• No results found

The influence of leader creative role expectations on subordinate creative behavior: The moderating role of leader-member exchange and supervisor status

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "The influence of leader creative role expectations on subordinate creative behavior: The moderating role of leader-member exchange and supervisor status"

Copied!
28
0
0

Bezig met laden.... (Bekijk nu de volledige tekst)

Hele tekst

(1)

The influence of leader creative role expectations

on subordinate creative behavior: The

moderating role of leader-member exchange and

supervisor status

University of Groningen

Faculty of Economics and Business

Msc. Human Resource Management

July 2012

(2)

ABSTRACT

Research on employee creativity is currently examining leader creative expectation as important antecedent. Although supervisor creative expectations and employee creative performance are receiving increasing attention in academic as well as in business context, few attempts have been made to research these concepts empirically. The present study sets out to enhance the understanding of supervisor creative expectations and employee creative performance by examining two theoretically feasible moderators of this relationships: leader-member exchange (LMX) and supervisor status. Using a sample of 112 employees and their leaders, the hypothesized relationships were tested empirically. The data did not provide evidence for the relation between creative expectations and creative performance, nor did it support the moderation effects of LMX and status. Overall, the results gave way for future research in this important field of study. The stud y concludes with a discussion of the implications, limitations and suggestions for future research.

Word count: 7.684

Key words: leader creative role expectations, subordinate creative behavior,

(3)

3

Introduction

“A manager’s expectations are the key to a subordinate’s performance and development.”

(Livingston, 1969: 81).

This quote flows from the so-called Pygmalion effect, which refers to the phenomenon in which the greater the expectations placed upon people the better they perform (Livingston, 1969). The Pygmalion effect describes how enhanced performance of subordinates may be the result of supervisors expecting more of their subordinates than their prescribed tasks (Eden, 1984). In recent years, this Pygmalion effect has also been applied to employees’ creative performance (Tierney & Farmer, 2004). This Pygmalion effect is visible when the performance includes a higher degree of challenge and uncertainty, such as with creativity (Amabile, 1988). In this context creative behavior is defined according to Amabile’s definition of creativity: “the production of novel and useful ideas" (Amabile, 1988: 126).

Considerable research has examined the factors that may stimulate or harm creativity in organizations (e.g., Amabile, 1988; Baas, de Dreu, & Nijstad, 2008; James, Brodersen, & Eisenberg, 2004; Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993), and has also started to direct its attention to the effects of the Pygmalion Effect on the creativity of employees (e.g., Jaussi & Dionne, 2003; Jung, Chow, & Wu, 2003; Kahai, Sosik, & Avolio, 2003; Redmond, Mumford, & Teech, 1993; Tierney & Farmer, 2004). However, despite this increased attention, there has been only limited research into external factors influencing the effects of the Pygmalion effect on creativity.

While previous research has usually argued and found a positive relation between expectations and creative behavior (McKenna, 2002; Eden, 1984; Livingston, 1969), much of these studies did not take into account any forces that may change the extent to which subordinates perceive or experience the expectancies of their supervisor. Therefore, I have reasons to believe that the relationship between expectancies and creativity may be contingent on other variables.

(4)

relationship with their supervisor. Their goal was to identify the factors that influence supervisor’s communication of expectancy effects on subordinates’ performance. For expectancies to strongly influence performance, the organization has to concentrate in creating a work environment that enhances the relationship between the managers and their subordinates. Leader-Member-Exchange theory describes these kind of relationships. It argues that leaders develop differential types of relationships with each of their subordinates. The quality of these LMX relationships is assumed to reflect the extent to which leader and subordinate mutually exchange resources and support. Where low quality LMX-relationships are based on exchanges directly specified by the employment contract, high quality LMX relationships include exchanges of both material and non-material goods beyond what is required by the formal employment contract (Le Blanc & González-Romá, 2012). Hence, I expect LMX to be a moderator to supervisor creative expectations on employee creative performance, because in a high LMX relationship employees are better able to perceive the expectancies and will work accordingly. Oppositely, in a low LMX relationship, there is less interaction and the relationship is based on a formal work-contract, making expectancies less relevant for actual creative performance. This way, the positive relationship between supervisor’s creative expectations and employee’s creative performance may hold only under high LMX.

