A social identity perspective on leadership

and employee creativity

GILES HIRST
1
*
, ROLF VAN DICK
2
AND DAAN VAN KNIPPENBERG
3
1
Monash UniversityManagement, 6th Floor Building, N Cauleld Campus, Melbourne, Australia
2
Goethe UniversityInstitute of Psychology, Frankfurt, Germany
3
Erasmus University, Rotterdam, Netherlands
Summary This research uses a social identity analysis to predict employee creativity. We hypothesized
that team identication leads to greater employee creative performance, mediated by the
individuals creative effort. We hypothesized that leader inspirational motivation as well as
leader team prototypicality would moderate the relationship between identication and
creative effort. Consistent with these predictions, data based on 115 matched pairs of
employee-leader ratings in a research and development context showed an indirect relation-
ship between team identication and creative performance mediated by creative effort. The
analyses also conrmed the expected moderated relationships. Leader inspirational motivation
enhanced the positive association between identication and creative effort, especially when
leader prototypicality was high. We discuss the value of social identity analyses of employee
creativity and of the integration of social identity and transformational leadership analyses.
Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Introduction
Many organizations rely on employee creativity for competitive advantage, adaptation, and survival
(Nonaka, 1991; Zhou, 2003). Not surprisingly then, understanding the dynamics of creativity in
organizations is a high priority for research in organizational behavior (Zhou & Shalley, 2008).
Importantly, individual creative behavior at work is typically enacted in the context of a work team or
group, where individual creative performance may be seen as a contribution to the teams creative
performance and achievement of team goals (Pirola-Merlo & Mann, 2004; Shin & Zhou, 2007). This
means that individuals psychological relationship with their team (i.e., their identication with the
team; Ashforth & Mael, 1989; van Knippenberg & van Schie, 2000) may inuence the extent to which
individuals are motivated to engage in creative efforts. While the team context has been recognized for
its role promoting team creativity (Shin & Zhou, 2007; Taggar, 2002; West, 2002), applied research
seems to have essentially overlooked the potentially important motivational inuence of this context on
individual creativity at work. Addressing this issue, in the present study we develop and test a social
identity analysis of individual creativity that puts individuals team identication center-stage.
Journal of Organizational Behavior
J. Organiz. Behav. 30, 963982 (2009)
Published online 10 March 2009 in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/job.600
* Correspondence to: Giles Hirst, Management, 6th Floor Building, N Cauleld Campus, Monash University, Melbourne 3145,
Australia. E-mail: giles.hirst@buseco.monash.edu.au
Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Received 23 November 2007
Revised 14 December 2008
Accepted 12 January 2009
In work teams involved in the development of new ideas, such as in advertising, art and design, and
research and development (R&D), the success of these teams is highly contingent on the creativity of
their solutions to applied problems (Shin & Zhou, 2007). An important way in which individual
employees can thus contribute to their teams success is by developing creative solutions to problems
they encounter in the context of their work within the team. This means that in such contexts one
factor that may motivate creative efforts is team members motivation to contribute to the success
of the collective. Social identity analyses of organizational behavior highlight the role of team
identication, the sense of oneness with and belongingness to the team (Mael & Ashforth, 1992), in
engendering such motivation (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Dutton, Dukerich, & Harquail, 1994; van
Dick, 2001; van Knippenberg, 2000a). In contexts where creative performance may be expected to
serve team goals, we may thus expect individuals team identication to be positively related to their
creative efforts and ultimately their creative performance. This is the basic hypothesis tested in the
present study. Moreover, based on an integration of insights from the social identity analysis of
leadership (Hogg & van Knippenberg, 2003; van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2003) and research in
transformational and charismatic leadership (Bass, 1985; Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993), we further
develop our analysis to include the role of leadership in bringing out the inuence of identication
on creative efforts. Specically, we argue that leader team prototypicalitythe extent to which the
leader is perceived to embody the collective identity (Hogg, 2001)and leader inspirational
motivationan aspect of transformational leadership reecting advocating the value and quality of the
team (Bass, 1985)interact in strengthening the relationship between team identication and creative
effort.
Team Identication, Creative Effort, and Creative Performance
Following prior research, we dene creative performance as employees generation of novel and useful
ideas concerning products, procedures, and processes at work (Amabile, 1988; Oldham & Cummings,
1996). Creative performance at work typically is not a process unbound by practical restraints or goals
but often engendered by problems and challenges that arise in the pursuit of work goals (Shalley, 1991).
Accordingly, we study creative performance as the outcome of a creative problem solving process or in
other words the extent to which an employee develops novel and useful solutions to applied problems in
the pursuit of work goals. We also highlight the distinction between creative effort and creative
performance, where creative effort is dened as the pro-active pursuit and learning of new ideas and
approaches to improve ones creative performance. Thus, creative performance is not primarily an idea
generation process or an investment of effort but rather refers to the development of new, practical
solutions to problems.
Our conceptual model (see Figure 1) illustrates that high levels of identication will encourage
creative effort and in turn promote creative performance. We acknowledge that there may be times
when identication does not lead to these creative outcomes. This may be when the goals of the group
are not salient or the individual does not completely agree with the groups goals or ways to implement
them(Ashforth &Mael, 1989). Furthermore, in addition to creative effort, identication may promote a
range of creativity stimulating processes, such as task ownership or a positive outlook. There may even
be cases when identication is detrimental to creativity, blocking the individual from considering
approaches that contradict with the groups own procedures. By and large, however, we anticipate that
Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 30, 963982 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/job
964 G. HIRST ET AL.
identication with ones group encourages the individual to associate group goals with their own
having a powerful energizing role encouraging effort and persistencei.e., creative effort.
The social identity approach (cf. Haslam, 2004; Haslam, van Knippenberg, Platow, & Ellemers,
2003; Hogg & Terry, 2000) proposes that an important part of our self-concept (i.e., the way we see
ourselves) stems from our memberships in social groups (Hogg & Terry, 2000; Tajfel & Turner, 1986).
Identication reects a sense of oneness with the team whereby the individual subsumes the teams
aims and goals as their own (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Haslam, 2004)they are internalized, creating a
powerful and personal motivation to contribute to the teams goals and successes (De Cremer & Van
Vugt, 1999; van Knippenberg, 2000a). Indeed, perhaps the most important motivational consequence
of identication stems from cognitive processes whereby individuals sense of self-worth is contingent
on the groups status and perceived value. Accordingly, the more individuals identify with their team
(hereon described as team identication) the more they will work towards achieving the goals of the
team (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Dutton et al., 1994; Haslam, 2004; van Dick, 2001; van Dick, Hirst,
Grojean, & Wieseke, 2007; van Knippenberg, 2000a; van Knippenberg & Ellemers, 2003).
The merging of an individuals self-concept with their group identity provides an incentive for highly
identifying employees to overcome barriers and road-blocks that may impede progress and potentially
serve as threat to the groups status. For highly identifying employees failure to overcome road-blocks
poses a severe threat to their self-esteem particularly if failure has negative consequences for their
group-based identity. This desire to avoid negative evaluations will stimulate highly identifying
employees to invest sustained effort. This is a powerful motivational resource given that creative
problem solving by denition involves uncertain and untested approaches which hold a high risk of
error and even failure. The risk of failure in particular will have signicant perceived negative
consequences for highly identifying employees self-concept driving them to tackle these challenges.
In turn, persistence and the investment of effort promote knowledge acquisition and deep processing
strategies that facilitate the mastery of complex and uncertain tasks (Elliot & McGregor, 2001; Fisher
& Ford, 1998) providing the basis for creative performance.
Having established the motivating processes that identication inspires, it is only a small step to
illustrate how this induces creative efforts. In work contexts where creativity is a central and a
recognized part of the job such as in R&Dteams, individual creative performance is a way to contribute
to group goals and team success (Shin & Zhou, 2007), and individual identication may foster the
motivation and desire to take on creative challenges. This desire will lead the individual to value the
successful accomplishment of these creative challenges as a means to enhance the groups status and in
turn their self-concept.
In addition to engendering task-related motivation, identication is also likely to foster a self-
motivating interest in work activities. While the motivational focus of highly identifying employees
Figure 1. A social identity model of employee creativity
Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 30, 963982 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/job
LEADERSHIP AND EMPLOYEE CREATIVITY 965
arguably is extrinsic in the sense that their actions are performed to attain group-related outcomes
rather than for their inherent enjoyment, this motivational orientation shares many qualities with
intrinsic motivation (Deci &Ryan, 2000). When people identify with their group, they assimilate group
aims into their sense of self, and so the goals of the group are internalized (Deci & Ryan, 2000).
