Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T11:20:11.212Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Implicit followership theory to employee creativity: The roles of leader–member exchange, self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2017

Ming Kong ,
Haoying Xu ,
Aiqin Zhou  and
Yue Yuan
Ming Kong*
Affiliation:
Tsinghua University School of Economics and Management, Beijing, China
Haoying Xu
Affiliation:
Business School, Central University of Finance and Economics, Beijing, China
Aiqin Zhou
Affiliation:
Faculty of Business, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Kowloon, Hong Kong
Yue Yuan
Affiliation:
School of Economics and Management, Southwest University of Science and Technology, Mianyang, Sichuan Province, China
*
Corresponding author: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Leaders’ implicit followership theory describes leaders’ personal assumptions about the traits and behaviors that characterize followers. Unlike traditional organizational behavior research, studies on leaders’ implicit followership theory can deepen our understandings of ‘how leaders and followers perceive, decide and take action’ from follower-centric perspective. Adopting 267 follower–leader dyads from 16 Chinese enterprises as our final sample, we found that: (1) positive leaders’ implicit followership theory had significant positive effect on followers’ creativity; (2) followers’ leader–member exchange with leader, intrinsic motivation and creative self-efficacy mediated the positive relationship between positive leaders’ implicit followership theory and followers’ creativity; (3) no significance difference was found between the mediating effects of leader–member exchange, intrinsic motivation and creative self-efficacy. The current study not only extended the application of social cognitive theory in leadership research, but also made contributions to the enrichment of social exchange theory and componential theory of creativity.

Keywords

followers’ creativityleader–member exchangeintrinsic motivationcreative self-efficacy
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Management & Organization , Volume 25 , Issue 1 , January 2019 , pp. 81 - 95
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

Ming Kong and Haoying Xu contributed equally to this article.

