See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/326285498

Transformational Leadership and Creativity: A Meta-analysis and Theoretical

Integration

Article in Academy of Management Proceedings · April 2018

DOI: 10.5465/AMBPP.2018.10972abstract

CITATIONS READS

3 1,577

3 authors, including:

Kyootai Lee Kailash Joshi

Sogang University University of Missouri - St. Louis
62 PUBLICATIONS 870 CITATIONS 76 PUBLICATIONS 1,669 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Kyootai Lee on 06 October 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Transformational Leadership and Creativity: A Meta-Analytic Review and

Identification of an Integrated Model

Key Words: Transformational Leadership, Creativity, Meta-Analytic Structural Equation

Modeling

Cite this manuscript as “Koh, D., Lee, K. & Joshi, K. "Transformational Leadership and

Creativity: A Meta-Analytic Review and Identification of an Integrated Model," Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 2019, Vol.40, pp. 625-650.”

1
 Abstract

We conduct a meta-analytic review that yields important insights about the existing

research on transformational leadership and creativity. Additionally, we propose and test an

integrated model using meta-analytic structural equation modeling (MASEM) and full

information MASEM (FIMASEM) techniques to better understand the intervening

mechanism through which transformational leadership acts on creativity. The results of meta-

analysis of 127 studies show that most of the bivariate relationships among transformational

leadership, employee creativity, and pre-identified mediators are significant; further,

geographic base of studies significantly moderates some of the relationships. The MASEM

results indicate that several mediators intervene in the relationship between transformational

leadership and creativity. Although the total effect of transformational leadership on creativity

is positive, its direct effect is negative when mediators are included. Additionally, there are

significant relationships among the mediators that can be theoretically supported, but have

not been investigated in prior transformational leadership and creativity studies. Based on

these findings, we provide conclusions and directions for future studies.

2
 INTRODUCTION

Creativity in organizational contexts is generally defined as the generation of novel

and useful products, ideas, and procedures for innovation (Amabile, 1988; Shalley, Gilson, &

Blum, 2000). Over the past several decades, research on creativity has suggested that

leadership is one of the most important factors for employee creativity enhancement

(Mumford & Hunter, 2005; Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993). Our review of ten major

general management and applied psychology journals1 from 1991 to 2016 revealed that

researchers have extensively investigated the role of transformational leadership in enhancing

creativity as shown in Figure 1. This may be based on the belief that as employees need to

question routines, engage in unconventional behaviors, and perceive autonomy in their

creative pursuit, transformational leadership may provide favorable environments that would

lay an “emphasis on collective action, change, and innovation” along with “an exciting and

dearly needed change of pace” (Van Knippenberg & Sitkin, 2013, pp. 3-4).

---------------------------------------------

INSERT FIGURE 1 ABOUT HERE

---------------------------------------------

Transformational leadership refers to a leadership style that can inspire protégés to

rise above self-interest by changing their ideals, interests, spirit, and values to attain higher

performance (Bass, 1985; Yukl, 1999). Although researchers seem to have supported that

transformational leadership can enhance creativity (e.g., Gong, Huang, & Farh, 2009; Shin &

Zhou, 2003; Wang & Zhu, 2011), several researchers have reported nonsignificant and even

1
The journals that we reviewed include Academy of Management Journal, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Journal of Management, Personnel Psychology, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Human
Relations, Group & Organization Management, Leadership Quarterly, and Creativity
Research Journal.

3
negative relationships (e.g., Jaussi & Dionne, 2003; Miao, Newman, & Lamb, 2012). That is,

empirical research provides equivocal patterns in the relationship (Qu, Janssen, & Shi, 2015;

Vessey, Barrett, Mumford, Johnson, & Litwiller, 2014). Therefore, the first objective of this

paper is to identify whether there is a positive effect of transformational leadership on

creativity by conducting a meta-analysis of the relevant studies.

While expanding the nomological network, researchers have identified the role of

various variables (cf., Van Knippenberg & Sitkin, 2013) that may be determined by

transformational leadership and intervene in its relationship with creativity, such as creative

self-efficacy (e.g., Akinlade, 2014; Mittal & Dhar, 2015; Wang, Tsai, & Tsai, 2014),

identification with the leader (e.g., Wang & Rode, 2010; Sluss & Ashforth, 2007), intrinsic

motivation for creativity (e.g., Gumusluoglu & Ilsev, 2009; Shin & Zhou, 2003), and

psychological empowerment (e.g., Kollmann, Stöckmann, Krell, Peschl, & Buchwald, 2013;

Sun, Zhang, Qi, & Chen, 2012). Although several prior studies have examined the issue of

mediators, they do not seem to provide a cohesive, integrative view. Rather, most studies

have focused on a single theory-based mediator without considering its possible interrelations

with other intervening variables. Additionally, as Van Knippenberg and Sitkin (2013) argued,

because transformational leadership has four different components – idealized influence,

inspiration, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration, each component may

have different theoretical mechanisms through which it can influence creativity. In affecting

employee outcomes, transformational leadership may increase psychological empowerment,

intrinsic motivation (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990), and feelings of self-efficacy (Conger &

Kanungo, 1988), which have been reported to be related. Thus, a single theory has limitations

in providing a complete understanding of the relationship between transformational

leadership and creativity. Consideration of interrelationships among intervening variables

would require researchers to develop a deeper understanding of their multiple theoretical

4
roots. Hence, the second purpose of this study is to synthesize different intervening

mechanisms, which can help overarch the multiple theoretical underpinnings through which

transformational leadership influences creativity.

We should note that a few studies conducted meta-analyses, which in part included

transformational leadership and/or creativity, but these studies considered only a limited

number of studies due to their research focuses. For instance, Liu, Jiang, Shalley, Keem, and

Zhou (2016) focused on the motivational mechanisms of creativity, but did not consider the

role of transformational leadership. While focusing on the role of various leadership styles in

advancing innovation, Rosing, Frese, and Bausch (2011) and Wang, Oh, Courtright, and

Colbert (2011) found a positive relationship between transformational leadership and

creativity, based on nine and fourteen studies, respectively. Considering that some newer

studies (e.g., Qu et al., 2015; Vessey et al., 2014) reported mixed results in the relationship

between the two, researchers need to delve into the role of possible contextual factors in the

relationship (Zhou & Hoever, 2014, p. 354). Hence, we explored whether the relationships

among transformational leadership, mediators, and creativity are influenced by the

geographic base of studies (Western vs. Asian) and the measures of creativity and

transformational leadership.

In the rest of the paper, first, we summarize major theories and the key mediators that

researchers have adopted. Second, we report the results of a meta-analysis to examine the

relationships between transformational leadership and creativity along with the mediators.

We should note that we did not delve into the relationship between transformational

leadership and team- and/or group-level creativity, though we explored it, as we do not have

sufficient number of studies for meta-analysis at the group level (also see Directions for

Future Research)2. Thus, we focused primarily on the relationships at the individual level.

2
We should note that nine studies consistently identified a positive relationship between

5
Third, we report the results of meta-analytic structural equation modeling (MASEM) to

consolidate mediators and examine an integrated model. We believe this study can contribute

to advancing our understanding of the relationship between transformational leadership and

creativity by incorporating mediating factors and potential interplays between them. Some of

these mediators have been largely treated in isolation in the past. Thus, this study will help

uncover unexplored important issues for future research. This research also contributes to

clarifying the precise intervening mechanisms through which transformational leadership

impacts creativity, and may help increase the practical utility of transformational leadership

theory.

THEORETICAL REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES

1. Scope of Theoretical Review and Sources of Data

We searched for keywords such as “transformational leadership,” “creativity,” and/or

“innovation” in ABI/Inform, Business Premier, JSTOR, Science Direct, Sage, Dissertation

Abstracts, ProQuest Digital Dissertations, and the proceedings of conferences of the

Academy of Management and the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology to

identify relevant published and unpublished studies. In addition, we searched for prior studies

that employed the scales to measure creativity and transformational leadership. We also

attempted to obtain some unpublished or work-in-progress papers in the field of creativity

and transformational leadership via ResearchGate. Overall, the search yielded total 68

studies, including 56 journal papers and 12 studies from conference proceedings, masters-

level theses, and Ph.D. dissertations. Two authors independently coded the theories employed

in the 68 studies. After the first-round coding, initial discrepancies between the authors were

transformational leadership and team-level creativity, and a few of them commonly found a
significant mediating variable, team self-efficacy (e.g., Shin & Eom, 2014; Shin & Zhou,
2007). The results can be provided upon request to the second author.

6
resolved. Table 1 summarizes the studies that investigated the relationship between

transformational leadership and creativity based on their employed theories.

------------------------------------------------------

INSERT TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE

------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------

INSERT FIGURE 2 ABOUT HERE

------------------------------------------------------

2. Theoretical Synthesis and Mediator Identification

Transformational leadership refers to “the leader moving the follower beyond

immediate self-interests through idealized influence (charisma), inspiration, intellectual

stimulation, or individualized consideration” (Bass, 1999, p. 11). According to Piccolo and

Colquitt (2006), idealized influence refers to the extent to which leaders act in charismatic

ways that motivate protégés to identify with the leaders as role models. Inspiration means the

extent to which leaders express visions that are appealing to followers. Intellectual

stimulation refers to the degree to which leaders encourage their followers to challenge the

existing assumptions and endure risks. Individualized consideration means the extent to

which leaders pay attention to a subordinate’s needs and concerns. Researchers have

identified that transformational leaders have the potential to help their subordinates develop

and enhance creativity by serving as role models (Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993), creating

organizational contexts that favor creativity (Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1999; Bass, 1985), and/or

providing knowledge and information for creativity implementation (Gong et al., 2009;

Wang, Kim, & Lee, 2016). That is, pro-creativity organizational environments may emerge

from transformational leaders’ behaviors. Hence, we suggest that transformational leadership

can positively influence creativity (H1).

7
 While highlighting the roles of different components of transformational leadership,

researchers have noted that transformational leaders have the potential to enhance

subordinates’ creativity through different mechanisms. Prior studies have mainly utilized six

different theories3 and identified several mediating variables that may act as a link between

transformational leadership and creativity as shown in Figure 2 and Table 1. Among the

theories, the review identifies that cognitive evaluation theory and its derivative

componential theory of creativity are the most widely adopted theories (32 studies).

Considering that cognitive evaluation theory is a subset of self-determination theory (8

studies) and that the former specifies the factors that explain the variability in individuals’

intrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000), prior studies based on these theories have focused

commonly on the role of transformational leadership in developing intrinsic motivation for

creativity. In addition, based on social learning theory (19 studies), researchers have

identified how transformational leadership may help increase creativity by directly providing

knowledge and information and indirectly providing organizational contexts favorable for

creativity implementation. Prior studies have also emphasized that how individuals identify

themselves in terms of being a creative person may enhance their creativity based on social

identity theory (18 studies), role identity (expectation) theory (6 studies), and relational

identification theory (5 studies). Based on the above six theoretical streams, researchers have

identified six major intervening variables – creative self-efficacy, intrinsic motivation for

creativity, innovation climate, identification with the leader, psychological empowerment,

and creative identity. As shown in Figure 2, these theories highlight different mechanisms

3
It should be noted that we viewed social learning theory and social cognitive theory as a single
theoretical framework as the two have the same theoretical roots. In a similar vein, we grouped
role identity theory and role expectation theory into one framework. Similarly, as componential
theory of creativity has been developed based on cognitive evaluation theory, we included the
two under a single framework.

8
through which some, if not all, transformational leadership components may have the

potential to enhance creativity. These mediators may be inter-connected, suggesting that these

theories can be further synthesized. For instance, creative identity may also relate to creative

self-efficacy, because efficacy perception in a domain is grounded in self-identification with

that domain (Erez & Earley, 1993). These mediating variables and their relationships are

discussed in the subsequent sections.

Cognitive Evaluation Theory and Componential Theory of Creativity. Cognitive

evaluation theory explains that the organizational contexts can entail informational or control

aspects, which facilitate an internal or external locus of causality, and thereby affect

individuals’ intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Intrinsic motivation is the extent to

which an employee enjoys performing a task for itself and experiences the pleasure and

satisfaction inherent in the task (Utman, 1997). Following this theory, research on

componential theory of creativity emphasizes the need for leaders’ direct assistance and

support which can increase followers’ intrinsic motivation for creativity (Amabile, Schatzel,

Moneta, & Kramer, 2004). Transformational leaders’ support includes organizing activities

and resources effectively and/or improving cooperative interpersonal relationships that build

trust and loyalty (Amabile et al., 2004).

With regard to the specific components of transformational leadership, these theories

highlight that transformational leaders’ intellectual stimulation, idealized influence, and

inspirational motivation as contextual factors can facilitate intellectual curiosity which may

enhance subordinates’ intrinsic motivation for creativity (Amabile, 1988; Oldham &

Cummings, 1996). In addition, leaders’ individualized consideration can allow followers to

experiment with ideas (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Shamir et al., 1993) and focus on tasks instead of

external concerns (Shin & Zhou, 2003). That is, albeit different in their mechanisms,

transformational leadership components can increase employees’ intrinsic motivation for

9
creativity, which can in turn make them cognitively flexible but persistent in challenging the

status quo and solving problems (McGraw & Fiala, 1982; Shin & Zhou, 2003). Thus, we

propose that transformational leadership can positively influence intrinsic motivation for

creativity (H2a), which in turn can positively affect creativity (H2b).

Social Learning Theory (a.k.a. Social Cognitive Theory). Social learning theory

explains that individuals learn behaviors by observing their own behaviors and those of

others in organizations (Bandura. 1977). Applying the tenets of social learning theory,

creativity researchers (e.g., Eisenbeiß & Boerner, 2013; Gong et al., 2009; Mittal & Dhar,

2015) have stated that followers can learn how to proactively think and generate new ideas by

observing their leader’s charismatic behaviors and intellectual stimulation. Followers can also

observe organizational contexts that favor creative ideas by experiencing transformational

leaders’ individualized consideration (Bass, 1985). Such learning processes can help

employees build creative self-efficacy, which can motivate employees to set challenging

goals and to persist when faced with setbacks (Bandura, 1986). It can help reinforce beliefs

about their abilities to develop novel ideas (Bass & Avolio, 1990), and eliminate the obstacles

to creative work, increasing the intrinsic motivation for creative pursuits and exhibiting

higher creative performance (e.g., Gong et al., 2009; Tierney & Farmer, 2011). Based on the

above, we propose that creative self-efficacy can positively influence intrinsic motivation for

creativity (H3). We also suggest that transformational leadership can positively influence

creative self-efficacy (H4a), which in turn can positively affect creativity (H4b).

Social Identity Theory. Social identity theory explains that employees favor in-group

members over out-group ones due to attraction-based-assimilation. This consensual

depersonalized liking within in-group members confirms the leader’s prestige (Hogg, 2001).

According to the theory, the person occupying the most prototypical position within a group

(i.e., a leader) can achieve the ability to influence other group members (Hogg, 2001). Based

10
on this theory, researchers have identified two different mechanisms through which the

leaders’ values and attitudes transfer to followers. First, transformational leaders’ behaviors

such as inspirational motivation and intellectual stimulation are diffused into their

subordinates and can increase employees’ innovation climate perception as they

conceptualize themselves alongside their leaders (Chan, 1998; Wang, Rode, Shi, Luo, &

Chen, 2013). Furthermore, this social identification mechanism tends to reinforce the

conceptualization of the self as a group member because the individual members are likely to

be assimilated with each other. Through this process, members are likely to develop shared

values and attitudes toward innovation and creativity (Wang et al., 2013). In this regard,

researchers (e.g., Chan, 1998; Kanter, 1983; Scott & Bruce, 1994) emphasized the role of

innovation climate, which refers to the extent to which group members share their

perceptions about the effectiveness of policies and organizational procedures to support the

implementation of new ideas (Patterson et al., 2005). Hence, we propose that

transformational leadership can positively affect innovation climate (H5a), which in turn can

positively influence creativity (H5b).

Second, followers tend to view leaders’ intellectual stimulation and idealized

influence as prototypical ones and mimic their characteristics (Piccolo & Colquitt, 2006) as

employees evoke their own self-concept and recognize that they and their leaders share

similar values (Pratt, 1998). Hence, similar to research on relational identification theory that

will be discussed in the next section, a group of scholars (e.g., Kark, Shamir, & Chen, 2003;

van Knippenberg, van Knippenberg, De Cremer, & Hogg, 2004; Miao et al., 2012)

emphasized the role of identification with the leader, referring to the degree to which

followers include the leader in the definition of their-self, in the relationship between

transformational leadership and creativity.

Relational Identification Theory. Relational identification theory explains that

11
individuals tend to identify themselves with regard to a given role relationship with

significant others (Sluss & Ashforth, 2007). This theory should be differentiated from social

identity theory in that the latter highlights the attraction-based assimilation processes that

subordinates experience (Qu et al., 2015). This theory explicates that leaders exercise

influence on subordinates via assigning tasks and providing performance feedback in their

role relationships (Sluss & Ashforth, 2008). Similar to social identity theory, despite a

different mechanism, relational identification theory highlights the intervening role of

identification with the leader between transformational leadership and creativity. Put

differently, via identification with the leader in the role relationship, protégés tend to develop

inspirational motivation and intellectual stimulation similar to what their transformational

leaders possess (Qu et al., 2015). Thus, followers who consider themselves in a relationship

with transformational leaders are more willing to experiment with new ideas and take risks,

because they perceive a strong sense of psychological safety in such relationships

(Edmondson, 1999). Thus, based on social identity theory and relational identification theory,

we suggest that transformational leadership can positively influence identification with the

leader (H6a), which in turn can positively affect creativity (H6b).

