Abstract

The main purpose of this study is to determine the relationship between authentic leadership and employee creative behaviour and to reveal two different mediating mechanisms (i.e., job complexity and autonomous motivation) through which authentic leadership influences employee creative behaviour. This study is based on self-determination theory. A total of (N = 354) respondents were asked to rate themselves on creative behaviour and their leader on authentic leadership style. The research used the internet-based survey tools in a cross-sectional. The study population was employees (mainly Software Developers) of software houses (software companies) working in Pakistan. Methodological tools of the research were partial least square structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) for measuring the relationship between the variables. The results of the study show that authentic leadership positively influences employee creative behaviour directly as well as through two competing mechanisms of job complexity and autonomous motivation. Job complexity and autonomous motivation were tested as mediators between authentic leadership and employee creative behaviour independently and comparatively. Both the mediators successfully mediated the relationship between authentic leadership and employee creative behaviour with variable strength. The mediation path of job complexity was stronger in comparison with the mediation path of autonomous motivation. Further examination revealed that job complexity and autonomous motivation both mediate the relationship between authentic leadership and employee creative behaviour in a sequential manner. The results of the study are useful for both practitioners and researchers equally. For practitioners, the authors laid out the process through which managers can foster the creative behaviour of their employees using an authentic leadership style (i.e., by giving increased opportunities to indulge in complex work). Furthermore, for researchers, this study revealed the mechanisms through which authentic leadership influences and predicts creative behaviour. The findings of the study would benefit the authentic leadership theory for further development as a predictor of positive employee outcomes as this study confirmed a relatively complex mechanism through which it influences the creative behaviour of his followers.

Keywords: authentic leadership, autonomous motivation, creativity, employee creative behaviour, job complexity, self-determination theory, software houses of Pakistan, software developers.

JEL Classification: M59, I30.

Cite as: Fateh, A., Mustamil, N., & Aslam, M. Z. (2020). Linking authentic leadership and employee creative behavior: the mediating role of autonomous motivation and job complexity. Marketing and Management of Innovations, 3, 59-74. https://doi.org/10.21272/mmi.2020.3-05

