CREATIVE IDEA ADOPTION INFLUENCED BY THE LEADER’S PERCEPTION OF LIKING THE SUBORDINATE
Master thesis, MscHRM, University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business February 4, 2018 CAROLIEN EEFTING Studentnumber: S2542048 Donderslaan 94 9728 KT Groningen tel.: +31 (0) 6 2674 9072 e-mail: c.r.eefting@student.rug.nl Supervisor/ university T. Vriend
CREATIVE IDEA ADOPTION INFLUENCED BY THE LEADER’S PERCEPTION OF LIKING THE SUBORDINATE
ABSTRACT
Creativity is important for organizations in order to adapt to the environment, and thus to survive. Often subordinates voice creative ideas to their leaders. However, leaders do not always adopt these ideas. Existing literature has not properly investigated why this is the case. However, studies show that (meta-)perceptions have influence on behaviours of leaders. This paper investigated whether leaders (meta-)perceptions of liking, induce eagerness or vigilance within the leader, after which the leader may adopt a creative idea or not. The hypotheses were tested with sample size of 187 (meta-)perceptions of leaders, with correlation analyses, regression analyses, and PROCESS-tests. It was found that only a meta-perception predicts for eagerness, and only vigilance predicts for idea adoption. Furthermore, it was found that liking by the leader, and subordinate creativity as perceived by the leader were strong predictors of idea adoption.
Employee creativity is defined as employees generating creative ideas in order to improve the current situation at work (Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby, & Herron, 1996). It is important, because it represents innovation, and adaptability which are important factors for the performance and survival of organizations (Amabile, 1988; Andriopoulos, 2001; Kanter, 1983). In this study idea adoption is represented as being a creative idea, voiced by a subordinate to a leader, whom may or may not adopt the creative idea. But before idea adoption can take place, the idea needs to be generated.
Often creative ideas are generated by individuals, such as team members (Amabile et al., 1996). But when an idea is generated, the individual needs to voice the idea to the team leader in order to start the process of idea adoption (Damanpour & Schneider, 2006), because in between the idea adoption and voicing the idea, stands the leader who has to make the decision whether or not the idea is going to be adopted (Dewar & Dutton, 1986). Making the leader a key factor in the process of idea adoption.
Previous studies show that leaders are not always objective when they assess performance (Atwater & Yammarino, 1992). They got themselves led by irrelevant issues, which may be a reason for idea adoption not being objectively assessed as well. For instance, the perceived relationship with their subordinates (Varma, Denisi, & Peters, 1996), or how leaders think their subordinates perceive the relationship (Grutterink, 2013) are factors interfering with objectivity. One factor of relationship perceptions that leaders find important, is the degree to which they perceive themselves as being liked by their subordinates (Baumeister, 1982; Grutterink, 2013; Leary, 2007; Schlenkler, 1980; Wayne & Ferris 1990). Another factor is the leader liking the subordinate (Dienesch & Liden, 1986). These two kinds of perceptions of liking may interfere with the objectivity of the idea adoption process.
Liking can be seen from the leader perspective and from the subordinate perspective (Atwater & Yammarino, 1997; Bernerth, Armenakis, Field, Giles, & Walker 2008; Gogliser, Schriesheim, Scandura, Gardner, 2009). However, in this study only the perceptions of the leader are important, as this paper will investigate the feelings and behaviours of the leader, and only the perceptions of the leader can influence the leader’s own behaviour. This, because the perception of someone is the only reality one knows, and thus the only thing one can react to (Powers, 1973). Thus, the perception of the subordinate has no influence on the behaviour of the leader, and therefore is not examined in this study.
perceptions may bias the motive a leader has, and therefore the leader may not act in favour of the business. In other words; the leader could (unconsciously) choose to adopt an idea or not, based on the perception of the relationship with the subordinate.
These motives could be explained through the theory of regulatory focus (Higgins, 1997). Within this theory it is assumed that a person is in a certain state, which (s)he would like to keep or like to change, depending on the desired end-state. A desired end-state could be that a person wants to like another person, because liking is an important determinant of a high quality relationship (Dienesch & Liden, 1986), and everyone wants a good relationship (Sparrow & liden, 1997). Also, people want to be liked by other people (Baumeister, 1982; Wayne & Ferris, 1990; Schlenkler, 1980), so this may be a desired end-state as well. When this desired state is already there, a threat of losing this state could induce a prevention focus making the person vigilant to prevent the current state from changing. Meaning that positive (meta-)perceptions could be related to the vigilance of the person. On the other hand, when the current state is not desired, the person can get a promotion focus, and eager to change the state of being to a more positive one. This could mean that negative (meta-)perceptions are related to the eagerness of the person.