Self-Determination Theory. Self-determination theory identifies the fulfillment of

needs for autonomy as an essential prerequisite for individuals’ motivation (Gagne & Deci,

2005). According to the theory, transformational leadership behaviors tend to directly address

followers’ need for autonomy, which may in turn increase creativity (Avolio, Zhu, Koh, &

Bhatia, 2004; Jung & Sosik, 2002; Jung, Chow, & Wu, 2003). More specifically,

transformational leaders’ intellectual stimulation increases the self-determination perception

because it gives subordinates the autonomy to utilize their cognitive diversity in creative

ways (Zohar & Luria, 2004). In addition, based on their perception of leaders’ individualized

consideration, employees can demonstrate genuine interest in their ideas (Ryan & Deci,

12
2008) and have greater opportunities to express their opinions, which may in turn increase

autonomy perception (Kirkman & Rosen, 1999). Thus, transformational leadership may

enhance employees’ psychological empowerment - an employee’s perceived level of self-

control based on their feelings of being competent, trusted, and supported (Spreitzer, 1995),

which can in turn increase creative behaviors (Jung et al., 2003). Thus, we suggest that

transformational leadership can positively affect psychological empowerment (H7a), which

in turn can positively influence creativity (H7b).

Because transformational leaders empower their subordinates through a high degree

of trust and commitment, psychological empowerment may be closely related to relationship

quality (Zhang & Bartol, 2010). As high relationship quality may prompt employees to

identify themselves more closely with their leaders (Walumbwa & Hartnell, 2011), we

propose that psychological empowerment can positively influence identification with the

leader (H8). Furthermore, psychological empowerment by itself is an individual’s experience

of intrinsic motivation based on the cognition of his or her power in relation to the work role

(Spreitzer, 1995), and thus acts as a proximal cause of intrinsic motivation for creativity

(Zhang & Bartol, 2010). Thus, we suggest that psychological empowerment can positively

influence intrinsic motivation for creativity (H9).

Role Identity Theory and Role Expectation Theory. These two theories define role

identity as a self-view regarding a specific role in organizations (Riley & Burke, 1995). Both

theories explain that employees are likely to act in accordance with role identities and

internalize them as components of self, because they anticipate social and personal costs if

they do not fulfill their role (Stryker & Burke, 2000). Particularly, employees tend to define

their role identities through expectations from significant others (e.g., transformational

leaders in this context) (Callero, Howard, & Pilliavin, 1987). Transformational leaders help

employees build situation-oriented self-concept (Lord & Brown, 2004) through their

13
inspirational motivation and intellectual stimulation, developing greater performance goals,

raising their intellectual curiosity and encouraging them to adopt novel approaches (Bass,

Waldman, Avolio, & Bebb, 1987; Wang et al., 2014). That is, under transformational leaders’

influence, employees can identify their creative potential and recognize personal creativity as

an important part of “who they are.” Thus, researchers highlight that creative identity,

referring to the degree to which an employee identifies him/herself as a creative person

(Farmer, Tierney, & Kung-McIntyre, 2003; Wang & Zhu, 2011), plays the role of cognitive

schemata to provide meaning for the self, to interpret events, and to channel behavioral

options (Stryker & Burke, 2000). Subordinates with higher levels of creative identity are

more likely to show higher creative performance (Wang & Zhu, 2011). Thus, we propose that

transformational leadership can positively affect creative identity (H10a), which in turn can

positively influence creativity (H10b).

3. Exploring Possible Moderating Effects

Researchers seem to generally agree on the positive relationship between

transformational leadership and creativity, though nonsignificant and even negative

relationships have also been frequently reported (Eisenbeiß & Boerner, 2013; Qu et al.,

2015). This means, the relationship may not be stable, and may be moderated by hidden

factors. In this vein, Grant and Berry (2011) and Zhou and Hoever (2014) recommended that

researchers need to examine conditions under which the relationship may be stable. Thus, we

endeavor to explore and examine how a study’s measurement characteristics, rating source

(self vs. others), and geographic base may change the relationships4.

Method Factors. Our review revealed that researchers have adopted broadly two

types of scales to measure transformational leadership. For instance, the literature that cited

4
We thank one of the reviewers who identified the issue of different measures of creativity
and transformational leadership employed by researchers.

14
Bass and Avolio (1995) and Antonakis, Avolio and Sivasubramaniam (2003) employed the

same version of Multi-factor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ). The research that cited

Arnold, Palmatier, Grewal and Sharma (2009) and Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman and

Fetter (1990) adopted a short or full version of Podsakoff et al.’s (1990) scale. These scales

may tap into different aspects of transformational leadership. Thus, we pose the following

exploratory research question (ERQ) 1: Does the relationship between transformational

leadership and creativity differ across the two groups of transformational leadership

measurements? Our review also revealed that researchers have adopted broadly three groups

of scales to measure creativity. One group of studies cited Zhou and George (2001) which

focuses on risk-taking and active promotion of ideas. Another group employed Tierney,

Farmer, and Graen’s (1999) measure incorporating risk-taking, problem-solving, and role

modeling. The other group adopted Oldham & Cummings’ (1996) scale, which focuses on

the level of creative performance regarding originality and practicality. Thus, we made the

following ERQ 2: Does the relationship between transformational leadership and creativity

differ across the three groups of creativity measurement? Researchers (e.g., Ng & Feldman,

2012; Liu et al., 2016) have indicated that many independent variables tend to exhibit

stronger relationships with self-rated creativity, compared to peer- or supervisor-rated5. Thus,

we made the following ERQ 3: Does the relationship between transformational leadership

and creativity differ between self-rated measures and other measures?

Geographic Base. Transformational leadership and creativity were initially

conceptualized in the Western context. However, we interestingly found that the number of

studies in the context of Asian countries such as China, India, and Korea (64%) was higher

5
Unlike creativity evaluation, we did not find studies that used self-reported transformational
leadership in the analysis. So, we did not examine the effect of rating sources regarding
transformational leadership.

15
than that in Western countries (36%) such as the US and members of the EU. Asian countries

tend to have a collectivistic and high power-distance culture which can influence creativity

(Shin & Zhou, 2003). Additionally, transformational leaders’ charisma and vision may be

more impactful for employees in high power-distance cultures (Bass, 1997; Kirkman, Chen,

Farh, Chen, & Lowe, 2009). We should note that, although difference in samples’ geographic

base – particularly due to national cultural values of collectivism/individualism and power-

distance – may impact individuals’ motivation and self-concept, there is no clear theory of

how such differences may affect the relationship (cf., Liu et al., 2016; Chen, Sharma,

Edinger, Shapiro, & Farh, 2011). Hence, we examined whether samples’ geographic base

may moderate any of the relationships in an exploratory manner.

People in Western countries are more likely to understand and consider themselves

independent of others and their affiliated group members due to individualistic culture (Liu et

al., 2016). If so, employees are less likely to depend on transformational leaders in their

implementation of creativity. By contrast, employees within Asian countries, where high

levels of power-distance are common, are less likely to make their own decisions without

leaders’ support (Avolio et al., 2004). Thus, we expect that the role of transformational

leadership in increasing creativity may be less salient for employees in Western countries,

compared to those in Asian countries (ERQ 4). In a similar vein, as employees in Western

societies are less likely to be influenced by others in forming beliefs and attitudes (Shin &

Zhou, 2003), they may be more dependent on beliefs in their own competency relative to

transformational leaders’ stimuli. Thus, we expect that the role of transformational leadership

in increasing intrinsic motivation for creativity may be less salient for employees in Western

countries, compared to those in Asian countries (ERQ 5).

In Asian countries, employees are more likely to accept values of and assistance from

transformational leaders (Schaubroeck, Lam & Cha, 2007). Through this process, they are

16
more likely to build their self-confidence, self-efficacy, and self-esteem (Jung & Avolio,

1999) in their ability to conduct the analysis needed to undertake creative work. Based on

this, we expect that the role of transformational leadership in increasing creative identity

may be less salient for employees in Western countries, compared to those in Asian countries

(ERQ 6). And, the role of transformational leadership in increasing creative self-efficacy may

be less salient for employees in Western countries, compared to those in Asian countries

(ERQ 7). In addition, in Asian countries leaders and followers are more likely to have a high

level of value congruence owing to extensive socialization processes within a group (Jung &

Avolio, 1999). Consequently, as transformational leaders are likely to emphasize challenging

status quo via intellectual stimulation, followers in Asian cultures are more likely to share

similar attitudes toward their routines. Thus, we suggest that the role of transformational

leadership in increasing innovation climate may be less salient for employees in Western

countries, compared to those in Asian countries (ERQ 8).

Employees in higher power-distance cultures have greater respect for authority and

are more open to leaders’ influence attempts and more willing to emulate their leaders

(Schaubroeck et al., 2007). Furthermore, they are more likely to have needs for affiliation

with leaders (Schaubroeck et al., 2007). Thus, we suggest that the role of transformational

leadership in increasing identification with the leader may be less salient for employees in

Western countries, compared to those in Asian countries (ERQ 9). Employees in low power-

distance cultures are likely to expect leaders to consult them and feel free to approach

superiors to express their points of view (Wheeler, 2002). Though transformational leaders

tend to impose their values and visions via charisma and inspiration, such leaders may not

effectively increase subordinates’ psychological empowerment in Western countries. Based

on this, we suggest that the role of transformational leadership in increasing psychological

empowerment may be less salient for employees in Western countries, compared to those in

17
Asian countries (ERQ 10).

Regarding the influence of mediators on creativity, employees in Western countries

tend to depend more on personal choice and competency due to individualistic culture (Eaton

& Dembo, 1997). In a similar vein, Liu et al. (2016) found that the relationships of intrinsic

motivation and self-efficacy with creativity are significantly moderated by individualism in

their meta-analysis. Thus, we expect the following: The influence of intrinsic motivation on

creativity may be stronger for employees in Western countries, compared to those in Asian

countries (ERQ 11). The influence of creative identity on creativity may be stronger for

employees in Western countries, compared to those in Asian countries (ERQ 12). The

influence of creative self-efficacy on creativity may be stronger for employees in Western

countries, compared to those in Asian countries (ERQ 13). In Asian countries, employees

tend to focus more on collective psychological states in their development of motivation and

cognition (Cha, 1994). By contrast, employees in Western countries tend to suggest and

implement creative ideas more independently from organizational contexts and leadership.

Thus, employees in Western countries, compared to those in Asian countries, may be less

susceptible to stimuli from innovation climate. We expect that the influence of innovation

climate on creativity may be weaker for employees in Western countries, compared to those in

Asian countries (ERQ 14).

Protégés in high power-distance culture tend to put more value on exchange

relationships with their leaders, which are closely related to identification with the leader

(Gu, Tang, & Jiang, 2015). This relationship-based identification helps employees seek and

undertake innovative approaches in their work (Gumusluoglu & Ilsev, 2009). Thus, we

expect that the influence of identification with the leadership on creativity may be weaker for

employees in Western countries, compared to those in Asian countries (ERQ 15). Employees

in Asian countries tend to favor having leaders take greater control of the work process

18
(Chow, Shields, & Wu, 1999). As such, employees in a high power-distance culture may feel

disoriented when left alone to figure out how to accomplish their goals (Jung, Ineson, Hains,

& Kim, 2013). Because undertaking innovative approaches to work typically requires making

risky decisions, psychological empowerment may not be effective in increasing creativity in

Asian countries. Thus, we expect that the influences of psychological empowerment on

creativity may be stronger for employees in Western countries, compared to those in Asian

countries (ERQ 16).

METHODS

1. Database Development

We re-examined the 68 studies employed in the theoretical review for the purpose of

statistical analyses. Out of these, we excluded 19 studies not appropriate for meta-analysis6.

As we initially focused on the studies related to transformational leadership and creativity, we

expanded the search to include mediators identified in the review. We utilized the same

sources in our search process as the first search noted earlier. This search process yielded 78

additional studies. Overall, we utilized 127 studies for meta-analysis of the bivariate

relationships and MASEM analysis among transformational leadership, creativity, and the

mediators7. We should note that despite our rigorous and extensive search, we could not find

studies that reported the relationships of identification with the leader with creative self-

efficacy and intrinsic motivation for creativity.

2. Variable Coding

We made a coding scheme and inclusion decisions based not only on the names of

6
These are 11 qualitative research or theoretical review papers (e.g., Anderson, Potočnik, &
Zhou, 2014; Slack, 2014; To, Herman, & Ashkanasy, 2015), one meta-analysis paper (Wang
et al., 2011), and seven papers that did not report the key information needed to conduct
meta-analysis (e.g., Arendt, 2009; Bai, Lin, & Li, 2016; Mohamed, 2016).
7
We should note that we excluded five studies reporting the relationships between mediators,
and used 122 studies in the meta-analysis.

19
the constructs but also the measures employed. Two researchers independently coded the

studies based on constructs of interest and possible moderators. In situations where one of the

coders was unsure, the two discussed to arrive at a consensus.

Transformational Leadership. Researchers have developed several scales to

measure transformational leadership. We included studies that employed the measures

developed by Bass and Avolio (1995), Antonakis et al., (2003), Podsakoff et al. (1990),

Arnold et al., (2009), inter alia. In cases where the studies reported the relationship between

four components of transformational leadership and creativity (e.g., Çekmecelioğlu & Özbağ,

2016; Moss & Ritossa, 2007), we computed a composite effect size by considering sample

sizes, reliabilities, means, and standard deviations.

Creativity. We included the studies that explicitly measured employees’ creativity

(not innovative behaviors) using the scales developed by Zhou and George (2001), Madjar,

Oldham, and Pratt (2002), Oldham and Cummings (1996), Tierney et al. (1999), among

others.

Mediators. We included studies that investigated intrinsic motivation for creativity

(rather than general intrinsic motivation) measured mainly by Tierney et al.’s (1999) and

Amabile, Hill, Hennessey and Tighe’s (1994) scales and creative self-efficacy (rather than

general self-efficacy) measured by Tierney and Farmer’s (2002) and Carmeli and

Schaubroeck’s (2007) scales. Regarding innovation climate, we included studies that adopted

scales developed by Scott and Bruce (1994), Amabile, Conti, Coon, and Lazenby (1996), and

Farmer et al. (2003) among others. Regarding psychological empowerment, we included

studies that used the measures developed by Spreitzer (1995) and Roller (1999), among

others. Regarding identification with the leader, we included studies that adopted the

measures developed by Shamir, Zakay, Breinin, and Popper (1998), Kark et al. (2003), and

Mael and Ashforth (1992). Regarding creative identity, we included studies that adopted

20
Farmer et al.’s (2003) scale – a modified version of Callero et al.’s (1987) role identity scale

– and Jaussi, Randel, and Dionne’s (2007) and Callero’s (1985) scales.

Moderators. We coded the studies that employed transformational leadership

measures based on MLQ-based scales (i.e., Bass & Avolio, 1995; Antonakis et al, 2003) as 0

and coded the studies that used Podsakoff et al.’s (1990) scale as 1 in order to examine a

possible moderating effect stemming from transformational leadership scale. We categorized

creativity measures into three groups. Then we coded the studies that used Zhou and

George’s (2001) measure as 0, the studies that employed Tierney et al.’s (1999) measure as 1,

and the studies that used creative performance scale (e.g., Oldham & Cummings, 1996) as 2.

In cases where researchers (e.g., Chen & Chang, 2013; Cheung & Wong, 2011) developed

their own scales, we inspected the items and made judgments based on the

operationalizations. In addition, we coded the rating sources of creativity (0 = non-self-rated,

1 = self-rated).

We coded each sample study’s geographic base (Western = 0 vs. Asian = 1) (Shalley,

Zhou, & Oldham, 2004; Gu et al., 2015) based on information about the countries where the

studies were conducted. Then we coded Hofstede’s (2001) individualism/collectivism and

power-distance scores to identify the differences across the two regions regarding the above

two cultural values. We identified that the two groups were significantly different with

respect to mean power-distance (PD) (PDwestern = 38.182 (standard deviation = 2.228) vs.

PDasian = 70.120 (11.304), t = 13.542) and mean individualism (ID) (IDwestern = 85.455 (9.678)

vs. IDasian = 28.880 (16.647), t = 10.467). These results showed that the sample studies have

different characteristics across the two regions.

3. Calculating the Effect Size

We followed Hunter and Schmidt’s (1990) procedures for meta-analysis. We divided

each observed correlation by the square root of the product of the respective reliabilities

21
(Cohen & Cohen, 1983). In studies where reliability was not reported, we used a sample-size-

weighted mean reliability from the remaining studies as the reliability estimate for them

(Muchinsky, 1996). Among the 127 studies included in the MASEM analysis, 4 studies did

not report reliability for transformational leadership (mean a = 0.908), 5 for creativity (mean

a = 0.886), 1 for creative self-efficacy (mean a =0.801), 0 for creative identity (mean a =

0.805), 1 for intrinsic motivation (mean a = 0.806), 2 for innovation climate (mean a =

0.859), and 3 for psychological empowerment (mean a = 0.845). After estimating the

corrected correlation for each relationship, we computed the weighted mean of each set of

correlations (rho).

