Academy of Management Journal 2003, Vol. 46, No. 6, 703714.

TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP, CONSERVATION, AND CREATIVITY: EVIDENCE FROM KOREA

SHUNG JAE SHIN Washington State University JING ZHOU Rice University
Using a sample of 290 employees and their supervisors from 46 Korean companies, we found that (1) transformational leadership was positively related to follower creativity, (2) followers conservation, a value, moderated that relationship, and (3) intrinsic motivation mediated the contribution of the interaction of transformational leadership and conservation and partially mediated the contribution of transformational leadership to creativity. We discuss implications of these results for research and practice.

The field of organizational behavior has witnessed an increasing interest in understanding factors that promote employee creativitythe generation of new and useful ideas concerning products, services, processes, and procedures in organizations (Amabile, 1988; Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby, & Herron, 1996; Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Scott & Bruce, 1994; Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993; Zhou, 1998). Given the dominant role of leadership in the workplace (Redmond, Mumford, & Teach, 1993), one key situational factor that may have substantial impact on creativity is leadership (Scott & Bruce, 1994; Tierney, Farmer, & Graen, 1999). Transformational leadership, in particular, has been studied intensively by leadership researchers in recent years (Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1999; Judge & Bono, 2000), and has been linked to creativity in ad hoc groups (Sosik, Kahai, & Avolio, 1998, 1999). Transformational leadership has been defined as influencing followers by broadening and elevating followers goals and providing them
We contributed equally to this project, and thus the order of authorship is alphabetical. We extend our appreciation to Bert Cannella, Adrienne Colella, Angelo DeNisi, and Dick Woodman for helpful comments on earlier versions of this article, and to Ramona Paetzold and Victor Willson for help with data analysis. We also thank Hyunjae Shin for assistance with data collection. The Department of Management and the Center for International Business Studies at Texas A&M University provided financial support for this research. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) Form 5X-Short (copyright 2000 by Bernard Bass and Bruce Avolio) is used with permission of Mind Garden, Inc., 1690 Woodside Road Suite 202, Redwood City, CA 94061. All rights reserved.
703

with confidence to perform beyond the expectations specified in the implicit or explicit exchange agreement (Dvir, Eden, Avolio, & Shamir, 2002: 735). However, despite this type of leaderships theoretical significance and potentially substantial enhancement of creativity, to date, few studies have focused on an understanding of how transformational leadership is related to individual employees creativity. This is surprising, given that creativity researchers have often lamented the lack of understanding about which management practices or behaviors are especially effective in enhancing instead of restricting individual creativity (Zhou & Oldham, 2001). The goal of the present study was to address this important yet relatively unstudied issue. In addition to examining the extent to which transformational leadership contributes to creativity, we also used an intrinsic motivation theory to probe the psychological mechanism by which this contribution occurs. Although creativity research has relied on intrinsic motivation theory (Amabile, 1996; Oldham & Cummings, 1996), few studies have tested the mediating role of intrinsic motivation. In the present study, we not only theorized about the role of intrinsic motivation but also directly tested whether intrinsic motivation mediated the relation between transformational leadership and creativity. Moreover, creativity researchers have adopted an interactional approach in arguing that situational and personal factors jointly contribute to employees creativity (George & Zhou, 2001; Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Woodman et al., 1993). This approach suggests that to fully understand the relationship between transformational leadership and

704

Academy of Management Journal

December

follower creativity, one also needs to look at followers characteristics. Likewise, contributors to the leadership literature have maintained that it is critical to take followers individual differences into consideration in order to understand how leadership functions (Dansereau et al., 1995). Among followers characteristics and individual differences, values play an important role in predicting how followers respond to leaders influences (Ehrhart & Klein, 2001; Shamir, 1991). For example, if followers values suggest that it is important to accept and follow leaders influence, the followers will be more receptive to their leaders influence, including their transformational leadership. On the other hand, if followers value freedom and independence, they will be less receptive to their leaders influence. In addition, individualized leadership theory (Dansereau et al., 1995) implies that the influences of leadership vary for subordinates who differ on how they value the relationships between their leaders and themselves. Thus, it is important to investigate the role of followers values in the relationship between transformational leadership and follower creativity. In sum, we sought to contribute to the literature by explaining how transformational leadership was related to creativity. First, we investigated the relationship between transformational leadership and creativity. Second, we tested whether intrinsic motivation mediated this relationship. Third, we tested whether followers values moderated this relationship. TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP, INTRINSIC MOTIVATION, AND CREATIVITY Because intrinsic motivation is one of the key ingredients of creativity (Amabile, 1988), and it is often considered the mechanism by which situational factors such as leadership contribute to creativity (Amabile, 1988; Oldham & Cummings, 1996), much of the contemporary research on creativity has been guided by intrinsic motivation theory (Amabile, 1996; Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Shalley, 1995; Zhou, 1998). According to this theory, employees motivation to perform a task can be intrinsic or extrinsic (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Intrinsic motivation refers to the motivational state in which employees are attracted to and energized by a task itself, instead of merely by the external outcomes that doing the task might yield (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Intrinsically motivated employees tend to be cognitively more flexible and persevering (McGraw & Fiala, 1982; McGraw & McCullers, 1979). Therefore, they are more likely to find many alternative means of solving problems, to use nontraditional