Evaluations of the likelihood of success and in particular expectancy of rewards that may inuence
whether extrinsically motivated individuals persist will be of much less importance than successful task
accomplishment. Identication, like intrinsic motivation, is conducive to adaptive problem focused
strategies which encourage the individual to view task accomplishment as an important end in itself
(Deci & Ryan, 2000). These strategies provide an impetus for creative behavior. Moreover, the
internalization of group aims will create a sense that the individual has control over their activities
fullling a basic human need for self-control (Deci & Ryan, 2000) which in turn promotes enthusiasm
and effort grappling with the task at hand. These similarities lead us to suggest that identication, like
intrinsic motivation (Amabile, 1988; Tierney, Farmer, & Graen, 1999; Shin & Zhou, 2003), stimulates
high levels of persistence and creative effort in work contexts where creativity is clearly valued.
Having established a link between identication and creative effort, we now describe how creative
efforts foster creative performance. Creative efforts lay the groundwork for creative performance in at
least three ways: creative effort reects the extent to which the individual seeks new information and
ideas, whether they explore new approaches irrespective of their difculty, and the levels of persistence
in this information searching process. Extensive information searching and particularly exploring
options that may be novel and uncertain both in their approach and likelihood of success will provide a
greater understanding of the problem, thus laying the ground work for creativity. Sustained effort is
particularly critical if one is to develop creative solutions to problemsa task which by its very nature
is fraught with possible set-backs and even failure. Sustained effort is also necessary to build the
network of knowledge and possible wanderings fostering the development of expertise, which is a
key building block for creative behavior (Amabile, 1990). In concert information searching,
exploration, and persistence provide the knowledge and motivation to stimulate creative performance.
Thus, we propose
Hypothesis 1(i): Team identication is positively related to individual creative effort.
Hypothesis 1(ii): Creative effort is positively related to individual creative performance.
Hypothesis 1(iii): Teamidentication has an indirect positive relationship with creative performance
mediated by creative effort.
Leadership: Boosting Identication-Based Creative Effort
While identication is associated with a greater willingness to exert oneself on behalf of the collective
this does not mean that identication will always translate into action. Identication is not always
salient, nor does it always guide and inuence behavior towards a particular pattern of actions (Haslam,
2004; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987; van Knippenberg, 2000a). Thus, while highly
identifying employees will be motivated to contribute towards group activities, leaders help catalyze
this effort by both rendering the team and its goals salient, and further building the individuals belief in
the value and efcacy of the team.
Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 30, 963982 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/job
966 G. HIRST ET AL.
In contexts where meeting creative challenges is recognized as an important contribution to the
teams success, leadership may thus boost creative efforts by bringing out or accentuating the
inuence of team member identication. The social identity analysis of leadership (Hogg & van
Knippenberg, 2003; van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2003) as well as Shamir et al.s (1993) eminal analysis
of transformational and charismatic leadership highlight the importance of leadership behavior that
shift the orientation of individuals from self-interest to the interests of the collective. Based on an
integration of insights from these analyses we identify two aspects of leadership that we propose are
instrumental in bolstering the relationship between team identication and creative effort, leader team
prototypicality (Hogg, 2001), and leader inspirational motivation (Bass, 1985). We propose that these
aspects of leadership independently and in interaction strengthen the relationship between
identication and creative effort. These proposed relationships (as well as those advanced in
Hypothesis 1) are represented in Figure 1.
Shamir et al. (1993) highlighted that charismatic and transformational leaders build followers
collective sense of worth, esteem, and efcacy (cf. De Cremer &van Knippenberg, 2004; Kark, Shamir,
&Chen, 2003; van Knippenberg, van Knippenberg; De Cremer, &Hogg, 2004). It is exactly this aspect
of leadership that is captured by a dimension of transformational leadership identied by Bass (1985):
inspirational motivation. Inspirational motivation refers to leadership that advocates the value and
efcacy of the team. Inspirational motivation thus helps build followers sense of collective value,
worth, and efcacy that may mobilize the inuence of team identication. Inspirational motivation will
strengthen the association between identication and creative effort in several ways. First, inspirational
motivation will convey the value of group activities reinforcing identied employees own views,
encouraging them to sustain high levels of effort to tackle challenging activities. Second, as
inspirational motivation espouses collective aims it may render the team and its goals more salient (cf.
Haslam, 2004; van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2003). This behavior will help team members prioritize their
goals, tackling key challenges facing the team, channeling individual action and effort. Furthermore,
positive messages conveyed by inspirational motivation will reinforce employees willingness to try
new approaches encouraging them to perceive that errors will not be viewed negatively as well as
increasing their expectancy of success. Moreover, as inspirational motivation reframes challenges as
opportunities, this promotes an adaptive problem solving approach. In contexts where creative
performance is clearly valuable to the team, inspirational motivation may thus bolster the relationship
between team identication and creative efforts. Consistent with this rationale we put forward the
following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2: The positive relationship between team identication and creative effort is stronger
when leaders are perceived to engage in higher levels of inspirational motivation.
In recognition of the fact that leadership is a process that takes place in the context of a team
membership shared by leader and follower, and that follower identication with this team may
therefore inform responses to leadership, Hogg and van Knippenberg (2003; van Knippenberg &Hogg,
2003) proposed a social identity analysis of leadership. This analysis puts leaders ability to connect
with follower social identity center-stage (also see Platow, Haslam, Foddy, & Grace, 2003; Pierro,
Cicero, Bonaiuto, van Knippenberg, & Kruglanski, 2005; Reicher & Hopkins, 2003; van Knippenberg,
van Knippenberg, & Giessner, 2007; Wieseke, Ahearne, Lam, & van Dick, 2009). Core to this analysis
is the concept of leader team prototypicality, the extent to which the leader is perceived to embody the
shared social identity as captured by the team prototype, i.e., individuals mental representation of
team-dening characteristics (Hogg, 2001; cf. Turner et al., 1987). The more people identify with a
team, the more the team prototype becomes a source of information about social reality, team norms,
and appropriate behavior, and thus a source of inuence that guides team member attitudes and
Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 30, 963982 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/job
LEADERSHIP AND EMPLOYEE CREATIVITY 967
behavior (Turner et al., 1987). Accordingly, the more people identify with a team, the more leaders who
are seen to represent the shared identity and reality are inuential as their attributes are consistent with
employees schemas of the group (Hains, Hogg, & Duck, 1997; Hogg, 2001; Platow & van
Knippenberg, 2001). Because team prototypical leaders are seen as representing the collective identity,
they are more trusted to have the collectives best interest at heart (Giessner & van Knippenberg, 2008;
van Knippenberg & van Knippenberg, 2005). As a consequence, highly identifying employees will be
both more attentive to their appeals and more willing to be inuenced by them (cf. van Knippenberg,
2000b; van Knippenberg, Lossie, & Wilke, 1994).
We propose that leader prototypicality will strengthen the positive association between highly
identifying employees motivation and their behavior. Leaders by their position often act as a reference
point to dene team characteristics and so make the identity of the collective more salient. Increased
salience, in turn, helps followers dene what the team exactly stands for, thereby focusing and
encouraging higher levels of effort to bolster this more tangible collective identity and its related goals.
For example in an R&D context, a leader who is prototypical of the research group, e.g., is a research
scientist, will tend to reinforce employees perceptions that the teams raison detre is to conduct
research. This will encourage identied employees to invest further effort in their research to develop
creative solutions to problems thereby elevating the status of the research team. These leader attributes
will make the behaviors and desired actions of highly identifying employees even clearer helping to
catalyze effort and energy. The inuence context is likely to differ for leaders who are less prototypical
of the group. For example, a project manager appointed to lead a team of research scientists while not
discouraging effort may possess few characteristic that increase the salience of the group and so
encourage effort.
A second means by which team prototypical leaders will inuence follower behavior is that
followers will be more inclined to view them as favorable role models. Role models sustain effort and
energy as employees are inclined to emulate their work habits, positive attitudes, and goals (Rich,
1997). Thus, a prototypical leader who possesses desirable group attributes will serve as a marker for
individuals effort and future desired selves. Indeed, social learning theory (Bandura, 1977) illustrates
the powerful role of observation and modeling of others behavior both as means to develop new skills
and to sustain energy doing so. Furthermore, observational learning will help guide employees so that
they learn more quickly engaging in creative behaviors (Bandura, 1977). Role models will be
particularly inuential for highly identifying employees, as they will be sensitive to the collective
identity and be motivated to invest further effort.
In the context of teams in which creative performance is an integral part of the job, and leadership is