There is not much literature concerning these motives which a leader might have, to adopt an idea or not. There is no literature at all on the relationship between the (meta-)perceptions, eagerness or vigilance, and the adoption of an idea as a regulatory tactic. Therefore, this paper will contribute to the literature by investigating whether leaders reject or adopt good ideas from subordinates, due to the (meta-)perceptions of the leader about liking the subordinate. Practically, this study contributes by giving new insights to leaders, and their supervisors as well. When good ideas are not adopted, leaders and their supervisors could consider what kind of desired end-state the leader had and look at this state. In addition, they could look at the motives behind the state to figure out why an idea is not being adopted, even if it was a good idea. These new insights may therefore give solutions to the problem of not adopting good ideas, after which more good ideas can be adopted, benefitting organizations.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND HYPOTHESES
Regulatory Focus
This study will frame the explanation of the the alternative motives a leader has to adopt an idea or not, in the context of the regulatory focus theory. This because, regulatory foci are likely to stem from these motives, see following section. Between the motive and idea adoption, a motivational strategy is needed within the leader which makes the leader to adopt the idea or not. These motivational strategies could either be eagerness or vigilance, as explained below.
Liking and Meta-Perceptions of Liking
Liking. Liking is a degree of interpersonal attraction, where someone can either like or dislike another (Liden, Wayne & Stillwell, 1993). Liking is an important determinant of a high quality leader-member relationship (Duhlebohn, Bommer, Liden, Brouer & Ferris 2012; Liden, Wayne & Stilwell, 1993; Wayne & Ferris, 1990), because people gravitate towards people they like (Murphy & Ensher, 1999). High quality relationships have positive outcomes for the leader (Liden, Sparrow & Wayne, 1997; Liden & Maslyn 1998), which indicates the importance of high quality relationships, and thus the importance of liking.
This relationship establishes through both the leader and the subordinate developing their roles towards each other (Dienesch & Liden, 1986; Graen & Cashman, 1975; Graen, Novak, & Sommerkamp, 1982; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). And when the leader has the impression that the relationship is low quality, the leader might want to improve the relationship (Dienesch & Liden, 1986; Liden et al, 1997). This seems very likely, because it has been stated that over time everyone wants a high quality relationship (Sparrow & liden, 1997). On the other hand, when the leader has the impression that the relationship is of high quality, the leader may show behaviour that protects the relationship as it is (Bolino & Turnley, 1999; Foulk & Long, 2016). Since liking is a very important determinant of a high quality relationship, it seems likely that a leader associates the liking of a subordinate or being liked by the subordinate with a high quality relationship. Accordingly, not liking the subordinate or not being liked by the subordinate, may give the impression of a bad relationship. Therefore, liking might be a motive to improve or to maintain a relationship.
perception of the subordinate does matter, because this second perception may induce certain behaviours or feelings (Grutterink, 2013). It has been determined that people want to be liked by other people (Baumeister, 1982; Grutterink, 2013; Leary, 2007; Schlenkler, 1980; Wayne & Ferris 1990), and people act in accordance to this meta-perception of whether they are liked or not through their behaviour (Grutterink, 2013; Powers, 1973). For instance, when people have the impression they are not liked by others, people incline to show behaviour that improves the perception of the others (Baumeister, 1982; Wayne & Ferris, 1990; Schlenkler, 1980). Or, when they have the impression they are liked by other people, they are inclined to show behaviour to maintain this perception (Bolino & Turnley, 1999; Foulk & Long, 2016; Grutterink, 2013). An example of this behaviour is impression management, where people try to influence others in order to make others to like them (Leary & Kowalski, 1990). So, a meta-perception of liking, can also be a motive for a leader to behave in a certain way. What happens when the perceptions and meta-perceptions of liking are combined, will be explained in the following sections. Combined Perceptions
FIGURE 1
Combinations of Leader Perceptions
Leader’s meta-perception of subordinate liking leader
Subordinate likes leader Subordinate does not like leader
Leader liking subordinate
Yes Very vigilant to keep balance (tool needed)
Less vigilant to keep balance (tool needed)
No Less eager to change
balance (no tool needed)
Very eager to change balance (tool needed)
Influences of perceptions of liking on vigilance, and eagerness. As stated above, liking is an important determinant of a good relationship (Duhlebohn, et al., 2012; Liden, Wayne & Stilwell, 1993; Wayne & Ferris, 1990). When the leader likes the subordinate, being liking at the top of what it can be, it seems likely that the leader gets a prevention focus to maintain this (Scheepers, Ellemers, Sassenberg, 2013). In this case, the leader will try to prevent the good relationship for changing for the worse, by being vigilant. Therefore, the leader might want to keep liking the subordinate, and the leader may get vigilant to keep this perception. On the other hand, when the leader has a perception of not liking the subordinate, the leader may associate this with a bad relationship, as explained above. And since everyone wants to have good relationships (Sparrow & liden, 1997), it seems likely that the leader gets eager to change this perception of not liking the subordinate (Faddegon, Ellemers & Scheepers, 2009). In this case, the leader has a promotion focus. Thus, a perception of not liking the subordinate induces a perception of a bad relationship, which can be improved by altering the perception of the leader of liking the subordinate. The leader thus will try to alter the perception of liking the subordinate, in order to improve the relationship. Hence the following hypotheses:
Influences of meta-perceptions of liking on vigilance, and eagerness. When besides the positive perception of the leader liking the subordinate, the leader’s meta-perception of liking is also positive, the prevention focus can become even stronger, because according to meta-perception literature people want to be liked (Grutterink, 2013; Baumeister, 1982; Leary, 2007; Wayne & Ferris, 1990), so the leader probably wants to ensure that the positive meta-perception keeps existing. The leader now perceives both perceptions as positive, which can only get worse. Therefore, the leader may get even more vigilant (Faddegon, Ellemers, Scheepers, 2009). On the other hand, when the leader perceives a negative meta-perception of liking, the prevention focus will not be as strong. Thus, the leader will not be as vigilant, as when both perceptions are positive. Hence, the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2a:The positive relationship between Leader Liking Subordinate and Vigilance becomes stronger when Leaders Meta-Perception of Subordinate Liking Leader are high.