(5)

5 My application of the Pygmalion approach to employee creativity can make a number of contributions to both theory and practice. I believe that my research offers a rich conceptual framework in which I can look at the conditions under which expectations have an effect on creative behavior of employees. Not many studies incorporated external factors in the study of the Pygmalion Effect, nor is there much evidence of the Pygmalion Effect on creativity of employees. Therefore, this paper tests whether LMX and leader status moderate this relationship and tries to show when a positive or negative relationship is to be expected between leaders’ creative role expectations and employee creativity.

Our hypotheses are graphically depicted in figure 1.

Figure 1. Conceptual model

Literature Review

The Pygmalion Model and Creative Performance

The current research examines the effects of leader creative role expectations on creativity of employees, and uses the Pygmalion effect as theoretical grounding. Evidence exists that suggests such a positive relationship between the Pygmalion Effect and creative performance in organizations (cf. Eden, 1984, 1992; McNatt, 2000; Tierney & Farmer, 2004). Eden (1984) argued and empirically found that supervisors’ creative expectations of subordinates’ creativity positively influence the actual creative behavior of subordinates. So, if creativity is expected of subordinates they will act to fulfill these expectations. Livingston (1969)

(6)

sought to examine this effect in a work context. His findings indicated that what managers expect of their subordinates in terms of creativity and the manner in which they treat them may determine their performance levels and career progress. Further, Livingston (1969) claimed that managers who fail to develop clear creativity expectations hamper the creative performance of their subordinates. Scott and Bruce (1994) agree with Livingston (1969) that the expectations supervisors have of their subordinates shape the behavior of their subordinates. They showed this in their study on the influence of the Pygmalion Effect on creativity. Their results indicate that supervisors’ innovative expectations are directly tied to the creative performance of subordinates. Subordinates appeared to search out more new technologies, processes, techniques, and ideas and generate more creative ideas when their supervisors hold positive creative expectations of them (Scott & Bruce, 1994). From a different angle Tierney, Farmer, and Graen (1999) showed that when leaders possess a strong sense of intrinsic motivation for creative tasks they are more likely to personally engage in creative work. This in turn will affirm for employees that creativity is expected of them and will cause an increase in their creative work. So, they too agree to the effect of supervisors having creative expectations of their subordinates will increase subordinate creative performance.

Hence, the first hypothesis is:

Hypothesis 1: The degree to which a supervisor expects a subordinate to be creative is positively related to the subordinate's actual creative behavior.

Leader-Member Exchange as Moderator

(7)

7 So when will leaders’ expectations influence employee creative output, and when not? To determine when – under which specific conditions – leaders’ expectations result in more subordinate creativity, I take into account the dyadic relationship between the supervisor and its subordinate and the supervisor’s status.

Leader-member exchange (LMX) theory posits that supervisors develop different exchange relationships with their subordinates through a role-making process (Dienesch & Liden, 1986). LMX theory argues that there is a unique exchange relationship between individual employees and their leaders. Leaders establish high quality exchange relationships with some of their employees, whereas with others the relationship is characterized by low quality exchanges. Quality reflects the degree to which leader and employee mutually exchange resources and support. Low LMX relationships are characterized by economic exchange based on formally agreed on, immediate, and balanced tangible assets, such as employment contracts (Blau, 1964). On the other hand, high LMX relationships increasingly breed feelings of mutual obligation and reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960; Liden, Sparrowe, & Wayne, 1997), generating relationships that are more social in nature. As a result, employees will listen better to their supervisor, have more frequent contact, and therefore, know the expectations better (Liden, et.al, 1997). Also, in high-quality LMX relations, LMX-partners generally show high levels of mutual respect, trust, affection and obligation (Graen, 1976; Graen and Schiemann, 1978, and Liden et al., 1993).

(8)

supervisor’s expectations. In contrast, the relationship between supervisor expectancies and actual creative behavior is more clearly in high LMX relationships. Here, supervisor expectancies are perceived more clearly and employees will act according to these expectancies and exhibit more creative behavior.