responsible for engendering creative performance, leader team prototypicality may enhance leaders
effectiveness in motivating creative efforts by bringing out highly identifying team members
motivation to contribute to the collectives success. In other words, identication will be more strongly
related to creative effort the more team prototypical the leader is.
Hypothesis 3: The positive relationship between team identication and creative effort is stronger
when leaders are perceived to be more team prototypical.
Importantly, while the team prototypicality of the leader in and of itself may add to the leaders
effectiveness in motivating highly identifying followers, prototypicality may also add to the
effectiveness of leader inspirational motivation. Inspirational motivation entails appeals to the teams
value, and these in particular may carry more weight the more team prototypical the leader is perceived
to be. Because inspirational motivation involves claims to the collectives value and efcacy, team
prototypical leaders association with the collective identity renders them more credible sources of
evaluations of the collective. This in turn will render followers more willing to accept and internalize
Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 30, 963982 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/job
968 G. HIRST ET AL.
these evaluations, in effect increasing the inuence of leader inspirational motivation. In the context of
teams involved in meeting creative challenges, we may thus expect that
Hypothesis 4: The interaction between follower team identication and leader inspirational
motivation on creative effort is stronger when leaders are perceived to be more team prototypical.
Method
Research setting, participants, and procedure
Data were collected as part of a cross-national R&D leadership development initiative within a large
multi-national pharmaceutical company. The initiative provided program leaders with developmental
feedback in relation to employees aggregated perceptions of their leadership behavior as well as
research team processes. Two waves of data collection were used 6 months apart. After the rst wave
leaders received feedback reports and attended leadership development workshops. Six months later a
follow-up survey was provided to both employees and program leaders. Data reported here comprises
the second follow-up survey only. Creativity ratings were not made available to either supervisors or
employees.
R&D within the pharmaceutical company comprised eight divisions and corresponding therapeutic
areas such as cancer, psychiatric disorders, or cardio-vascular disease problems. These eight divisions
were relatively independent and often comprised employees with different skills, backgrounds, and
knowledge. Furthermore, as several of the research areas had grown through mergers and strategic
acquisitions, these divisions were not only dissimilar in research expertise but also had differing
cultural norms. Four divisions participated. Divisional heads nominated program leaders who were
leading large strategic programs that required innovative leadership. Based on these criteria, we
recruited program leaders that led research teams who were developing new therapeutic treatments,
technology initiatives, or were modeling biological compounds. The drivers for program development
varied from pure research and incremental innovations to fast follower initiatives seeking to develop
newtreatments in response to competitor releases. There was considerable variation in the way research
was performed in these teams. Research teams (also termed research groups) tended to comprise
members with an array of different skills who in turn worked in relatively uid sub-teams reporting to
the program leader. On average, these teams had 10 members (range 325) who had worked together
for 3 years and 6 months. Program leaders tended to fulll many managerial roles, directing and
facilitating research as well as taking on program boundary spanning functions (e.g., lobbying for
resources, presenting to senior managers and potential partners). In general, leaders had relatively
limited time to engage in hands-on lab research. Rather, experimentation and testing were
performed by research team members. Thus, it was essential for employees to develop creative
solutions to problems and for program leaders to motivate them in this process.
Online surveys were distributed to all R&D technical and research staff who worked with the
nominated program leaders. Administrative or clerical staff were not surveyed. Participants were asked
to complete the online questionnaire, entering their name in this form, providing demographic details
and ratings of independent variables included within the study. Program leaders (N23) were emailed
a separate questionnaire which asked them to rate employee creative behavior. Data from the two
sources were matched. This procedure provided 115 matched pairs of employeesupervisor ratings
Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 30, 963982 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/job
LEADERSHIP AND EMPLOYEE CREATIVITY 969
who were based at four research divisions in three countries (US, UK, and Sweden) reecting a
response rate of 56 and 100 per cent of employees and leaders, respectively.
Measures
Team identication
Using the 4-item scale developed by Doosje, Ellemers, and Spears (1995) respondents rated team
identication on a 7-point scale from 1 do not agree at all to 7 agree completely. The items are as
follows: I see myself as a member of this research group, I am pleased to be a member of my
research group, I feel strong ties with members of my research group, and I identify with other
members of my research group.
Inspirational motivation
Using the 3-item scale developed by Rafferty and Grifn (2004) respondents rated inspirational
motivation on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 strongly disagree to 5 strongly agree. The
items are as follows: Says things that make employees proud to be part of this research group, Says
positive things about the research group, and Encourages people to see changing environments as
situations full of opportunities.
Leader teamprototypicality was assessed with the 5-itemscale reported by van Knippenberg and van
Knippenberg (2005) using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 strongly disagree to 5 strongly
agree. The items are as follows: The program leader is a good example of the kind of people that are
members of my team, The program leader has very much in common with the members of my
team, The program leader represents what is characteristic of the team, The program leader is
very similar to the members of my team, and The program leader resembles the members of my
team.
Creative effort was assessed by a 3-item scale rated on a on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from
1 very strongly disagree to 7 very strongly agree. These items are as follows: I have invested
considerable effort to identify ways to enhance my research, I frequently seek new information and
ideas, and I try new approaches in my work even if they are unproven or risky.
Creative performance
Using the 9-item measure developed by Tierney et al. (1999) program leaders rated employees
creative performance on a 6-point rating scale ranging from 1 not at all correct to 6 completely
correct. These items are as follows Demonstrated originality in his/her work, Took risks in terms of
producing new ideas in doing job, Found new uses for existing methods or equipments, Solved
problems that had caused other difculty, Tried out new ideas and approached to problems,
Identied opportunities for new products/processes, Generated novel, but operable work-related
ideas, Served as a good role model for creativity, and Generated ideas revolutionary to our eld.
Control variables
We controlled for gender, education, and tenure as each of these variables has been found to relate to
employee creativity (Farmer, Tierney, & Kung-McIntyre, 2003; George & Zhou, 2001; Tierney &
Farmer, 2002). Education was measured on a 5-point scale (1 technical college, 5 PhD/
MBA). We also controlled for the nationality (i.e., US, UK, or Swedish). In order to control for these
national differences nation of origin was coded as a dummy variable (US or Swedish origin
were included as two controls in regression models with a value of one or zero). We also replicated
these analyses controlling for division, i.e., the UK comprised two divisions, with one each in Sweden
Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 30, 963982 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/job
970 G. HIRST ET AL.
and the US. These analyses provided signicant ndings and patterns of interactions that are consistent
with those reported in full in the Results Section.
Results
Table 1 display means, standard deviations, scale reliabilities, and correlations among the study
variables. US nationality, education, tenure, and creative effort were signicantly correlated with
creative performance. Identication was positively related to creative effort. Team identication,
inspirational motivation, and leader teamprototypicality were all positively and signicantly correlated
with each other.
First we conducted a conrmatory factor analysis to test whether creative effort and creative
behavior indeed represent distinguishable constructs. In the rst step, we calculated a single factor
model (x
2
163.28, df 52, CFI 0.87, RMSEA0.14), the second model assumed the
hypothesized two correlated latent factors representing the underlying dimensions (x
2
96.97,
df 51, CFI 0.95, RMSEA0.09). Fit indicators showed that this second model t the data
reasonably well and signicantly better (Dx
2
66.31, df 1, p <.001) than the uni-dimensional
model. While our framework was conceptualized at the individual level we also considered an
alternative multi-level data structure, i.e., whether leadership acted as a group level variable interacting
with individual level constructs. We used the Rwg(j) statistic (James, Demaree, &Wolf, 1984) to assess
the extent of consensus and interrater agreement, (Klein & Kozlowski, 2000; Kozlowski & Hattrup,
1992). Mean Rwg(j) values for both inspirational motivation and prototypicality, calculated using a
normal distribution, were low (0.45, 0.37 respectively) (James et al., 1984). This indicates individuals
in teams do not have a shared reference and so we did not aggregate these measures. These results are
also consistent with theory, namely (a) dyadic models of leadership (inspirational motivation), and (b)
the notion that perceptions of prototypicality are rooted in follower self-denition and may differ
between followers (cf. Pierro et al., 2005). Based on the previous discussion, individual level multi-
variate regression analyses are reported subsequently.
Table 1. Means, standard deviations, scale reliabilities, and correlations
M (SD) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. US 0.35 (0.48)
2. Sweden 0.41 (0.49) .17
3. Gender 0.52 (0.65) .20 .20
4. Education 4.11 (1.07) .12 .10 .05
5. Tenure (months) 30.18 (43.72) .24