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

References

1. Agote, L., Aramburu, N., & Lines, R. (2016). Authentic leadership perception, trust in the leader, and followers’ emotions in organizational change processes. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 52(1), 35-63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
2. Ahmad, I., Zafar, M. A., & Shahzad, K. (2015). Authentic leadership style and academia’s creativity in higher education institutions: intrinsic motivation and mood as mediators. Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, 11(46), 5-19. [Google Scholar]
3. Albrecht, S. L. (2015). Challenge demands, hindrance demands, and psychological need satisfaction. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 14(2), 70-79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
4. Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In B. S. Cummings (Ed.), Research in Organizational Behaviour (Vol. 10, pp. 123-167). Greenwich: JAI Press. [Google Scholar]
5. Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. London: Hachette UK.
6. Amabile, T. M., & Pratt, M. G. (2016). The dynamic componential model of creativity and innovation in organizations: Making progress, making meaning. Research in Organizational Behavior, 36, 157-183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
7. Anderson, M. H., & Sun, P. Y. T. (2017). Reviewing leadership styles: Overlaps and the need for a new «full-range» theory. International Journal of Management Reviews, 19(1), 76-96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
8. Anderson, N., De Dreu, C. K., & Nijstad, B. A. (2004). The routinization of innovation research: A constructively critical review of the state-of-the-science. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(2), 147-173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
9. Anderson, N., Potocnik, K., & Zhou, J. (2014). Innovation and creativity in organizations: A state-of-the-science review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework. Journal of management, 40(5), 1297-1333.
10. Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 315-338. [CrossRef]
11. Baer, M., Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (2003). Rewarding creativity: when does it really matter? The Leadership Quarterly, 14(4), 569-586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
12. Banks, G. C., McCauley, K. D., Gardner, W. L., & Guler, C. E. (2016). A meta-analytic review of authentic and transformational leadership: A test for redundancy. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(4), 634-652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
13. Barroso, C., Carrion, C. G., & Roldan, J. (2010). Applying maximum likelihood and PLS on different sample sizes: Studies on SERVQUAL model and employee behaviour model. In V. E. Vinzi, W. W. Chin, & J. Henseler (Eds.), Handbook of Partial Least Squares: Concepts, Methods and Applications. (pp. 427-447). Heidelberg, Berlin Springer. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
14. Boies, K., Fiset, J., & Gill, H. (2015). Communication and trust are key: Unlocking the relationship between leadership and team performance and creativity. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(6), 1080-1094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
15. Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological buletinl, 56(2), 81-105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
16. Chae, H., & Choi, J. N. (2018). Contextualizing the effects of job complexity on creativity and task performance: Extending job design theory with social and contextual contingencies. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 91(2), 316-339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
17. Chaudhary, R., & Panda, C. (2018). Authentic leadership and creativity: The intervening role of psychological meaningfulness, safety and work engagement. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 67(9), 2071-2088. [CrossRef]
18. Christensen-Salem, A., Kinicki, A., Zhang, Z., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2018). Responses to feedback: The role of acceptance, affect, and creative behavior. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 25(4), 416-429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
19. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2 Ed.). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [Google Scholar]
20. de Jesus, S. N., Rus, C. L., Lens, W., & Imaginario, S. (2013). Intrinsic motivation and creativity related to product: A meta-analysis of the studies published between 1990–2010. Creativity Research Journal, 25(1), 80-84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
21. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985a). The general causality orientations scale: Self-determination in personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 19(2), 109-134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
22. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985b). Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior. New York, US: Springer. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
23. Deci, E. L., Olafsen, A. H., & Ryan, R. M. (2017). Self-determination theory in work organizations: The state of a science. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4(1), 19-43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
24. Di Bucchianico, A. (2008). Coefficient of Determination (R2). In R. S. Ruggeri, F. W. Kenett, & Faltin. (Eds.). Encyclopedia of Statistics in Quality and Reliability: John Wiley & Sons. [CrossRef]
25. Dong, Y., Bartol, K. M., Zhang, Z. X., & Li, C. (2017). Enhancing employee creativity via individual skill development and team knowledge sharing: Influences of dual-focused transformational leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(3), 439-458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
26. Eisenberger, R., & Cameron, J. (1996). Detrimental effects of reward. Reality or myth? American psychologist, 51(11), 1153-1166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
27. Eisenberger, R., & Cameron, J. (1998). Reward, intrinsic interest, and creativity: New findings. American Psychologist, 53(6), 676-679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
28. Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., & Pretz, J. (1998). Can the promise of reward increase creativity? Journal of personality and social psychology, 74(3), 704-714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
29. Evans, M. G. (1991). The problem of analyzing multiplicative composites: Interactions revisited. American Psychologist, 46, 6-15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
30. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50. [CrossRef]
31. Franke, G., & Sarstedt, M. (2019). Heuristics versus statistics in discriminant validity testing: a comparison of four procedures. Internet Research, 29(3), 430-447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
32. Fried, Y., & Ferris, G. R. (1987). The validity of the job characteristics model: A review and meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 40(2), 287-322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
33. Gagne, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331-362. [CrossRef]
34. Gagne, M., Forest, J., Vansteenkiste, M., Crevier-Braud, L., Van den Broeck, A., Aspeli, A. K., . . . & Halvari, H. (2015). The multidimensional work motivation scale: Validation evidence in seven languages and nine countries. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24(2), 178-196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
35. Gardner, W. L., Avolio, B. J., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2005). Authentic leadership theory and practice: Origins, effects and development (Vol. 3). West Yorkshire, England: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
36. Gardner, W. L., Cogliser, C. C., Davis, K. M., & Dickens, M. P. (2011). Authentic leadership: A review of the literature and research agenda. Leadership Quarterly, 22(6), 1120-1145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
37. Gardner, W., Avolio, B., Luthans, F., May, D. , & Walumbwa, F. (2005). Can you see the real me? A self-based model of authentic leader and follower development. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 343-372. [CrossRef]
38. Gefen, D., & Straub, D. (2005). A practical guide to factorial validity using PLS-Graph: Tutorial and annotated example. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 16(1), 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
39. George, B. (2003). Authentic Leadership: Rediscovering the Secrets to Creating Lasting Value. John Wiley & Sons. [Google Scholar]
40. Gosling, S. D., Vazire, S., Srivastava, S., & John, O. P. (2004). Should we trust web-based studies? A comparative analysis of six preconceptions about internet questionnaires. American Psychologist, 59(2), 93-104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
41. Hackman, J. R. (1980). Work redesign and motivation. Professional Psychology, 11(3), 445-455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
42. Hair Jr, J. F., Howard, M. C., & Nitzl, C. (2020). Assessing measurement model quality in PLS-SEM using confirmatory composite analysis. Journal of Business Research, 109, 101-110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
43. Hair Jr, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage publications. [Google Scholar]
44. Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139-152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
45. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 43(1), 115-135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
46. Hughes, D. J., Furnham, A., & Batey, M. (2013). The structure and personality predictors of self-rated creativity. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 9, 76-84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
47. Hughes, D. J., Lee, A., Tian, A. W., Newman, A., & Legood, A. (2018). Leadership, creativity, and innovation: A critical review and practical recommendations. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(5), 549-569. [CrossRef]
48. Ilies, R., Morgeson, F. P., & Nahrgang, J. D. (2005). Authentic leadership and eudaemonic well-being: Understanding leader–follower outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 373-394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
49. James, K., & Drown, D. (2012). Organizations and creativity: Trends in research, status of education and practice, agenda for the future. In Handbook of organizational creativity (pp. 17-38). Academic Press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
50. Lee, A., Legood, A., Hughes, D., Tian, A. W., Newman, A., & Knight, C. (2020). Leadership, creativity and innovation: A meta-analytic review. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 29(1), 1-35. [Google Scholar]
51. Lee, N., & Cadogan, J. W. (2013). Problems with formative and higher-order reflective variables. Journal of Business Research, 66(2), 242-247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
52. Luthans, F., & Avolio, B. J. (2003). Authentic leadership development. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline (pp. 241-261). San Francisco: Barrett-Koehler.
53. Miniotaitė, A., & Buciuniene, I. (2013). Explaining authentic leadership work outcomes from the perspective of self-determination theory. Management of Organizations: Systematic Research, 65, 63-75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
54. Mubarak, F., & Noor, A. (2018). Effect of authentic leadership on employee creativity in project-based organizations with the mediating roles of work engagement and psychological empowerment. Cogent Business & Management, 5(1), 1-14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
55. Mumford, M. D., Connelly, M. S., Baughman, W. A., & Marks, M. A. (1994). Creativity and problem solving: Cognition, adaptability, and wisdom. Roeper Review, 16(4), 241-246. [CrossRef]
56. Neider, L. L., & Schriesheim, C. A. (2011). The authentic leadership inventory (ALI): Development and empirical tests. The leadership quarterly, 22(6), 1146-1164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
57. Nichols, T. W., & Erakovich, R. (2013). Authentic leadership and implicit theory: a normative form of leadership?. Leadership & Organization Development Journal. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