In the present paper, high LMX is viewed as being a condition for leader’s expectations to strongly influence subordinate creativity. I propose that supervisor’s creative expectations are only positively related to creative behavior when employees experience a high, as opposed to low, quality exchange relationship. So, I expect that supervisor’s role expectations only influence creative employee performance under high levels of LMX rather than low (Gouldner, 1960; Crouch & Yetton, 1988; Liden et. al, 1997). Hence, the second hypothesis of this study is:

Hypothesis 2: Leader-member exchange moderates the relationship between perceived supervisor expectations about employees’ creative behavior and employees’ actual creative behavior, such that this relationship is more positive when LMX is high rather than low.

Supervisor status as Moderator

Supervisor status is a well-known concept which is intensively discussed in social interaction models (Berger et.al, 1972). However, it has never been applied to the Pygmalion Model. Supervisor status in face-to-face groups is the prominence, respect, and influence supervisors enjoy in the eyes of their subordinates (Anderson, John, Keltner, & Kring, 2001). Status affects participation, influence, and perceived competence (Strodtbeck, James, & Hawkins, 1957). Therefore, in the present paper, supervisor status is conceptualized as a characteristic of the supervisor which affects how leader’s expectations influence creativity of subordinates as well as a construct that determines the extent to which employees pay attention and follow supervisors’ expectancies.

(9)

9 shown that subordinates are more attentive towards their supervisor when they have high status compared to low status. Thus, more attentive subordinates will better know what their supervisor expects of them and consequently will perform better (Chatman, Anderson, Beer, Srivastava, & Spataro, 2006). Another theory agreeing with this perception on status is the work of Ratcliff et. al. (2011) They believe that subordinates are more motivated to attend high-status supervisors than low-status supervisors because, high status captures and holds subordinates’ attention compared to low status (Ratcliff, Hugenberg, Shriver, & Bernstein, 2011). High status also increases the influence supervisors have over their subordinates and thus are better able to direct them (Strodtbeck, James, & Hawkins, 1957). This may mean that high status supervisors are better able to make their own expectations clear to their subordinates than low status supervisors. Thus, high status supervisors are better able to communicate their expectations to their subordinates because of increased motivation, attention, and influence compared to low status supervisors.

So, when supervisors have high status their expectations will be better perceived because subordinates listen good and pay more attention. As a consequence, subordinates will exhibit more creative behavior. This is in contrast with supervisors with low status, to which less attention is paid and of which their expectancies are less well perceived. Hence, subordinate creative behavior is more likely under a high status supervisor that induces subordinate attentiveness, than under a low status supervisor. I expect that when supervisors are viewed as high status, employees are more likely to attend to their behaviors and thus know better what the supervisor wants of them in terms of creativity. Hence, these subordinates will perform according to what their supervisor expects of them. On the other hand, subordinates with low status supervisors will pay less attention to their supervisor and the goals and objectives of the supervisor are not clear to them. Thus, subordinates may not clearly know what their supervisor’s creative expectations are and as a consequence show little creative performance. Hypothesis three is formulated as follows:

(10)

Methodology

Sample and setting

Data was collected at subordinate and supervisor level, where supervisors rated their employees on creativity and subordinates rated their perceptions of their supervisors’ creativity expectations, LMX and status. The data was collected by means of a paper-and-pencil questionnaire, separately distributed to both leaders and subordinates spread among different organizations (e.g., service and construction companies). All individuals were contacted by email, telephone or in person and were given information about the purpose and structure of the study. Because supervisors can only give a good judgment over a select group of employees, namely those who are in relatively close (psychological) proximity, a maximum of twenty subordinates per supervisors was allowed. Of the final sample of 142 respondents, 112 were subordinates working under 30 supervisors in 12 different organizations. Of the subordinates 57 were male, whereas 55 were female. Their age ranged from 20 to 60 years, resulting in a mean age of 35.7. Most held either a vocational (38.4%) or a bachelor degree (38.4%) and had an average work experience of 15 years and, an average tenure of 7.5 years at their current organization. Of the supervisors 19 were male and 11 were female. Their ages ranged from 23 to 60 with an average age of 39. Most held a bachelor degree (61.2%), had an average work experience of 18.7 years and, an average tenure at their current organization of 9.5 years. All participants are Dutch and employed in the Netherlands, in a variety of four industries of which the tertiary sector (Commercial Services Sector) was the most represented sector in our data set and no data came from the primary sector (Raw Material/Food Sector).