approaches, and to be persistent. All of these behaviors suggest that an intrinsically motivated individual is more likely to exhibit a high level of creativity. Moreover, according to intrinsic motivation theory, situational factors, such as transformational leadership, exert influence on creativity via influencing intrinsic motivation (Amabile, 1988; Oldham & Cummings, 1996). Bass (1985) theorized that transformational leadership comprises four dimensions: intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration, charisma, and inspirational motivation. Intellectual stimulation involves stimulating followers by questioning assumptions, challenging the status quo, and encouraging problem reformulation, imagination, intellectual curiosity, and novel approaches. Individualized consideration focuses on followers development. It involves paying attention to followers needs, showing empathy, and showing appreciation and support of individual followers initiatives and viewpoints. Charisma, or idealized influence, has to do with serving as followers charismatic role model. It can be viewed in terms of both behaviors and attributions (Bass & Avolio, 1995). And inspirational motivation refers to energizing followers by articulating a compelling vision (Avolio et al., 1999; Sosik, Avolio, & Kahai, 1998). The above definitions suggest that transformational leadership is positively related to follower creativity because it can boost intrinsic motivation. More specifically, when a leader provides intellectual stimulation, followers are encouraged to challenge the status quo and old ways of doing things. They are encouraged to reformulate issues and problems, to pursue and satisfy their intellectual curiosity, to use their imaginations, and to be playful with ideas and solutions (e.g., Avolio et al., 1999). Under these conditions, the followers are likely to be interested in and to focus on their tasks instead of on external worries and concerns. According to the intrinsic motivation theory of creativity, this enhanced interest in a task itself should enable followers to search for new and better ways of doing things, which is likely to lead to high levels of creativity (e.g., Amabile, 1996). Likewise, individualized consideration is likely to be positively related to creativity. When leaders practice individualized consideration, they pay attention to their followers needs and wants, show support and empathy, and encourage personal development and expression. Given leaders understanding, support, and encouragement, followers are likely to be interested in and focus on their tasks instead of on extraneous worries and fears, and they are likely to take risks and to freely explore and experiment with ideas and approaches

2003

Shin and Zhou

705

(Amabile, 1996; Deci & Ryan, 1985; Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993). More important, when leaders show individualized consideration, they focus on developing followers capabilities, provide information and resources, and give followers discretion to act (Avolio et al., 1999; Bass, 1985). Consequently, followers may be encouraged to try new and different approaches to their work, to operate independently, and develop their capacity to think on their own. Taken together, the feelings of enhanced capabilities or competencies, and the perceptions of personal discretion and responsibility, are likely to boost followers intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Zhou & Oldham, 2001), which, in turn, results in heightened creativity (Amabile, 1996). Finally, when leaders serve as role models and articulate a compelling vision to energize followers to perform beyond expectations, the followers should be excited and energized to work hard toward achieving higher goals and objectives (Shamir et al., 1993). In this process, they are likely to focus on the task at hand instead of on issues external to the task. According to the intrinsic motivation perspective, this increased excitement, energy, and concentration are likely to be associated with high levels of creativity (Amabile, 1996). Because empirical studies have shown overwhelmingly that the above dimensions are highly correlated and reflect the higher-order construct of transformational leadership (e.g., Avolio et al., 1999; Bass, 1985), and because there is little theoretical rationale to support differential relationships for the separate dimensions, we examined the relationship between creativity and transformational leadership as a whole. Thus, Hypothesis 1. Leaders transformational leadership is positively related to followers creativity. Thus far, we have argued that transformational leadership contributes to intrinsic motivation, which, in turn, contributes to creativity. In the present study, we directly tested this theorized mediating role of intrinsic motivation. Hypothesis 2. Intrinsic motivation mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and creativity. THE MODERATING ROLE OF INDIVIDUAL VALUES Because of the fundamental role that values play in shaping individuals goals and behaviors, individual differences in values may substantially influence the way individuals respond to transforma-

