Leader–member exchange (LMX), job autonomy, and creative work involvement

Abstract Researchers have claimed that high quality of supervisor–employee relationships (i.e., leader–member exchange; LMX) fosters creativity at work. Moreover, researchers have acknowledged that this relationship is not clear-cut but rather complex. The present study focused on the moderating role of job autonomy in the LMX-creative work involvement relationship. Longitudinal field survey data ( N  = 144) collected in a high-technology firm revealed a positive association between LMX and creative work involvement and confirmed our assumptions on the moderating role of job autonomy. The positive relationship between LMX and creative work involvement was stronger when employees experienced greater job autonomy. Our findings point to the importance of considering the interplay of both, the leader–member relationship and job design issues for increasing employees' creative work involvement.

[1]  S. Sonnentag,et al.  Routinization, work characteristics and their relationships with creative and proactive behaviors , 2006 .

[2]  V. Jayaraman,et al.  Cross-Cultural Generalizability of Paternalistic Leadership: An Expansion of Leader-Member Exchange Theory , 2010 .

[3]  G. R. Oldham,et al.  The curvilinear relation between experienced creative time pressure and creativity: moderating effects of openness to experience and support for creativity. , 2006, The Journal of applied psychology.

[4]  Shelley D. Dionne,et al.  Leading for creativity: The role of unconventional leader behavior , 2003 .

[5]  Daniel Indarto Prajogo,et al.  The relationship between innovation and business performance—a comparative study between manufacturing and service firms , 2006 .

[6]  Paul E. Spector.  Perceived Control by Employees: A Meta-Analysis of Studies Concerning Autonomy and Participation at Work , 1986 .

[7]  H. Kelley,et al.  The social psychology of groups , 1960 .

[8]  J. Hackman,et al.  Employee reactions to job characteristics. , 1971 .

[9]  Chris W. Clegg,et al.  Implicating trust in the innovation process , 2002 .

[10]  M. Mumford,et al.  Leading creative people: Orchestrating expertise and relationships , 2002 .

[11]  Jeffrey M. Stanton,et al.  Shorter can Also be Better: The Abridged Job in General Scale , 2004 .

[12]  Charlotte R. Gerstner,et al.  Meta-Analytic Review of Leader-Member Exchange Theory: Correlates and Construct Issues , 1997 .

[13]  T. M. Amabile.  The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. , 1983 .

[14]  Michael Frese,et al.  Personal initiative at work: Differences between East and West Germany , 1996 .

[15]  Robert Karasek,et al.  Healthy Work : Stress, Productivity, and the Reconstruction of Working Life , 1990 .

[16]  R. Rosenthal,et al.  Pygmalion in the classroom , 1968 .

[17]  John J. Sosik,et al.  Transformational Leadership and Dimensions of Creativity: Motivating Idea Generation in Computer-Mediated Groups , 1998 .

[18]  P. Tierney,et al.  Creative self-efficacy development and creative performance over time. , 2011, The Journal of applied psychology.

[19]  H. Thierry,et al.  Pygmalion and Employee Learning: The Role of Leader Behaviors , 2009 .

[20]  George B. Graen,et al.  Instrumentality theory and equity theory as complementary approaches in predicting the relationship of leadership and turnover among managers , 1973 .

[21]  Enno Siemsen,et al.  Common Method Bias in Regression Models With Linear, Quadratic, and Interaction Effects , 2010 .

[22]  G. R. Oldham,et al.  Employee Creativity: Personal and Contextual Factors at Work , 1996 .

[23]  Chester A. Schriesheim,et al.  Leader-Member Exchange and Supervisor Career Mentoring as Complementary Constructs in Leadership Research , 1994 .

[24]  J. Hackman,et al.  Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey , 1975 .

[25]  Christopher P. Niemiec,et al.  Self‐Determination Theory and the Relation of Autonomy to Self‐Regulatory Processes and Personality Development , 2010 .

[26]  S. West,et al.  Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions. , 1994 .

[27]  K. M. Bartol,et al.  Linking Empowering Leadership and Employee Creativity: The Influence of Psychological Empowerment, Intrinsic Motivation, and Creative Process Engagement , 2010 .