.06 .11 .27

6. Creative effort 5.21 (0.98) .35

.26

.02 .07 .09 (.74)

7. Team identication 5.81 (1.04) .03 .06 .08 .17 .06 .26

(.87)
8. Inspirational motivation 3.75 (0.91) .20 .01 .28

.07 .13 .13 .55

(.86)
9. Leader prototypicality 3.26 (0.99) .26

.17 .03 .05 .17 .12 .37

.50

(.94)
10. Creative performance 4.08 (0.94) .27

.04 .00 .30

.27

.27

.08 .11 .09 (.94)

p <.05;

p <.01.
N ranges from 111 to 114 because of missing data. Cronbach alphas in parentheses.
Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 30, 963982 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/job
LEADERSHIP AND EMPLOYEE CREATIVITY 971
Hypothesis 1 states that team identication has an indirect and positive relationship with creativity
mediated by creative effort (i.e., implying positive relationships between identication and creative
efforts and between creative efforts and creative performance). To provide a full test of this mediation
model and the distal nature of the association between team identication and employee creativity, we
followed the structural equation modeling approach suggested by James, Mulaik, and Brett (2006). We
used EQS 6.1 to model the mediation with latent variables for each of the concepts. Overall model t
was reasonable, x
2
235.4, df 99, CFI 0.92, RMSEA0.09. First, there was a signicant path
from team identication to creative effort, b.49, p <.01, supporting Hypothesis 1(i). Second, the
path fromcreative effort to creativity was signicant with b.19, p <.05, conrming Hypothesis 1(ii).
Finally, and in support of Hypothesis 1(iii), there was an indirect relationship of team identication
with creativity via creative effort of b .10, p <.05. Bootstrapping with 500 resamples revealed a 95%
condence interval of .001 <b<.319. Thus, Hypothesis 1 was fully supported.
1
Hypotheses 24 were tested using moderated regression analyses. Control variables were entered
rst. Team identication, inspirational motivation, and leader prototypicality were standardized and
entered in the second step, and the two-way interaction to be tested in the third step. The three-way
interaction predicted in Hypothesis 4 was entered in a fourth step in an analysis in which all two-way
interaction terms were entered in the model.
Hypothesis 2 predicts that team identication has a stronger positive relationship with employees
creative effort when inspirational motivation is high. These results are displayed in Table 2. Overall, the
Table 2. Results of multiple regression analysis for creative effort
Variables Controls Main effects Two-way Two-way Two-way Three-way
Block 1: Controls
US .20 .19 .18 .34

.30

.36

Sweden .04 .03 .04 .23

.22 .13
Gender .07 .03 .02 .00 .04 .06
Education .14 .18 .15 .12 .14 .19
Tenure .01 .00 .00 .03 .02 .04
Block 2: Main effects
Team identication (TID) .39

.46

.42

.27

.36

Inspiration (INS) .01 .03 .15 .03 .01

Prototypicality (PR) .07 .11 .02 .03 .14
Block 3: Two-way interactions
TIDINS .22