tional leadership. According to Schwartz, Values are defined as desirable trans-situational goals that serve as guiding principles in the life of a person. They can motivate action giving it direction and emotional intensity, they function as standards for judging and justifying action (1994a: 21). Among the values conceptualized by Schwartz, conservationa value favoring propriety and harmony in interpersonal and person-to-group relations (Schwartz, 1992, 1994a)appeared to be particularly relevant to leadership and creativity. Schwartz (1992) theorized that conservation included tradition, conformity, and security. Tradition refers to commitment to, respect for, and acceptance of the customs and norms that a traditional culture prescribes. Conformity refers to the restraint of actions, inclinations, and impulses likely to upset or harm others and violate social expectations or norms. Finally, security refers to the safety, harmony, and stability of society, relationships, and self. Thus, individuals with high levels of the value of conservation tend to avoid any disturbance of established or traditional social order and hierarchy, to act according to their social roles and conform to expectations, and to favor propriety and harmony in interpersonal relationships (Schwartz, 1992, 1994a). The above definition and analysis suggest that the relationship between leadership and followers creativity varies as a function of followers value of conservation: those with higher levels of conservation generally respond more favorably to leaders influence because they are more likely to respect subordinate-superior hierarchical relationships and more likely to act according to their subordinate role. Although we are aware of no research that has examined the degree to which the value of conservation moderates influences of transformational leadership, prior theory and research have provided indirect and suggestive support for our arguments. For example, according to individualized leadership theory (Dansereau et al., 1995), different followers respond to the same leadership style differently, depending on how they regard their leader. Research along this line of inquiry has demonstrated that a supervisor does not become a leader for subordinates without providing support for the subordinates feelings of self-worth. This implies that followers may differ in their interpretations of and reactions to identical leadership behaviors. The above discussion suggests that followers high on conservation respond more strongly and positively to the influence of transformational leadership by experiencing higher levels of intrinsic motivation and subsequently exhibiting greater cre-

706

Academy of Management Journal

December

ativity. More specifically, when their leaders provide intellectual stimulation, they are more likely to be sensitive to the stimulation, to be interested in and focus on their tasks, to try hard to change the status quo, use their imagination, and come up with new and better ways of doing things. Likewise, when their leaders show individualized consideration, they are more likely to respond to the leaders support and development by being excited about their tasks and expressing individual viewpoints and new ideas, which tend to result in high levels of creativity. Finally, with their leaders charisma and inspirational motivation, followers high on conservation are more likely to show increased concentration and energy in doing their tasks, which leads to greater creativity. Hypothesis 3. Conservation moderates the relationship between transformational leadership and creativity in such a way that for followers higher on conservation, transformational leadership has a stronger, positive relationship with creativity than for followers lower on conservation. Moreover, as the above discussion indicates, the mechanism by which followers with higher levels of conservation are likely to show greater creativity under transformational leadership is that they experience higher levels of intrinsic motivation. On the other hand, the intrinsic motivation experienced and creativity exhibited by followers with relatively low levels of conservation, who tend to be less receptive to their leaders influence, may not be related as much to transformational leadership. Thus, Hypothesis 4. Intrinsic motivation mediates the moderated relationship between transformational leadership, conservation, and creativity. METHODS Research Setting, Sample, and Procedures R&D employees and their supervisors from 6 established companies and 40 new venture companies operating in the industries of cable manufacturing, compressors, construction design, defensive technology, electronics, information technology, networking, telecommunication, and software in Korea participated in the present study. Compared with the more established companies, the new ventures were smaller (they had 4 to 13 employees) and had been founded less than two years prior to data collection. All the employees in our sample held R&D jobs. We conducted semistructured inter-

views with the six R&D general managers from the established companies and with three founders of the new ventures to validate our scale items. Later, one of the coauthors visited each company and distributed the survey during regular work hours. The participants were instructed to put their completed questionnaires into provided return envelopes and to seal them. On the next visit, the researcher collected the sealed envelopes. We collected data from two sources: the employees and their supervisors. First, the employees completed scales on their supervisors leadership attributes and behaviors and on their own values (that is, conservation), intrinsic motivation, and demographic information. Second, on a separate questionnaire, the leaders (supervisors) evaluated their followers (the employees) creativity. On the average, four followers (the range was one through ten) rated each leader. We distributed questionnaires to 333 employees and their 77 supervisors and received 290 pairs of completed and usable questionnaires out of the 333 possible pairs, giving us an overall response rate of 87 percent. Of these, 148 pairs were from the established firms, and 142 were from the new venture firms. The average age of the responding followers was 31 years. The average company tenure for employees working in the new ventures was one year, and for those in the established companies, it was five years. The average job tenures for employees working in the new ventures and the established companies were two and three years, respectively. There were 31 women (11%) and 259 men (89%) in the sample. Employees highest education level was distributed as follows: 8 employees (3%) had Ph.D.s, 84 (29%) had masters degrees, 173 (60%) had bachelors degrees, and 25 (8%) employees did not report their education level. All participants were Korean. Measures We created Korean versions of all measures by following Brislins (1980) translation-back-translation procedure. Creativity. We used Zhou and Georges (2001) 13-item scale to measure creativity. On a five-point scale ranging from 1, not at all characteristic, to 5, very characteristic, a supervisor rated how characteristic each of 13 behaviors was of the employee he or she was rating. Sample items are Comes up with new and practical ideas to improve performance and Comes up with creative solutions to problems. We averaged the 13 items to create a measure of creativity ( .95). Although some supervisors rated more than one employee, the results of two Within and Between Analysis (WABA;