Hypothesis 2b:The negative relationship between Leader Liking Subordinate and Eagerness becomes stronger when Leaders Meta-Perception of Subordinate Liking Leader are low.
All motives for a promotion or a prevention focus have been described now in terms of positive or negative (meta-)perceptions of liking of the leader. These motives induce a motivational strategy of eagerness or vigilance, but to act upon a strategy a form of action is needed to implement these strategies. This study proposes that Idea Adoption can act as this tool, and below it is explained how.
Idea Adoption
Idea adoption. In companies creative ideas are adopted, because they can lead to innovation, which is beneficial for the sustainability of the company (Amabile, 1988; Andriopoulos, 2001; Kanter, 1983). Idea adoption is a process of three stages (Damanpour & Schneider, 2006; Amabile, 1996); 1) Initiation; an idea is being voiced by a subordinate who thinks the idea is suitable for business, 2) Adoption decision; evaluate the idea, deciding to adopt or not, and allocating resources to adopt (in this study this is done by the leader), 3) Implementation; preparing the organization for the use of the idea, and acceptance by its users. The focus of the current study lies on the second stage of adoption, since this study aims to find alternative motives for a leader to decide (not) to adopt the idea. Which is necessary for the third stage, and to pass it on the higher levels of the organization (Amabile, Schatzel, Moneta, & Kramer, 2004).
need leadership expertise to be able to handle creative employees, and when the leader is not able to handle these employees, the idea is likely not adopted (Mumford, Scott, Gaddis, & Strange, 2002). Two different motives for the adoption of an idea. Besides, Sijbom, Janssen, & Van Yperen (2015) shed a bit of light on this problem, and found that leaders with a mastery goal are more likely to adopt good ideas, and leaders with a performance goal are less likely to adopt ideas. All different motives.
Idea adoption as a relationship tool. When the opposed idea is valued and adopted by the leader, the subordinate could perceive this as work practice recognition (Brun & Dugas, 2008). Everyone wants to be recognized by their supervisor (Brun, 1999), and this kind of recognition could enhance the quality of the relationship (Brun & Dugas, 2008). Thus when an idea is adopted, the subordinate could feel recognized by the leader, enhancing the relationship, enhancing the liking part as well. This might give the leader the idea that idea adoption might be a tool for relationship improvement. Therefore, I propose that idea adoption might be used as a tool by the leader. Either to maintain a good relationship, or to improve a bad relationship (in the perception of the leader), improving the leader’s (meta-)perceptions of liking as well.
Grutterink, 2013). Therefore, the leader may take action (Galinsky, Gruenfeld & Magee, 2003) to make sure the positive perception is preserved, and this study proposes that the leader will use idea adoption as a tool to do so. Idea adoption will show the subordinate that the leader recognizes the subordinate (Brun & Dugas, 2008), and for that reason the leader enhances the relationship. And therefore maintains this balance of perceptions. Concluding that the balance of perceptions in the first quadrant is maintained by the very vigilant leader through the use of the tool idea adoption. For the second quadrant, the leader might be less vigilant, as mentioned above. And when the leader is less vigilant to prevent the current relationship from changing, the leader might use idea adoption not as much as when both perceptions are positive.
In the third quadrant, the eagerness within the leader to change the perceptions is less than in the fourth quadrant, because the combination of perceptions is not as bad as in the fourth quadrant. As stated before, the leader does not need a tool to change the perception of liking the subordinate, the leader can simply think more positive, without a tool. That is why the third quadrant contains ‘no tool needed’. However, the fourth quadrant contains a combination of the perceptions, both being negative. As explained before, this should lead to a very strong promotion focus, and therefore to a high level of eagerness within the leader. To act upon this eagerness to improve the balance of perceptions, a tool is needed to change the meta-perception of being liked by the subordinate (the perception of liking the subordinate can be changed without a tool).
Regarding the previous sections, this study proposes that idea adoption is used by leaders to act upon the state of being eager to change (meta-)perceptions of liking, or vigilant to maintain (meta-)perceptions of liking. Hence, the following two hypotheses:
Hypothesis 3a: Eagerness has a positive effect on Idea Adoption.