We calculated bivariate relationships using a random effect model (Hunter &

Schmidt, 2004) to consider effect size heterogeneity across the sample studies8. We

calculated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) in the relationships (Whitener, 1990). Confidence

intervals mean an estimate of the variance of the corrected mean correlations (rho) due to

sampling error (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004, p. 205). If a confidence interval included 0, we

concluded that the correlation was not significant (Hunter & Schmidt, 1990). We also

calculated 80% credibility intervals (CrIs) to estimate the variability by using standard

deviations of rho (SDρ). A credibility interval indicates whether the reported correlations are

generalizable to other samples and whether possible moderators exist (Hunter & Schmidt,

1990). We employed two tests to determine whether transformational leadership - creativity

relationship showed signs of moderation, namely Q-test (Hedges & Olkin, 1985) and I-

squared test (Higgins, Thompson, Deeks, & Altman, 2003). A significant Q-value indicates

that the observed effect is heterogeneous and that there is a need to search for moderators to

explain the variance. I2-value identifies the proportion of variation across studies due to

8
The random effect model assumes that sampling error and variability in the population of
the correlations cause the relationship variability.

22
heterogeneity (Higgins & Thompson, 2002). Compared with Q-statistic, I2 is known to be

less affected by the scaling of the measures or the number of the studies included (Borenstein,

Hedges, Higgins, & Rothstein, 2009).

As meta-analysis procedures may inflate the relationships due to publication bias

(Cooper & Hedges, 1994), we in part mitigated the bias by including unpublished doctoral

dissertations and conference proceedings. Further, we examined publication bias by

comparing the effect sizes between published and unpublished studies. The results indicate

that publication status significantly moderated some relationships (e.g., transformational

leadership – intrinsic motivation (Qb = 7.735, p < 0.01) and intrinsic motivation – individual

creativity (Qb = 11.431, p <0 .001)). We should note that a lack of sufficient number of

studies did not permit us to assess the moderating role of publication status for some

relationships (Detailed results are reported in Appendix 1).

The individual corrected correlations used in the meta-analysis have different sample

sizes. But a single sample size for the entire correlation matrix is needed for analyzing

MASEM model. We employed a conservative approach, the harmonic mean sample size

(n=1569) (Viswesvaran & Ones, 1998). We calculated the mean and the standard deviation of

each variable across all the studies where they were reported. It should be noted that because

prior studies have employed different anchors though they adopted the same scales (e.g., 5-

point versus 7-point Likert scale), we standardized the scales following Sabherwal, Jeyaraj

and Chowa (2006). We then used this correlation matrix as input to examine the hypothesized

model (See Figure 3). In the MASEM analysis, because the corrected correlations are

assumed to have no measurement errors, the reliabilities of all constructs are set to one and

their error variances to zero (Hunter & Schmidt, 1990). We set the correlations of

identification with the leader with creative self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation for creativity

to zero as we did not find supporting evidence for the relationships. We examined the

23
influence of these artificial zero correlations in the robustness checks that will be provided in

the next section.

We should note that we combined the effect sizes of creative self-efficacy and creative

identity due to statistical and external validity reasons. First, while analyzing the results, we

found that the relationship between the two constructs is very high (rho = 0.828, p<0.001),

which can make structural equation results unstable (Cohen & Cohen, 1983) and create

multicollinearity (Aiken & West, 1991). Second, according to Bandura (1986) and Bandura

and Locke (2003), creative identity and creative self-efficacy are self-perceptions and beliefs

that “operate in concert with goal systems within the social cognitive theory of self-

regulation” (Wang et al., 2014, p. 81). That is, the two concepts can be nomologically similar

in that creative identity is operationalized as “centrality of role identity as a creative

employee” (Farmer et al., 2003, p. 622), and creative self-efficacy as “the belief one has the

ability to produce creative outcomes” (Tierney & Farmer, 2002, p. 1138). Thus, we concluded

that the discriminant validity between the two seems to be low. In a similar vein, researchers

(e.g., Tierney & Farmer, 2011; Wang et al., 2014) identified strong correlations between the

two, though some of them took the view that creative (role) identity is a precursor of creative

self-efficacy. In the MASEM analysis, we combined the effect sizes of the two variables, and

developed a construct named as creative self-view. Thus, we tested hypotheses H3, H4a, H4b,

H10a, and H10b together. In order to examine the sensitivity of the results, we compared the

three sets of results, the results derived from the correlations combining creative self-efficacy

and self-identity, the ones from the correlations including only creative self-efficacy, and the

ones from the correlations including only creative identity. We found that there was no

statistical difference among the results that could influence the acceptance of the hypotheses

and the overall fit-indices. The detailed results can be provided upon request.

24
 ------------------------------------------------------

INSERT TABLE 2 ABOUT HERE

------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------

INSERT TABLE 3 ABOUT HERE

------------------------------------------------------

RESULTS

1. Bi-variate Relationships

Table 2 presents the meta-analytic results for bivariate relationships among

transformational leadership, creativity, and the mediators. The average corrected correlations

between the research constructs across all studies were positive, and their 95% confidence

intervals did not include zero. The relationships (except for the relationship between creative

identity and creativity) did not also include zero in their 80% credibility intervals. We found a

range of significant and positive effect sizes for the relationship of transformational

leadership with creativity (ρ = .329, SDρ = .150), creative identity (ρ = .371, SDρ = .276),

creative self-efficacy (ρ = .342, SDρ = .233), intrinsic motivation for creativity (ρ = .422, SDρ

= .289), innovation climate (ρ = .623, SDρ = .203), identification with the leader (ρ = .607,

SDρ = .135), and psychological empowerment (ρ = .489, SDρ = .217). Among its antecedents,

creativity was significantly and positively related with creative identity (ρ = .246, SDρ

= .219), creative self-efficacy (ρ = .504, SDρ = .280), intrinsic motivation for creativity (ρ

= .410, SDρ = .215), innovation climate (ρ = .361, SDρ = .170), identification with the leader

(ρ = .182, SDρ = .123), and psychological empowerment (ρ = .412, SDρ = .158). Though the

bivariate relationships were all significant, the credibility intervals were larger than the

recommended rule of thumb cut-off of 0.11 (Koslowsky & Sagie, 1993), mean of I2 (88.726)

was also large (Higgins et al., 2003), and Q statistics were significant for all the relationships.

25
These findings indicate the likelihood that significant moderators affect the relationships.

2. Moderating Roles of Method Factors

We examined the moderating effects of method factors on the relationship between

transformational leadership and creativity (ERQ 1, 2, & 3). Table 3 presents the results of the

moderating analysis using the available correlations. Qb values showed that the relationship

was not significantly different across transformational leadership measures (Qb = 0.107),

creative measures (Qb = 3.052), and creativity rating sources (Qb = 0.792). Furthermore, Qw

and I2 values for the relationships are still large after considering the method factors.

------------------------------------------------------

INSERT TABLE 4 ABOUT HERE

------------------------------------------------------

3. Moderating Roles of Geographic Base

Table 4 shows the results of moderating effects of a sample’s geographic base on the

relationships. The results indicated that the relationship between transformational leadership

and creativity was significantly stronger for studies based in Asian countries than in the

Western countries (ρasian = 0.364 > ρwestern = 0.165, p<0.01) as expected in ERQ 4. And, the

relationship between transformational leadership and creative identity was significantly

stronger for studies based in Asian countries than in the Western countries (ρasian = 0.450 >

ρwestern = 0. 110, p<0.01) as expected in ERQ 6. The relationship between transformational

leadership and identification with the leader was significantly stronger for studies based in

Asian countries than in Western countries (ρasian = 0.652 > ρwestern = 0.480, p<0.05) as

expected in ERQ 9. However, the relationships of transformational leadership with

innovation climate (ERQ 8) and psychological empowerment (ERQ 10) were not statistically

different between Western and Asian societies.

Opposite to the expectation, the relationship between intrinsic motivation for

26
creativity and employee creativity was stronger for studies based in Asian countries than

Western countries (ρasian = 0.445 > ρwestern = 0.228, p<0.01) (ERQ 11). The relationship of

creative self-efficacy with creativity (ERQ 13) was marginally higher for Asian countries

than Western countries (ρasian = 0.557 > ρwestern = 0.264, p<0.1). As expected, the relationship

between innovation climate and creativity was marginally stronger for studies based in Asian

countries than Western countries (ρasian = 0.382 > ρwestern = 0.211, p<0.1) (ERQ 14). The

relationships between creative identity and creativity (ERQ 12) and between psychological

empowerment and creativity (ERQ 16) were not different between Western and Asian

countries. We should note that the moderating role of geographic base in the relationships

between transformational leadership and intrinsic motivation (ERQ 5), between

transformational leadership and creative self-efficacy (ERQ 7), and between identification

with the leader and creativity (ERQ 15) were not examined due to a lack of Western samples.

-----------------------------------------------

INSERT TABLE 5 ABOUT HERE

-----------------------------------------------

4. MASEM Results

Table 5 shows the final correlation matrix employed for the MASEM analysis. The

final emergent results are shown in Figure 3.

Model Fit. Analysis of the initial hypothesized model did not result in an adequate

model fit (χ2=582.855, df = 7 (p < .001), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA)

= 0.287, adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI) = 0.493, normed fit index (NFI) = 0.784, and

standardized root mean residual (SRMR) = 0.118) (Bentler & Bonnet, 1980). Hence, we

revised the model based on modification indices of greater than 10.0 (Denison, Hart, & Kahn,

1996). The emerging model includes four new paths ([1] creative self-view à identification

with the leader, [2] psychological empowerment à innovation climate, [3] identification with

27
the leader à intrinsic motivation for creativity, and [4] psychological empowerment à

creative self-view). The goodness-of-fit indices of the final model that includes the additional

paths show an excellent fit (χ2=5.178, df = 3 (p>0.1), RMSEA = 0.045, AGFI = 0.963, NFI =

0.995, and SRMR = 0.018). Subsequent evaluation of prior literature provided support for the

emerging paths in the revised model, which will be discussed in the next section.

Hypothesis Testing. Although transformational leadership negatively affects

creativity (path efficient (β) = - 0.117 (p<0.01)), the total effect of transformational leadership

on creativity (direct effect + indirect effects via mediators) is significant and positive (β =

0.370 (p<0.001)), supporting H1. H2a and H2b, concerning the role of intrinsic motivation

between transformational leadership and creativity, are supported (β = 0.528 (p<0.001) and β

= 0.243 (p<0.001), respectively). Creative self-view positively influences intrinsic motivation

for creativity (β = 0.371, p<0.001). Transformational leadership positively influences creative

self-view (β = 0.093, p<0.001), which in turn affects creativity (β = 0.245, p<0.001). As

creative self-view is a construct combining creative self-efficacy and creative self-identity,

we concluded that H3, H4a, H4b, H10a, and H10b are supported. The results show that

transformational leadership positively affects innovation climate (β = 0.487, p<0.001), which

positively influences creativity (β = 0.185, p<0.001), supporting H5a and H5b. H6a and H6b,

focusing on the role of the identification with the leader between transformational leadership

and creativity, are supported (β = 0.637 (p<0.001) and β = 0.122 (p<0.001), respectively).

H7a and H7b regarding psychological empowerment are also supported (β = 0.414 (p<0.001)

and β = 0.130 (p<0.001)), respectively. Psychological empowerment also positively affects

identification with the leader (β = 0.295, p<0.001), but not intrinsic motivation for creativity

(β = -0.021, nonsignificant). Thus, H8 is supported, but H9 is not. Regarding intervening

roles, all hypothesized mediators are significant as shown in Figure 3.

In addition to the above hypothesized effects, the final model reveals four

28
unhypothesized paths. The first path is from creative self-view to identification with the

leader (β = - 0.394, p<0.001). This path indicates that subordinates are less likely to identify

themselves with their leaders, as their belief in their abilities to pursue and implement

creative works rises. The second path is from psychological empowerment to innovation

climate (β = 0.312, p<0.001). This path shows that as employees perceive that they are

empowered, they can feel encouraged to develop new ideas and innovative approaches in

their workplace. The third path is from psychological empowerment to creative self-view (β

= 0.564, p<0.001). It indicates that as employees experience greater psychological

empowerment, they are more likely to view themselves as being creative. The last path is

from identification with the leader to intrinsic motivation for creativity (β = -0.303, p<0.001).

That is, as protégés are more likely to identify themselves with their leaders, they are less

likely to have intrinsic motivation to pursue their own creative ideas.

---------------------------------------------

INSERT FIGURE 3 ABOUT HERE

---------------------------------------------

Robustness Checks. To further examine the robustness of the results, we tested the

emergent model under minimum sample size (n=366) because the goodness-of-fit indices

except for SRMR are sensitive to sample sizes (Bollen, 1990). The results indicate that the

level of significance was intact for all the relationships including the four emerging paths.

Furthermore, we also tested an alternative model that excludes identification with the leader,

as we set the relationships of the variable with creative self-view and intrinsic motivation to

zero due to a lack of empirical studies. The results show that the significance levels for the

hypothesized relationships and the newly found relationships are all intact, though the path

coefficients changed marginally. These analyses buttress the robustness of the results.

Many researchers have expressed concern that the presence of heterogeneity in the

29
effect sizes may pose serious problems for MASEM (Sheng, Kong, Cortina, & Hou, 2016;

Yu, Downes, Carter, & O’Boyle, 2016; Cheung, forthcoming). Particularly, as Murphy (2017)

claims, if between-study heterogeneity exists, we cannot be confident that the observed

correlation matrix input in MASEM reflects reality. In order to ensure the generalizability of

the emerging integrated model, following Cheung’s (forthcoming) guidelines9, we re-

analyzed the model using full information MASEM (FIMASEM) modeling with 10,000

bootstrap samples based on harmonic sample size. Then, we computed average path

coefficients (βs) and standard deviations (SDβ), and 80% CrI widths for each path. The

numbers in the parenthesis in Figure 3 represent an average path coefficient (!̅ ) and its 80%

credibility interval (CrIβ not CrIρ) based on the simulation. The results indicate that the

average path coefficients (!̅ s) provided by FIMASEM are similar to the MASEM path

coefficients. However, we should note that many credibility intervals of the average path

coefficients (CrIβ) are wide (greater than 0.540) (Bosco, Aguinis, Singh, Field, & Pierce,

9
One reviewer thankfully raised concern about generalizability of the results, as the
confidence and credibility intervals are somewhat large. We have re-analyzed the model
based on Yu et al.’s (2016) and Cheung’s (forthcoming) combined guidelines. Yu et al.’s
(2016) methods, namely, Full Information MASEM (FIMASEM) and Two Stage Full
Information MASEM (TS-FIMASEM), assume that population parameters are random
variables with means and standard deviations. In addition, FIMASEM and TS-FIMASEM
replace non-positive definite correlation matrixes with positive definite correlation ones, or
convert them into near positive definite matrixes in the simulation processes.
Despite the benefits of the two methods, Cheung (forthcoming) warns some technical errors
that Yu et al. (2016) has in the R-coding and offers corrected ones. Based on his re-
calculations, the author (pp. 28 and 29) states “If researchers want to explore the effects of
heterogeneity on the parameter estimates, they may use the bootstrap CVs suggested by Yu et
al. (2016). However, researchers are cautioned to neither apply the chi-square test nor any
cut-offs to check the generalizability of the proposed model.” Thus, we examined the final
integrated model based on FIMASEM R-coding provided by Cheung, and identified the
means of path-coefficients but not goodness-of-fit indices. We should note that we could not
adopt a TSSEM-based approach, because we do not have at least one study that has complete
correlations among all study variables, which is a critical necessary condition to perform
TSSEM and TS-FIMASEM (Yu et al., 2016). We thank Cheung for sharing his R code, which
is not published yet, for this research.

30
2015), indicating strong possibility of moderation effects in the paths (McEvoy & Cascio,

1987; Whitener, 1990). These results are discussed in the next section.

OVERALL DISCUSSION AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

1. Overall Research Findings

This study conducted a theoretical review and meta-analysis to empirically identify an

integrated model that can include the different mediators reported in prior studies. In this

regard, this study contributes to the transformational leadership and creativity literature by

employing a considerably greater number of effect sizes, consolidating different theoretical

roots, and examining a cohesive model. A basic understanding obtained from our meta-

analytic review is the magnitude and significance of relationships between creativity,

transformational leadership and the intervening variables.

While all the main relationships were found to be significant in accordance with the

prior studies, what should be more interesting is that geographic base moderated some of the

bivariate relationships among transformational leadership, mediators, and creativity, but

method factors (e.g., the type of transformational leadership and creativity measures and the

rating source) did not. We found that there are stronger relationships of transformational

leadership with creativity, creative identity, and identification with the leader for employees

in Asian countries, compared to those in Western countries. These results may in part support

Bass’ (1999) argument that transformational leadership may be more relevant in collectivist

countries. The results also suggest that researchers may need to theorize and examine the

contingent role of cultural values embedded in geographic base in the mechanism between

transformational leadership and creativity (e.g., Shin & Zhou, 2003; Liu et al., 2016).

