?Do employees with higher positive affect respond more positive-ly to leader authenticity?Fifth:future studies may adopt team and/or organizational levels of analysis and test if the collective phenomena identi?ed by Walumbwa et al.(2009)also perform when studying col-lective creativity.Sixth:Studying a single culture may produce some id-iosyncratic?ndings.For example,does the feminine and highly in-group collectivistic features of the Portuguese culture(Hofstede,1991; House,Hanges,Javidan,Dorfman,&Gupta,2004)make Portuguese em-ployees more sensitive to authentic leaders than the employees from masculine and low in-group collectivistic cultures?Future studies may use a cross-cultural research method for testing if culture moderates the relationship between AL and dependent variables.
5.3.Implications for management and concluding remarks
In spite of the above-mentioned limitations,the study suggests that the AL and PsyCap constructs interrelate,and that both may help em-ployees to be more creative.Indirectly,the study suggests that(a)select-ing leaders with authentic features and(b)implementing training and development actions aimed at increasing AL(Avolio&Gardner,2005; Gardner et al.,2005;Luthans&Avolio,2003)and PsyCap(Luthans et al., 2006;Luthans,Youssef,&Avolio,2007;Luthans,Avey,&Patera,2008) may have a positive impact on employees'psychological resources and performance.Developing employees'PsyCap through processes other than AL may also pay off in terms of employees'creativity.Through these PsyCap enhancing tools,managers and organizations may also stim-ulate other positive consequences of this psychological strength,includ-ing workplace performance,job satisfaction,work happiness,and organizational commitment(Luthans et al.,2005;Luthans,Youssef,& Avolio,2007;Luthans,Avey,&Patera,2008;Youssef&Luthans,2007; Walumbwa et al.,2009).Luthans and Youssef(2004)suggest that organi-zations need to invest not only in human and social capital,but also in psychological capital;and George(2003:9)argues:“we need leaders who lead with purpose,values,and integrity;leaders who build enduring organizations,motivate their employees to provide superior customer service,and create long-term value for shareholders”.This study suggests that both claims make sense,not only from a theoretical point of view,but also from an empirical one.
References
Amabile TM.The social psychology of creativity:A componential conceptualization.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology1983;45:357–76.
Amabile TM.A model of creativity and innovation in organizations.In:Staw BM,Cummings LL,editors.Research in organizational behavior,vol.10.Greenwich,CT:JAI Press;1988.
p.123–67.
Amabile TM.Motivating creativity in organizations:On doing what you love and loving what you do.California Management Review1997;40(1):39–58.
Avey HB,Wernsing TS,Luthans F.Can positive employees help positive organizational change?Impact of psychological capital and emotions on relevant attitudes and behaviors.The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science2008;44(1):48–70.
Avolio BJ,Gardner WL.Authentic leadership development:Getting to the root of pos-itive forms of leadership.The Leadership Quarterly2005;16:315–38.
Avolio BJ,Gardner WL,Walumbwa FO,Luthans F,May DR.Unlocking the mask:A look at the process by which authentic leaders impact follower attitudes and behaviors.
The Leadership Quarterly2004;15:801–23.Bagozzi RP,Baumgartner H.The evaluation of structural equation models and hypoth-esis testing.In:Bagozzi RP,editor.Principles of marketing research.Oxford:Black-well;1994.p.386–422.
Bandura A.Self-ef?cacy:The exercise of control.New York:Freeman;1997.
Barsade SG.The ripple effect:Emotional contagion and its in?uence on group behavior.
Administrative Science Quarterly2002;47(4):644–75.
Brief AB,Weiss https://www.doczj.com/doc/8e962190.html,anizational behavior:Affect in the workplace.Annual Review of Psychology2002;53:279–307.
Brislin RW,Lonner W,Thorndike RM.Cross-cultural research methods.New York:John Wiley and Sons;1973.