All hypotheses are presented below in a conceptual model in figure 2, and combined they represent two different moderated mediations.
METHOD
Procedures and Sample
To study the aforementioned hypotheses, a field study was held by handing out questionnaires to leaders, who were part of a team of a maximum of 5 team members. Data was collected for a collective database for more studies, which had the constraint that only whole teams were adopted in the database. A total of 54 teams and their leaders were recruited, from companies within different sectors in the Netherlands. All leaders participated voluntarily. On beforehand, the participants were informed about the study purposes, and they could ask questions before filling it in. They also were informed about the duration (20 to 30 minutes) and a global indication of the contents were given. The leaders had three weeks to fill in the questionnaires. They could, at any time, quit the questionnaire. In order to prevent being biased, the questions about the leaders meta-perception of the subordinate liking the leader were asked after the questions about the own perception of the leader liking the subordinate. Leaders were asked the set of questions about several of their subordinates, so there were repeated measurements of the same leader. This is a strength of the design of this study, since the leader now is a constant factor and the leader’s (meta-)perceptions are the variable factors. Thus the differences in these (meta-)perceptions, followed by the regulatory foci, are easier to measure this way.
Measures
Leaders Perception of Liking Subordinate. Leaders Perception of Liking Subordinate was measured by four items, adapted from Wayne & Ferris (1990). Liden et al. (1993), and Foulk and Long (2016) used these items also in their study. The items are: (a) “I like this subordinate.”; (b) “I get along well with this subordinate.”; (c) “Supervising this subordinate is a pleasure.”; and (d) “I think this subordinate would make a good friend.”. All items are measured on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The Cronbach’s alpha for this four-item scale was 0.83, therefore this measure is reliable.
Leaders Meta-Perception of Subordinate Liking Leader. Since the meta-perception in this study entails the same liking aspect as the first perception, the questions from Wayne & Ferris (1990) have been used to measure the variable leaders meta-perception of subordinate liking leader. Only the questions were transformed in a way that they fit this variable: (a) “This subordinate likes me.”; (b) “This subordinate gets along well with me.”; (c) “This subordinate likes to be supervised by me.”; and (d) “This subordinate thinks I could be a good friend.”. All items were measured on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). It was taken into account in the questionnaire, when measuring the perceptions, both perceptions concerned the same subordinate. The Cronbach’s alpha for this four-item scale was 0.84, therefore this measure is reliable.
this measure is reliable. And 3 items represent Vigilance, being: (d) “To maintain the relationship with my subordinate, I am concerned with making mistakes.”; (e) “To maintain the relationship with my subordinate, I am cautious about going down the wrong road.”; (f) “To maintain the relationship with my subordinate, I am vigilant and play it safe.”. All items were measured on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The Cronbach’s alpha for this three-item scale was 0.90, therefore this measure is reliable.
Idea Adoption. Idea adoption was measured by three items, adopted from De Dreu, Evers, Beersma, Kluwer & Nauta (2001): (a) “I concurred with the creative ideas of my subordinate.”; (b) “I sacrificed my own ideas in favour of my subordinate’s creative ideas.”; and (c) “I went along with my subordinate’s creative idea.”, the items were measured on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The Cronbach’s alpha for this three-item scale was 0.77, therefore this measure is reliable.
Control Variables. Six control variables were used Gender, Age, Education, Team Tenure, Leader Tenure and Subordinate Creativity. Gender scale; 1 (male) and 2 (female). Education scale; 1 (pre-school) to 6 (PhD). Subordinate Creativity was measured by three items, adopted from Tierney, Farmer & Graen (1999): (a) “My subordinate shows originality in his/her work.”; (b) “My subordinate generates new, but workable ideas.”; (c) “My subordinate finds new ways to handle work-related problems.” , the items were measured on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The Cronbach’s alpha for this three-item scale was 0.89, therefore this measure is reliable. Age, Team Tenure, and Leader Tenure were all measured in years.
Data Analysis
RESULTS
Table 1 displays the descriptive statistics and correlations for all variables. As expected, there was a positive relationship between Idea Adoption and Eagerness (r = .22, p < .01). There was not a significant relationship between Idea adoption and Vigilance. There was a positive relationship between Leader Liking Subordinate and Eagerness (r = .36, p < .01), which was the opposite of what was expected. Leader Liking subordinate and Vigilance had no significant relationship. Also, Leader Liking subordinate did have a positive relationship with Idea Adoption (r = .51, p < .01), and so did Leader Meta-Perception with Idea Adoption (r = .34, p < .01). Furthermore, Leader Meta-Perception is positively correlated with Eagerness (r = .39, p < .01), the control variable Subordinate Creativity is strongly positively correlated to Idea Adoption (r = .64, p < .01), and Leader Liking Subordinate and Leader’s Meta-Perception are positively correlating (r = .79, p < .01).