Measures

(11)

11 of the measure ‘Status’, where response possibilities ranged from ‘not at all’ to ‘highly’. A complete overview of the questionnaires can be found in Appendix A and B.

Creativity Subordinates. The subordinates’ creative performance is measured by using

the 9 item scale of Tierney, Farmer, & Graen (1999). The scale is a five-point scale ranging from 1, "strongly disagree" to 5, "strongly agree". Each employee was rated by one supervisor. Sample items include “This employee…demonstrated originality in his/her work”, and “This employee…found new uses for existing methods or equipment’s”. Cronbach’s Alpha is 0.87.

Perceived leader creative expectations. In order to assess the creative expectations of

the leaders, employees were asked to respond to a three item scale adapted from Tierney and Farmer (2004). One item example is: “I am encouraged by my supervisor to solve problems creatively.” Cronbach’s Alpha is 0.75.

LMX. To measure LMX, employees were asked to rate their relationship with their

leader on an 11-item scale developed by Liden and Maslyn (1998). Based on Liden and Maslyn’s (1998) study in which they provide support for a higher-order factor, we have used a combination of all items to measure employees’ perceptions of the quality of their relationship with their supervisor. Sample items are “I like my supervisor very much as a person”, “I respect my supervisor's knowledge and competence on the job”, and “My supervisor would come to my defense if I were ‘attacked’ by others”. Cronbach’s Alpha is 0.86.

Status. A 3-item scales of Chatman, Anderson, Beer, Srivastava, Spataro (2006) is used

to measure perceived status of the leader. The scales measured whether supervisors are seen as influential, prominent, and respected by their employees. A sample item is: “How influential is your supervisor at your work?” Response possibilities ranged from “not at all” to “highly”. Cronbach’s Alpha is 0.77.

Control variables

(12)

following variables. Educational level, reflecting task domain knowledge that could potentially influence creative performance (Amabile, 1988). This was measured on a 5-point scale (1 = primary school, 2 = college, 3 = secondary school, 4 = higher education, 5 = university). Also, age, gender, and years of working experience were included in the analysis as control variables. Age and gender represent individual characteristics that could potentially shape creative performance. Age was measured in years and gender was measured as a numeric variable (1 = man, 2 = female). Finally, work experience in years was included.

Results

The results of this study are obtained by conducting a variety of statistical analyses. The descriptives of the sample are given, followed by a reliability analysis and a discussion of the correlations. Next, the hypotheses are tested in the order they were presented. Finally, an overview of supported and rejected hypotheses summarizes this chapter.

To ensure that all constructs used are reliable, a Cronbach’s alpha reliability test was performed. All scales proved to be reliable, exceeding the minimum score of 0.7 necessary to state reliability (Santos, 1999). As a result, the mean scores of the various items on the scales were computed for further analysis. In order to gain an initial understanding of the relationships between the variables, Table 2 presents means, standard deviations, and internal consistency of the measures used.

(13)

13 significantly with the control variables education, tenure, and age but not with the dependent or independent variable. Finally, supervisor tenure appeared to significantly correlate with the independent factor. Indicating a possible linkage that the longer a supervisor has been working in a certain organization the more creative expectations he/she is believed to have. However, no variable correlated significantly with the dependent variable.

Table 2. Descriptives of Creativity Expectations, LMX, Status, and Employee Creativity (N = 112): Means, standard deviations, Cronbach’s alpha, and zero-order correlations of the constructs.

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 Age (supervisor) 39.46 11.65 - 2 Tenure (supervisor) 9.93 6.95 .10 - 3 Education (subordinate) 3.49 .88 .13 .11 - 4 Tenure (subordinate) 7.84 7.96 .44** .47** -.02 - 5 Creativity expectations 3.87 0.67 -.14 .26** -.10 -.06 (.75) 6 LMX 3.93 0.57 -.16 -.02 .27** -.07 .18 (.86) 7 Status 3.74 0.68 -.21* -.10 -.07 -.19* .18 .73** (.77) 8 Subordinate creative behaviour 3.30 0.64 -.16 -.09 .04 -.07 .13 .11 .13 (.87) Note. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01

Cronbach’s alpha (in correlation matrix diagonal).