Brower HH,Schoormanb FD,Tan HH.A model of relational leadership:The integration of trust and leader–member exchange.The Leadership Quarterly2000;11(2):227–50. Choi JM.Individual and contextual predictors of creative performance:The mediating role of psychological processes.Creativity Research Journal2004;16(2/3):187–99. Cohler BJ.Adversity,resilience,and the study of lives.In:Anthony EJ,Cohler BJ,editors.
The invulnerable child.New York:Guilford;1987.p.363–404.
De Hoogh AHB,Den Hartog DN.Ethical and despotic leadership,relationships with lea-der's social responsibility,top management team effectiveness and subordinates' optimism:A multi-method study.The Leadership Quarterly2008;19:297–311. Deci EL,Ryan RM.Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior.New York:Plenum;1985.
Deluga RJ.Supervisor trust building,leader-member exchange and organizational citizenship behavior.Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology1994;67:315–26. Dirks KT,Ferrin DL.Trust in leadership:Meta-analytic?ndings and implications for re-search and practice.Journal of Applied Psychology2002;87(4):611–28. Edmondson A.Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams.Administra-tive Science Quarterly1999;44:350–83.
Egan TM.Factors in?uencing individual creativity in the workplace:An examination of quantitative empirical research.Advances in Developing Human Resources2005;7
(2):160–81.
Ford CM.A theory of individual creative action in multiple social domains.Academy of Management Review1996;21:1112–42.
Fredrickson BL.The role of positive emotions in positive psychology:The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions.American Psychologist2001;56(3):218–26. Fredrickson BL.Positive emotions and upward spirals in organizational settings.In: Cameron KS,Dutton JE,Quinn RE,editors.Positive organizational scholarship.
San Francisco:Berrett Koehler;2003.p.163–75.
Gardner WL,Schermerhorn Jr JR.Unleashing individual potential:Performance gains through positive organizational behavior and authentic https://www.doczj.com/doc/8e962190.html,anizational Dynamics2004;33(3):270–9.
Gardner WL,Avolio BJ,Luthans F,May DR,Walumbwa FO.Can you see the real me?A self-based model of authentic leader and follower development.The Leadership Quarterly2005;16:343–72.
Gelfand MJ,Erez M,Aycan Z.Cross-cultural organizational behavior.Annual Review of Psychology2007;58:479–514.
George B.Authentic leadership:Rediscovering the secrets to creating lasting value.San Francisco,CA:Jossey Bass;2003.
Goldsmith RE,Matherly TA.Creativity and self-esteem:A multiple operationalization validity study.Journal of Psychology2000;122(1):47–56.
Helson R.A longitudinal study of creative personality in women.Creativity Research Journal1999;12(2):89-101.
Hirst G,van Dick R,van Knippenberg D.A social identity perspective on leadership and employee creativity.Journal of Organizational Behavior2009;30(7):963–82. Hofstede G.Cultures and organizations:Software of the mind.London:McGraw-Hill;1991. House RJ,Aditya RN.The social scienti?c study of leadership:Quo vadis?Journal of Management1997;23:409–73.
House R,Hanges P,Javidan M,Dorfman P,Gupta V,editors.Culture,leadership,and or-ganizations:The GLOBE study of62societies.Thousand Oaks,CA:Sage;2004. Ilies R,Morgeson FP,Nahrgang JD.Authentic leadership and eudaemonic well-being: Understanding leader–follower outcomes.The Leadership Quarterly2005;16: 373–94.
James LR.Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual measures.Journal of Applied Psy-chology1982;67:219–29.
Judge TA,Bono JE,Erez A,Thoresen CJ.The core self-evaluations scale(CSES):Develop-ment of a measure.Personnel Psychology2003;56(2):303–31.
Kernis MH.Toward a conceptualization of optimal self-esteem.Psychological Inquiry 2003;14:1-26.
Kernis MH,Goldman BM.From thought and experience to behavior and interpersonal relationships:A multicomponent conceptualization of authenticity.In:Tesser A, Wood JV,Stapel D,editors.On building,defending and regulating the self:A psy-chological perspective.New York:Psychology Press;2005.p.31–52.