2003

Shin and Zhou

707

Dansereau, Alutto, & Yammarino, 1984) tests were nonsignificant (E .98; 1/F .36), suggesting that the creativity rating scores received by individual employees were independent of rater identity. Transformational leadership. We used the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) Form 5XShort (Bass & Avolio, 1995), which has four items for each subdimension of transformational leadership: idealized influence (attributed), idealized influence (behavior), inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individual consideration. On a five-point scale ranging from 0, not at all, to 4, frequently, if not always, employees indicated how frequently each statement fitted their immediate supervisors. The values for interrater reliability (rwg(j)) for followers rating the same leader were .94; median .97). Thus, different quite high (x followers, who were rated differently on creativity, evaluated their leaders with a high level of agreement. Consistent with prior research, our results showed that these dimensions were highly intercorrelated (rs .66 .73). We conducted a confirmatory factor analysis for a higher-order model (Bollen, 1989; Marsh & Hocevar, 1985) in which the five leadership factors contributed to an overall transformational leadership index. Results showed that the higher-order factor model fitted the data satisfactorily (2 188, df 131, GFI .94, AGFI .90, RMSR .04, NFI .93). All five factors significantly loaded on the transformational leadership index (s .92.99, ts 6.36 12.50). Because the single higher-order construct adequately captured the variance in the leadership dimensions, and because prior research showed that the dimensions failed to exhibit discriminant validity in predicting outcomes (e.g., Bycio, Hackett, & Allen, 1995), we averaged the 20 items to create a single index tapping transformational leadership ( .93) and used this index in our statistical analyses. Conservation. We measured conservation by averaging 16 items ( .88) adapted from Schwartz (1992). Sample items are respect for tradition (preservation of time-honored customs) and obedient (dutiful, meeting obligations). On a sevenpoint scale ranging from 0, not important, to 6, of supreme importance, employees indicated how important each item was as a guiding principle in their lives. Intrinsic motivation. We averaged five items adapted from Tierney et al. (1999) to create this measure ( .84). On a seven-point scale ranging from 0, corresponds not at all to corresponds exactly, employees indicated the extent to which each of the five items applied to them in terms of enjoying their current creativity-related tasks. Sam-

ple items were I am currently engaged in my tasks (1) because I enjoy finding solutions to complex problems and (2) because I enjoy coming up with new ideas for products. Company support for creativity. We measured this variable by averaging 11 items ( .90) adapted from Amabile et al. (1996). On a sevenpoint scale ranging from 1, corresponds not at all to 7 corresponds exactly, employees indicated the extent to which their companies supported creativity. Sample items are My company (1) encourages fair and constructive judgment of ideas and (2) encourages employees to take risks to generate new ideas. Control variables. We included several control variables suggested by prior research. First, we created a dummy variable for company type (0, established company, 1, new venture) to control for differences in how leadership might function. For example, employees in large, established companies might rely on well-established rules and policies in addition to leadership to guide their work behaviors, whereas employees in new ventures might depend mainly on their leaders. Second, it was necessary to control for company support for creativity (described above) because our participants were sampled from different companies. Third, educational level (doctoral, masters, and bachelors degrees) was controlled for because it might be associated with creativity through task domain expertise (Amabile, 1988; Mumford & Gustafson, 1988). Fourth, we created three dummy variables to control for type of R&D task to prevent confounding effects of task requirements on the relationships. Our dummy variables were based on Kellers (1992) categorization: basic, or nonmission, research; applied, or mission-oriented, research; new product or process development; and technical service or existing product development. Finally, because the duration of a leader-follower relationship might affect leaders ratings of their followers, the length of the leader-follower relationship was measured in years and used as a control variable (Duarte, Goodson, & Klich, 1994). RESULTS Table 1 displays means, standard deviations, and correlations among all variables. Creativity is significantly and positively correlated with transformational leadership and intrinsic motivation, and it is not correlated with conservation. Transformational leadership is significantly and positively correlated with conservation and intrinsic motivation. To test the hypotheses, we conducted hierarchical regression analyses. Any variable used as a