TABLE 1
Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations
Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1. Gender 1.36 .48 2. Age a 41.23 12.18 .07 3. Education 4.13 .65 .02 -.32** 4. Team Tenure a 5.31 5.79 -.31** .22** .18* 5. Leader Tenure a 4.04 4.69 -.26** .22** .12 .78** 6. Subordinate Creativity 3.66 .82 .15* .07 .06 .10 .04 7. Leader Liking Subordinate 4.13 .69 -.02 -.18* .03 -.01 -.05 .39** 8. Leader’s Meta-Perception 3.80 .66 -.18* -.21** .05 -.05 -.11 .22** .79** 9. Eagerness 3.27 .90 -.09 -.14 -.13 .10 .05 .20** .36** .39** 10. Vigilance 2.06 .85 -.23** -.19** .06 .22** .26** -.01 -.10 -.13 .19** 11. Idea Adoption 3.52 .65 .19** -.08 .16* .01 .00 .64** .51** .34** .22** .07
Notes. N = 187. a In years. Cronbach’s Alpha’s between parentheses on the diagonal. † p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01.
Subordinate and Leader Meta-Perception were added. The hypotheses were tested as two separate moderated mediations, whereby the mediator differed as Eagerness (Table 2) of Vigilance (Table 3). This was done using PROCESS, model 7 for both moderated mediations. The conceptual model has also been tested as a whole where the two mediators were tested together (Table 4), also with PROCESS model 7.
Hypothesis 1a stated that Leader Liking Subordinate was negatively related to Eagerness. Table 1, shows that there was a positive correlation (r = .36, p < .01). Table 2, however, shows that Leader Liking Subordinate does not predict Eagerness, because it is not significant (model C: β = 0.06, p > .05). Therefore, hypothesis 1a is not supported.
Hypothesis 1b stated that Leader Liking Subordinate was positively related to Vigilance. Table 1 shows a negative insignificant correlation (r = -.10, p > .05), and Table 3 also displays that Leader Liking Subordinate does not predict Vigilance (model H: β = -0.04, p > .05), therefore, hypothesis 1b is not supported.
Hypothesis 2a stated that Leader Meta-Perception positively moderated the positive relationship between Leader Liking Subordinate and Vigilance. Table 3 shows that there is no moderation, because there is no interaction (model H: β = -0.05, p > .05). Therefore, hypothesis 2b is also not supported.
Hypothesis 2b stated that Leader Meta-Perception negatively moderated the negative relationship between Leader Liking Subordinate and Eagerness. Table 2 shows that there is no moderation, because there is no significant interaction (model C: β = 0.08, p > .05). Therefore, hypothesis 2a is not supported.
In addition, Table 2 also shows that there is no mediation, because Leader Liking Subordinate on its own significantly predicts Idea Adoption (model E: β = 0.30, p < .001), and Leader Liking Subordinate does not predict Eagerness (model C: β = 0.06, p > .05).
Hypothesis 3b stated that Vigilance is positively related to Idea Adoption, Table 1 shows that there is no significant correlation (r = .07, p > .05). However, Table 3 shows that Vigilance does predict Idea Adoption (model J: β = 0.14, p < .05), hypothesis 3b is supported. Furthermore, Table 3 shows that there is no mediation, because Leader Liking Subordinate is a stronger predictor of Idea Adoption (model J: β = 0.34, p < .001), than Vigilance (model J: β = 0.14, p < .05), and Leader Liking Subordinate does not predict Vigilance (model H: β = -0.04, p > .05).
TABLE 2
Regression Analyses Moderated Mediation with Eagerness On Idea Adoption
Eagerness Idea Adoption
Model A Model B Model C Model D Model E
Intercept 0.00(0.07) 0.00(0.07) -0.06(0.09) 0.00(0.06) 0.00(0.05) Gender -0.04(0.08) 0.04(0.07) 0.04(0.07) 0.09(0.06) 0.12(0.06) Age -0.28(0.08)** -0.21(0.08)** -0.21(0.09)* -0.09(0.06) -0.02(0.07) Education -0.26(0.08)** -0.26(0.07)*** -0.26(0.08)*** 0.10(0.06) 0.12(0.06)* Team Tenure 0.19(0.12) 0.18(0.11) 0.19(0.10) -0.07(0.09) -0.08(0.11) Leader Tenure -0.02(0.11) 0.03(0.10) 0.02(0.11) 0.06(0.09) 0.08(0.09) Subordinate Creativity 0.22(0.07)** 0.12(0.07) 0.13(0.08) 0.64(0.06)*** 0.50(0.08)***
Leader Liking Subordinate 0.01(0.12) 0.06(0.14) 0.30(0.07)***
Leader’s Meta-Perception 0.34(0.11)** 0.30(0.13)*
Interaction 0.08(0.07)
Eagerness 0.04(0.06)
R2 0.14 0.24 0.25 0.45 0.53
ΔR2 0.10 0.01 0.08
Conditional Indirect Effects
-1 SD (Leader’s Meta-Perception) 0.00(0.01)
+1 SD (Leader’s Meta-Perception) 0.01(0.01)
TABLE 3
Regression Analyses Moderated Mediation with Vigilance On Idea Adoption
Vigilance Idea Adoption
Model F Model G Model H Model I Model J