(14)

and status were entered into the equation. So, the main effects of both the moderating and the independent variable were inserted (Model 2). Finally, in the third step, I entered the interaction term leaders’ creativity expectations and LMX and leader’s creativity expectations and status. Cross-product terms of standardized independent variables were computed in order to test for interaction effects (Model 3).

(15)

15 Table 3. Results Hierarchical Regression Analysis (N = 112)

Creativity 1 2 3A 3B 3 Model 1 Age (supervisor) -1.44 (.97) -1.39 (1.0) -1.39 (1.0) -1.44 (1.0) -1.44 (.97) Tenure (supervisor) .55 (1.0) .70 (1.0) .72 (1.0) .98 (1.0) 1.01 (1.01) Education (subordinate) .35 (.62) .54 (.64) .57 (.64) .35 (.62) .35 (.62) Tenure (subordinate) -.04 (.70) -.06 (.70) -.10 (.70) -.04 (.70) -.04 (.70) Model 2 Creativity expectations - .76 (.65) .88 (.66) .77 (.65) .75 (.65) LMX - .50 (.66) .38 (.67) - .37 (.95) Status - .44 (.65) - .28 (.65) .19 (.93) Model 3 A. Cr. Exp x LMX - - -.50 (.56) - .34 (.97) B. Cr. Exp x Status - - - -.85 (.62) -1.15 (1.09) R2 variables entered .03 .06 .07 ∆R2 variables entered .03 .02 .02 Note. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01

Standard Error of Measurement (in between the brackets)

Discussion and Conclusion

(16)

would be moderated by leader-member-exchange and status of the leader. Overall, this study does not provide strong evidence for these assumptions.

Summary of results

(17)

17 Results also did not support my hypothesis that leader creative role expectations will influence employee creative performance only when LMX is high, not when it is low. While I argued that high LMX causes leader expectations to be better perceived by employees due to increased attention, no stronger effects of leader creative role expectations were found in high LMX relationships, compared to low LMX relationships. Low LMX is characterized by a downward influence and a role-defined relation between leader and subordinate (Liden et. al, 1993), so perhaps supervisors expectations can be made more clear in such a relationship, because of the high influence a supervisor has over its subordinates.

Concerning the moderation hypothesis of status, the data does not provide significant support for the moderating effect of status on the relation between leader creative role expectations and employee creative performance. The data does not suggest that high status is a condition for leader creative role expectations to influence employee creative performance. This is a surprising result since leader high status is linked to higher influence (Anderson et. al, 2001). However, it appears that the effect of leader role expectations is dependent on the status difference between the leader and its subordinate (Bass, 1985; Jussim, 1986). In a study on the role expectations of a supervisor on individual creative behavior, the creative behavior of the engineers and scientists was not affected by their managers' role expectations compared to the creative behavior of the technicians. One explanation for the engineers' and scientists' apparent lack of receptivity to leader role expectations is their having status equality with the managers in this setting. So, an explanation for my findings might be that some subordinates had status equality with their supervisors, hence they were not influenced by their supervisor’s expectations and thus will the effect of those expectations on creative performance not depend on the status of the supervisor. Apparently, it can depend on the status difference between the supervisors and its subordinate.

Theoretical and practical implications

(18)

creative role expectations does not significantly relate to employee creative performance. This fact supports the view that employee creative performance encompasses more than leader creative role expectations (Liden & Graen, 1980; Crouch & Yetton, 1988; Amabile, 1996; George & Zhou, 2007). As such, this finding demands further clarification. However, the positive tendency by which leader creative role expectations might affect employee creative performance suggest that there may exist a direct relation between these two constructs. While I examined status and LMX as potential activators of subordinate creativity through leader creative role expectations, data did not support this reasoning. Furthermore, LMX and status on their own both seem to positively influence employee creativity as well. However, this relationship was also non-significant. Because the non-significant results may be caused by the size of the sample, these findings requires further investigation of these relations. Because previous research on The Pygmalion Effect mostly has focused on including mediators (Eden, 1984; Scott and Bruce, 1994; Tierney and Farmer, 2004) and neither of my moderators seemed to influence the relationship between creative role expectations and creative performance, perhaps this area of investigation is interesting to further research.