708

Academy of Management Journal

December

TABLE 1 Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations among All Variablesa

n 1. Creativity 2. Transformational leadership 3. Conservation 4. Intrinsic motivation 5. Ph.D.b 6. Masters degreeb 7. Length of leader-follower relationship 8. Company type 9. Company support 10. Basic research 11. Applied research 12. New product
a b

Mean s.d. 3.26 2.46 0.78 0.77

1 (.95) .22**

10

11

12

290 290

(.93)

290 288 290 290 280

4.03 3.62 0.03 0.29 1.77

0.81 .01 1.07 .19** 0.16 0.45

.23** .35**

(.88) .30** .02 .07 .04

(.84) .04 .00 .09

.06 .08 .18** .09 .14*

.11 .00 .06

2.00 .03 0.50 .14* 1.10 .01 0.18 .07 0.41 .01 0.50 .06

290 288 282 282 282

0.49 3.33 0.03 0.21 0.55

.17** .43** .02 .09 .08

.00 .12* .07 .09 .09

.09 .12* .34** .31** .30** .06 .08 .30** .01 .03 .08 .18** .12* .01 .08 .02 .06 .07 .06 .08

.57** .08 .04 .05

(.90) .00 .11 .02

.10 .21** .58**

Internal consistency reliabilities are on the diagonal, in parentheses. Dummy variables. * p .05 ** p .01

component of an interaction term was centered (Aiken & West, 1991). Table 2 summarizes the regression results for testing Hypothesis 1, which states that transformational leadership is positively related to follower creativity, and Hypothesis 3, stating that conservation moderates the relationship between transformational leadership and creativity. Specifically, at steps 1 through 4, we

entered the control variables, transformational leadership, conservation, and the interaction of transformational leadership and conservation, respectively. In support of Hypotheses 1 and 3, the results showed that the change in the multiple squared correlation coefficient (R2) associated with transformational leadership and its interaction with conservation were both statistically sig-

TABLE 2 Results of Regression Analysis of Creativity on Transformational Leadership, Conservation, and Their Interactiona
Independent Variables Step 1: Controls Company type Ph.D. Masters degree Length of leader-follower relationship Company support Basic research Applied research New product development Step 2: Transformational leadership Step 3: Conservation Step 4: Transformational leadership conservation
a

R2 .06*

R2 .06*

F 2.21*

.13 .06 .10 .02 .02 .07 .09 .12

.11** .11** .13**

.05** .00 .02*

14.01** 1.37 4.21*

.25** .06 .12*

Beta weights are reported for the final step (n 279). * p .05 ** p .01

2003

Shin and Zhou

709

FIGURE 1 Transformational LeadershipConservation Interaction for Creativity

nificant. Figure 1 demonstrates that the pattern of the two-way interaction was as hypothesized (Aiken & West, 1991). Table 3 shows the results for tests of Hypotheses 2 and 4, both of which posit a mediating role of intrinsic motivation. To test mediation, we followed the widely used procedure suggested by

Baron and Kenny (1986). In model 1, we regressed intrinsic motivation on the control variables, transformational leadership, conservation, and the twoway interaction between transformational leadership and conservation. In model 2, we regressed creativity on the same set of control and independent variables as were entered in model 1. In model

TABLE 3 Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Mediationa

Independent Variables Controls Company type Ph.D. Masters degree Length of leader-follower relationship Company support Basic research Applied research New product development Transformational leadership and conservation Transformational leadership Conservation Transformational leadership conservation Mediator Intrinsic motivation F R2 Adjusted R2 R2 df
a

Model 1: Intrinsic Motivation

Model 2: Creativity

Model 3: Creativity

.08 .03 .04 .03 .18* .02 .11 .03 .22** .22** .12*

.13 .06 .10 .02 .02 .07 .09 .12 .25** .06 .12*

.11 .06 .10 .02 .06 .08 .11 .13 .21** .10 .10 .18**

7.02** .23 .20 11, 267

3.50** .13 .10 11, 267

3.90** .15 .11 .02** 12, 266

Beta weights are reported for the final step in each model (n 279). * p .05 ** p .01