.26
TIDPR .24

.20
INS PR .30

.32

Block 4: Three-way interactions

TIDINS PR .41

DR
2b
.06 .13 .04 .05 .07 .06
F for DR
2b
1.08 4.27 3.72 5.04 6.69 6.25
R
2
.06 .19 .23 .31 .32 .44
F 1.08 2.36

2.58

3.19

3.44

4.08

Note: b The change in variance explained beyond the null or previous model.

p <.05.
N111.
1
We also tested a model adding all control variables and regressing them on creative behavior. Although the model had
unspecied paths and did not t the data well (x
2
629.1, df 169, CFI 0.78, RMSEA0.10), SEM revealed very similar
relationships between the latent factors (team identication creative effort: b .49, p <.01; creative effort creative behavior:
b.11, p <.05; indirect effect: b.05, p <.10).
Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 30, 963982 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/job
972 G. HIRST ET AL.
control variables did not explain a signicant amount of the variance in creative effort, F(5,
106) 1.08, ns. When the independent variables were entered into the regression equation, the model
explained signicant amounts of the variance in creative effort, F(8, 103) 2.36, p <.01. Next, we
entered the two-way interaction of team identication and inspirational motivation. The model, F(9,
102) 2.58, p <.05, and the interaction term, b.22, p <.05, were signicant. In Figure 2 we plotted
this interaction. Using the procedures described by Aiken and West (1991), we tested the simple slopes
for respondents with higher inspirational motivation (one standard deviation above the mean) and
respondents with lower inspirational motivation (one standard deviation below the mean) to determine
the nature of the team identication inspirational motivation interaction. While team identication
was not signicantly related to creative effort for lower inspirational motivation, b .25, t 1.63,
p .10, this relationship was signicant and positive for higher levels of leader inspirational
motivation, b.65, t 6.85, p <.001. The results thus supported Hypothesis 2.
Hypothesis 3 states that team identication has a stronger positive relationship with employees
creative effort when leader prototypicality is high. Results for the test of Hypothesis 3 are displayed in
Table 2. As the rst steps including the control variables and the main effects were consistent with those
reported for the previous hypothesis we discuss the two-way interactions relevant to Hypotheses 2 and
3 only. When we entered the two-way interaction of team identication and leader prototypicality, the
model, F(9, 102) 3.19, p <.01, and the interaction term, b .24, p <.05, were signicant. While
team identication was positively but not signicantly related to creative effort for respondents led by
less prototypical leaders, b.19, t 1.28, ns, this relationship was stronger and signicant for leaders
high in prototypicality, b.52, t 4.84, p <.001 (see Figure 3). These results supported Hypothesis 3.
The three-way interaction predicted in Hypothesis 4 implies that there may also be a two-way
interaction of inspirational motivation and prototypicality, and we also tested a model including this
interaction. When we entered the two-way interaction of leader inspirational motivation and
prototypicality, the model, F(9, 102) 3.44, p <.05, and the interaction term, b .30, p <.05, were
signicant. Consistent with the implications of Hypothesis 4, inspirational motivation was positively
related to creative effort only when leaders were high in prototypicality, b.46, t 4.20, p <.01, but
not when leaders were low in prototypicality, b .10, t .55, ns (see Figure 4).
Hypothesis 4 predicts that leader prototypicality moderates the interaction between team
identication and inspirational motivation, such that identication has a stronger positive relationship
Figure 2. Interaction of team identication and inspirational motivation on creative effort
Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 30, 963982 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/job
LEADERSHIP AND EMPLOYEE CREATIVITY 973
with employees creative effort when both inspirational motivation and prototypicality are high. The
nal column of Table 2 provides the results with all two-way interaction terms included in the model. In
the nal step we added the three-way interaction term. The model was signicant, F(12, 99) 4.08,
p <.01, and explained an additional six per cent of the variance. The three-way interaction was
signicant, b .41, p <.05.
Hypothesis 4 postulated a priori differences in pairs of slopes, such that slopes at high levels of
inspirational motivation and leader prototypicality are different from any other combination of
inspirational motivation and leader prototypicality. To test this hypothesis accurately, we examined
whether slopes at high levels of inspirational motivation and leader prototypicality differed
signicantly from any other pair of slopes, using the slope difference test by Dawson and Richter
Figure 4. Interaction of inspirational motivation and leader prototypicality on creative effort
Figure 3. Interaction of team identication and leader prototypicality on creative effort
Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 30, 963982 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/job
974 G. HIRST ET AL.
(2006). Slopes at high levels of both inspirational motivation and leader prototypicality differed
signicantly from any other pair of slopes (see Figure 5). The slopes differed when inspirational
motivation was high for varying conditions of leader prototypicality, t 3.29, p <.01. The slopes
differed when prototypicality was high for varying conditions of inspirational motivation, t 3.35,
p <.01. Finally, high conditions of both inspirational motivation and prototypicality were also
signicantly different from low conditions of both inspirational motivation and prototypicality,
t 2.90, p <.01.
Discussion
Recent creativity studies (e.g., Hirst, van Knippenberg, & Zhou, 2009; Taggar, 2002) have recognized
that individual creative behavior is often embedded in the context of a team and so a greater focus on
team-related variables will advance the creativity literature. Even so, individual team members
identication with the team, the psychological linkage between their team membership and their sense
of self and identity (Ashforth & Mael, 1989) has so far been a neglected element in the creativity
literature. We developed and tested a model in order to shed light on whether an individuals attraction
to their team is an important stimulus for creativity as well as examining leadership factors that may
strengthen this association. Consistent with predictions, identication was positively related to
individuals creative effort, which in turn predicted creative performance (Hypothesis 1). Extending
this social identity analysis of creative effort with insights fromthe social identity analysis of leadership
and analyses of transformational and charismatic leadership, we also identied two aspects of
leadership that independently (Hypotheses 2 and 3) and interactively (Hypothesis 4) bolster the
Figure 5. Three-way interaction of team identication, inspirational motivation, and leader prototypicality on
creative effort
Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 30, 963982 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/job
LEADERSHIP AND EMPLOYEE CREATIVITY 975
relationship between identication and creative effortleader inspirational motivation and leader
team prototypicality.
These results testify to the viability and promise of a social identity analysis of creativity at work.
This analysis also nicely complements the personalitycontextual approaches that predominate the
creativity literature (Shalley, Zhou, & Oldham, 2004). Whereas personality and individual differences
are by denition stable and less malleable to contextual inuences, identication is by denition tied to
a specic team membership and may differ over time and situations. The study of identication thus
points to a different set of theoretical and practical considerations and implications that extend the
dominant person-contextual focus in creativity research in interesting and important ways.
Theoretical implications
While the creativity literature has sought to establish a consistent empirical link between intrinsic
motivation and creativity (e.g., Shin & Zhou, 2003; Tierney et al., 1999), other motivational resources
have been somewhat neglected and overlooked. This has hampered the development of a more
complete understanding of the different types of motivation that may facilitate creativity. For example,
while Eisenberger and Rhoades (2001) illustrated extrinsic rewards may actually be benecial to
creativity, fewsubsequent theoretical or empirical pieces have latched onto the potential signicance of
these results. The present study extends this investigation into different motivational processes,
illustrating that the way in which one sees oneself is also an important motivational driver for
creativity. This means that individuals invest effort and develop creative solutions not because they
necessarily enjoy the task (i.e., are intrinsically motivated) but because they see the group as an
important part of their self-concept and so invest creative effort, striving to achieve group goals.
The actions of crew members led by the explorer, Ernest Schackleton illustrate this point in practice
(see Simon, 2007). Having attempted to circumnavigate the Antartic, the expeditions boat became