(19)

19

Limitations

Several respondents indicated that they felt they slightly uncomfortable filling in the questionnaire, because they did not want to let their supervisors down by giving them low ratings. Hence, my study may be subject to social desirability of answers. Although the method of gathering data guaranteed confidentiality, it is likely that to a certain extent, the data was affected by social desirability bias, due to the sensitivity of the provided information. For instance, employees might feel insecure about the public sharing of their data. In order to overcome such bias, a social desirability scale can be included in the questionnaire to control for the social desirability of the provided answers (e.g. the Marlowe-Crown Scale; Crowne & Marlow, 1960). Alternatively, the method of indirect questioning can be implemented (Fischer, 1993). As an example, asking followers whether they think others view the leader as ethical or sustainable might alleviate a possible resistance to express their opinions and attitudes about a sensitive topic. Lastly, respondents might feel more anonymous in online surveys and therefore the sole use of online surveys could be incorporated in order to overcome social desirability bias.

On a different note, the composition of the sample limits this research. First, no generalizing comments can be made across nations as the sample consistent solely of Dutch leaders and followers employed in the Netherlands. A cross-cultural study could provide universal insights in the proposed relations. Moreover, the study provided insights in the relation between leader creative role expectations and employee creative performance in three industries, thus overcoming the issues a homogenous sample might impose. However, a heterogeneous sample consisting of a variety of industries can bring unexplained variances into the data. To overcome this, it would be interesting to replicate the study within a single industry, or even company.

Next, the measures used in this study might restrict the current scope of the research. Although the measures were found to be internally consistent and extensively applied in research, the use of short scales (4-8 items per construct) can impose difficulties in establishing validity (Clark and Watson, 1995) and it could be questioned whether each measure used in the study reflects the best possible operationalization of the underlying construct.

(20)

broad scope of this research (including both LMX and status), but does not allow to draw conclusions on the change in time, how supervisor creative expectations might develop and influence employee’s performance in the future. A longitudinal study would allow for such interpretations and practitioners would benefit from the knowledge on how to systematically incorporate leader creative role expectations and employee creative performance in the organization.

Future research

This research provides fertile ground for future development of the theory on supervisor creative expectations and LMX and status. Future research should thus take up and further explore the key emergent themes of this study, specifically in the following areas.

As briefly mentioned in the section on limitations, supervisor creative expectations can be measured in a variety of ways and therefore requests additional research in developing the construct and empirically testing its influence processes. I recommend that future research incorporate different perspectives, empirically testing the further influence of supervisor creative expectations on employee creative performance.

Furthermore, the relationship between supervisor expectations and employee performance has been partly unraveled by other studies. However, not many have focused on creativity. As mentioned above in the discussion, it appears that there are many ways for leader creative expectations to influence employee creative performance. For instance, leader creative role expectations have been found to influence employee creative performance (Tierney & Farmer, 2004) but not in a direct way. This relationship is fuelled by the mediators; supervisor creativity-supportive behavior, employee view of creativity expectations, and creative self-efficacy.

(21)

21

Conclusion

The core of this study is framed around the hypothesis that supervisor creative expectations relates positively to employee creative performance and that there are factors moderating the relationship. This focus is specifically important as the understanding of how a leader enhances the employee’s outcomes can ultimately enhance performance.

Recently, creative performance has become increasingly important in businesses. Especially in times of crisis, supervisors expect their employees to solve problems in creative ways to overcome those dark times. Therefore, supervisors need to be able to enhance employee creative performance. Unfortunately, the data gave no direct solutions for this matter. It does provide a good foundation for further research on this subject. It appears that employee creative performance encompasses more than leader creative role expectations. Also, LMX and status on their own seem to positively influence employee creativity although not significantly. So, future research should focus on finding out what it is that enhances employee creative performance.

References

Amabile, T. M., 1988. A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In Staw, B. M. and Cummings, L. L., ed. Research in organizational behavior, Greenwich, p. 123–167.

Amabile, T. M,. Conti, R. Coon, H., Lazenby, J. and Herron, M., 1996. Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), p. 1154–1184.

(22)

Atwater, L. E., & Yammarino, F. J., 2006. Does self-other agreement on leadership perceptions moderate the validity of leadership and performance predictions?, Personnel Psychology, 45, (1), p. 141-164.

Barbuto, J. E., & Wheeler, D. W., 2006. Scale development and construct clarification of servant leadership. Faculty Publications: Agricultural Leadership, Education and Communication Department, University of Nebraska.