Intercept 0.00(0.07) 0.00(0.07) 0.04(0.08) 0.00(0.06) 0.00(0.05) Gender -0.14(0.08) -0.19(0.08)* -0.19(0.08)* 0.09(0.06) 0.14(0.06)* Age -0.27(0.08)** -0.31(0.08)*** -0.31(0.08)*** -0.09(0.06) 0.02(0.07) Education -0.06(0.08) -0.06(0.08) -0.07(0.08) 0.10(0.06) 0.12(0.06)* Team Tenure 0.06(0.12) 0.07(0.11) 0.06(0.07) -0.07(0.09) -0.08(0.10) Leader Tenure 0.24(0.11)* 0.21(0.11) 0.21(0.08)*** 0.06(0.09) 0.04(0.09) Subordinate Creativity 0.01(0.07) 0.08(0.08) 0.07(0.09) 0.64(0.06)*** 0.49(0.08)***
Leader Liking Subordinate -0.01(0.12) -0.04(0.12) 0.34(0.07)***
Leader’s Meta-Perception -0.21(0.12) -0.16(0.12)
Interaction -0.05(0.07)
Vigilance 0.14(0.06)*
R2 0.16 0.20 0.20 0.45 0.54
ΔR2 0.04 0.00 0.09
Conditional Indirect Effects
-1 SD (Leader’s Meta-Perception) 0.00(0.02)
+1 SD (Leader’s Meta-Perception) -0.01(0.02)
25
TABLE 4
Regression Analyses On Whole Conceptual Model
Eagerness Vigilance Idea Adoption
Model K Model L Model M
Intercept -0.06(0.09) 0.04(0.08) 0.00(0.05) Gender 0.04(0.07) -0.19(0.08)* 0.14(0.06)* Age -0.21(0.09)* -0.31(0.08)*** 0.02(0.07) Education -0.26(0.08)** -0.07(0.08) 0.13(0.06)* Team Tenure 0.19(0.10) 0.06(0.07) -0.09(0.11) Leader Tenure 0.02(0.11) 0.21(0.08)** 0.04(0.09) Subordinate Creativity 0.13(0.08) 0.07(0.09) 0.49(0.08)***
Leader Liking Subordinate 0.06(0.14) -0.04(0.12) 0.33(0.08)*** Leader’s Meta-Perception 0.31(0.13)* -0.19(0.12) Interaction 0.08(0.07) -0.05(0.07) Eagerness Vigilance 0.02(0.07) 0.14(0.07)* R2 0.25 0.20 0.54 ΔR2 0.34
Conditional Indirect Effects -1 SD (Leader’s Meta-Perception) +1 SD (Leader’s Meta-Perception) 0.00(0.01) 0.00(0.01) -1 SD (Leader’s Meta-Perception) +1 SD (Leader’s Meta-Perception) 0.00(0.02) -0.01(0.02)
26
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this paper was to investigate whether the combination of (meta-)perceptions of leaders have influence on the decision to adopt a creative idea by a subordinate or not. This was done by examining whether each of the four perception combinations had an effect on the regulatory focus of the leader, after which eagerness or vigilance determined whether it leads to the adoption of an idea or not. All variables were measured on an individual level, all being perceptions of the leader.
The results show that the combination of perceptions do not predict whether a leader becomes eager or vigilant, because there are no interactions between the perceptions for a moderating effect. It might be that a leader liking the subordinate and the leader’s meta-perception of the subordinate liking the leader are two separate concepts counting for separate outcomes. As elaborated in the following section.
27
(Sparrow & liden, 1997). And therefore it seems likely that the leader’s meta-perception of being liked by the subordinate, and eagerness are positively correlated. Because, within this state of eagerness, a better relationship is aimed for, and liking is an important determinant of a high-quality relationship (Dienesch & Liden, 1986; Duhlebohn, Bommer, Liden, Brouer, & Ferris 2012; Liden, Wayne, & Stilwell, 1993; Schriesheim et al., 1999; Turban, Jones, & Rozelle 1990; Wayne & Ferris, 1990), so that way eagerness and the leader’s meta-perception can be linked to each other. Besides, people who are eager do take chances where possible to get to a desired state (Higgins, 1997). Only this current study shows, that a desired end-state (positive meta-perception), not necessarily means that eagerness is excluded. This might explain why vigilance is not predicted by the leader’s meta-perception, as well. If it is the case that a leader will always be eager to improve the current state despite the presence of a ‘desired’ end-state, it seems logical that vigilance within the leader will not occur. Or, it could be that a desired end-state will never be perceived as one-hundred percent desired, so even when there is a minimal chance of improvement, eagerness for improvement will occur.
Interestingly, eagerness does not predict whether the leader adopts an idea or not. So, when being eager to change the current meta-perception, idea adoption is probably not used, or perceived, as a tool to improve the relationship as described above. On the contrary, vigilance does predict idea adoption. It could be argued that the perceived threat of losing a good relationship, might be a stronger motive to use idea adoption, than the perceived chance of improving the current relationship. However, because vigilance is not predicted by the perceptions of a leader concerning liking, another motive might account for the leader being vigilant, after which idea adoption is used to protect the current relationship. This might be a good subject for future research.