710

Academy of Management Journal

December

3, we regressed creativity on the controls, transformational leadership, conservation, the two-way interaction, and intrinsic motivation. The results supported Hypotheses 2 and 4 as follows: (1) Transformational leadership and the interaction were statistically significant in contributing to intrinsic motivation. (2) Transformational leadership and the interaction were significant in contributing to creativity. (3) The regression coefficient for intrinsic motivation was significant in contributing to creativity when we controlled for the control variables, transformational leadership, conservation, and the interaction. The decreased, but still statistically significant, coefficient for transformational leadership in model 3 indicated that intrinsic motivation partially mediated the contribution of transformational leadership to followers creativity. In addition, the nonsignificant coefficient for the interaction in model 3 indicated that intrinsic motivation completely mediated the relationship between the transformational leadershipconservation interaction and creativity. DISCUSSION Although transformational leadership has been linked to group creativity (Sosik et al., 1998, 1999), this was the first study to investigate the relationship between transformational leadership and individual creativity in the workplace. Notably, Tierney and her colleagues (1999) examined the effects of leader-member exchange (LMX) on creativity. Although Gerstner and Day (1997) argued that leader-follower relationships in which LMX is high (high-LMX relationships) were conceptually indistinct from relationships with transformational leaders, most of the leadership literature has treated them as different, and we followed this latter stream of research (e.g., Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). While it was beyond the scope of this study to settle the scholarly debate with regard to whether transformational leadership and LMX are distinct, it was important to recognize that both the Tierney et al. (1999) study and the present study moved creativity research forward by identifying theory-based, creativity-conducive leadership behaviors, which has rarely been done in the literature. The second and more important contribution of our study is that it identified a psychological process by which transformational leadership is related to creativity. Amabile (1996) emphasized the role of intrinsic motivation as a mechanism by which contextual factors influence creativity. However, few studies have tested this possibility in actual work settings. Tierney and her colleagues (1999) examined intrinsic motivation as employ-

ees self-orientation, a traitlike characteristic. Their study contributed to our knowledge base concerning individual traits and creativity, and we followed much of the contemporary creativity research (e.g., Amabile, 1988, 1996; Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Shalley, 1995; Zhou, 1998) in theorizing that follower intrinsic motivation was the mechanism by which transformational leadership contributes to followers creativity. Thus, in this study we contributed to the creativity literature by formulating and empirically testing an intrinsic motivation perspective explaining the relationship between transformational leadership and employee creativity. Future research might identify other psychological processes (for instance, self-efficacy; see Redmond et al. [1993]) that mediate relations between contextual factors and creativity. Third, in revealing the moderating role of conservation as a follower value, our study contributed to the literature by using an interactional approach (Woodman et al., 1993) to provide a more precise understanding of the relationship between transformational leadership and creativity. We chose conservation for two reasons: (1) Our goal was to identify an individual-level value rooted in unique personal beliefs and experiences as well as shared beliefs, instead of a cultural, nation-level value (such as collectivism or power distance, or respect for authority [Hofstede, 1980]) that people shared in a society (cf. Schwartz, 1994b). (2) Conservation, as a fine-tuned measure of individual values (Schwartz, 1992), was conceptually relevant to the relationship between transformational leadership and follower creativity. It is consistent with the individualized leadership and the romance of leadership perspectives (Meindl, 1998; Dansereau et al., 1995) that we found that the nature of the transformational leadershipfollower creativity relationship was different for employees with different levels of conservation. Interestingly, this pattern of results was also consistent with the neutralizer-enhancer typology put forth in the leadership literature (Howell, Dorfman, & Kerr, 1986; Kerr & Jermier, 1978). More specifically, as is shown in Figure 1, a high level of conservation enhanced the relationship between transformational leadership and creativity, whereas a low level of conservation reduced this relationship. Because our data showed that conservation had no direct relationship with creativity, it could be viewed as an enhancer (when it was high) or a neutralizer (when it was low) instead of a leadership substitute (Howell et al., 1986). According to Howell and coauthors (1986), a necessary condition for a moderator variable to be classified as a leadership substitute is that the variable should have a direct and positive effect on the

2003

Shin and Zhou

711

criterion. Future research is needed to identify additional moderators as enhancers, neutralizers, or substitutes for leadership in the context of promoting creativity. A few methodological strengths increased confidence in our results. To begin, we reduced the possibility of common method bias by collecting data from two sources: followers and their supervisors. In addition, the sample was relatively large (n 290), thereby providing relatively stable results. Moreover, given the favorable response rate (87%), self-selection bias was not a major concern. Furthermore, our sample included companies of different sizes, in different industries, and in a cultural context (Korea) characterized by collectivism and high power distance at the national or cultural level (Cha, 1994). We know of no other study that has examined transformational leadership and employee creativity in Korea. Thus, our study contributed to the literature by showing the external validity of creativity and transformational leadership theories developed in Western countries. Limitations First, although the use of a Korean sample was an advantage, as discussed above, it was also a potential disadvantage. In particular, the moderating role of conservation found in the present study may not be generalizable to Western societies. The meaning and function of conservation may be quite different in Korea than in Western societies. In Korea, because employees focus on acting according to their social roles and conforming to expectations, and on maintaining good relationships with their superiors, rather than focusing on independent selves, (e.g., Cha, 1994), employees high on conservation were more willing to accept their leaders influences. On the other hand, in Western societies, where employees prefer maintaining independent selves and focus on congruence between their values and their leaders influence, the role of conservation might be opposite to what was evident in the present study: followers high on conservation might actually exhibit low creativity when their leaders provide transformational leadership. Comparative research is needed to examine these interesting possibilities. Second, the effect sizes were modest. Third, our cross-sectional design precluded the interpretation that there was a causal relationship between transformational leadership and creativity. For example, followers with different values might evaluate their leader differently, creative employees might bring out more transformational leadership among their supervisors, and leaders who were more transformational might at-