embedded ice, and was crushed by glacial movements leaving the crew stranded on ice with no visible
means of escape. This necessitated much creativity adapting to this predicament. An often remarked
characteristic of the group was the strong sense of identity and a willingness to try newthings including
sacricing ones own safety to develop creative solutions to problems. This resolve was tested when a
smaller contingent, who went ahead to nd help, found themselves at the summit of a South Georgia
glacier, 4500 feet above sea level. As night approached temperatures began to plummet and it became
apparent they were vulnerable to freezing high altitude conditions and moreover delays would diminish
the larger parties chance of survival. In this circumstance highly committed team members decided
they were willing to risk their own safety to press on at a much accelerated rate. Team members created
a makeshift toboggan from50 feet of rope, held tightly onto each other, and slid some 2000 feet into the
darkness. This risky and creative move paid off. After a harrowing slide, they arrived safely at the
bottom. In reection it is clear that the creativity of these individuals is unlikely to be due to their
intrinsic interest in the task, rather a strong sense of camaraderie spurred them to invest cognitive effort
considering a wider range of possibilities than would be expected under normal circumstances,
ultimately resulting in the development of an extreme but also highly creative solution to the problemat
hand.
Consistent with self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000) the previous example and the results
indicate that identity-based regulation should also be considered an important potential antecedent for
the creative process. Thus, research and theory may be well placed to encourage the study of a greater
spectrum of motivational resources as stimulants of the creative process. These may for example
include the extent to which the individual perceives their actions are self-determined either due to an
Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 30, 963982 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/job
976 G. HIRST ET AL.
intrinsic interest in the work or an inclination stemming from their sense of professional or collective
identity.
By and large creativity researchers have concluded that supervisors play an important role in
facilitating and promoting employee creativity (Shalley et al., 2004) and that follower personality and
values may enhance the links between leader behavior and employee creativity (George & Zhou, 2001;
Shin & Zhou, 2003). The research of Shin and Zhou (2003) in particular sign-posts the importance of
studying leader behavior in concert with follower perceptions and beliefs. We extend this perspective
by showing that the same reasoning may apply to leaders role in mobilizing the potential inherent in
follower identication, and highlighting the role of two aspects of leadership that follow from this
social identity analysisleader inspirational motivation and leader team prototypicality.
We theorized that leader team prototypicality would encourage highly identifying employees to be
open to their inuence and so encourage themto invest greater effort. The social identity analysis in this
respect identies not only leader team prototypicality, but also leader team-oriented behavioracts of
leadership that serve the team, such as leader self-sacrice on behalf of the collective (van Knippenberg
& van Knippenberg, 2005)as an important determinant of highly identifying employees openness to
leader inuence (van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2003). Accordingly, future research might also explore the
role of leader team-oriented behavior in mobilizing the creative potential inherent in team member
identication.
Issues of creativity set aside, the present ndings are also relevant to leadership research. First, the
current focus on the interplay of leader and follower characteristics is consistent with a plea for more
balanced, less leader-centric approaches to leadership in the broader leadership research (cf. Howell &
Shamir, 2005). Supporting Howell and Shamirs (2005) theorizing, the results show that the
effectiveness of leaders inuence attempts depends on followers identication (see also Ullrich,
Christ, & van Dick, 2009). In that sense, the present ndings may be interpreted as testifying to the
validity of the argument advanced by Howell and Shamir and others. Second, by studying the
interactive effect of inspirational motivation as an aspect of transformational leadership and leader
team prototypicality, we integrate insights from transformational leadership research and social
identity research. As van Knippenberg and Hogg (2003) argue, there are important points where social
identity analyses of leadership and theories of charismatic and transformational leadership meet, but
the empirical studies to explore the potential for integration (as well as differentiation) have hardly
been undertaken (cf. van Knippenberg & van Knippenberg, 2005). The current ndings for the
interactive effect of leader inspirational motivation and leader team prototypicality testify to the value
of integrating these approaches to leadership.
Practical implications
As the team seems to be where organizational behavior primarily takes place (Riketta & van Dick,
2005; van Knippenberg & van Schie, 2000), and organizations themselves may, from a social
psychological perspective, be viewed as social groups, the relevance of the social identity approach to
the study of organizational behavior is readily apparent (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Dutton et al., 1994;
Haslam et al., 2003; Hogg & Terry, 2000). This approach substantially extends the existing creativity
literature. Creativity research (e.g., George & Zhou, 2001; Zhou, 2003) has sought to identify
personality characteristics that distinguish creative individuals and to identify contextual inuences
that enhance the creativity of these individuals. The focus on individual differences suggests that some
but not others are more pre-disposed to creative behaviors, and that it may be difcult to change this.
Unfortunately, not all organizations have the opportunity to recruit and select individuals solely
according to a set of desirable characteristics. Furthermore, hi-tech or entrepreneurial organizations
Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 30, 963982 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/job
LEADERSHIP AND EMPLOYEE CREATIVITY 977
may need all employees to display some degree of creativity. The study of employees self-concept
addresses this challenge. The way we see ourselves and our sense of belonging to a particular team is
likely to be relatively changeable and amenable to the inuences of the team. Research has reliably
found it is possible to increase the identication of individuals to focal teams by emphasizing the teams
distinctiveness, comparing in-groups with out-groups, or more generally by rendering the social
context salient (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Dutton et al., 1994; van Dick, Wagner, Stellmacher, & Christ,
2005). All these actions increase identication and, as our data show, in turn promote creative effort and
creative performance.
Our ndings also illustrate that leaders mobilize the creativity-motivating potential inherent in
identication by engaging in inspirational motivation and by conveying an image of team
prototypicality. Field experiments show that transformational leadership (e.g., inspirational
motivation) can be developed (Barling, Weber, & Kelloway, 1996). Moreover, anecdotal evidence
also suggests that leaders may to some extent inuence the extent to which they are perceived as team
prototypical (Reicher & Hopkins, 2003; van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2003). This suggests that
organizations may not only increase the chances of harvesting the creative potential in identication by
selecting transformational leaders who are representative of the organizational identity but also by
leadership development programs that enhance leaders inspirational motivation skills and their ability
to convey an image of team prototypicality.
Limitations and future directions
Our study has a few limitations that should be considered. First and foremost perhaps, we should
recognize that our analysis revolves around the motivation to undertake creative efforts. While
motivation is clearly of great importance to creativity (Amabile, 1983, 1988; Zhou & Shalley, 2008), it
is not the only inuence on creativity, and our analysis has no claims to cover all relevant factors that
impact creativity. It is a motivational analysis, and does not claim to be more. Many scholars have
argued that a comprehensive study of the antecedents of employee creativity must include not only
motivation, but also skills and experience (e.g., Amabile, 1983; Woodman, Sawyer, & Grifn, 1993).
Thus, we would expect the impact of identication on individual creativity to be stronger when the
interaction of these factors is taken into account.
As R&D employees are charged with the development of creative solutions to applied problems we
assumed creativity would be important for employees in these teams. Nonetheless we did not assess
whether the individuals work required creativity or whether team norms or identity encouraged
creativity. Future research may thus bolster the condence in our conclusions by including such