28
significant and of volume. This implies that it really does matter if the leader likes the subordinate in the consideration of adopting the idea. This is interesting, because neither eagerness nor vigilance mediate the relationship between leader liking subordinate and idea adoption. It could very well be that there is a direct connection, another interesting subject for future research.
Another finding is that subordinate creativity is the most strong predictor of idea adoption. Maybe when a subordinate shows to be very creative, a leader then perceives the subordinate as being original, which is a factor within the evaluation process of ideas to decide whether or not to adopt the idea (Mumford, 2000). However, the subordinate does have to be able to express its creativity to the leader, in order to show this originality (Mumford & Gustafson, 1988). Thus, besides being liked by the leader, the ability to be creative counts as well when a creative idea is considered to be adopted by the leader. And since this predictor is stronger than the leader liking the subordinate, creative employees still stand a chance against the favoured employees. This should be good news for some less liked employees.
29
Implications
The primary theoretical contribution of this study is that for a leader to like a subordinate is strongly related to whether the leader adopts a creative idea voiced by the subordinate. Secondly, it is confirmed that subordinate creativity also is of great influence when a leader decides to adopt an idea or not. These two have proven to be determinants of creative idea adoption by a team leader, and therefore extend the existing literature on this subject. Furthermore, it is found that vigilance predicts idea adoption as well, which also has not been studied yet. However the motive behind this prevention focus is not clear, so this leaves a research question for following studies. Lastly, it seems that a positive meta-perception of the leader concerning that the leader is liked by the subordinate does not exclude eagerness, even though a positive meta-perception can be considered a desired end-state. It contributes to the regulatory focus theory by stating that a desired end-state does not necessarily accounts for vigilance.
A practical implication for leaders is that when they consider to adopt an idea or not from a subordinate, they could think about whether they rely too heavily on the perception of liking the subordinate instead of assessing the usefulness of the idea itself. Also, since ideas are more likely to be adopted when the subordinate is perceived as being creative, the leader should still consider the content of the idea itself. Lastly, supervisors of team leaders could control for these two determinants when a leader adopts an idea, to make sure the idea is adopted for the right reasons, to benefit the company.
Limitations and Future Research
30
environment, or a sports environment. It could be that the process of the adoption of an idea is different in different contexts. Also, there has not been done a multi-level analysis, so there has not been checked for nested data. This should have been done, to check for the degree of similarity of answers within a leader, and the degree of difference of answers between leaders. That way the nested influence could be checked for to get more accurate data. Furthermore, the data was collected only in the Netherlands. To test for cultural differences, future research should test in different cultures. Moreover, participants could have had a bad day, or could have been biased at the moment of filling in the questionnaire, or even could have lied, which could all cause biased data.
31
CONCLUSION
32
REFERENCES
Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in organizational behavior, 10(1), 123-167.
Amabile, T. M., Schatzel, E. A., Moneta, G. B., & Kramer, S. J. (2004). Leader behaviours and the work environment for creativity: Perceived leader support. The Leadership Quarterly, 15,5 –32.
Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1154–1184.
Andriopoulos, C. (2001). Determinants of organisational creativity: a literature review. Management Decision, 39(10), 834-841
Atwater, L. E., & Yammarino, F. J. (1992). Does self‐other agreement on leadership perceptions moderate the validity of leadership and performance predictions? Personnel Psychology, 45(1), 141-164.
Atwater, L. E., & Yammarino, F. J. (1997). Self-other rating agreement: A review and model. Research in personnel and human resources management, 15, 121–174.
Bandura, A. (1995). Self-efficacy in Changing Societies. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Baumeister, R. F. (1982). A self-presentational view of social phenomena. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 3–26.
33
Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W. H. (1999). Measuring impression management in organizations: A scale development based on the Jones and Pittman taxonomy. Organizational Research Methods, 2, 187–206.
Brun, J. (1999). Une question d’identité. Une question de dignité humaine. E´change, 13(2), 2–4.
Brun, J., & Dugas., N. (2008). An analysis of employee recognition: Perspectives on human resources practices. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19(4), 716-730.
Butz, D.A. & Plant, E.A. (2006). Perceiving outgroup members as unresponsive: Implications for approach-related emotions, intentions, and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 1066-1079.
Damanpour, F., & Schneider, M. (2006). Phases of the Adoption of Innovation in Organizations: Effects of Environment, Organization and Top Managers. British Journal of Management, 17, 215–236.
De Dreu, C. K. W., Evers, A., Beersma, B., Kluwer, E. S., & Nauta, A. (2001). A theory-based measure of conflict management strategies in the workplace. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 22, 645–668.
Dewar, R. D., & Dutton, J. E. (1986). The adoption of radical and incremental innovations: An empirical analysis. Management Science, 32, 1422–1433.