Focal contributions of this study are the extended understanding of the

interrelationships among the intervening variables in predicting creativity, based on a

synthesis of different theoretical mechanisms and MASEM analysis. In addition, as our

31
sensitivity and robustness analyses indicate, the positive bivariate relationship between

transformational leadership and creativity turns out to be statistically significant and negative

in the integrative model. These findings can contribute to research by helping answer the

following question: Could the previously reported direct relationship between

transformational leadership and creativity be sustained if the likely intervening variables are

included in the model? The findings imply that researchers need to pay more attention to the

mechanisms that may intervene between transformational leadership and creativity. Put

differently, the relationship between the two main variables should be understood in light of

the mediators highlighted in this study.

The total effect of transformational leadership on creativity (direct effect + indirect

effects via mediators) was found to be 0.370 (p<0.01) when identification with the leader was

included as a mediator; however, the total effect increased to 0.471 (p<0.01) when

identification with the leader was dropped from the model. Therefore, the results point to a

possible negative role of identification with the leader in the relationship. Though scholars in

general supported that transformational leadership can help enhance creativity (e.g., Gong et

al, 2009; Gumusluoglu & Ilsev, 2009; Shin & Zhou, 2003; Wang & Zhu, 2011), it may not

always do so when transformational leaders direct employees to identify themselves with

their leaders. As Yukl (1999) argued, these results can bring our attention back to the negative

and/or the mixed effects of transformational leadership on innovative behaviors that have not

been fully considered in this stream of research (e.g., Basu & Green, 1997; Wang & Rode,

2010).

Our MASEM results highlight several unhypothesized relationships. Regarding

identification with the leader, it appears that employees who are more likely to define

themselves based on their leader would have a lower level of intrinsic motivation for

creativity. Considering that prior studies have focused mainly on the positive aspects of

32
identification with the leader for creativity (e.g., Qu et al., 2015; Yoshida, Sendjaya, Hirst, &

Cooper, 2014), this result offers new insights on the possible negative role of identification

with the leader. Regarding the link from transformational leadership to creative self-view to

identification with the leader, though researchers have stated that transformational leadership

can enhance creative self-efficacy and creative identity (e.g., Akinlade, 2014; Eisenbeiß &

Boerner, 2013; Gong et al., 2009) as well as identification with the leader (e.g., Qu et al.,

2015; Wang & Rode, 2010), the two influences from transformational leadership may be in

conflict with each other. We believe that the results shed light on the mechanism of follower

dependency (Basu & Green, 1997; Eisenbeiß & Boerner, 2013). As leaders’ charisma and

idealized influence can increase followers’ dependency on them (Yukl, 1999), followers tend

to borrow identity from them, seek guidance and direction for the areas in which they

perceive incompetence, and accept their ideas (Birtchnell, 1988). Considering that employees

with creative self-efficacy by nature believe themselves to have abilities to complete creative

tasks (Tierney & Farmer, 2002) and thus possess a nature of independence (Gong et al.,

2009), creative self-view may negatively affect identification with the leader. On the contrary,

as employees are more likely to identify themselves with the leader and increase dependence,

they may more strongly seek the leader’s recognition and approval (Conger, 1990). These

findings indicate that transformational leadership may generate both positive and negative

mechanisms through which it may affect creativity (Van Knippenberg & Sitkin, 2013).

MASEM results indicate that psychological empowerment would tend to help them to

perceive innovative organizational climate. Though neither creativity nor leadership

researchers focus on this relationship, several innovation studies have stated a possible

relationship between the two. More specifically, the process through which leaders offer

empowerment to their employees includes open and trustworthy communication,

decentralization, and high job autonomy (Menon, 1999), which share characteristics similar

33
to innovative organizational culture. Thus, followers who perceive psychological

empowerment can believe that the organization encourages them to develop new ideas and

innovative approaches. In addition, as empowerment by itself is considered as an increase in

workers' effort-performance expectancies (Conger & Kanungo, 1988) and self-efficacy

(Thomas & Velthouse, 1990), psychological empowerment may enhance creative self-view,

which may in turn increase employees’ intrinsic motivation for creativity.

In sum, the results identified significant positive bivariate relationships among

transformational leadership, mediators, and creativity. The influences of method factors on

the bivariate relationships were not significant. Geographic base moderated some of the

bivariate relationships. More interestingly, the MASEM results specified the functioning of

mechanisms through which transformational leadership affects creativity. The results indicate

that the relationship between transformational leadership and creativity should be understood

in light of the mediators. Particularly, researchers need to pay greater attention to the roles of

identification with the leader in the relationship. The results also reveal that there are several

relationships among the mediators that have not been delved into and thus offer avenues for

future research.

2. Limitations

We need to acknowledge several limitations. First, we focused mainly on examining

the intervening mechanisms and the associated network of mediators. Although we explored

samples’ geographic base and method factors as moderators, researchers (e.g., Mittal & Dhar,

2015; Wang et al., 2016) have identified other theoretical moderators (e.g., knowledge

sharing and leader creativity expectations) affecting the relationships identified in this study.

Put differently, some moderators not included in the study may also play important roles in

the relationships, given that the results of meta-analysis show high levels of I2 and Q values

(Tett, Hundley, & Christiansen, 2017). In addition, credibility intervals of average path

34
coefficients (CrIβ) in Figure 3 indicate that the path coefficients may depend on the level of

moderators. Thus, future research would benefit from further investigation of theoretical

boundary conditions of the relationships among transformational leadership, mediators, and

creativity.

Second, although researchers utilizing social learning theory and role identity theory

have identified different mediating variables, creative self-efficacy and creative identity,

respectively, the results strongly suggested that the two variables may share common

characteristics. Hence, we had to combine the effect sizes of the two constructs, and coined

creative self-view. As we did not have response data from the studies to compare the nature

of the two constructs, we could not fully examine the external validity of the two. Thus,

future studies should examine and attempt to clarify their (heterogeneous or homogeneous)

nature and role in the context of transformational leadership and creativity.

Third, though one of the interesting findings of the MASEM analysis is the negative

roles of identification with the leader in the transformational leadership - creativity

relationship, the result should not be free from the limitation of cross-sectional studies.

Furthermore, prior studies reported that the role of identification with the leader in the

relationship can be moderated by factors that are not identified in this study. In addition,

mixed positive and/or negative roles of identification with the leader may indicate its possible

non-linear relationships with creativity and/or mediators10. However, we could not identify

possible curvilinear relationship of identification with the leader with other constructs

because we used correlation-based effect sizes for analysis without raw data. Future studies

can benefit by considering the inverted U-shaped relationship of identification with the leader

with creativity and transformational leadership, and identifying the potential moderators that

may switch its role in the transformational leadership - creativity relationship.

10
This invaluable comment is suggested by one of the reviewers.

35
 Fourth, our meta-analysis was conducted at the study level of analysis, and

categorized and combined the studies into Western and Asian samples. While doing so, the

results of the meta-analysis may mask the true causality under geographic locations. For

instance, as Peterson and Smith’s (1997) and Van de Vliert and Van Yperen’s (1996) debates

about the roles of ambient temperature in increasing role overload and stress indicate, the

impact of cultural values on the relationships investigated in this study may be marginal if we

consider the geographic sites only11. That is, interpretation of our findings based on the

comparisons of the relationships between Western and Asian areas should be made cautiously

to prevent committing the ecological fallacy of making inferences at a level of analysis

different from the level at which the meta-analytic results exist (Robinson, 1950). Thus,

future studies need to incorporate cultural values at the individual level while investigating

the relationships investigated in this study. Furthermore, while categorizing the studies, some

relationships have a small number of studies, which may be critical when statistical power is

considered (Valentine, Pigott, & Rothstein, 2010). Thus, researchers need to consider

possible low levels of statistical power while interpreting some moderation results in this

study.

3. Directions for Future Research

The above discussion and analysis suggest several directions for future research.

These are outlined in this section.

Need for Theoretical Triangulation. Prior studies have considered the relationships

among constructs mainly under a single theoretical framework. We admit that different

theories have heterogeneous assumptions about individuals and that researchers need to

pursue theoretical rigor and succinct approaches within the respective theoretical framework.

11
We appreciate one of reviewers for addressing these points and recommending Peterson
and Smith’s (1997) and Van de Vliert and Van Yperen’s (1996) studies.

36
However, we also believe that researchers can benefit from adopting theoretical triangulation

to provide more comprehensive explanation of the relationship between transformational

leadership and creativity. Particularly so, considering that the explained variance of the

integrated model in this study is still around 32% and that the results of MASEM analysis

revealed some unhypothesized relationships between mediators, which are derived from

different theoretical roots. Furthermore, transformational leadership has four components that

may rely on different mechanisms but share the tenets with other theories (Van Knippenberg

& Sitkin, 2013). For instance, idealized influence and inspirational motivation seem to share

theoretical roots with charismatic leadership theory (Kark et al., 2003). Individualized

motivation shares roots with social exchange theory and leader-member exchange theory

(Howell & Hall-Merenda, 1999). Intellectual stimulation is viewed as a source of strategic

leadership based on stratified system theory (Waldman, Javidan, & Varella, 2004). While

integrating the theories, researchers can clarify how different components of transformational

leadership may further explain the leaders’ behaviors and organizational outcomes (Van

Knippenberg & Sitkin, 2013).

Impact of Transformational Leadership Components on Creativity. Our review

indicates that few studies (e.g., Sosik, Kahai, & Aolio, 1998; Jung, 2001) have delved into the

heterogeneous impacts of the four components of transformational leadership on creativity.

Though prior studies argued that the four dimensions are highly correlated and reflect the

higher-order construct of transformational leadership (e.g. Bass, 1985; Piccolo & Colquitt,

2006; Shin & Zhou, 2003), scrutinizing the components can expand our understanding of the

detailed mechanisms of transformational leadership in enhancing creativity. For instance,

even when leaders have medium levels of transformational leadership, some of them may

have low levels of individualized consideration while possessing high levels of intellectual

stimulation, but others may be opposite. These two groups of leaders may influence creativity

37
in different ways. Further, as Van Knippenberg and Sitkin (2013, p. 13) argued “below a

certain threshold, charismatic–transformational leadership does not obtain, or alternatively

that above the threshold there are diminishing returns on engaging even more in the

behavior,” each component may need a certain threshold to increase employee creativity.

Thus, we believe that systematic evidence that can identify the roles of different dimensions

of transformational leadership for creative performance can help overcome what Yukl (1999,

p. 287) pointed out about two decades ago, “the (transformational leadership) theory would

be stronger if the essential influence processes were identified more clearly and used to

explain how each type of behavior affects each type of mediating variable and outcome.”

Are Transformational Leaders More Innovative and Creative? Researchers who

adopted social learning theory, social identity theory, and relational identification theory

among others argued that transformational leadership can enhance creativity because

employees can learn from and emulate their leaders’ characteristics and behaviors (Akinlade,

2014; Gong et al., 2009). That is, these researchers assumed that transformational leaders

may have higher level of innovation potential. But our up-to-date review did not find studies

that evaluated the innovativeness and/or creativity levels of transformational leaders. Of

course, the role of idealized influence with respect to creativity may be in part determined by

how well the leaders act as a role model for being creative12. This is particularly important in

that leaders may have different profiles on transformational leadership components, even if

the overall level is the same. For example, leaders may vary on risk-taking and challenges to

existing routines, yet have the same overall level (intellectual stimulation level = 3 out of 7

and individual consideration = 7 vs. intellectual stimulation level = 7 and individual

consideration = 3, with other dimensions being equal). Thus, if a leader is not creative,

though good in encouraging intellectual stimulation, social learning from and/or assimilation

12
This invaluable point was suggested by one of the reviewers.

38
with the leader may be marginally helpful for developing creativity. In a similar vein, though

they did not directly support the above argument, Qu et al. (2015) and Rosing et al. (2011)

averred that the impact of transformational leadership on creativity depends on the quality of

the leader. Incorporating leaders’ creativity can help researchers enrich the understanding of

the intervening mechanisms between transformational leadership and creativity.

Influence of Job, Organization, and Industry Contexts. Our review revealed that

prior studies are less likely to consider the influences of organizational competitive

environments and job contexts while investigating the relationship between transformational

leadership and creativity though they may determine the value of leaders' transformative

initiatives and employees' creative actions. The context may also determine the level of

challenge a leader faces, how the leader responds to it, and the leader's effectiveness in

spurring employees to engage in creative endeavors. In a firm facing market and

technological pressures, transformational leadership can be more effective in motivating

employees to engage in creative idea generation and actions, by contrast in a firm with a

stable, secure competitive environment the influence of transformational leadership on

employee creativity may be low. Additionally, employees in different roles may also be

influenced by a transformational leader to different extents in pursuing creative endeavors.

For example, R&D employees may be spurred to a greater extent than accounting or human

resource employees. Though we acknowledged the role of the contextual factors, we could

not include such variables due to a lack of this information in the included studies. Hence,

incorporating the aforementioned contextual factors may expand our understanding of the

relationship between transformational leadership and creativity.

Transformational Leadership and Team Creativity. Our review revealed that the

number of studies focusing on the impact of transformational leadership on team-level

creativity is far less than that on individual-level. Considering that contemporary research on

39
various topics including creativity, leadership, and work performance, to name a few, have

started from individual-level analyses and expanded to group-level phenomena, it is not

surprising that individual-level research is more prevalent. However, as Kurtzberg and

Amabile (2001) maintained, much of individual-level creativity is entwined with group-level

processes such as problem-solving and idea-generation and implementation. As leaders

should manage employees as team-members as well as individuals, which includes

organizing the team, establishing its goal, and arranging the resources needed for creative

outcomes (Hackman & Wageman, 2005), their influence on team creativity should be salient.

Particularly so, as contemporary management practices highlight teamwork (Bass & Avolio,

1994).

Even prior studies that investigated the relationship between transformational

leadership and team creativity employed individual-level theories and identified group-level

processes by aggregating individual-level responses. However, very few studies adopted or

employed group or team-level theories, though several studies have provided a reasonable

foundation that can buttress nomological links among transformational leadership, team

processes, and team creativity outcomes. For instance, Marks, Mathieu, and Zaccaro (2001,

p. 357) referred to “team processes as interdependent acts that convert inputs to outcomes

through cognitive, verbal, and behavioral activities directed toward organizing task work to

achieve collective goals.” The authors further stated that team processes are preceded by team

psychological states (e.g., empowerment and team self-efficacy), which are associated with

transformational leadership. Hence, we believe that researchers can pave new avenues to

understand team creativity by identifying team dynamics that are led by transformational

leadership as well as influenced by various team characteristics (e.g., team diversity and team

size) and team member characteristics (e.g., age, education, and tenure).

Role of Cultural Values and Nationality. The results indicated that geographic base

40
(Western vs. Asian countries) moderated some of the relationships, and implied that the

cultural values embedded in the countries may influence the relationship between the two

variables. We should also note that as many Asian countries have experienced westernization

(Liden, 2012) and as etic research (i.e., between-group comparison-based findings) may not

provide a complete understanding of the role of leadership (Lee, Scandura, & Sharif, 2014),

we need to consider the role of cultural values that individuals possess in the relationship

between transformational leadership and creativity. That is, researchers may benefit from

employing the configural properties within a culture - collectivistic individuals within

individualistic society - and examine emic influences (i.e., within-group comparison) on the

relationship.

Emotional Aspects of Transformational Leadership for Building Employee

Creativity. Prior research focused on cognition-based mechanisms in studying the influence

of transformational leadership on creativity. As the review shows, among the six major

mediators, only innovation climate may be related to the emotional aspects in the creativity

process. This research trend seems to be interesting in that prior studies found that

transformational leaders are likely to provide emotional appeals to increase followers’

awareness and understanding of mutually desired goals (Bass, 1985) and emotion, especially

mood, hedonic tone, and hedonic activation can significantly influence cognitive flexibility

required to develop employee creativity (De Dreu, Baas, & Nijstad, 2008). In addition, as

moods can be impacted by group member conflicts in the innovation processes that can be

conciliated or resolved by leaders, we can infer how conflict and its derivative emotional

outcomes affect group creativity (e.g., Carnevale & Probst, 1998). Prior studies may not have

focused on the emotional aspects of transformational leadership in their investigation of

creativity, because they may presume that emotion is a less important determinant of

41
creativity compared to other factors (e.g., knowledge, experience, ability, risk preference).13

Hence, understanding how transformational leadership can be associated with employees’

emotions and how emotional factors along with cognitive factors may have effects on

creativity, can pave a new avenue in transformational leadership and creativity research.