58. Northouse, P. G. (2009). Leadership: Theory and Practice (5 Ed.). India: Sage Publications India.
59. Parker, S. K., Morgeson, F. P., & Johns, G. (2017). One hundred years of work design research: Looking back and looking forward. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 403-420. [CrossRef]
60. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of applied psychology, 88(5), 879. [Google Scholar]
61. Ramayah, T., Cheah, J., Chuah, F., Ting, H., & Memon, M. A. (2018). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) using smartPLS 3.0. In An Updated Guide and Practical Guide to Statistical Analysis. Pearson. [Google Scholar]
62. Rego, A., Sousa, F., Marques, C., & Cunha, M. P. E. (2012). Authentic leadership promoting employees’ psychological capital and creativity. Journal of Business Research, 65(3), 429-437. [CrossRef]
63. Rego, A., Sousa, F., Marques, C., & e Cunha, M. P. (2014). Hope and positive affect mediating the authentic leadership and creativity relationship. Journal of Business research, 67(2), 200-210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
64. Ribeiro, N., Duarte, A. P., Filipe, R., & Torres de Oliveira, R. (2020). How authentic leadership promotes individual creativity: The mediating role of affective commitment. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 27(2), 189-202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
65. Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., Mitchell, R., & Gudergan, S. P. (2020). Partial least squares structural equation modeling in HRM research. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 31(12), 1617-1643. [CrossRef]
66. Ringle, C. M., Silva, D., & Bido, D. (2014). Structural equation modeling with the smartpls. Revista Brasileira de Marketing, 13(2), 56-73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
67. Rönkkö, M., & Ylitalo, J. (2011). PLS marker variable approach to diagnosing and controlling for method variance. [Google Scholar]
68. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78. [Google Scholar]
69. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2003). On assimilating identities to the self: A self-determination theory perspective on internalization and integrity within cultures. In M. R. Leary & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of self and identity. (pp. 253-272). New York: The Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
70. Sajjad, M., Riaz, A., Orangzab, Chani, M., & Hussain, R. (2020). Innovations in human resources management: Mediating role of intrinsic motivation. Marketing and Management of Innovations(1), 110-120. [CrossRef]
71. Sarstedt, M., Hair Jr, J. F., Cheah, J. H., Becker, J. M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). How to specify, estimate, and validate higher-order constructs in PLS-SEM. Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ), 27(3), 197-211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
72. Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., Cheah, J. H., Ting, H., Moisescu, O. I., & Radomir, L. (2020). Structural model robustness checks in PLS-SEM. Tourism Economics, 26(4), 531-554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
73. Semedo, A. S. D., Coelho, A. F. M., & Ribeiro, N. M. P. (2017). Authentic leadership and creativity: The mediating role of happiness. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 25(3). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
74. Setiawan, R. (2017). The Influence of Income, Experience, and Academic Qualification on the Early Childhood Education Teachers’ Creativity in Semarang, Indonesia. International Journal of Instruction, 10(4), 39-50. [Google Scholar]
75. Shmueli, G., Ray, S., Estrada, J. M. V., & Chatla, S. B. (2016). The elephant in the room: Predictive performance of PLS models. Journal of Business Research, 69(10), 4552-4564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
76. Sue, V. M., & Ritter, L. A. (2012). Planning the online survey. Conducting online surveys, 14-32. [Google Scholar]
77. Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2002). Creative self-efficacy: Its potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance. Academy of Management journal, 45(6), 1137-1148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
78. 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(3), 591-620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
79. Toor, S. U. R., & Ofori, G. (2008). Leadership for future construction industry: Agenda for authentic leadership. International Journal of Project Management, 26(6), 620-630. [Google Scholar][CrossRef]
80. Tracy, B. (2010). How the best leaders lead: Proven secrets to getting the most out of yourself and others. New York, USA: Amacom. [Google Scholar]
81. Van Der Vegt, G., Emans, B., & Van De Vliert, E. (2000). Team members’ affective responses to patterns of intragroup interdependence and job complexity. Journal of management, 26(4), 633-655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
82. Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Wernsing, T. S., & Peterson, S. J. (2008). Authentic leadership: Development and validation of a theory-based measure. Journal of management, 34(1), 89-126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
83. Xu, B. D., Zhao, S. K., Li, C. R., & Lin, C. J. (2017). Authentic leadership and employee creativity: Testing the multilevel mediation model. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 38(3), 482-498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
84. Zaitouni, M., & Ouakouak, M. L. (2018). The impacts of leadership support and coworker support on employee creative behavior. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 67(9), 1745-1763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
85. Zhou, J., & Ren, R. (2012). Striving for creativity: Building positive contexts in the workplace. In K. S. Cameron & G. Spreitzer (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Positive Organizational Scholarship. UK: Oxford Univesrity Press.
86. Zubair, A., & Kamal, A. (2017). Perceived authentic leadership, psychological capital, and creative work behaviour in bank employees. Pakistan Journal of Psychological Research, 32(1), 35-53.