tract and select more creative followers, or be more sensitive in detecting creativity in their followers. Despite our results consistence with theoretical reasoning, the cross-sectional design did not allow us to completely rule out alternative explanations. Future research might address this issue by obtaining independent or objective confirmation of employees creativity and by using longitudinal and experimental designs to strengthen causal inference. Finally, although we did not hypothesize as to the incremental contribution of transformational leadership over transactional leadershipas represented, for instance, by use of contingent rewards or management-by-exception (Howell & Avolio, 1993; Judge & Bono, 2000; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990)many prior studies have controlled for transactional leadership while examining transformational leadership. This was a clear limitation, and we call for replication of our results in research in which transactional leadership is controlled. Practical Implications Given the need for creativity as a solution to the complex challenges faced by organizations, finding neutralizers/enhancers of the link between transformational leadership and creativity is important to practitioners. Being aware of moderators helps managers to identify the organizational contexts in which transformational leadership is most likely to enhance creativity, and those in which such enhancement is unlikely to occur. Our results also suggest that taking individual differences into account is important in training leaders and designing leader-follower relationships. Particularly, while one might intuitively think that there is not much managers can do to boost creativity in employees high on conservation, our study showed that managers in fact could engage in transformational leadership behaviors to enhance these employees creativity. Because transformational leadership of employees high on conservation is likely to maximize the employees intrinsic motivation and creativity, organizations may invest in transformational leadership training for supervisors and in selection of employees high on conservation. In addition, by showing intrinsic motivation as a mediator, our results suggest that managers need to consider the mechanism by which transformational leadership is related to creativity. By doing so, managers may be better able to direct the influence of transformational leadership to proper psychological processes, and ultimately to obtain greater creativity. No doubt there are other mediators not examined in this study. For example, creativity-

712

Academy of Management Journal

December

relevant skills are also key ingredients for creativity (Amabile, 1996). Prior research has suggested that supervisory behaviors facilitate employees learning and acquiring creativity skills, which, in turn, results in greater creativity (Zhou, 2003). Thus, creativity skill development may be another mediator linking transformational leadership to creativity. By training supervisors to exert transformational leadership, organizations may help their employees to acquire creativity skills. Moreover, this practice may be especially helpful for employees with relatively little experience in creative activities or with relatively low levels of creativity skills and strategies. REFERENCES
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. 1991. Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Amabile, T. M. 1988. A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, vol. 10: 123167. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Amabile, T. M. 1996. Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Boulder, CO: Westview. Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. 1996. Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39: 1154 1184. Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. 1999. Re-examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72: 441 462. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. 1986. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51: 11731182. Bass, B. M. 1985. Leadership and performance beyond expectation. New York: Free Press. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. 1995. MLQ multifactor leadership questionnaire (2nd ed.). Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden. Bollen, K. A. 1989. Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley. Brislin, R. W. 1980. Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials. In H. C. Triandis & W. W. Lambert (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology, vol. 2: 349 444. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Bycio, P., Hackett, R. D., & Allen, J. S. 1995. Further assessment of Basss (1985) conceptualization of transactional and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80: 468 478.

Cha, J. H. 1994. Aspects of individualism and collectivism in Korea. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, et al. (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and applications: 157174. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Dansereau, F., Alutto, J. A., & Yammarino, F. J. 1984. Theory testing in organizational behavior: The variant approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall. Dansereau, F., Yammarino, F. J., Markham, S. E., Alutto, J. A., Newman, J., Dumas, M., Nachman, S. A., Naughton, T. J., Kim K., Al-Kelabi S. A., Lee S., & Keller, T. 1995. Individualized leadership: A new multiple-level approach. Leadership Quarterly, 6: 413 450. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. 1985. Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum Press. Duarte, N. T., Goodson, J. R., & Klich, N. R. 1994. Effects of dyadic quality and duration on performance appraisal. Academy of Management Journal, 37: 499 521. Dvir, T., Eden, D. Avolio, B. J., & Shamir, B. 2002. Impact of transformational leadership on follower development and performance: A field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 45: 735744. Ehrhart, M. G., & Klein, K. J. 2001. Predicting followers preferences for charismatic leadership: The influence of follower values and personality. Leadership Quarterly, 12: 153179. George, J. M., & Zhou, J. 2001. When openness to experience and conscientiousness are related to creative behavior: An interactional approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 513524. Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. 1994. Cross-cultural comparison of leadership prototypes. Leadership Quarterly, 5: 121134. Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. 1995. Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leadermember exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 yearsApplying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6: 219 247. Hofstede, G. 1980. Cultures consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. 1993. Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, locus of control, and support for innovation: Key predictors of consolidated-business-unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78: 891902. Howell, J. M., Dorfman, P. W., & Kerr, S. 1986. Moderator variables in leadership research. Academy of Management Review, 11: 88 102. Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. 2000. Five-factor model of personality and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85: 751765.