Kirkman BL,Rosen B.Beyond self-management:Antecedents and consequences of team empowerment.Academy of Management Journal1999;42:58–74.
Larson M,Luthans F.Potential added value of psychological capital in predicting work attitudes.Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies2006;13(1):45–62. Liden RC,Sparrowe RT,Wayne SJ.Leader–member exchange theory:the past and po-tential for the future.Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management 1997;15:47-119.
Luthans F.Positive organizational behavior:Developing and managing psychological strengths.The Academy of Management Executive2002;16(1):57–72.
Luthans F,Avolio BJ.Authentic leadership:A positive developmental approach.In: Cameron KS,Dutton JE,Quinn RE,editors.Positive organizational scholarship.
San Francisco,CA:Barrett-Koehler;2003.p.241–61.
Luthans F,Youssef CM.Human,social,and now positive psychological capital manage-ment:Investing in people for competitive https://www.doczj.com/doc/8e962190.html,anizational Dynamics 2004;33:143–60.
436 A.Rego et al./Journal of Business Research65(2012)429–437
Luthans F,Avolio BJ,Walumbwa FO,Li W.The psychological capital of Chinese workers:exploring the relationship with performance.Management and Organi-zation Review2005;1:249–71.
Luthans F,Avey JB,Avolio BJ,Norman SM,Combs GM.Psychological capital development: Toward a micro-intervention.Journal of Organizational Behavior2006;27(3):387–93. Luthans F,Avolio BJ,Avey JB,Norman SM.Positive psychological capital:Measurement and relationship with performance and satisfaction.Personnel Psychology2007;60
(3):541–72.
Luthans F,Youssef CM,Avolio BJ.Psychological capital.Oxford:Oxford University Press;
2007.
Luthans F,Avey JB,Patera JL.Experimental analysis of a web-based intervention to de-velop positive psychological capital.The Academy of Management Learning and Education2008;7(2):209–21.
Luthans F,Norman SM,Avolio BJ,Avey JA.The mediating role of psychological capital in the supportive organizational climate—employee performance relationship.
Journal of Organizational Behavior2008;29(2):219–38.
Lyubomirsky S,Tkach C,DiMatteo MR.What are the differences between happiness and self-esteem.Social Indicators Research2006;78(3):363–404.
McColl-Kennedy JR,Anderson RD.Impact of leadership style and emotions on subordi-nate performance.The Leadership Quarterly2002;13:545–59.
Michie S,Gooty J.Values,emotions,and authenticity:Will the real leader please stand up?The Leadership Quarterly2005;16:441–57.
Mumford MD,Scott GM,Gaddis B,Strange JM.Leading creative people:Orchestrating expertise and relationships.The Leadership Quarterly2002;13:705–50.
Norman S,Luthans B,Luthans K.The proposed contagion effect of hopeful leaders on the resiliency of employees and organizations.Journal of Leadership&Organiza-tional Studies2005;12(2):55–64.
Oldham GR,Cummings A.Employee creativity:Personal and contextual factors at work.Academy of Management Journal1997;39:607–34.
Peterson C.The future of optimism.American Psychologist2000;55:44–55.
Peterson C,Seligman MEP.Character strengths and virtues:A handbook and classi?cation.
Washington,DC:American Psychological Association and Oxford University Press;2004. Philippe FL,Lecours S,Beaulieu-Pelletier G.Resilience and positive emotions:Examin-ing the role of emotional memories.Journal of Personality2009;77(1):139–76. Podsakoff PM,MacKenzie SB,Lee J,Podsakoff https://www.doczj.com/doc/8e962190.html,mon method biases in behavioral research:A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.Journal of Applied Psychology2003;88(5):879–903.
Prabhu V,Sutton C,Sauser W.Creativity and certain personality traits:Understanding the mediating effect of intrinsic motivation.Creativity Research Journal2008;20(1):53–66. Prati LM,Douglas C,Ferris GR,Ammeter AP,Buckley MR.Emotional intelligence,lead-ership effectiveness,and team outcomes.International Journal of Organizational Analysis2003;11(1):21–40.