4. Conclusion

This study represents the first effort to quantitatively review a substantive area of

research on transformational leadership and creativity. We could do so by applying several

theories and specifying interrelationships among the extant mediators to explain why and

how transformational leadership can help develop creativity. The theory-focused review and

meta-analysis help researchers accumulate knowledge on the relationship, and highlight the

areas where research on the relationship has focused its attention. Based on theoretical

integration and a subsequent MASEM analysis, another contribution of this research is to

identify unhypothesized relationships between the mediating variables to further enrich the

existing research, and to spur researchers to reconsider the role of identification with the

leader and psychological empowerment. In addition, this study may be one of the first

attempts to employ a FIMASEM method to examine the generalizability of an integrative

model that can be employed in future meta-analysis. Based on the reviews and the meta-

analytic analyses, this study provides several new areas that future studies may further

investigate to enrich our understanding of the roles of transformational leadership for

enhancing creativity.

13
One of the reviewers gave this invaluable suggestion.

42
References (* identifies the studies included in the meta-analysis.)
*Afsar, B., F. Badir, Y., & Saeed, B. (2014). Transformational Leadership and Innovative
Work Behavior. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 114(8), 1270–1300.
Aiken, L., & West, S. (1991). Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
*Akinlade, E. (2014). The Dual Effect of Transformational Leadership on Individual- and
Team-level Creativity (Doctoral dissertation). University of Illinois, Chicago.
*Alarifi, S., & Althonayan, A. (2013). The Effects of Transformational Leadership on
Followers’ Creativity in Public Sector. In International Conference on Management,
Behavioral Sciences and Economics Issues (pp. 116–123).
*Alge, B. J., Ballinger, G. A., Tangirala, S., & Oakley, J. L. (2006). Information Privacy in
Organizations: Empowering Creative and Extrarole Performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 91(1), 221-232.
Amabile, T. M. (1988). A Model of Creativity and Innovation in Organizations. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 10(1), 123–167.
Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., & Lazenby, J. (1996). Assessing the Work Environment
for Creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1154–1184.
Amabile, T. M., Hill, K. G., Hennessey, B. A., & Tighe, E. M. (1994). The Work Preference
Inventory: Assessing Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivational Orientations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 66(5), 950-967.
Amabile, T. M., Schatzel, E. A., Moneta, G. B., & Kramer, S. J. (2004). Leader Behaviors
and the Work Environment for Creativity: Perceived Leader Support. Leadership
Quarterly, 15(1), 5–32.
*Amundsen, S., & Martinsen, Ø. L. (2014). Empowering Leadership: Construct Clarification,
Conceptualization, and Validation of a New Scale. Leadership Quarterly, 25(3), 487–511.
Anderson, N., Potočnik, K., & Zhou, J. (2014). Innovation and Creativity in Organizations: A
State-of-the-Science Review, Prospective Commentary, and Guiding Framework. Journal
of Management, 40(5), 1297–1333.
*Anderson, T. (2006). In the Middle of Things: How Ego Networks and Context Perceptions
Influence Individual Creativity in Work Groups (Doctoral dissertation). McGill
University, Montreal.
Antonakis, J., Avolio, B. J., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (2003). Context and Leadership: An
Examination of the Nine-Factor Full-Range Leadership Theory Using the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire. Leadership Quarterly, 14(3), 261-295.
Arendt, L. A. (2009). Transformational Leadership and Follower Creativity: The Moderating
Effect of Leader Humor. Review of Business Research, 9(4), 100-106.
Arnold, T. J., Palmatier, R. W., Grewal, D., & Sharma, A. (2009). Understanding Retail
Managers’ Role in the Sales of Products and Services. Journal of Retailing, 85(2), 129-
144.
Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999). Re-Examining the Components of
Transformational and Transactional Leadership Using the Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 441–462.
Avolio, B. J., Zhu, W., Koh, W., & Bhatia, P. (2004). Transformational Leadership and
Organizational Commitment: Mediating Role of Psychological Empowerment and
Moderating Role of Structural Distance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(8), 951–
968.
*Bae, S. H., Song, J. H., Park, S. Y., & Kim, H. K. (2013). Influential Factors for Teachers’
Creativity: Mutual Impacts of Leadership, Work Engagement and Knowledge Creation
Practices. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 26(3), 33–58.
*Baggett, G. M. (2015). Transformational Leadership and Psychological Empowerment of

43
 Teachers (Doctoral dissertation). University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa.
Bai, Y., Lin, L., & Li, P. P. (2016). How to Enable Employee Creativity in a Team Context:
A Cross-Level Mediating Process of Transformational Leadership. Journal of Business
Research, 69(9), 3240-3250.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Oxford, UK: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A., & Locke, E. A. (2003). Negative Self-efficacy and Goal Effects Revisited.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(1), 87–99.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and Performance beyond Expectations. New York: Free
Press.
Bass, B. M. (1997). Does the Transactional–Transformational Leadership Paradigm
Transcend Organizational and National Boundaries? American Psychologist, 52(2), 130-
139.
Bass, B. M. (1999). Two Decades of Research and Development in Transformational
Leadership. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 8(1), 9-32.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1990). The Implications of Transactional and Transformational
Leadership for Individual, Team, and Organizational Development. In R. W. Woodman &
W. A. Pasmore (Eds.), Research in Organizational Change and Development (Vol. 4, pp.
231-272). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Transformational Leadership and Organizational
Culture. International Journal of Public Administration, 17(3–4), 541–554.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1995). The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire - 5X Short
Form. Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden.
Bass, B. M., Waldman, D. A., Avolio, B. J., & Bebb, M. (1987). Transformational
Leadership and the Falling Dominoes Effect. Group & Organization Studies, 12(1), 73-87.
Basu, R., & Green, S. G. (1997). Leader-Member Exchange and Transformational
Leadership: An Empirical Examination of Innovative Behaviors in Leader-Member
Dyads. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27(6), 477-499.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonnet, D. G. (1980). Significance Tests and Goodness of Fit in the
Analysis of Covariance Structures, Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-606.
Birtchnell, J. (1988). Defining Dependency. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 61, 111-
123.
Bollen, P. M. (1990). Overall Fit in Covariance Structure Models: Two Types of Sample Size
Effects. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 256–259
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to
Meta-analysis. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons.
Bosco, F. A., Aguinis, H., Singh, K., Field, J. G., & Pierce, C. A. (2015). Correlational Effect
Size Benchmarks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(2), 431–449.
Callero, P. L. (1985). Role-Identity Importance. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48, 203-215.
Callero, P. L., Howard, J. A., & Pilliavin, J. A. (1987). Helping Behavior as Role Behavior:
Disclosing Social Structure and History in the Analysis of Prosocial Action. Social
Psychology Quarterly, 50, 247–256.
Carmeli, A., & Schaubroeck, J. (2007). The Influence of Leaders' and Other Referents'
Normative Expectations on Individual Involvement in Creative Work. Leadership
Quarterly, 18(1), 35-48.
Carnevale, P. J., & Probst, T. M. (1998). Social Values and Social Conflict in Creative
Problem Solving and Categorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5),
1300-1309.
*Cassidy, S. E. (2011). Web-based Training for Innovation: An Examination of Training

44
 Regimens, Training Environment and the Moderating Influence of Creative Personal
Identity and Intrinsic Motivation (Doctoral dissertation). Pennsylvania State University.
*Çekmecelioğlu, H. G., & Özbağ, G. K. (2016). Leadership and Creativity: The Impact of
Transformational Leadership on Individual Creativity. Procedia-Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 235, 243-249.
Cha, J. H. (1994). Aspects of Individualism and Collectivism in Korea. In U. Kim & H.
Triandis (Eds.), Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Method, and Applications: 157–
174. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Chan, D. (1998). Functional Relations among Constructs in the Same Content Domain at
Different Levels of Analysis: A Typology of Composition Models. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 83(2), 234–246.
*Chang, S. H., Wang, C. L., & Lee, J. C. (2016). Do Award-winning Experiences Benefit
Students’ Creative Self-Efficacy and Creativity? The Moderated Mediation Effects of
Perceived School Support for Creativity. Learning & Individual Differences, 51, 291–298.
*Charbonnier-Voirin, A., El Akremi, A., & Vandenberghe, C. (2010). A Multilevel Model of
Transformational Leadership and Adaptive Performance and the Moderating Role of
Climate for Innovation. Group & Organization Management, 35(6), 699–726.
*Chen, A. S. Y., & Hou, Y. H. (2016). The Effects of Ethical Leadership, Voice Behavior
and Climates for Innovation on Creativity: A Moderated Mediation Examination.
Leadership Quarterly, 27(1), 1–13.
*Chen, C., Li, H., & Tang, Y. (2009). Transformational Leadership and Creativity: Exploring
the Mediating Effects of Creative Thinking and Intrinsic Motivation. International
Journal of Management & Enterprise Development, 6(2), 198–211.
Chen, G., Sharma, P. N., Edinger, S. K., Shapiro, D. L., & Farh, J. L. (2011). Motivating and
Demotivating Forces in Teams: Cross-Level Influences of Empowering Leadership and
Relationship Conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(3), 541-557.
*Chen, Y. S., & Chang, C. H. (2013). The Determinants of Green Product Development
Performance: Green Dynamic Capabilities, Green Transformational Leadership, and
Green Creativity. Journal of Business Ethics, 116(1), 107–119.
Cheung, M.W.L. (forthcoming). Issues in Solving the Problem of Effect Size Heterogeneity
in Meta-analytic Structural Equation Modeling: A Commentary and Simulation Study on
Yu, Downes, Carter, and O’Boyle (2016). Journal of Applied Psychology.
*Cheung, M., & Wong, C. (2011). Transformational Leadership, Leader Support, and
Employee Creativity. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 32(7), 656–672.
*Chiang, Y. H., Hsu, C. C., & Hung, K. P. (2014). Core Self-Evaluation and Workplace
Creativity. Journal of Business Research, 67(7), 1405–1413.
*Choi, J. N. (2007). Change-Oriented Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Effects of Work
Environment Characteristics and Intervening Psychological Processes. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 28(4), 467–484.
Chow, C. W., Shields, M. D., & Wu, A. (1999). The Importance of National Culture in the
Design of and Preference for Management Controls for Multi-National Operations.
Accounting, Organizations and Society, 24(5-6), 441-461.
*Chrobot-mason, D., & Aramovich, N. P. (2013). The Psychological Benefits of Creating an
Affirming Climate for Workplace Diversity. Group & Organization Management, 38(6),
659–689.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the
Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Conger, J. A. (1990). The Dark Side of Leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 19(2), 44-55.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). The Empowerment Process: Integrating Theory and
Practice. Academy of Management Review, 13(3), 471-482.

45
Cooper, H., & Hedges, L. (1994). The Handbook of Research Synthesis. New York: Russell
Sage Foundation.
*Craig, J. T. (2015). Antecedents of Individual Innovative Behavior: Examining
Transformational Leadership, Creative Climate, Role Ambiguity, Risk Propensity, and
Psychological Empowerment (Doctoral dissertation). Alliant International University, Los
Angeles.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). The General Causality Orientations Scale: Self-
Determination in Personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 19(2), 109–134.
De Dreu, C. K., Baas, M., & Nijstad, B. A. (2008). Hedonic Tone and Activation Level in the
Mood-Creativity Link: Toward a Dual Pathway to Creativity Model. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 94(5), 739-756.
Denison, D. R., Hart, S. L., & Kahn, J. A. (1996). From Chimneys to Cross-Functional
Teams: Developing and Validating a Diagnostic Model. Academy of Management
Journal, 39(4), 1005-1023.
*de Poel, F. M., Stoker, J. I., & Van der Zee, K. I. (2014). Leadership and Organizational
Tenure Diversity as Determinants of Project Team Effectiveness. Group & Organization
Management, 39(5), 532–560.
*Diliello, T. C., Houghton, J. D., & Dawley, D. (2011). Narrowing the Creativity Gap: The
Moderating Effects of Perceived Support for Creativity. Journal of Psychology, 145(3),
151–172.
*Dust, S. B., Resick, C. J., & Mawritz, M. B. (2014). Transformational Leadership,
Psychological Empowerment, and the Moderating Role of Mechanistic–Organic Contexts.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35, 413–433.
Eaton, M. J., & Dembo, M. H. (1997). Differences in the Motivational Beliefs of Asian
American and non-Asian Students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(3), 433-440.
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383.
*Eisenbeiß, S. A., & Boerner, S. (2013). A Double-Edged Sword: Transformational
Leadership and Individual Creativity. British Journal of Management, 24(1), 54–68.
Erez, M., & Earley, P, C. (1993). Culture, Self-identity, and Work. New York: Oxford
University Press.
*Farmer, S. M., Tierney, P., & Kung-McIntyre, K. (2003). Employee Creativity in Taiwan:
An Application of Role Identity Theory. Academy of Management Journal, 46(5), 618–
630.
*Fergus, J. M. (2012). Nurse Manager Leadership in Unionized Acute Care Hospitals in
Massachusetts, Staff Nurse Empowerment, and Retention (Doctoral dissertation).
University of Massachusetts, Boston.
Gagne, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-Determination Theory and Work Motivation. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331-362.
*Ghafoor, A., Qureshi, T. M., Azeemi, H. R., & Hijazi, S. T. (2011). Mediating Role of
Creative Self-Efficacy. African Journal of Business Management, 5(27), 11093–11103.
*Gilmore, P. L., Hu, X., Wei, F., Tetrick, L. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2013). Positive Affectivity
Neutralizes Transformational Leadership’s Influence on Creative Performance and
Organizational Citizenship Behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(8), 1061–
1075.
*Gong, Y., Huang, J. C., & Farh, J. L. (2009). Employee Learning Orientation,
Transformational Leadership, and Employee Creativity: The Mediating Role of Employee
Creative Self-Efficacy. Academy of Management Journal, 52(4), 765–778.
*Grant, A. M. (2012). Leading with Meaning: Beneficiary Contact, Prosocial Impact, and the
Performance Effects of Transformational Leadership. Academy of Management Journal,

46
 55(2), 458-476.
Grant, A. M., & Berry, J. W. (2011). The Necessity of Others Is the Mother of Invention:
Intrinsic and Prosocial Motivations, Perspective Taking, and Creativity. Academy of
Management Journal, 54(1), 73-96.
*Gu, Q., Tang, T. L. P., & Jiang, W. (2015). Does Moral Leadership Enhance Employee
Creativity? Employee Identification with Leader and Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) in
the Chinese Context. Journal of Business Ethics, 126(3), 513–529.
*Gumusluoglu, L., & Ilsev, A. (2009). Transformational Leadership, Creativity, and
Organizational Innovation. Journal of Business Research, 62(4), 461–473.
Hackman, J. R., & Wageman, R. (2005). When and How Team Leaders Matter. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 26, 31– 44.
Hedges, L., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical Models for Meta-Analysis. New York: Academic
Press.
Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S.G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003). Measuring
Inconsistency in Meta-analyses. British Journal of Medicine, 327(7417), 557-560.
Higgins, J., & Thompson, S. G. (2002). Quantifying Heterogeneity in a Meta-Analysis.
Statistics in Medicine, 21(11), 1539-1558.
*Hirst, G., van Knippenberg, D., Zhou, Q., Zhu, C. J., & Tsai, P. C. F. (In press).
Exploitation and Exploration Climates’ Influence on Performance and Creativity:
Diminishing Returns as Function of Self-Efficacy. Journal of Management.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions,
and Organization across Nations, Beverly Hills: Sage.
Hogg, M. A. (2001). A Social Identity Theory of Leadership. Personality & Social
Psychology Review, 5(3), 184-200.
*Hon, A. H. Y. (2012). Shaping Environments Conductive to Creativity: The Role of
Intrinsic Motivation. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 53(1), 53–64.
*Hong, L., & Ruimin, P. (2012). The Effect of Transformational Mentorship on Individual
Creativity in Educational Research Teams: The Mediating Role of LMX and Intrinsic
Motivation. In International Conference on Management Science and Engineering –
Annual Conference Proceedings (pp. 1206–1214).
*Horng, J. S., Tsai, C. Y., Yang, T. C., Liu, C. H., & Hu, D. C. (2016). Exploring the
Relationship between Proactive Personality, Work Environment and Employee Creativity
among Tourism and Hospitality Employees. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 54, 25–34.
Howell, J. M., & Hall-Merenda, K. E. (1999). The Ties that Bind: The Impact of Leader-
Member Exchange, Transformational and Transactional Leadership, and Distance on
Predicting Follower Performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(5), 680-694.
*Hughes, L. W. (2005). Transparency, Translucence or Opacity? An Experimental Study of
the Impact of a Leader’s Relational Transparency and Style of Humor Delivery on
Follower Creative Performance (Doctoral dissertation). University of Nebraska, Lincoln.
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (1990). Dichotomization of Continuous Variables: The
Implications for Meta-Analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(3), 334-349.
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias
in Research findings (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
*Im, T., Campbell, J. W., & Jeong, J. (2016). Commitment Intensity in Public Organizations:
Performance, Innovation, Leadership, and PSM. Review of Public Personnel
Administration, 36(3), 219–239.
*Jaffer, S. (2013). Harnessing Innovation in the 21st Century: The Impact of Leadership
Styles (Doctoral dissertation). George Washington University.
*Jaiswal, N. K., & Dhar, R. L. (2015). Transformational Leadership, Innovation Climate,