Basu, R., 1991. An empirical examination of leader-member exchange and transformational leadership as predictors of innovative behavior. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.

Blau, P. M., 1964. Exchange and power in social life. New York: John Wiley.

Berlew, D.E. and Hall, D.T., 1966. The socialization of managers: effects of expectations on performance'', Administrative Science Quarterly, p. 208.

Brown, M. E., Treviño, L. K., & Harrison, D., 2005. Ethical leadership: A social learning

perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human

Decision Processes, 97, pp. 117−134.

Carmeli, A. and Schaubroeck, J., 2007. The influence of leaders' and other referents' normative expectations on individual involvement in creative work. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, p. 35−48.

Chatman, J. A., Anderson, C., Beer, J. S., Srivastava, S. and Spataro, S. E., 2006. Knowing Your Place: Self-Perceptions of Status in Face-to-Face Groups. Journal of Personality &

Social Psychology, 91(6), p. 1094-1110.

(23)

23 Teams as Mediated by Work Characteristics, Social Exchanges, and Empowerment.

Academy of Management Journal, 46 (5), p. 591–607.

Clark, L. A., Watson, D., 1995. Constructing Validity: Basic Issues in Objective Scale Development. American Psychological Association, 7 (3), p. 309-319.

Crouch, A., & Yetton, P. (1988). Manager-subordinate dyads: Relationships among task and social contact, manager friendliness and subordinate performance in management groups.

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 41, 65-82.

Dulebohn, J. H., Bommer, W. H., Liden, R. C., Brouer, R. L. and Ferris, G. R., 2011. Meta- Analysis of Antecedents and Consequences of Leader-Member Exchange: Integrating the Past with an Eye toward the Future. Journal of Management. [Accessed at: 5 December 2011]

Eden, D., 1984. Self-Fulfilling Prophecy as a Management Tool: Harnessing Pygmalion.

Academy of Management Review, 9(1), p. 64-73.

Evan, W. M., and Zelditch, M., 1961. A laboratory experiment on bureaucratic authority. American Sociological Review, 26, p. 883-893.

Ford, C. M., 1996. A theory of individual creative action in multiple social domains. Academy

of Management Review, 21(4), p.1112–1142.

George J. M., and Zhou, J., 2007. Dual Tuning in a Supportive Context: Joint Contributions of Positive Mood, Negative Mood, and Supervisory Behaviors to Employee Creativity.

Academy of Management Journal, 50 (3), p. 605-622.

Golden, T. D., 2006. The role of relationships in understanding telecommuter satisfaction.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, p. 319-340.

(24)

Graen, G. and Scandura, T., 1987. Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. In Cummings, L.L and Staw, B. M. ed. Research in organizational behavior, Greenwich, p. 175-208.

Hudgins, B. B., and Smith, L. M., 1966. Group structure and productivity in problem-solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 5, p. 287-296.

Keltner, D., Anderson, C., Gruenfeld, D. H., 2003. Power, Approach, Inhibition. Psychological

Review, 110 (2), p. 265-284.

Le Blanc, P. M. & González-Romá. V. 2012. A team level investigation of the relationship between Leader–Member Exchange (LMX) differentiation, and commitment and performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 23, p. 534–544.

Liden, R. C. and Maslyn, J. M., 1998. Multidimensionality of leader–membership exchange: An empirical assessment through scale development. Journal of Management, 24, p. 43−72.

Liden, R. C., Sparrowe, R. T. and Wayne, S. J. 1997. Leader-member exchange theory: The past and potential for the future. In Ferris, G. R. ed. Research in personnel and human

resources management, Greenwich, p. 47-119.

Liden, C. R., Wayne, S. J, and Stilwell, D. 1993. A Longitudinal Study on the Early

Development of Leader-Member Exchanges. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, (4), p. 662-674.

Livingston, J. S., 1969. Pygmalion in management. Harvard Business Review, 47 (4), p. 81-89.

(25)

25 Oldham, G. R., 2003. Stimulating and supporting creativity in organizations. In Jackson, S.

E., Hitt, M. A. and DeNisi, A. S. ed. Managing knowledge for sustained competitive

advantage, San Francisco, p.243–273.