2003

Shin and Zhou

713

Keller, R. T. 1992. Transformational leadership and the performance of research and development project groups. Journal of Management, 18: 489 501. Kerr, S., & Jermier, J. M. 1978. Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and measurement. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 22: 375 403. Marsh, H. W., & Hocevar, D. 1985. Application of confirmation factor analysis to the study of self-concept: First- and higher-order factor models and their invariance across groups. Psychological Bulletin, 97: 562582. McGraw, K. O., & Fiala, J. 1982. Undermining the Zeigarnik effect: Another hidden cost of reward. Journal of Personality, 50: 58 66. McGraw, K. O., & McCullers, J. C. 1979. Evidence of detrimental effects of extrinsic incentives on breaking a mental set. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 15: 285294. Meindl, J. R. 1998. The romance of leadership as a follower-centric theory: A social constructionist approach. In F. Dansereau & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), LeadershipThe multiple-level approaches: Contemporary and alternative: 427 458. Stamford, CT: JAI Press. Mumford, M. D., & Gustafson, S. B. 1988. Creativity syndrome: Integration, application, and innovation. Psychological Bulletin, 103: 27 43. Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. 1996. Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39: 607 634. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. 1990. Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1: 107142. Redmond, M. R., Mumford, M. D., & Teach, R. 1993. Putting creativity to work: Effects of leader behavior on subordinate creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 55: 120 151. Schwartz, S. H. 1992. Universals in the content and structure of values: Theory and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, vol. 25: 1 65. New York: Academic Press. Schwartz, S. H. 1994a. Are there universal aspects in the content and structure of values? Journal of Social Issues, 50: 19 45. Schwartz, S. H. 1994b. Beyond individualism/collectivism: New cultural dimensions of values. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, et al. (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and applications: 85 119. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. 1994. Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innova-

tion in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37: 580 607. Shalley, C. E. 1995. Effects of coaction, expected evaluation, and goal setting on creativity and productivity. Academy of Management Journal, 38: 483503. Shamir, B. 1991. Meaning, self and motivation in organizations. Organizational Studies, 12: 405 424. Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. 1993. The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A selfconcept based theory. Organizational Science, 4: 577594. Sosik, J. J., Avolio, B. J., & Kahai, S. S. 1998. Inspiring group creativity: Comparing anonymous and identified electronic brainstorming. Small Group Research, 29: 331. Sosik, J. J., Kahai, S. S., & Avolio, B. J. 1998. Transformational leadership and dimensions of creativity: Motivating idea generation in computer-mediated groups. Creativity Research Journal, 11: 111121. Sosik, J. J., Kahai, S. S., & Avolio, B. J. 1999. Leadership style, anonymity, and creativity in group decision support systems: The mediating role of optimal flow. Journal of Creative Behavior, 33: 227256. 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. Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. 1993. Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18: 293321. Zhou, J. 1998. Feedback valence, feedback style, task autonomy, and achievement orientation: Interactive effects on creative performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83: 261276. Zhou, J. 2003. When the presence of creative coworkers is related to creativity: Role of supervisor close monitoring, developmental feedback, and creative personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 413 422. Zhou, J., & George, J. M. 2001. When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: Encouraging the expression of voice. Academy of Management Journal, 44: 682 696. Zhou, J., & Oldham, G. R. 2001. Enhancing creative performance: Effects of expected developmental assessment strategies and creative personality. Journal of Creative Behavior, 35: 151167.

Shung Jae Shin (sshin@tricity.wsu.edu) is an assistant professor in the Department of Management and Decision Sciences at Washington State University. He did his Ph.D. at Texas A&M University. His research includes

714

Academy of Management Journal

December

the human side of mergers and acquisitions, creativity in the workplace, and cross-cultural studies. Jing Zhou (jzhou@rice.edu) is an associate professor of management in the Jesse H. Jones Graduate School of Management at Rice University. She received her Ph.D. from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Her current research interests include contextual fac-

tors that promote or inhibit employee creative performance. Prior to joining the Jones School at Rice University, she served on the faculty in the Management Department at the Mays Business School at Texas A&M University.