47
 Creative Self-Efficacy and Employee Creativity: A Multilevel Study. International
Journal of Hospitality Management, 51, 30–41.
*Jaskyte, K. (2008). Employee Creativity in U.S. and Lithuanian Nonprofit Organizations.
Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 18(4), 465–483.
*Jaussi, K. S., & Dionne, S. D. (2003). Leading for Creativity: The Role of Unconventional
Leader Behavior. Leadership Quarterly, 14(4–5), 475–498.
Jaussi, K. S., Randel, A. E., & Dionne, S. D. (2007). I am, I think I can, and I do: The role of
personal identity, self-efficacy, and cross-application of experiences in creativity at work.
Creativity Research Journal, 19(2-3), 247-258.
*Jha, S. (2013). Managerial Practices, Transformational Leadership, Customer Satisfaction
and Self –Efficacy as Antecedents of Psychological Empowerment: A Study of Indian IT
Sector. Journal of Management Research, 13(2), 105–117.
*Jong, J. (2015). Linking Goal Perceptions to Employee Performance in the Public Sector:
Assessing the Mediating Role of Psychological Empowerment and the Moderating Role of
Work Context (Doctoral dissertation). State University of New York, Albany.
Jung, D. I. (2001). Transformational and Transactional Leadership and Their Effects on
Creativity in Groups. Creativity Research Journal, 13(2), 185-195.
Jung, D. I., & Avolio, B. J. (1999). Effects of Leadership Style and Followers' Cultural
Orientation on Performance in Group and Individual Task Conditions. Academy of
Management Journal, 42(2), 208-218.
Jung, D. I., Chow, C., & Wu, A. (2003). The Role of Transformational Leadership in
Enhancing Organizational Innovation: Hypotheses and Some Preliminary Findings.
Leadership Quarterly, 14(4), 525–544.
*Jung, D. I., & Sosik, J. J. (2002). Transformational Leadership in Work Groups: The Role of
Empowerment, Cohesiveness, and Collective-Efficacy on Perceived Group Performance.
Small Group Research, 33(3), 313–336.
*Jung, D. I., Wu, A., & Chow, C. W. (2008). Towards Understanding the Direct and Indirect
Effects of CEOs' Transformational Leadership on Firm Innovation. Leadership Quarterly,
19(5), 582-594.
Jung, T., Ineson, E. M., Hains, C., & Kim, M. (2013). Contributors to Hospitality Students'
Knowledge Enhancement. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education,
13, 97-106.
*Jyoti, J., & Bhau, S. (2015). Impact of Transformational Leadership on Job Performance:
Mediating Role of Leader-Member Exchange and Relational Identification. Sage Open, 1–
13.
Kanter, R. M. (1983). The Change Masters. New York: Simon & Schuster.
*Kark, R., Shamir, B., & Chen, G. (2003). The Two Faces of Transformational Leadership:
Empowerment and Dependency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 246–255.
*Kark, R., Waismel-Manor, R., & Shamir, B. (2012). Does Valuing Androgyny and
Femininity Lead to a Female Advantage? The Relationship between Gender-Role,
Transformational Leadership and Identification. Leadership Quarterly, 23(3), 620–640.
*Khalili, A. (2016). Linking Transformational Leadership, Creativity, Innovation, and
Innovation-Supportive Climate. Management Decision, 54(9), 2277–2293.
*Kim, M., & Lee, S. (2012). Perfectionism, Overall Justice and Creativity. In Academy of
management conference. Boston, MA.
Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. (1999). Beyond Self-management: Antecedents and
Consequences of Team Empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 42(1), 58-74.
Kirkman, B. L., Chen, G., Farh, J. L., Chen, Z. X., & Lowe, K. B. (2009). Individual Power
Distance Orientation and Follower Reactions to Transformational Leaders: A Cross-level,
Cross-cultural Examination. Academy of Management Journal, 52(4), 744-764.

48
*Kinga, S., Paul, M., & Stefan, S. (2015). Associations between Hexaco Model of
Personality Structure, Motivational Factors and Self-Reported Creativity among
Architecture Students. In Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences (pp. 130–135).
*Kissi, J., Dainty, A., & Tuuli, M. (2013). Examining the Role of Transformational
Leadership of Portfolio Managers in Project Performance. International Journal of Project
Management, 31(4), 485–497.
*Kollmann, T., Stöckmann, C., Krell, P., Peschl, A., & Buchwald, S. (2013). Integrating
Dependency on the Leader and Empowerment into Transformational Leadership –
Creative Performance Relationship. Central European Business Review, 2(1), 7–14.
Koslowsky, M., & Sagie, A. (1993). On the Efficacy of Credibility Intervals as Indicators of
Moderator Effects in Meta-analytic Research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14(7),
695-699.
Kurtzberg, T. R., & Amabile, T. M. (2001). From Guilford to Creative Synergy: Opening the
Black Box of Team-Level Creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 13(3-4), 285-294.
Lee, K., Scandura, T. A., & Sharif, M. M. (2014). Cultures Have Consequences: A
Configural Approach to Leadership across Two Cultures. Leadership Quarterly, 25(4),
692-710.
*Leung, K., Chen, T., & Chen, G. (2014). Learning Goal Orientation and Creative
Performance: The Differential Mediating Roles of Challenge and Enjoyment Intrinsic
Motivations. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 31(3), 811–834.
*Li, C. (2013). Ethical Leadership in Firms: Antecedents and Consequences (Doctoral
dissertation). University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa.
*Li, F., Deng, H., & Zhao, Y. (2013). Untangling the Mystery of Reward, Intrinsic
Motivation and Creativity: A Three-wave Field Study. In Academy of management
conference. Orlando, FL.
*Li, C., Zhao, H., & Begley, T. M. (2015). Transformational Leadership Dimensions and
Employee Creativity in China: A Cross-Level Analysis. Journal of Business Research,
68(6), 1149–1156.
*Li, M. L., Zhang, P., Li, S., & Liu, W. (2015). Learning Through Empowering Leadership:
Can We Achieve Cross-Level Creativity Simultaneously? In Academy of management
conference. Vancouver, BC.
*Liang, C., Hsu, Y., & Chang, C. (2013). Intrinsic Motivation as a Mediator on Imaginative
Capability Development. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 8, 109–119.
Liden, R. C. (2012). Leadership Research in Asia: A Brief Assessment and Suggestions for
the Future. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 29(2), 205-212.
Liu, D., Jiang, K., Shalley, C. E., Keem, S., & Zhou, J. (2016). Motivational Mechanisms of
Employee Creativity: A Meta-Analytic Examination and Theoretical Extension of the
Creativity Literature. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 137, 236-
263.
Lord, R. G., & Brown, D. J. (2004). Leadership Processes and Follower Self-Identity.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
*Lutz Allen, S., Smith, J. E., & Da Silva, N. (2013). Leadership Style in Relation to
Organizational Change and Organizational Creativity: Perceptions from Nonprofit
Organizational Members. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 24(1), 23–42.
Madjar, N., Oldham, G. R., & Pratt, M. G. (2002). There's No Place like Home? The
Contributions of Work and non-Work Creativity Support to Employees' Creative
Performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45(4), 757-767.
Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and Their Alma Mater: A Partial Test of the
Reformulated Model of Organizational Identification. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 13(2), 103-123.

49
*Malik, M. A. R., Butt, A. N., & Choi, J. N. (2015). Rewards and Employee Creative
Performance: Moderating Effects of Creative Self-Efficacy, Reward, Importance, and
Locus of Control. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(1), 59–74.
Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A Temporally Based Framework and
Taxonomy of Team Processes. Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 356-376.
*Martin, C. A., & Bush, A. J. (2006). Psychological Climate, Empowerment, Leadership
Style, and Customer-Oriented Selling: An Analysis of the Sales Manager-Salesperson
Dyad. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(3), 419–438.
McEvoy, G. M., & Cascio, W. F. (1987). Do Good or Poor Performers Leave? A Meta-
analysis of the Relationship between Performance and Turnover. Academy of Management
journal, 30(4), 744-762.
McGraw, K. O., & Fiala, J. (1982). Undermining the Zeigarnik Effect: Another Hidden Cost
of Reward. Journal of Personality, 50(1), 58-66.
Menon, S. T. (1999). Psychological Empowerment, Definition, Measurement, and
Validation, Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 31(3), 161-164.
*Miao, C. F., & Wang, G. (2016). The Differential Effects of Functional vis-a-vis Relational
Customer Orientation on Salesperson Creativity. Journal of Business Research, 69, 6021–
6030.
*Miao, Q., Newman, A., & Lamb, P. (2012). Transformational Leadership and the Work
Outcomes of Chinese Migrant Workers: The Mediating Effects of Identification with
Leader. Leadership, 8(4), 377–395.
*Mittal, S. (2016). Effects of Transformational Leadership on Turnover Intentions in IT
SMEs. International Journal of Manpower, 37(8), 1322–1346.
*Mittal, S., & Dhar, R. L. (2015). Transformational Leadership and Employee Creativity:
Mediating Role of Creative Self-Efficacy and Moderating Role of Knowledge Sharing.
Management Decision, 53(5), 894–910.
Mohamed, L. M. (2016). Assessing the Effects of Transformational Leadership: A Study on
Egyptian Hotel Employees. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Management, 27, 49-59.
*Moss, S. A., & Ritossa, D. A. (2007). The Impact of Goal Orientation on the Association
between Leadership Style and Follower Performance, Creativity and Work Attitudes.
Leadership, 3(4), 433-456.
Muchinsky, P. M. (1996). The Correction for Attenuation. Educational & Psychological
Measurement, 56(1), 63-75.
Mumford, M. D., & Hunter, S. T. (2005). Innovation in Organizations: A Multi-Level
Perspective on Creativity. In F. J. Yammarino & F. Dansereau (Eds.), Research in Multi-
Level Issues: Volume IV (pp. 11–74). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Murphy, K. R. (2017). What Inferences Can and Cannot Be Made on the Basis of Meta-
analysis? Human Resource Management Review, 27(1), 193-200.
Ng, T. W., & Feldman, D. C. (2012). A Comparison of Self-Ratings and Non-Self-Report
Measures of Employee Creativity. Human Relations, 65(8), 1021-1047.
*Nubold, a., Dorr, S. L., & Maier, G. W. (2014). Considering the Orphan: Personal
Identification and Its Relations with Transformational Leadership, Trust, and Performance
in a Three-path Mediation Model. Leadership, 11(2), 230–254.
Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee Creativity: Personal and Contextual
Factors at Work. Academy of Management Journal, 39(3), 607–634.
*Oterkiil, C., & Ertesvag, S. K. (2014). Development of a Measurement for Transformational
and Transactional Leadership in Schools Taking on a School-Based Intervention.
Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 42(4S), 5–27.
*Pan, J., Lou, Y., & Zhou, W. (2013). The Influence of the Leader’s Creativity on the
Employees’ Creativity. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 45, 1147–1162.

50
*Pan, W., Sun, L.-Y., & Chow, I. H. S. (2012). Leader-Member Exchange and Employee
Creativity: Test of a Multilevel Moderated Mediation Model. Human Performance, 25(5),
432–451.
*Park, C. K. (2015). Predicting Employee Engagement: An Exploration of the Roles of
Transformational Leadership, Power Distance Orientation, Psychological Collectivism,
and Psychological Empowerment in Korean Organizations (Doctoral dissertation).
University of Minnesota.
Patterson, M. G., West, M. A., Shackleton, V. J., Dawson, J. F., Lawthom, R., Maitlis, S.,
Robinson, D. L., & Wallace, A. M. (2005). Validating the Organizational Climate
Measure: Links to Managerial Practices, Productivity and Innovation. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 379-408.
*Paulsen, N., Callan, V. J., Ayoko, O., & Saunders, D. (2013). Transformational Leadership
and Innovation in an R&D Organization Experiencing Major Change. Journal of
Organizational Change Management, 26(3), 595–610.
*Perry-Smith, J. E. (2006). Social Yet Creative: The Role of Social Relationships in
Facilitating Individual Creativity. Academy of Management, 49(1), 85–101.
Peterson, M. F., & Smith, P. B. (1997). Does National Culture or Ambient Temperature
Explain Cross-national Differences in Role Stress? No Sweat! Academy of Management
Journal, 40(4), 930-946.
*Phoocharoon, P. (2015). Enhancing Potential and Realised Absorptive Capacity: Macro-
Micro Dynamic Integrative Design. International Journal of Innovation Management,
19(5), 1550058-1–1550058-43.
Piccolo, R. F., & Colquitt, J. A. (2006). Transformational Leadership and Job Behaviors: The
Mediating Role of Core Job Characteristics. Academy of Management Journal, 49(2),
327–340.
*Pieterse, A. N., van Knippenberg, D., Schippers, M., & Stam, D. (2010). Transformational
and Transactional Leadership and Innovative Behavior: The Moderating Role of
Psychological Empowerment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(4), 609–623.
*Prabhu, V., Sutton, C., & Sauser, W. (2008). Creativity and Certain Personality Traits:
Understanding the Mediating Effect of Intrinsic Motivation. Creativity Research Journal,
20(1), 53–66.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational
Leader Behaviors and Their Effects on Followers’ Trust in Leader, Satisfaction, and
Organizational Citizenship Behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), 107-142.
Pratt, M. G. (1998). To Be or Not to Be? Central Questions in Organizational Identification.
In P. Godfrey (Ed.), Identity in Organizations: Developing Theory through Conversations
(pp. 171–207). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
*Qu, R., Janssen, O., & Shi, K. (2015). Transformational Leadership and Follower
Creativity: The Mediating Role of Follower Relational Identification and the Moderating
Role of Leader Creativity Expectations. Leadership Quarterly, 26(2), 286-299.
*Richter, A. W., Hirst, G., van Knippenberg, D., & Baer, M. (2012). Creative Self-Efficacy
and Individual Creativity in Team Contexts: Cross-Level Interactions with Team
Informational Resources. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(6), 1282–1290.
Riley, A., & Burke, P. J. (1995). Identities and Self-verification in the Small Group, Social
Psychology Quarterly, 58(2), 61-73.
Robinson, W. S. (1950). Ecological Correlations and the Behavior or Individuals, American
Sociological Review, 15, 351-357.
Roller, W. K. (1999). Measuring Empowerment: The Perception of Empowerment
Instrument (PEI). The Pfeiffer Annual.
Rosing, K., Frese, M., & Bausch, A. (2011). Explaining the Heterogeneity of the Leadership-

51
 Innovation Relationship: Ambidextrous Leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 22(5), 956-
974.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic
Motivation, Social Development, and Well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2008). A Self-Determination Theory Approach to
Psychotherapy: The Motivational Basis for Effective Change. Canadian Psychology,
49(3), 186-193.
Sabherwal, R., Jeyaraj, A., & Chowa, C. (2006). Information System Success: Individual and
Organizational Determinants. Management Science, 52(12), 1849–1864.
Schaubroeck, J., Lam, S. S., & Cha, S. E. (2007). Embracing Transformational Leadership:
Team Values and the Impact of Leader Behavior on Team Performance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 92(4), 1020-1030.
*Schoen, J. (2012). Utility of Implicit Personality: Effects of Achievement and Evaluations
on Creativity. In Academy of management conference. Boston, MA.
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.
*Seo, Y. W., Chae, S. W., & Lee, K. C. (2015). The Impact of Absorptive Capacity,
Exploration, and Exploitation on Individual Creativity: Moderating Effect of Subjective
Well-Being. Computers in Human Behavior, 42, 68–82.
Shalley, C. E., Gilson, L. L., & Blum, T. C. (2000). Matching Creativity Requirements and
the Work Environment: Effects on Satisfaction and Intentions to Leave. Academy of
Management Journal, 43(2), 215–223.
Shalley, C. E., Zhou, J., & Oldham, G. R. (2004). The Effects of Personal and Contextual
Characteristics on Creativity: Where Should We Go from Here? Journal of Management,
30(6), 933–958.
Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The Motivational Effects of Charismatic
Leadership: A Self-Concept Based Theory. Organization Science, 4(4), 577–594.
Shamir, B., Zakay, E., Breinin, E., & Popper, M. (1998). Correlates of Charismatic Leader
Behavior in Military Units: Subordinates' Attitudes, Unit Characteristics, and Superiors'
Appraisals of Leader Performance. Academy of Management Journal, 41(4), 387-409.
Sheng, Z., Kong, W., Cortina, J. M., & Hou, S. (2016). Analyzing Matrices of Meta-analytic
Correlations: Current Practices and Recommendations. Research Synthesis Methods, 7(2),
187-208.
Shin, Y., & Eom, C. (2014). Team Proactivity as a Linking Mechanism between Team
Creative Efficacy, Transformational Leadership, and Risk-Taking Norms and Team
Creative Performance. Journal of Creative Behavior, 48(2), 89–114.
*Shin, S. J., Kim, T. Y., & Lee, J. Y. (2012). Cognitive Team Diversity and Individual Team
Member Creativity: A Cross-Level Interaction. Academy of Management Journal, 55(1),
197–212.
*Shin, S. J., & Zhou, J. (2003). Transformational Leadership, Conservation, and Creativity:
Evidence from Korea. Academy of Management Journal, 46(6), 703-714.
Shin, S. J., & 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(6), 1709-1721.
*Si, S., & Wei, F. (2012). Transformational and Transactional Leaderships, Empowerment
Climate, and Innovation Performance: A Multilevel Analysis in the Chinese Context.
European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 21(2), 299–320.
*Simmons, A. L. (2006). Organizational Justice: A Potential Facilitator or Barrier to
Individual Creativity (Doctoral dissertation). Texas A&M University.