References

Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10(1), 123–167.Google Scholar
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to ‘the social psychology of creativity’. New York: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Amabile, T. M. (1997). Motivating creativity in organizations: On doing what you love and loving what you do. California Management Review, 40(1), 39–58.Google Scholar
Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1154–1184.Google Scholar
Atwater, L., & Carmeli, A. (2009). Leader-member exchange, feelings of energy, and involvement in creative work. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(3), 264–275.Google Scholar
Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. (2009). Leadership: current theories, research, and future directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 421–449.Google Scholar
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215.Google Scholar
Bandura, A., & Locke, E. A. (2003). Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(1), 87–99.Google Scholar
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(6), 1173–1182.Google Scholar
Bjugstad, K., Thach, E. C., Thompson, K. J., & Morris, A. (2006). A fresh look at followership: A model for matching followership and leadership styles. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 5, 304–319.Google Scholar
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written material. Handbook of cross-cultural psychology, 2(2), 349–444.Google Scholar
Carsten, M. K., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2009). Implicit Followership Theories (IFT): Developing and validating an IFT scale for the study of followership. Presented at the Southern Management Association, 11–14 November, Ashville, NC.Google Scholar
Carsten, M. K., Uhl-Bien, M., West, B. J., Patera, J. L., & McGregor, R. (2010). Exploring social constructions of followership: A qualitative study. The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 543–562.Google Scholar
Collinson, D. (2006). Rethinking followership: A post-structuralize analysis of follower identities. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 179–189.Google Scholar
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory and practice. Academy of Management Review, 13(3), 471–482.Google Scholar
Cronbach, L. J., & Gleser, G. C. (1965). Psychological tests and personnel decisions. Oxford, England: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plemun Press.Google Scholar
Duong, J. (2012). Leaders’ conceptions and evaluations of followers as antecedents of leadership style, leader-member exchange and employee outcomes. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences , 72(8-A), 2984.Google Scholar
Engle, E. M., & Lord, R. G. (1997). Implicit theories, self-schemas, and leader–member exchange. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 988–1010.Google Scholar
Epitropaki, O., & Martin, R. (2004). Implicit leadership theories in applied settings: Factor structure, generalizability and stability over time. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 293–310.Google Scholar
Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition (2nd ed, New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Forbes, J. B., & Domm, D. R. (2004). Creativity and productivity: Resolving the conflict. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 69(2), 4–11.Google Scholar
Ford, C. (1996). A theory of individual creative action in multiple social domains. Academy of Management Review, 21, 1112–1142.Google Scholar
Gagne, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331–362.Google Scholar
George, J. M., & Zhou, J. (2002). Understanding when bad moods foster creativity and good ones don’t: The role of context and clarity of feelings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 687–697.Google Scholar
Goodwin, V. L., Wofford, J. C., & Boyd, N. G. (2000). A laboratory experiment testing the antecedents of leader cognitions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 769–788.Google Scholar
Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. Research in Organizational Behavior, 9, 175–208.Google Scholar
Gregory, G. D., & Joseph, C. P. (2000). Changing roles: Leadership in the 21st century. Organizational Dynamics, 28(3), 18–34.Google Scholar
Hogan, J., & Roberts, B. W. (1996). Issues and non-issues in the fidelity-bandwidth trade-off. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 627–637.Google Scholar
Kong, M., & Qian, X. J. (2015). Mr. Right & Superman: Effect of implicit followership on employee’s behaviors. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 47(9), 1162–1171.Google Scholar
Kruse, E. (2010). Positive cascade: Prototypical LIFTs scores predict interpersonal success. Paper presented at the Annual Academy of Management Conference, Montréal, Canada.Google Scholar
Kruse, E. T., & Sy, T. (2011). Manipulating implicit theories through inducing affect. Presented at the Academy of Management, 12-16 August, San Antonio, TX.Google Scholar
Liden, R. C., & Graen, G. (1980). Generalizability of the vertical dyad linkage model of leadership. Academy of Management journal, 23(3), 451–465.Google Scholar
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Stilwell, D. (1993). A longitudinal study on the early development of leader-member exchanges. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(4), 662–674.Google Scholar
Lord, R. G., & Brown, D. J. (2004). Leadership processes and follower identity. Mahwah, NJ: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. (2002). Leadership and information processing: Linking perceptions and performance. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
MacKinnon, D. P., Fritz, M. S., Williams, J., & Lockwood, C. M. (2007). Distribution of the product confidence limits for the indirect effect: Program PRODCLIN. Behavior Research Methods, 39(3), 384–389.Google Scholar
Ng, T. W., & Lucianetti, L. (2016). Within-individual increases in innovative behavior and creative, persuasion, and change self-efficacy over time: A social–cognitive theory perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(1), 14–34.Google Scholar
Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39(3), 607–634.Google Scholar
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), 879–903.Google Scholar
Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 698–714.Google Scholar
Scandura, T. A., & Graen, G. B. (1984). Moderating effects of initial leader–member exchange status on the effects of a leadership intervention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(3), 428–436.Google Scholar
Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 580–607.Google Scholar
Shin, S. J., & Zhou, J. (2003). Transformational leadership, conservation, and creativity: Evidence from Korea. Academy of Management Journal, 46(6), 703–714.Google Scholar
Shondrick, S. J., & Lord, R. G. (2010). Implicit leadership and followership theories: Dynamic structures for leadership perceptions, memory, and leader-follower processes. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 25(1), 1–33.Google Scholar
Sparrowe, R. T., & Liden, R. C. (2005). Two routes to influence: Integrating leader-member exchange and social network perspectives. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(4), 505–535.Google Scholar
Strenberg, R. J. (1985). Implicit theories of intelligence, creativity, and wisdom. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 607–627.Google Scholar
Sy, T. (2010). What do you think of followers? Examining the content, structure, and consequences of implicit followership theories. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 113, 73–84.Google Scholar
Tierney, P. (2015). LMX and creativity. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tierney, P., Famer, S. M., & Graen, G. B. (1999). The examination of leadership and employee creativity: The relevance of traits and relationship. Personnel Psychology, 52(3), 591–620.Google Scholar
Tierney, P. T., & 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
Tierney, P. T., & Farmer, S. M. (2004). The Pygmalion process and employee creativity. Journal of Management, 30(3), 413–432.Google Scholar
Van Gils, S., Van Quaquebeke, N., & Van Knippenberg, D. (2010). The X-factor: On the relevance of implicit leadership and followership theories for leader–member exchange (LMX) agreement. European Journal of Work and Organizational, 19, 333–363.Google Scholar
Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., Bommer, W. H., & Tetrick, L. E. (2002). The role of fair treatment and rewards in perceptions of organizational support and leader-member exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 590–598.Google Scholar
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Whiteley, P., Sy, T., & Johnson, S. K. (2012). Leaders’ conceptions of followers: Implications for naturally occurring Pygmalion effects. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(5), 822–834.Google Scholar
Wofford, J. C., & Goodwin, V. L. (1994). A cognitive interpretation of transactional and transformational leadership theories. The Leadership Quarterly, 5, 161–186.Google Scholar
Zhang, X., & Bartol, K. M. (2010). Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: The influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process engagement. Academy of Management Journal, 53(1), 107–128.Google Scholar
Zhou, J. (1998). Feedback valence, feedback style, task autonomy, and achievement orientation: Interactive effects on creative performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2), 261–276.Google Scholar
Zhou, J., & Shalley, C. E. (2003). Research on employee creativity: A critical review and directions for future research. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 22, 165–218.Google Scholar