[28]  Rex B. Kline,et al.  Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling , 1998 .

[29]  A. Gouldner.  THE NORM OF RECIPROCITY: A PRELIMINARY STATEMENT * , 1960 .

[30]  T. Wall,et al.  Promoting innovation: A change study , 2006 .

[31]  M. Gelfand,et al.  The psychology of conflict and conflict management in organizations , 2007 .

[32]  M. Hammond,et al.  Predictors of individual-level innovation at work: A meta-analysis. , 2011 .

[33]  Raymond T. Sparrowe,et al.  Leader-member exchange theory: The past and potential for the future. , 1997 .

[34]  Teresa M. Amabile,et al.  Creativity In Context: Update To The Social Psychology Of Creativity , 1996 .

[35]  Bor-Shiuan Cheng,et al.  When does benevolent leadership lead to creativity? The moderating role of creative role identity and job autonomy , 2009 .

[36]  Scott B. MacKenzie,et al.  Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. , 2003, The Journal of applied psychology.

[37]  Nick Turner,et al.  Modeling the antecedents of proactive behavior at work. , 2006, The Journal of applied psychology.

[38]  Jing Zhou.  Feedback valence, feedback style, task autonomy, and achievement orientation: Interactive effects on creative performance. , 1998 .

[39]  A. Carmeli,et al.  Subjective relational experiences and employee innovative behaviors in the workplace , 2011 .

[40]  G. Graen,et al.  Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. , 1987 .

[41]  K. M. Bartol,et al.  The influence of creative process engagement on employee creative performance and overall job performance: a curvilinear assessment. , 2010, The Journal of applied psychology.

[42]  G. Graen,et al.  Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective , 1995 .

[43]  Ricky W. Griffin,et al.  Toward a Theory of Organizational Creativity , 1993 .

[44]  S. Parker,et al.  Minimizing strain and maximizing learning: the role of job demands, job control, and proactive personality. , 1999, The Journal of applied psychology.

[45]  T. Taris,et al.  Explaining worker strain and learning: how important are emotional job demands? , 2009, Anxiety, stress, and coping.

[46]  Stephen E. Humphrey,et al.  Integrating motivational, social, and contextual work design features: a meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of the work design literature. , 2007, The Journal of applied psychology.

[47]  W. A. Schiemann,et al.  Leader–member agreement: A vertical dyad linkage approach. , 1978 .

[48]  Chris W. Clegg,et al.  Why Do Employees Undertake Creative Action? , 2010 .

[49]  C. Fritz,et al.  Work characteristics, challenge appraisal, creativity, and proactive behavior: A multi‐level study , 2010 .

[50]  S. Parker,et al.  Promoting Role Breadth Self-Efficacy Through Involvement, Work Redesign and Training , 2003 .

[51]  Richard,et al.  Motivation through the Design of Work: Test of a Theory. , 1976 .

[52]  Gilad Chen,et al.  Examination of relationships among trait-like individual differences, state-like individual differences, and learning performance. , 2000 .

[53]  E. Deci,et al.  The "What" and "Why" of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and the Self-Determination of Behavior , 2000 .

[54]  P. Tierney,et al.  The Pygmalion Process and Employee Creativity , 2004 .

[55]  C. Shalley,et al.  WHAT LEADERS NEED TO KNOW: A REVIEW OF SOCIAL AND CONTEXTUAL FACTORS THAT CAN FOSTER OR HINDER CREATIVITY , 2004 .

[56]  R. Kanungo,et al.  Measurement of job and work involvement. , 1982 .

[57]  C. Shalley,et al.  RESEARCH ON EMPLOYEE CREATIVITY: A CRITICAL REVIEW AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH , 2003 .

[58]  S. Parker,et al.  Enhancing role breadth self-efficacy: the roles of job enrichment and other organizational interventions. , 1998, The Journal of applied psychology.

[59]  Kerrie L. Unsworth,et al.  Shopfloor innovation: Facilitating the suggestion and implementation of ideas , 2000 .