52
Slack, D. A. (2014). Leaders’ Fostering of Innovation: A Phenomenological Study in Small
Successful US Biopharmaceuticals (Doctoral dissertation). George Washington
University.
Sluss, D. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (2007). Relational Identity and Identification: Defining
Ourselves through Work Relationships. Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 9-32.
Sluss, D. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (2008). How Relational and Organizational Identification
Converge: Processes and Conditions. Organization Science, 19(6), 807-823.
Sosik, J. J., Kahai, S. S., & Avolio, B. J. (1998). Transformational Leadership and
Dimensions of Creativity: Motivating Idea Generation in Computer-Mediated Groups.
Creativity Research Journal, 11(2), 111–121.
Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological Empowerment in the Workplace: Dimensions,
Measurement, and Validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1442–1465.
*Stixrud, E. A. (2014). Leading for Creativity: Determining if Behavioral Modeling Accounts
for Additional Variance over Transformational Leadership in Soliciting Employee
Creativity (Doctoral dissertation). Chicago School of Professional Psychology.
Stryker, S., & Burke, P. J. (2000). The Past, Present, and Future of an Identity Theory. Social
Psychology Quarterly, 63, 284-297.
*Suh, T. (2002). Encouraged, Motivated and Learning Oriented for Working Creatively And
Successfully: A Case Of Korean Workers In Marketing Communications. Journal of
Marketing Communications, 8, 135–147.
*Sun, L. Y., Zhang, Z., Qi, J., & Chen, Z. X. (2012). Empowerment and Creativity: A Cross-
level Investigation. Leadership Quarterly, 23(1), 55–65.
*Sung, S. Y., Antefelt, A., & Choi, J. N. (2017). Dual Effects of Job Complexity on Proactive
and Responsive Creativity: Moderating Role of Employee Ambiguity Tolerance. Group &
Organization Management, 42(3), 388-418.
*Tafvelin, S., Armelius, K., & Westerberg, K. (2011). Toward Understanding the Direct and
Indirect Effects of Transformational Leadership on Well-Being: A Longitudinal Study.
Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 18(4), 480–492.
*Tang, C., & Ding, X. (2014). Computers in Human Behavior Graduate Students’ Creative
Professional Virtual Community Behaviors and Their Creativity. Computers in Human
Behavior, 41, 464–470.
Tett, R. P., Hundley, N. A., & Christiansen, N. D. (2017). Meta-analysis and the Myth of
Generalizability. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 10(3), 421-456.
Thomas, K. W., & Velthouse, B. A. (1990). Cognitive Elements of Empowerment: An
“Interpretive” Model of Intrinsic Task Motivation. Academy of Management Review, 15(4),
666-681.
*Thundiyil, T. G., Chiaburu, D. S., Li, N., & Wagner, D. T. (2016). Joint Effects of Creative
Self-Efficacy, Positive and Negative Affect on Creative Performance. Chinese
Management Studies, 10(4), 726–745.
Tierney, P. A., & Farmer, S. M. (2002). Creative Self-Efficacy: Its Potential Antecedents and
Relationship to Creative Performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6), 1137–
1148.
*Tierney, P. A., & Farmer, S. M. (2011). Creative Self-Efficacy Development and Creative
Performance over Time. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(2), 277–293.
*Tierney, P., Farmer, S. M., & Graen, G. B. (1999). An Examination of Leadership and
Employee Creativity: The Relevance of Traits and Relationships. Personnel psychology,
52(3), 591-620.
To, M. L., Herman, H. M., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2015). A Multilevel Model of
Transformational Leadership, Affect, and Creative Process Behavior in Work Teams.
Leadership Quarterly, 26(4), 543-556.

53
*Tsai, C., Horng, J. S., Liu, C., Hu, D., & Chung, Y. (2015). Awakening Student Creativity:
Empirical Evidence in a Learning Environment Context. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure,
Sport & Tourism Education, 17, 28–38.
*Tsai, C. Y., Horng, J. S., Liu, C. H., & Hu, D. C. (2015). Work Environment and
Atmosphere: The Role of Organizational Support in the Creativity Performance of
Tourism and Hospitality Organizations. International Journal of Hospitality Management,
46, 26–35.
*Tse, H. H. M., & Chiu, W. C. K. (2014). Transformational Leadership and Job
Performance: A Social Identity Perspective. Journal of Business Research, 67(1), 2827–
2835
*Uru, F. O., & Yozgat, U. (2009). Creativity for Gaining and Sustaining Competitive
Advantage: The Role of Leadership Styles. Journal of Global Strategic Management, 6,
136–157.
Utman, C. H. (1997). Performance Effects of Motivational State: A Meta-Analysis.
Personality & Social Psychology Review, 1(2), 170-182.
Valentine, J. C., Pigott, T. D., & Rothstein, H. R. (2010). How Many Studies Do You Need?
A Primer on Statistical Power for Meta-analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral
Statistics, 35(2), 215-247.
Van de Vliert, E., & Van Yperen, N. W. (1996). Why Cross-national Differences in Role
Overload? Don't Overlook Ambient Temperature! Academy of Management Journal, 39(4),
986-1004.
van Knippenberg, D., van Knippenberg, B., De Cremer, D., & Hogg, M. A. (2004).
Leadership, Self, and Identity: A Review and Research Agenda. Leadership Quarterly,
15(6), 825–856.
van Knippenberg, D., & Sitkin, S. B. (2013). A Critical Assessment of Charismatic -
transformational leadership research: Back to the drawing board? Academy of
Management Annals, 7(1), 1-60.
*Venkataramani, V., Richter, A. W., & Clarke, R. (2014). Creative Benefits from Well-
connected Leaders: Leader Social Network Ties as Facilitators of Employee Radical
Creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(5), 966–975.
Vessey, W. B., Barrett, J. D., Mumford, M. D., Johnson, G., & Litwiller, B. (2014).
Leadership of Highly Creative People in Highly Creative Fields: A Historiometric Study
of Scientific Leaders. Leadership Quarterly, 25(4), 672-691.
Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (1998). Theory Testing: Combing Psychometric Meta-
Analysis and Structural Equation Modeling. Personnel Psychology, 48(1), 865-885.
Waldman, D. A., Javidan, M., & Varella, P. (2004). Charismatic Leadership at the Strategic
Level: A New Application of Upper Echelons Theory. Leadership Quarterly, 15(3), 355-
380.
*Walumbwa, F. O., & Hartnell, C. A. (2011). Understanding Transformational Leadership –
Employee Performance Links: The Role of Relational Identification and Self-Efficacy.
Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 84, 153–172.
*Wang, A., & Cheng, B. (2010). When Does Benevolent Leadership Lead to Creativity? The
Moderating Role of Creative Role Identity and Job Autonomy. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 31(1), 106–121.
*Wang, C. J., Tsai, H. T., & Tsai, M. T. (2014). Linking Transformational Leadership and
Employee Creativity in the Hospitality Industry: The Influences of Creative Role Identity,
Creative Self-Efficacy, and Job Complexity. Tourism Management, 40, 79–89.
*Wang, D., Xue, H., & Su, H. (2010). Influence of Work Support on Employee Creativity:
An Empirical Examination in the Peoples Republic of China. African Journal of Business
Management, 4(8), 1546–1553.

54
*Wang, G., & Lee, P. D. (2009). Psychological Empowerment and Job Satisfaction: An
Analysis of Interactive Effects. Group & Organization Management, 34(3), 271-296.
Wang, G., Oh, I. S., Courtright, S. H., & Colbert, A. E. (2011). Transformational Leadership
and Performance across Criteria and Levels: A Meta-analytic Review of 25 Years of
Research. Group & Organization Management, 36(2), 223-270.
*Wang, G., & Ma, X. (2013). The Effect of Psychological Climate for Innovation on
Salespeople’s Creativity and Turnover Intention. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales
Management, 33(4), 373–388.
*Wang, P., & Rode, J. C. (2010). Transformational Leadership and Follower Creativity: The
Moderating Effects of Identification with Leader and Organizational Climate. Human
Relations, 63(8), 1105–1128.
Wang, P., Rode, J. C., Shi, K., Luo, Z., & Chen, W. (2013). A Workgroup Climate Perspective
on the Relationships among Transformational Leadership, Workgroup Diversity, and
Employee Creativity. Group & Organization Management, 38(3), 334-360.
*Wang, P., & Zhu, W. (2011). Mediating Role of Creative Identity in the Influence of
Transformational Leadership on Creativity: Is There a Multilevel Effect? Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, 18(1), 25–39.
*Wang, X. F. (2009). Exploring the Dual-level Effects of Transformational Leadership on
Followers and the Underlying Influence Processes (Doctoral dissertation). University of
Western Ontario, Ontario.
*Wang, X. H. F., & Howell, J. M. (2012). A Multilevel Study of Transformational
Leadership, Identification, and Follower Outcomes. Leadership Quarterly, 23(5), 775–
790.
Wang, X. H., Kim, T. Y., & Lee, D. R. (2016). Cognitive Diversity and Team Creativity:
Effects of Team Intrinsic Motivation and Transformational Leadership. Journal of
Business Research, 69(9), 3231–3239.
Wheeler, K. G. (2002). Cultural Values in Relation to Equity Sensitivity within and across
Cultures. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17(7), 612-627.
Whitener, E.M. (1990). Confusion of Confidence Intervals and Credibility Intervals in Meta-
analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(3), 315-321.
Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a Theory of Organizational
Creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18(2), 293-321.
*Yildiz, M. L., & Ozcan, E. D. (2014). Organizational Climate as a Moderator of the
Relationship between Transformational Leadership and Creativity. International Journal
of Business & Management, 2(1), 76–87.
*Yoshida, D. T., Sendjaya, S., Hirst, G., & Cooper, B. (2014). Does Servant Leadership
Foster Creativity and Innovation? A Multi-Level Mediation Study of Identification and
Prototypicality. Journal of Business Research, 67(7), 1395–1404.
Yu, J. J., Downes, P. E., Carter, K. M., & O'Boyle, E. H. (2016). The Problem of Effect Size
Heterogeneity in Meta-analytic Structural Equation Modeling. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 101(10), 1457-1473.
Yukl, G. (1999). An Evaluation of Conceptual Weaknesses in Transformational and
Charismatic Leadership Theories. Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 285-305.
*Zacher, H., & Johnson, E. (2015). Leadership and Creativity in Higher Education. Studies in
Higher Education, 40(7), 1210–1225.
*Zhang, X., & Bartol, K. M. (2010). Linking Empowering Leadership and Employee
Creativity: The Influence of Psychological Empowerment, Intrinsic Motivation, and
Creative Process Management. Academy of Management Journal, 53(1), 107–128.
*Zhang, X., & Zhou, J. (2014). Empowering Leadership, Uncertainty Avoidance, Trust, and
Employee Creativity: Interaction Effects and a Mediating Mechanism. Organizational

55
 Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 124(2), 150–164.
*Zhang, Y., Lepine, J. A., Buckman, B. R., & Wei, F. (2014). It’s not Fair… or Is It? The
Role of Justice and Leadership in Explaining Work Stressor – Job Performance
Relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 57(3), 675–697.
*Zhang, Y., Long, L., Wu, T., & Huang, X. (2015). When Is Pay for Performance Related to
Employee Creativity in the Chinese Context? The Role of Guanxi HRM Practice, Trust in
Management, and Intrinsic Motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(5), 698-
719.
*Zhang, Y., Long, L., & Zhang, J. (2015). Pay for Performance and Employee Creativity:
The Importance of Procedural Justice and Willingness to Take Risks. Management
Decision, 53(7), 1378–1397.
*Zhou, J., & George, J. M. (2001). When Job Dissatisfaction Leads to Creativity:
Encouraging the Expression of Voice. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 682-696.
Zhou, J., & Hoever, I. J. (2014). Research on Workplace Creativity: A Review and
Redirection. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology & Organizational Behavior,
1(1), 333-359.
*Zhou, Q., Hirst, G., & Shipton, H. (2012). Promoting Creativity at Work: The Role of
Problem-Solving Demand. Applied Psychology: 61(1), 56–80.
*Zhou, Q., & Pan, W. (2015). A Cross-Level Examination of the Process Linking
Transformational Leadership and Creativity: The Role of Psychological Safety Climate.
Human Performance, 28(5), 405–424.
*Zhou, Y., Zhang, Y., & Montoro-Sánchez, Á. (2011). Utilitarianism or Romanticism: The
Effect of Rewards on Employees’ Innovative Behaviour. International Journal of
Manpower, 32(1), 81–98.
*Zhu, W., Sosik, J. J., Riggio, R. E., & Yang, B. (2012). Relationships between
Transformational and Active Transactional Leadership and Followers’ Organizational
Identification: The Role of Psychological Empowerment. Journal of Behavioral &
Applied Management, 13(3), 186–212.
*Zhu, W., Wang, G., Zheng, X., Liu, T., & Miao, Q. (2012). Examining the Role of Personal
Identification with the Leader in Leadership Effectiveness: A Partial Nomological
Network. Group & Organization Management, 38(1), 36–67.
Zohar, D., & Luria, G. (2004). Climate as a Social-Cognitive Construction of Supervisory
Safety Practices: Scripts as Proxy of Behavior Patterns. Journal of Applied Psychology,
89(2), 322-333.

56
 Table 1. Summary of Research on Transformational Leadership and Creativity
Theories The Number Example Studies Key Mechanisms Key Mediators
of Studies*
Cognitive 32 Chen & Chang (2013), Chen et al. Leaders as a contextual factor can provide Intrinsic
Evaluation Theory (2009), Cheung & Wong (2011), control and information aspects, which Motivation
Gilmore et al. (2013), Gumusluoglu suppress or facilitate followers’ intrinsic
& Ilsev (2009), Jaiswal & Dhar motivation for creativity.
Componential (2015), Kollmann et al. (2013), Shin Transformational leaders’ task and relational
Theory of Creativity & Zhou (2003), Si & Wei (2012), support can enhance subordinates’ expertise,
Uru & Yozgat (2009), Wang et al. creative thinking skills and intrinsic
(2014), Wang & Rode (2010) motivation for creativity.
Social Learning 19 Eisenbeiß & Boerner (2013), Employees acquire knowledge and skills for Creative Self-
Theory (a.k.a. Social Ghafoor et al. (2011), Gong et al. creativity by observing the work and skills of Efficacy
Cognitive Theory) (2009), Gumusluoglu & Ilsev transformational leaders which act as the
(2009), Jaiswal & Dhar (2015), source of self-efficacy judgments.
Jaussi & Dionne (2003), Mittal &
Dhar (2015), Shin et al. (2012)
Social Identity 18 Miao et al. (2012), Shin & Zhou A leader as a prototypical person is perceived Identification
Theory (2007), Akinlade (2014), Wang & to be socially attractive, and their with the Leader
Rode (2010), Zhu et al. (2012), Tse subordinates are more likely to be assimilated and Innovation
& Chiu (2014), Kazmi & Naaranoja to the leader. Thus, his or her ideas are Climate
(2015), Zhang et al. (2014), Moss & accepted more readily and more widely by
Ritossa (2007) employees, creating innovative organizational
climate.
Role Identity Theory 6 Wang & Zhu (2011), Wang et al. Transformational leaders through Creative
& Role Expectation (2014), Akinlade (2014), Qu et al. inspirational motivation and intellectual Identity
Theory (2015), Jung (2001) stimulation can help develop followers’ self-
views of being creative, which in turn can
enhance employees’ creative efforts.

57
 Self-Determination 8 Gumusluoglu & Ilsev (2009), Si & As transformational leaders are likely to be Psychological
Theory Wei (2012), Sun et al. (2012), Uru & autonomy-supportive and promote Empowerment
Yozgat (2009), Moss & Ritossa autonomous intrinsic motivation, they can
(2007), Jain et al. (2015), Hong & enhance employees’ psychological
Rui-min (2012), Anderson et al. empowerment that is an essential prerequisite
(2014) for individuals’ creativity.
Relational 5 Gumusluoglu & Ilsev (2009), Li et Individuals tend to identify themselves in Identification
Identification al. (2015), Qu et al. (2015), Si & Wei terms of a given role relationship with the with the Leader
Theory (2012), Zacher & Johnson (2014) leaders, and transformational leaders exercise
influences on followers in their role
relationships with the protégés. Employees
tend to have similar visions and goals that
their leaders possess via relational
identification with the leader, which can in
turn enhance employees’ creativity.
Others 17 Wang & Rode (2010), Bae et al. N/A N/A
(2013), Arendt(2009), Chang & Teng
(2016), Eisenbeiss et al. (2008), Bai
et al. (2016), Politis (2004), Gilmore
et al. (2013)
*Some studies are counted more than once as they adopted multiple theories.