Poornima, S. C. and Chakraborty, D., 2010. The dynamics of Pygmalion effect in organizations.

IUP Journal of Soft Skills, 4 (1/2), p. 49-56.

Ratcliff, N. J., Hugenberg, K., Shriver, E. R., and Bernstein, M. J., 2011. The Allure of Status: High-Status Targets Are Privileged in Face Processing and Memory. Personality and

Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(8), p. 1003–1015.

Sauer, J. S., 2011. Taking the Reins: The Effects of New Leader Status and Leadership Style on Team Performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96 (3), p. 574-587.

Scott, S. G. and Bruce, R. A., 1994. Determinants of innovative behavior: a path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37 (3), p. 580-607.

Strodtbeck, F. L., James, R. M., and Hawkins, C., 1957. Social Status in Jury Deliberations.

American Sociological Review, 22 (6), p. 713-719.

Tierney, P., 1998. The role of the Pygmalion effect in subordinate creativity. Paper presented at

the meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Dallas, TX.

Tierney, P., Farmer, S. M. and Graen, G. B., 1999. An examination of leadership and employee creativity: The relevance of traits and relations. Personnel Psychology, 52, p.

591−620.

Tierney, P. and Famer S. M., 2004. The Pygmalion Process and Employee Creativity. Journal of

(26)

Truckenbrodt, Y. B., 2001. An empirical assessment of the relationship between leader-member exchange and organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior.

Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences 61,

(27)

27

Appendix A

Leader questionnaire

Creativity ratings (Tierney, Farmer, & Graen, 1999); 9-items per employee

This employee…

1. …Demonstrated originality in his/her work

2. …Took risks in terms of producing new ideas in doing his/her job 3. …Found new uses for existing methods or equipments

4. …Solved problems that had caused others difficulties 5. …Tried out new ideas and approaches to problems 6. …Identified opportunities for new processes

7. …Generated novel, but operable work-related ideas 8. …Served as a good role model for creativity

9. …Generated ideas revolutionary to our field

Appendix B

Employee questionnaire

Employee View of Creativity Expectations (Tierney & Farmer, 2004); 3 items

1. My supervisor expects that I will do creative work. 2. Creativity is required by my supervisor in my daily work. 3. I am encouraged by my supervisor to solve problems creatively.

LMX (Liden & Maslyn, 1998); 11-items

1. I like my supervisor very much as a person (affect)

(28)

3. My supervisor is a lot of fun to work with (affect)

4. My supervisor defends my work actions to a superior, even without complete knowledge of the issue in question (loyalty)

5. My supervisor would come to my defense if I were “attacked” by others (loyalty)

6. My supervisor would defend me to others in the organization if I made an honest mistake (loyalty)

7. I do work for my supervisor that goes beyond what is specified in my job description (contribution)

8. I am willing to apply extra efforts, beyond those formally required to further the interest of my supervisor (contribution)

9. I am impressed with my supervisor’s knowledge of his/her job (professional respect) 10. I respect my supervisor’s knowledge of and competence on the job (professional respect) 11. I admire my supervisor’s professional skills (professional respect)

Status of supervisor (Anderson, Srivastava, Beer, Sparato, & Chatman, 2006); 3-items

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

I will evaluate the model in three situations: (1) discovering relations that are expressed by prepositions, (2) the performace of the decoder when using prepositions to

In the sound-present condition, participants were able to detect the motion direction change (mean accuracy 79%) among on average 7.7 objects.. In the sound-absent condi- tion,

Hypothesis 3: Disclosing information concerning economic justification will positively influence the willingness to pay, compared to providing only information

Hypothesis 5b stated that the negative relationship between subordinate creative input and leader image threat appraisals is moderated by leader interdependent self-construal, such

The hypothesis is that personality similarity between follower and leader is positively related to LMX and that there is a positive relationship between group identification and

Therefore, under high workload employees are less likely to show citizenship behavior as a result of high LMX relationships, because these employees do not have the mental or

In this thesis, I hypothesize that an interpersonal regulatory fit between a supervisor and subordinate leads subordinates to perceive a higher leader-member exchange (LMX), which

It is found that CSE is positively related to intrinsic motivation and identified regulation (high autonomy motivations), and that CSE is negatively related to external regulation