[60]  Michael D. Mumford,et al.  Leading for innovation: Conclusions, issues, and directions , 2004 .

[61]  Abraham Carmeli,et al.  Leader–member exchange, feelings of energy, and involvement in creative work , 2009 .

[62]  Paul E. Spector,et al.  Conflict, Health, and Well-Being , 2008 .

[63]  B. Schneider,et al.  The Meaning of Employee Engagement , 2008, Industrial and Organizational Psychology.

[64]  Claus W. Langfred,et al.  Effects of task autonomy on performance: an extended model considering motivational, informational, and structural mechanisms. , 2004, The Journal of applied psychology.

[65]  Michael Frese,et al.  Explaining the Heterogeneity of the Leadership-Innovation Relationship: Ambidextrous Leadership , 2011 .

[66]  B. Schyns,et al.  Critique and review of leader–member exchange theory: Issues of agreement, consensus, and excellence , 2010 .

[67]  Kerrie L. Unsworth,et al.  Creative Requirement , 2005 .

[68]  Herman Aguinis,et al.  Best-practice recommendations for estimating interaction effects using moderated multiple regression , 2010 .

[69]  P. Blau.  Exchange and Power in Social Life , 1964 .

[70]  J. Schaubroeck,et al.  The influence of leaders' and other referents' normative expectations on individual involvement in creative work , 2007 .

[71]  M. Frese,et al.  Three Avenues for Future Research on Creativity, Innovation, and Initiative , 2004 .

[72]  Abraham Carmeli,et al.  Linking Meaningfulness in the Workplace to Employee Creativity: The Intervening Role of Organizational Identification and Positive Psychological Experiences , 2009 .

[73]  W. Balzer,et al.  ISSUES AND STRATEGIES FOR REDUCING THE LENGTH OF SELF‐REPORT SCALES , 2002 .

[74]  S. Scott,et al.  DETERMINANTS OF INNOVATIVE BEHAVIOR: A PATH MODEL OF INDIVIDUAL INNOVATION IN THE WORKPLACE , 1994 .

[75]  Y. Fried,et al.  THE VALIDITY OF THE JOB CHARACTERISTICS MODEL: A REVIEW AND META‐ANALYSIS , 1987 .

[76]  D. Jung,et al.  The role of transformational leadership in enhancing organizational innovation: Hypotheses and some preliminary findings , 2003 .

[77]  G. Graen,et al.  AN EXAMINATION OF LEADERSHIP AND EMPLOYEE CREATIVITY: THE RELEVANCE OF TRAITS AND RELATIONSHIPS , 1999 .

[78]  Remus Ilies,et al.  Leader-member exchange and citizenship behaviors: a meta-analysis. , 2007, The Journal of applied psychology.

[79]  F. Morgeson,et al.  The development of leader-member exchanges: Exploring how personality and performance influence leader and member relationships over time , 2009 .

[80]  Donald E. Conlon,et al.  What About the Leader in Leader-Member Exchange? The Impact of Resource Exchanges and Substitutability on the Leader , 2010 .

[81]  Karen A. Jehn,et al.  Differential effects of strain on two forms of work performance: individual employee sales and creativity , 2002 .

[82]  George B. Graen,et al.  A Field Experimental Test of the Moderating Effects of Growth Need Strength on Productivity , 1986 .

[83]  J. F. Veiga,et al.  The impact of superior–subordinate relationships on the commitment, job satisfaction, and performance of virtual workers , 2008 .

[84]  D. E. Krause.  Influence-based leadership as a determinant of the inclination to innovate and of innovation-related behaviors: An empirical investigation , 2004 .

[85]  John P. Meyer,et al.  The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization , 1990 .

[86]  E PaterdeI.,et al.  Psychological and physiological reactions to high workloads: implications for well-being , 2010 .

[87]  J. George,et al.  Awakening employee creativity: The role of leader emotional intelligence , 2003 .

[88]  R. Kark,et al.  Alive and creating: The mediating role of vitality and aliveness in the relationship between psychological safety and creative work involvement. , 2009 .

[89]  D. Zapf.  Stress-oriented Analysis of Computerized Office Work , 1993 .