measures and shedding more light on the specic processes occurring. In other contexts where teams
engage in more routine tasks, creativity will be less critical to task performance and the teams success.
As a consequence the association between identication and creativity as well as creative effort may
depend on whether team norms encourage creativity and innovation. Thus, while contextual inuences,
and particularly those extrinsic to the team, encourage creative outcomes in the R&D context, in more
routine settings this link may be established only when team norms promote creativity. Accordingly,
the generalization and identication of boundary conditions of the current ndings to other work
contexts is an important avenue of investigation. Moreover there may be circumstances when self-
serving individual creative behavior works to the detriment of team creativity. In considering differing
creative behaviors, we should thus also be open to the possibility that at least certain forms of creativity,
e.g., computer hacking and fraud, are undesirable.
When measuring creative effort we asked employees to rate the extent to which employees sought
out new ideas and solutions to problems, while one of the items measuring creative performance
Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 30, 963982 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/job
978 G. HIRST ET AL.
contained a similar item structure. Despite CFAs indicating the distinctiveness of the constructs, this is
a potential limitation of the research. While acknowledging this limitation, we also note that the choice
of respondent (i.e., employee vs. supervisor) inuences how the question is answered. A question
asking employees whether they try out new approaches can reasonably be interpreted as an indicator of
how much effort they intend to invest in these activities. A willingness to engage in the creative
activities does not necessarily deliver creative outcomes. On the other hand asking a separate observer,
like a supervisor, whether the individual has tried these new approaches can be reasonably interpreted
as an observable indicator of the extent of the individuals creative output.
While the collection of data from three different nations (US, UK, and Sweden), provided greater
condence in the generalizability of the ndings to other Anglo-European cultures, differing
organizational events occurred in the facilities and countries. For example one of the facilities was in an
expansionary phase, while others were reducing head-count. To some extent we sought to mitigate this
issue controlling for country and as well as division in separate analyses. This provided similar results
so that these differences could not be found to account for the results. The completion of the survey in
English by the Swedish respondents is a limitation of the research. The participating organization
preferred surveys in English because company communications and global research heads
communicated objectives and strategic initiatives in English and the Swedish sample displayed
high levels of English prociency. One further limitation (and a need for further research) concerns the
causality suggested in the ndings. Because the data used in this research are cross-sectional in nature,
evidence of causality through experimental studies (or approximations obtained in longitudinal studies)
is needed.
To conclude, the present study testies to the viability of a leadership and social identity approach to
understand employee creativity. It thus suggests that the application and extension of social identity
theory and research (e.g., Haslamet al., 2003; Hogg &Terry, 2000) may enrich the study of creativity at
work. This theory-driven research also seems of considerable practical value for a variety of creative
settings. By denition any work that involves groups engenders some degree of follower identication
and so ones identication with this group is an ever-present motivational lever which is changeable and
amenable to the inuence of the manager.
Author biographies
Giles Hirst is a Senior Lecturer at Monash University Faculty of Business and Economics, Australia.
He received his PhD. from the Melbourne Business School. His research interests include social
networks, cross-cultural and cross-level inuences on creativity. Prior to joining Monash, Giles was a
faculty member at the Aston Business School, UK.
Rolf van Dick is a Professor of Social Psychology at the Goethe-University Frankfurt (Germany). Prior
to his current position he was a Professor of Social Psychology and Organizational Behavior at Aston
Business School Birmingham (UK). He received his PhD in social psychology from Philipps-
University Marburg (Germany). His research interests center on the application of social identity
theory in organizational settings. Rolf served as Associate Editor of the European Journal of Work &
Organizational Psychology and is currently editor-in-chief of the British Journal of Management and
the Journal of Personnel Psychology. His work has been published in outlets including the Academy of
Management Journal, Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Marketing, Journal of Organizational
Behavior, Journal of Vocational Behavior, and Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 30, 963982 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/job
LEADERSHIP AND EMPLOYEE CREATIVITY 979
Daan van Knippenberg (PhD Leiden University, The Netherlands) is Professor of Organizational
Behavior at the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
His research interests include leadership, work group diversity, group decision-making, creativity and
innovation, and social identity processes in organizations. He is an Associate Editor of Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes and Journal of Organizational Behavior.
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. New York: Sage.
Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York: Springer.
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, pp. 123167). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Amabile, T. M. (1990). Cataloguing creativity. Contemporary Psychology, 35, 451.
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review,
14, 2039.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Barling, J., Weber, T., & Kelloway, E. K. (1996). Effects of transformational leadership training on attitudinal and
nancial outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 827832.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
Dawson, J. F., & Richter, A. W. (2006). A signicance test of slope differences for three-way interactions in
moderated multiple regression analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 917926.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The what and why of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-
determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227268.
De Cremer, D., & van Knippenberg, D. (2004). Leader self-sacrice and leadership effectiveness: The moderating
role of leader self-condence. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 95, 140155.
De Cremer, D., & Van Vugt, M. (1999). Social identication effects in social dilemmas: A transformation of
motives. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 871893.
Doosje, B., Ellemers, N., & Spears, R. (1995). Perceived intrateam variability as a function of team status and
identication. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 410436.
Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. V. (1994). Organizational images and member identication.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 239263.
Eisenberger, R., & Rhoades, L. (2001). Incremental effects of reward on creativity. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 81, 728741.
Elliot, A., & McGregor, H. (2001). A 2 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 80, 501519.
Farmer, S. M., Tierney, P., & Kung-McIntyre, K. (2003). Employee creativity in Taiwan: An application of role
identity theory. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 618630.
Fisher, S. L., & Ford, J. K. (1998). Differential effects of learner effort and goal orientation on two learning
outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 51, 397420.
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.
Giessner, S. R., & van Knippenberg, D. (2008). License to fail: Goal denition, leader team prototypicality, and
perceptions of leadership effectiveness after leader failure. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 105, 1435.
Hains, S. C., Hogg, M. A., & Duck, J. M. (1997). Self-categorization and leadership: Effects of team
prototypicality and leader stereotypicality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 10871100.
Haslam, S. A. (2004). Psychology in organizations: The social identity approach (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
Haslam, S. A., van Knippenberg, D., Platow, M., &Ellemers, N. (2003). Social identity at work: Developing theory
for organizational practice. New York: Psychology Press.
Hirst, G., van Knippenberg, D., & Zhou, J. (2009). A multi-level perspective on employee creativity: Goal
orientation, team learning behavior, and individual creativity. The Academy of Management Journal, 52, 2.
Hogg, M. A. (2001). Asocial identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 184200.
Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 30, 963982 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/job
980 G. HIRST ET AL.
Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts.
Academy of Management Review, 25, 121140.
Hogg, M. A., & van Knippenberg, D. (2003). Social identity and leadership processes in teams. In M. P. Zanna
(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 35, pp. 152). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Howell, J. M., & Shamir, B. (2005). The role of followers in the charismatic leadership process: Susceptibility,
social construction, and leader empowerment. Academy of Management Review, 30, 96112.
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within group interrater reliability with and without
response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 8589.
James, L. R., Mulaik, S. A., & Brett, J. M. (2006). A tale of two methods. Organizational Research Methods, 9,
233244.
Kark, R., Shamir, B., & Chen, G. (2003). The two faces of transformational leadership: Empowerment and
dependency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 246255.
Klein, K. J., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2000). From micro to meso: Critical steps in conceptualizing and conducting
multilevel research. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 211236.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Hattrup, K. (1992). A disagreement about within-group agreement: Disentangling issues of
consistency versus consensus. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 161167.
Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of
organizational identication. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 103123.
Nonaka, I. (1991). The knowledge-creating company. Harvard Business Review, 69, 96104.
Oldham, G. R., &Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work. Academy of
Management Journal, 39, 607634.
Pierro, A., Cicero, L., Bonauito, M., van Knippenberg, D., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2005). Leader team proto-
typicality and leadership effectiveness: The moderating role of need for cognitive closure. The Leadership
Quarterly, 16, 503516.
Pirola-Merlo, A., & Mann, L. (2004). The relationship between individual creativity and team creativity:
Aggregating across people and time. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 235257.
Platow, M. J., Haslam, S. A., Foddy, M., & Grace, D. M. (2003). Leadership as the outcome of self-categorization
processes. In D. van Knippenberg, &M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Leadership and power: Identity processes in teams and
organizations (pp. 3447). London: Sage.
Platow, M. J., & van Knippenberg, D. (2001). A social identity analysis of leadership endorsement: The effects of
leader inteamprototypicality and distributive interteamfairness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27,
15081519.
Rafferty, A. E., & Grifn, M. A. (2004). Dimensions of transformational leadership: Conceptual and empirical
extensions. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 329354.
Reicher, S., & Hopkins, N. (2003). On the science and art of leadership. In D. van Knippenberg, & M. A. Hogg
(Eds.), Leadership and power: Identity processes in teams and organizations (pp. 197209). London: Sage.
Rich, G. A. (1997). The sales manager as a role model: Effects on trust, job satisfaction, and performance of
salespeople. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25, 319328.
Riketta, M., & van Dick, R. (2005). Foci of attachment in organizations: A meta-analysis comparison of the
strength and correlates of work-team versus organizational commitment and identication. Journal of Voca-
tional Behavior, 67, 490510.
Shalley, C. E. (1991). Effects of productivity goals, creativity goals, and personal discretion on individual
creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 179185.
Shalley, C., Zhou, J., & Oldham, G. (2004). The effects of personal and contextual characteristics on creativity:
Where should we go from here? Journal of Management, 30, 933958.
Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-
concept based theory. Organizational Science, 4, 577594.
Shin, S., & Zhou, J. (2003). Transformational leadership, conservation, and creativity: Evidence from Korea.
Academy of Management Journal, 46, 703714.
Shin, S., & Zhou, J. (2007). When is educational specialization heterogeneity related to creativity in research and
development teams? Transformational leadership as a moderator. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1709
1721.
Simon, M. C. (2007). Leadership at the edge: Ernest Shackleton and authentic leadership. Paper presented at the
Chair Academy Conference, March 710, Jacksonville, Florida.
Taggar, S. (2002). Individual creativity and group ability to utilize individual creative resources: A multilevel
model. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 315330.
Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 30, 963982 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/job
LEADERSHIP AND EMPLOYEE CREATIVITY 981
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social of identity theory of inter-team behaviour. In S. Worchel, & W. G.
Austin (Eds.), Psychology of interteam relations (pp. 724). Chicago: Nelson.
Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2002). Creative self-efcacy: Potential antecedents and relationship to creative
performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 11371148.
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, 591620.
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Ullrich, J., Christ, O., & van Dick, R. (2009). Substitutes for procedural fairness: Prototypical leaders are endorsed
whether they are fair or not. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 235244.
van Dick, R. (2001). Identication and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts: Linking theory and
research fromsocial and organizational psychology. International Journal of Management Reviews, 3, 265283.
van Dick, R., Hirst, G., Grojean, M. W., & Wieseke, J. (2007). Relationships between leader and follower
organizational identication and implications for follower attitudes and behaviour. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology 80, 133150.
van Dick, R., Wagner, U., Stellmacher, J., & Christ, O. (2005). Category salience and organizational identication.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78, 273285.
van Knippenberg, B., & van Knippenberg, D. (2005). Leader self-sacrice and leadership effectiveness: The
moderating role of leader prototypicality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 2537.
van Knippenberg, D. (2000a). Work motivation and performance: A social identity perspective. Applied
Psychology: An International Review, 49, 357371.
van Knippenberg, D. (2000b). Team norms, prototypicality, and persuasion. In D. J. Terry, & M. A. Hogg (Eds.),
Attitudes, behavior, and social context: The role of norms and team membership (pp. 157170). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
van Knippenberg, D., & Ellemers, N. (2003). Social identity and team performance: Identication as the key to
team-oriented efforts. In S. A. Haslam, D. van Knippenberg, M. J. Platow, & N. Ellemers (Eds.), Social identity
at work: Developing theory for organizational practice (pp. 2942). New York: Psychology Press.
van Knippenberg, D., & Hogg, M. A. (2003). A social identity model of leadership effectiveness in organizations.
In B. Staw, & R. M. Kramer (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 25, pp. 245297). Greenwich,
Conn: JAI Press.
van Knippenberg, D., Lossie, N., & Wilke, H. (1994). In-team prototypicality and persuasion: Determinants of
heuristic and systematic message processing. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 289300.
van Knippenberg, D., van Knippenberg, B., De Cremer, D., &Hogg, M. A. (2004). Leadership, self, and identity: A
review and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 825856.
van Knippenberg, D., van Knippenberg, B., &Giessner, S. R. (2007). Extending the follower-centered perspective:
Leadership as an outcome of shared social identity. In B. Shamir, R. Pillai, M. C. Bligh, & M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.),
Follower-centered perspectives on leadership: A tribute to the memory of James R. Meindl (pp. 5170).
Greenwich, CO: Information Age Publishing.
van Knippenberg, D., & van Schie, E. C. M. (2000). Foci and correlates of organizational identication. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73, 137147.
West, M. A. (2002). Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model of creativity and innovation
implementation in work groups. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51, 355387.
Wieseke, J., Ahearne, M., Lam, S. K., & van Dick, R. (2009). The role of leaders in internal marketing. Journal of
Marketing, 73, 123145.
Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Grifn, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of
Management Review, 18, 293321.
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, 413422.
Zhou, J., & Shalley, C. E. (2008). Expanding the scope and impact of organizational creativity research. In J. Zhou,
& C. E. Shalley, (Eds.), Handbook of organizational creativity (pp. 347368). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 30, 963982 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/job
982 G. HIRST ET AL.