58
 Table 2. Results of Meta-analysis
95% CI 80% CrI
k N r ρ SDρ lower upper lower upper I2 Q
Transformational Leadership – Creativity 37 14,783 0.298 0.329 0.150 0.233 0.425 0.137 0.521 91.518 465.157***
Transformational Leadership – Creative Identity 4 1,497 0.315 0.371 0.276 0.176 0.565 0.018 0.723 87.608 39.315***
Transformational Leadership – Creative Self-efficacy 9 2,637 0.275 0.342 0.233 0.183 0.501 0.044 0.640 92.113 115.974***
Transformational Leadership – Intrinsic Motivation for Creativity 6 1,896 0.361 0.422 0.289 0.160 0.684 0.051 0.792 96.582 179.230***
Transformational Leadership – Innovation Climate 18 10,097 0.562 0.623 0.203 0.499 0.747 0.363 0.883 94.931 416.230***
Transformational Leadership – Identification with the Leader 12 4,275 0.552 0.607 0.135 0.513 0.700 0.434 0.779 92.146 157.760***
Transformational Leadership – Psychological Empowerment 24 7,712 0.437 0.489 0.217 0.414 0.563 0.210 0.767 89.827 239.579***
Creative Identity – Creativity 9 2,103 0.208 0.246 0.219 0.118 0.374 -0.035 0.527 82.808 53.677***
Creative Self-efficacy – Creativity 23 7,160 0.428 0.504 0.280 0.382 0.626 0.146 0.862 96.015 582.655***
Intrinsic Motivation for Creativity – Creativity 35 9,460 0.346 0.410 0.215 0.325 0.495 0.134 0.686 91.477 415.320***
Innovation Climate – Creativity 20 8,598 0.326 0.361 0.170 0.227 0.496 0.143 0.579 88.774 219.938***
Identification with the Leader – Creativity 5 1,312 0.165 0.182 0.123 0.072 0.291 0.024 0.340 66.492 15.433**
Psychological Empowerment – Creativity 11 3,022 0.359 0.412 0.158 0.317 0.506 0.209 0.614 83.146 66.178***
k = number of study samples; N = number of observations; r = mean correlation; ρ(rho) = correlation after correcting both reliabilities and sampling error;
SDρ = standard deviation of rho; CI = confidence interval; CrI = credibility interval; I2 = homogeneity statistic; Q = Q test for homogeneity of effect sizes
** p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001

59
 Table 3. Results of Moderator Analysis (Method Factors)
Relationship: Transformational Leadership – 95% CI 80% CrI
Creativity k1 N r ρ SDρ lower upper lower upper I2 Qw Qb
Transformational Leadership Measure:
MLQ 28 11,543 0.310 0.336 0.168 0.213 0.459 0.120 0.551 92.706 423.824 0.107
Non-MLQ 9 3,240 0.257 0.304 0.077 0.212 0.397 0.206 0.402 73.993 36.712
Creativity Measure:
Oldham & Cummings’s (1996) scale 8 2,199 0.207 0.257 0.205 0.099 0.416 -0.005 0.520 90.675 86.969 3.052
Zhou & George’s (2001) scale 19 9,628 0.344 0.372 0.155 0.238 0.506 0.174 0.570 92.361 286.900
Tierney et al.’s (1999) scale 9 2,453 0.194 0.219 0.086 0.153 0.285 0.108 0.330 59.105 22.357
Creativity Rating Source:
Self-rating 8 5,693 0.367 0.384 0.202 0.127 0.641 0.125 0.643 95.312 260.939 0.792
Non-self-rating (Supervisor, Peer, etc.) 25 7,942 0.243 0.282 0.126 0.218 0.345 0.120 0.444 82.378 143.541
k = number of study samples; N = number of observations; r = mean correlation; ρ(rho) = correlation after correcting both reliabilities and sampling error;
SDρ = standard deviation of rho; CI = confidence interval; CrI = credibility interval; I2 = homogeneity statistic; Qw = Q test for homogeneity within classes;
Qb = Q test for homogeneity between classes
1. A few studies did not report the relevant information about the measures and rating sources. They were not included in the moderation analysis.

60
 Table 4. Results of Moderator Analysis (Geographic Factor)
95% CI 80% CrI
1
Relationships Groups k N r ρ SDρ lower upper lower upper I2 Qw Qb
Transformational Leadership – Western 11 2,612 0.148 0.165 0.134 0.071 0.259 -0.006 0.337 80.518 57.297
6.912**
Creativity Asian 25 11,913 0.331 0.364 0.152 0.257 0.471 0.170 0.558 91.318 317.432
Transformational Leadership – Western 1 364 -0.040 -0.046 - -0.126 0.346 - - - -
5.541*
Intrinsic Motivation Asian 4 1,274 0.472 0.552 0.259 0.342 0.559 0.220 0.883 94.763 80.067
Transformation Leadership – Western 2 351 0.089 0.110 0.229 0.105 0.481 -0.183 0.404 74.930 8.190
9.250**
Creative Identity Asian 2 1,146 0.384 0.450 0.116 0.175 0.515 0.302 0.598 61.547 6.097
Transformational Leadership – Western 1 139 0.240 0.293 - -0.150 0.057 - - - -
0.041
Creative Self-Efficacy Asian 8 2,498 0.276 0.345 0.250 0.285 0.819 0.025 0.665 93.004 115.900
Transformational Leadership – Western 8 1,944 0.449 0.510 0.205 0.384 0.635 0.247 0.772 89.547 80.185
2.431
Innovation Climate Asian 9 8,049 0.592 0.653 0.201 0.518 0.789 0.396 0.910 95.696 263.464
Transformational Leadership – Western 5 1,131 0.440 0.480 0.086 0.385 0.575 0.369 0.590 73.067 19.414
4.447*
Identification with the Leader Asian 7 3,144 0.593 0.652 0.112 0.544 0.760 0.508 0.796 92.546 97.884
Transformational Leadership – Western 13 3,805 0.454 0.495 0.191 0.391 0.600 0.251 0.739 90.190 136.322
0.030
Psychological Empowerment Asian 11 3,907 0.421 0.482 0.252 0.379 0.586 0.159 0.805 88.911 102.908
Intrinsic Motivation – Western 13 2,269 0.177 0.228 0.190 -0.041 0.408 -0.015 0.472 71.255 46.496
8.172**
Creativity Asian 20 6,533 0.382 0.445 0.191 0.236 0.376 0.201 0.689 90.762 219.615
Creative Identity – Western 5 1,027 0.165 0.184 0.303 0.140 0.389 -0.205 0.572 88.477 47.054
0.962
Creativity Asian 4 1,076 0.249 0.306 0.017 0.415 0.699 0.284 0.327 0.000 1.883
Creative Self-Efficacy – Western 5 1,279 0.222 0.264 0.142 0.133 0.324 0.082 0.446 67.837 17.765
3.355†
Creativity Asian 16 5,164 0.475 0.557 0.275 0.349 0.541 0.205 0.909 96.145 418.772
Innovation Climate – Western 7 1,035 0.170 0.211 0.120 0.118 0.305 0.058 0.365 47.063 13.308
3.045†
Creativity Asian 13 7,563 0.348 0.382 0.190 0.235 0.529 0.138 0.625 90.726 181.766
Identification with the Leader – Western 1 212 0.070 0.082 - -0.071 0.235 - - - -
0.847
Creativity Asian 4 1,100 0.183 0.201 0.134 0.078 0.324 0.030 0.372 67.969 13.100
Psychological Empowerment – Western 4 913 0.437 0.486 0.267 0.257 0.715 0.145 0.827 91.315 47.729
1.186
Creativity Asian 6 1,966 0.326 0.381 0.060 0.322 0.440 0.305 0.457 37.392 9.674
k = number of study samples; N = number of observations; r = mean correlation; ρ(rho) = correlation after correcting both reliabilities and sampling error;
SDρ = standard deviation of rho; CI = confidence interval; CrI = credibility interval; I2 = homogeneity statistic; Qw = Q test for homogeneity within classes,
Qb = Q test for homogeneity between classes
†p < 0.1, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01
1. The studies that did not report the relevant information about geographic base were not included in the moderation analysis.

61
 Table 5. Correlations Used for MASEM
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]
[1] Transformational Leadership

[2] Creativity 0.329***

Total Observation N (k Studies) 14,783 (37)
[3] Creative Self-View 0.352*** 0.445***
Total Observation N (k Studies) 4,134 (13) 9,263 (32)
[4] Intrinsic Motivation for Creativity 0.422*** 0.410*** 0.488***
Total Observation N (k Studies) 1,896 (6) 9,460 (35) 1,698 (6)
[5] Innovation Climate 0.623*** 0.361*** 0.296*** 0.223*
Total Observation N (k Studies) 10,097 (18) 8,598 (20) 2,423 (7) 776 (5)
[6] Identification with the Leader 0.607*** 0.182** 0 0 0.447***
Total Observation N (k Studies) 4,275 (12) 1,312 (5) - - 366 (2)
[7] Psychological Empowerment 0.489*** 0.412*** 0.564*** 0.307*** 0.508*** 0.342***
Total Observation N (k Studies) 7,712 (24) 3,022 (11) 1,118 (2) 1,157 (4) 5,488 (9) 413 (2)
Mean 4.667 4.599 4.954 4.958 4.712 4.905 5.072
Standard Deviation 0.985 0.948 0.913 1.050 0.975 1.023 0.834
* p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001

62
Figure 1. Summary of Research on Leadership and Creativity from 1991 to 2016

63
 Figure 2. Theoretical Synthesis

Role Identity (Expectation) Theory

Creative
Identity

Social Learning (Cognitive) Theory

Creativity
Self-efficacy

Intrinsic
Motivation for
Transformational
Leadership Creativity Creativity
Cognitive Evaluation Theory &
Idealized Influence Componential Theory of Creativity

Inspiration
Psychological
Empowerment
Intellectual Stimulation

Individualized
Consideration
Relational Identification Theory

Identification with
the Leader
Self-Determination Theory

Innovation
Climate

Social Identity Theory

64
 Figure 3. Results of the Final Model (n=1569)
- 0.117** (0.040, [-1.275, 1.355])
Creative
0.093*** (0.046, Self-view
[-0.286, 0.378]) 0.245*** (0.189, [-0.790, 1.168])
(R2 = .326;
Indirect Effect
0.371***(0.334, [-0.163, 0.831])
= .161***)
Intrinsic Motivation for
Creativity (R2 = .362;
0.528***(0.331, [-0.318, 0.980]) Indirect Effect 0.243***(0.236,
= .140***) [-0.602, 1.074])

- 0.394***(-0.337,
[-0.581, -0.093]) - 0.303***(-0.204,
Transformational 0.564***(0.554, [-0.602, 0.194])
[0.366, 0.742])
Leadership Creativity
(R2 = .319)
Identification with the
0.637***(0.604, [0.331, 0.877 ]) Leader (R2 = .454;
Indirect Effect 0.122***(0.042
0.295***(0.240, [-0.703, 0.787])
[-0.030, 0.510]) = .066***)
Psychological
0.414***(0.474,
Empowerment
[0.260, 0.688]) 0.130*** (0.142, [-0.685, 0.969])
(R2 = .239;
Indirect Effect
= .054***) 0.312*** (0.295, [-0.017, 0.607])

Innovation Climate
0.487***(0.428, [0.107, 0.749]) (R2 = .442; 0.185*** (0.144, [-0.662, 0.950])
Indirect Effect
= .148***)

Supported Path Unhypothesized Path

The numbers in the parentheses indicate the mean level (!̅) and 80% credibility interval (CrI!) of coefficients for a path across 10,000 iterations, which are
the results of FIMASEM analysis.
** p<0.01, *** p<0.001

65
Appendix 1. Publication Bias Analysis

Table A1. Results of Publication Bias Analysis

95% CI 80% CrI
Relationships Groups k N r ρ SDρ lower upper lower upper I2 Qw Qb
Transformational Leadership – Published 32 13,306 0.300 0.329 0.158 0.220 0.439 0.127 0.532 92.415 456.729
0.000
Creativity Unpublished 5 1,477 0.288 0.328 0.065 0.258 0.398 0.245 0.411 38.488 8.280
Transformational Leadership – Mediators
Transformation Leadership – Published 3 1,358 0.355 0.418 0.153 0.299 0.537 0.222 0.615 69.378 11.559
-
Creative Identity Unpublished 1 139 -0.080 -0.096 - -0.275 0.084 - - - -
Transformational Leadership – Published 6 1,833 0.328 0.415 0.269 0.209 0.621 0.071 0.759 92.960 87.322
2.431
Creative Self-Efficacy Unpublished 3 804 0.152 0.175 0.092 0.074 0.276 0.057 0.293 42.925 5.449
Transformational Leadership – Published 4 1,135 0.192 0.224 0.202 0.027 0.421 -0.035 0.483 90.287 42.137
7.735**
Intrinsic Motivation Unpublished 2 761 0.613 0.716 0.294 0.427 1.005 0.339 1.093 92.481 29.243
Transformational Leadership – Published 15 9,395 0.552 0.614 0.185 0.493 0.736 0.378 0.850 94.428 323.821
1.245
Innovation Climate Unpublished 3 702 0.692 0.742 0.275 0.459 1.024 0.390 1.093 95.689 74.034
Transformational Leadership – Published 11 4,062 0.554 0.609 0.141 0.509 0.709 0.428 0.790 92.736 156.880
-
Identification with the Leader Unpublished 1 213 0.530 0.558 - 0.460 0.656 - - - -
Transformational Leadership – Published 17 5,566 0.436 0.486 0.236 0.393 0.579 0.184 0.787 90.853 190.200
0.015
Psychological Empowerment Unpublished 7 2,146 0.440 0.496 0.182 0.379 0.613 0.263 0.728 85.068 49.375
Mediators – Creativity
Creative Identity – Published 7 1,578 0.255 0.306 0.183 0.179 0.433 0.071 0.541 75.873 29.539
3.682†
Creativity Unpublished 2 525 0.067 0.066 0.182 -0.100 0.233 -0.167 0.300 56.998 5.922
Creative Self-Efficacy – Published 21 6,719 0.425 0.502 0.265 0.378 0.626 0.162 0.842 95.932 521.433
0.023
Creativity Unpublished 2 441 0.473 0.535 0.550 0.020 1.049 -0.169 1.238 95.818 59.326
Intrinsic Motivation – Published 22 6,166 0.423 0.497 0.205 0.398 0.595 0.234 0.759 90.227 229.550
11.431***
Creativity Unpublished 13 3,294 0.203 0.248 0.154 0.162 0.334 0.050 0.445 76.879 57.441
Innovation Climate – Published 17 8,033 0.341 0.378 0.173 0.241 0.514 0.156 0.599 88.373 186.227
4.608*
Creativity Unpublished 3 565 0.114 0.125 0.000 0.042 0.209 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.415
Identification with the Leader – Published 5 1,312 0.165 0.182 0.123 0.072 0.291 0.024 0.340 66.492 15.433
-
Creativity Unpublished 0 - - - - - - - - - -
Psychological Empowerment – Published 9 2,395 0.359 0.411 0.162 0.302 0.520 0.204 0.618 84.844 59.958
0.001
Creativity Unpublished 2 627 0.358 0.415 0.179 0.258 0.572 0.186 0.644 55.739 6.220

66
 Mediators - Mediators
Creative Self-view – Intrinsic Published 3 948 0.474 0.576 0.319 0.235 0.918 0.168 0.985 95.873 76.603
1.121
Motivation Unpublished 3 750 0.307 0.377 0.000 0.303 0.451 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.032
Creative Self-view – Published 4 1,843 0.292 0.327 0.137 0.205 0.449 0.151 0.502 81.661 23.232
1.766
Innovation Climate Unpublished 3 580 0.166 0.199 0.129 0.086 0.312 0.033 0.364 27.819 4.349
Creative Self-view – Published 2 1,118 0.494 0.564 0.055 0.508 0.620 0.493 0.634 13.357 2.390
-
Psychological Empowerment Unpublished 0 - - - - - - - - - -
Intrinsic Motivation – Published 4 652 0.223 0.263 0.204 0.103 0.423 0.002 0.524 57.213 10.310
2.294
Innovation Climate Unpublished 1 124 0.012 0.015 - - - - - - -
Intrinsic Motivation – Published 2 530 0.296 0.365 0.000 0.216 0.376 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.109
2.446
Psychological Empowerment Unpublished 2 627 0.213 0.259 0.093 0.139 0.286 0.139 0.378 0.000 1.690
Innovation Climate – Published 2 366 0.366 0.447 0.086 0.338 0.555 0.336 0.556 0.000 1.817
-
Identification with the Leader Unpublished 0 - - - - - - - - - -
Innovation Climate – Published 7 5,103 0.417 0.504 0.166 0.379 0.629 0.291 0.716 91.685 91.826
0.304
Psychological Empowerment Unpublished 2 385 0.480 0.571 0.000 0.473 0.669 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.351
Identification with the Leader – Published 1 200 0.310 0.363 - - - - - - -
-
Psychological Empowerment Unpublished 1 213 0.290 0.323 - - - - - - -
k = number of study samples; N = number of observations; r = mean correlation; ρ(rho) = correlation after correcting both reliabilities and sampling error;
SDρ = standard deviation of rho; CI = confidence interval; CrI = credibility interval; I2 = homogeneity statistic; Qw = Q test for homogeneity within classes;
Qb = Q test for homogeneity between classes
†p < 0.1, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001

67

View publication stats