Rego A,Sousa F,Cunha MP,Correia A,Saur I.Leader self-reported emotional intelli-gence and perceived employee creativity:An exploratory study.Creativity and In-novation Management2007;16(3):250–64.
Rego A,Machado F,Leal S,Cunha MP.Are hopeful employees more creative?An empir-ical study.Creativity Research Journal2009;21(2/3):223–31.
Reiter-Palmon R,Illies JJ.Leadership and creativity:Understanding leadership from a creative problem-solving perspective.Leadership Quarterly2004;15:55–77.Scott SG,Bruce RA.Determinants of innovative behavior:A path model of individual inno-vation in the workplace.Academy of Management Journal1994;37(3):580–607. Shalley CE,Gilson LL.What leaders need to know:A review of social and contextual factors that can foster or hinder creativity.The Leadership Quarterly2004;15(1): 33–53.
Shin SJ,Zhou J.Transformational leadership,conservation,and creativity:Evidence from Korea.Academy of Management Journal2003;46(6):703–14.
Snyder CR.The psychology of hope:You can get there from here.New York:Free Press;1994. Snyder CR.Hope theory:Rainbows in the mind.Psychological Inquiry2002;13:249–75. Stajkovic A,Luthans F.Self-ef?cacy and work-related performance:A meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin1998;124:240–61.
Tierney P,Farmer SM.The Pygmalion process and employee creativity.Journal of Man-agement2004;30(3):413–32.
Tierney P,Farmer SM,Graen GB.An examination of leadership and employee creativ-ity:The relevance of traits and relationships.Personnel Psychology1999;52: 591–620.
Tugade MM,Fredrickson BL,Barrett LM.Psychological resilience and positive emotion-al granularity:Examining the bene?ts of positive emotions on coping and health.
Journal of Personality2004;72(6):1161–90.
Walumbwa FO,Avolio BJ,Gardner WL,Wernsing TS,Peterson SJ.Authentic leadership: Development and validation of a theory-based measure.Journal of Management 2008;34(1):89-126.
Walumbwa FO,Wang P,Wang H,Schaubroeck J,Avolio BJ.Psychological processes linking authentic leadership to follower behaviors.Leadership Quarterly2010;21
(5):901–14.
Wang A,Cheng B.When does benevolent leadership lead to creativity?The moderating role of creative role identity and job autonomy.Journal of Organizational Behavior 2010;31(1):106–21.
Walumbwa FO,Wang P,Wang H,Schaubroeck J,Avolio BJ.Psychological processes linking authentic leadership to follower behaviors.Leadership Quarterly(forthcoming). Woodman RW,Sawyer JE,Grif?n RW.Toward a theory of organizational creativity.
Academy of Management Review1993;18:292–321.
Yammarino FJ,Dionne SD,Schriesheim CA,Dansereau F.Authentic leadership and pos-itive organizational behavior:A meso,multi-level perspective.The Leadership Quarterly2008;19(6):693–707.
Youssef CM,Luthans F.Positive organizational behavior in the workplace:The impact of hope,optimism,and resilience.Journal of Management2007;33(5):774–800. Zhang X,Bartol K.Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity:The in?u-ence of psychological empowerment,intrinsic motivation,and creative process en-gagement.Academy of Management Journal2010;53(1):107–28.
Zhou J.When the presence of creative coworkers is related to creativity:Role of super-visor close monitoring,developmental feedback,and creative personality.Journal of Applied Psychology2003;88(3):413–22.
Zhou J,George JM.When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity:Encouraging the ex-pression of voice.Academy of Management Journal2001;44(4):682–96.
Zhou J,George JM.Awakening employee creativity:The role of leader emotional intel-ligence.The Leadership Quarterly2003;14:545–68.
437
A.Rego et al./Journal of Business Research65(2012)429–437