34
Duhlebohn J.H., Bommer W.H., Liden R.C., Brouer R.L., & Ferris G.R. (2012). A meta-analysis of antecedents and consequences of leader-member exchange. Journal of Management, 38, 1715–1759.
Faddegon, K., Ellemers, N., & Scheepers, D. (2009).Eager to be the Best, or Vigilant Not to Be the Worst: The Emergence of Regulatory Focus in Disjunctive and Conjunctive Group Tasks. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 12(5), 653–671.
Foulk, T. A., & Long, D. M. (2016). Impressed by impression management: Newcomer reactions to ingratiated supervisors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(10), 1487. Galinsky, A. D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Magee, J. C. (2003). From power to action. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 453–466.
Gogliser, C.C., Schriesheim, C.A., Scandura, T.A., & Gardner, W.L. (2009). Balance in leader and follower perceptions of leader–member exchange: Relationships with performance and work attitudes. Elsevier, 20, 452-465.
Gouldner, A.W. (1960). The Norm of Reciprocity: A Preliminary Statement. American Sociological Review, 25(2), 161-178.
Graen, G., & Cashman, J.A. (1975). Role-making model of leadership in formal organizations: A development approach. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Lawson (Eds.), Leadership frontiers. Kent, Ohio: Kent State Univ. Press.
35
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader–member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219−247.
Grutterink, H. (2013). Meta-perceptions in work teams: a multi-level model of antecedents and consequences of perceived expertise affirmation Groningen: University of Groningen, SOM research school.
Harris, J.A. (2004). Measured intelligence, achievement, openness to experience, and creativity. Personality and Individual Differences, 36(4), 913-929.
Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American psychologist, 52(12), 1280. Higgins, E. T. (2014). Promotion and prevention: How “0” can create dual motivational
forces. Dual-process theories of the social mind. Guilford Press, New York, 423-435.
Kanter, R. M. (1983). The change masters: Innovation and productivity in American corporations. New York.
Kenny, D.A. (1994). Interpersonal perception: A social relations analysis. New York: Guilford Press.
Leary, M. R. (2007). Motivational and emotional aspects of the self. Annual Review Psychology, 58, 317-344.
Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (1990). Impression management: A literature review and two-component model. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 34–47.
36
Liden, R. C., Sparrowe, R. T., & Wayne, S. J. (1997). Leader-member exchange theory: The past and potential for the future. Research in personnel and human resources management, 15, 47-120.
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Stilwell, D. (1993). A longitudinal study on the early development of leader-member exchanges. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 662-674.
Mueller, J.S., Melwani, S., & Goncalo, J.A., (2012). The Bias Against Creativity: Why People Desire but Reject Creative Ideas. Psychological Science, 23(1), 13-17.
Mumford, M. D. (2000). Managing Creative People: Strategies and Tactics for Innovation. Human Resource Management Review, 10(3), 313-351.
Mumford, M. D., & Gustafson, S.B. (1988). Creativity Syndrome: Integration, Application, and Innovation. Psychological Bulletin, 103(1), 27-43.
Mumford, M. D., Scott, G.M., Gaddis, B., and Strange, J.M. (2002). Leading creative people: Orchestrating expertise and relationships. Elsevier, 13(6), 705-750.
Murphy, S. E., & Ensher, E. A. (1999). The effects of leader and subordinate characteristics in the development of leader-member exchange quality. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 1371-1394.
Murray, J. C. (1964). The problem of God, yesterday and today. Yale University Press. Powers, W.T. 1973. Behavior: the control of perception. New York : Aldine de Gruyter. Powers, C.B., Wisocki, P.A., & Whitbourne, S.K. (1992). Age differences and correlates of
37
Scheepers, D., Ellemers, N., & Sassenberg, K. (2013). Power in group contexts: The influence of group status on promotion and prevention decision making.British Journal of Social Psychology, 52, 238–254.
Schlenker, B. R. (1980). Impression management: The self-concept, social identity, and interpersonal relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Schriesheim, C.A., Castro, S.L., & Cogliser, C.C. (1999). Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) research: a comprehensive review of theory, measurement, and data-analytic practices. Leadership Quarterly, 10(l), 63-113.
Sijbom, R.B.L., Janssen, O., Van Yperen, N. (2015). How to get radical creative ideas into a leader’s mind? Leader’s achievement goals and subordinates’ voice of creative ideas. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 24(2), 279-296.
Sparrow, R. T., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Process and structure in leader-member exchange. Academy of Management Review, 22, 522-552.
Staw, B. M. (1995). Why no one really wants creativity. In C. M. Ford & D. A. Gioia (Eds.), Creative action in organizations: Ivory tower visions and real world voices (pp. 161–166). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
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, 591–620. Turban, D.B., Jones, A.P., & Rozelle, R.M. (1990). Influences of Supervisor Liking of a Subordinate and the Reward Context on the Treatment and Evaluation of That Subordinate. Motivation and Emotion, 14(3), 215-233.
38
Vriend, T., Hamstra, Said, Janssen, Jordan, & Nijstad (in preparation).
