THE INFLUENCE OF SUBORDINATE CREATIVE INPUT, LEADER
REPUTATION CONCERNS, AND LEADER SELF-CONSTRUAL ON
LEADER IMPLEMENTATION MOTIVATION OF CREATIVE INPUT
Master Thesis
MSc Human Resource Management Faculty of Economics and Business
20 January 2019
ANNEMIJN JOLINDE BROEK Student number: 2305925 Nieuwe Ebbingestraat 68a
9712 NN Groningen tel.: +31 (0)6-22803764 E-mail: a.j.broek@student.rug.nl
Supervisor T. Vriend
2
THE INFLUENCE OF SUBORDINATE CREATIVE INPUT, LEADER
REPUTATION CONCERNS, AND LEADER SELF-CONSTRUAL ON
LEADER IMPLEMENTATION MOTIVATION OF CREATIVE INPUT
ABSTRACT
Creativity and innovation are hot topics in today’s dynamic business environment. Even though creativity is recognized as crucial for an organization’s survival (Amabile, 1988; Sijbom, Janssen & van Yperen, 2016), empirical evidence of how creative input is recognized and selected is still limited (for exceptions: Burris, 2012; Sijbom, Janssen & Van Yperen, 2015b; Van Aalst, 2018). As a result, this present study contributes to the existing body of creativity research by providing insights in how leaders differ in their motivation to implement subordinate creative input. Findings based on an experiment with 257 participants show that leader implementation motivation depends on the type of creative input (radical vs. incremental) as well as on leader reputation concerns (image gain vs. threat appraisals). Unfortunately, no support was found for the moderating effect of leader self-construal (independent vs. interdependent).
Keywords: leader implementation motivation of creative input, incremental and radical creative input, leader reputation concerns, and leader self-construal.
3 INTRODUCTION
Change and innovation are important topics in today’s dynamic, highly competitive, and rapidly changing business environment (Madjar, Greenberg & Chen, 2011; Bechtoldt, Choi & Nijstad, 2012). Employee creativity is a crucial component of innovation within organizations, as creative ideas voiced by individual employees are usually the starting point of the innovation process (Amabile, Schatzel, Moneta & Kramer, 2004; Axtell, Holman, Unsworth, Wall, Waterson, & Harrington, 2000; George & Zhou, 2001). Individual creativity, the generation of novel and potentially useful ideas (Amabile, 1996; Yuan & Woodman, 2010), is recognized as crucial for an organization’s survival (Amabile, 1988; Sijbom et al, 2015b), as a competitive advantage (West, 2002; Zhou & Shalley, 2003), and even as one of the key driver for organizational performance and growth (Montag, Maertz & Baer, 2012).
Closely linked to creativity is leadership, one of the most essential motivators regarding a subordinate’s creative performance (Wu, McMullen, Neubert & Yi, 2008; Johnson, King, Lin, Scott, Walker & Wang, 2017). While a lot of research focused on how leaders can encourage their subordinates to come up with creative ideas (Mumford, Scott, Gaddis & Strange, 2002; Shalley, Zhou & Oldham, 2004; Nijstad, De Dreu, Rietzschel & Baas, 2010), empirical evidence of how leaders recognize and select creative input voiced by their employees is limited (for exceptions: Burris, 2012; Sijbom et al, 2015b; Van Aalst, 2018). This is particular, as citing Sijbom et al. (2015b: 462), “leaders can either make or break subordinates’ creative input by allocating or withholding support”. Due to this key position, leaders have large authority to decide whether creative ideas may be successful or not (Sijbom, Janssen & Van Yperen, 2015a). As a result, it is highly relevant to investigate the leader motivation behind their support and implementation of subordinate creative input.
4 voiced input by subordinates. More specific, Sijbom et al (2015b) found evidence that leader support of creative ideas is dependent on the composition of radical creative input. Although Sijbom et al (2015b) solely focused on radical creative input, in their article they suggest that it is relevant for future research to analyze how different kinds of subordinate input may result in different reactions of leaders. Within the literature, most authors differentiate between two types of creative input: radical versus incremental creative ideas (Dewar & Dutton, 1986; Mumford & Gustafson, 1988). Where radical creative ideas propose large suggestions and changes that challenge the current practices and ways of thinking, propose incremental creative ideas only minor adaptations that can easily be implemented within the existing structures of organizations, also referred to as the status quo (Sijbom et al, 2015b; Sijbom et al, 2016; Madjar et al., 2011, Detert & Burris, 2007). As these types of creative input are highly distinctive, leaders may significantly differ in their response to both types of creative voice. As a result, where Sijbom et al (2015b) solely focused on radical creative ideas, this paper will elaborate on the previous by investigating whether leaders differ in their motivation to implement creative input thereby differentiating between incremental and radical creative ideas.
5 Woodman (2010) argued that these potential impressions on others are highly important to individuals, as they influence responses from others to the individual, as well as the possibility to get the necessary social support and resources to reach individual goals. Due to this relevance, and as these different types of reputation concerns may differently influence leader motivation, this study will elaborate on previous research of Sijbom et al (2015b) and Yuan & Woodman (2010), by analyzing how both reputation threat and gain concerns might differently mediate the relationship between different creative ideas and leader motivation to implement these creative ideas.
Elaborating on Sijbom et al (2015b), Van Aalst (2018) also examined how different reputation concerns might lead to different leader support for different types of creative ideas. In his research, using a moderated-mediation analysis, Van Aalst (2018) analyzed how leader performance goals as a possible moderator influence the relationship between the type of creative voiced idea (radical versus incremental) and leader reputation concerns, and subsequently a leaders’ motivation to support the voiced creative ideas. Although significant results showed a mediating effect of leader reputation concerns, Van Aalst (2018) did not find empirical evidence for leader performance goals as a possible moderator explaining why leaders differ in their support for different types of creative voiced input. This is unfortunate, as understanding how leaders differ in their judgment and support of creative ideas is essential for many aspects of individual and organizational effectiveness (Loewenstein & Mueller, 2016). As a consequence, this study will further assess how different factors might explain a leaders’ motivation for different creative inputs voiced by subordinates.
6 individual motivation and behavior (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Individuals differ in the extent to which they see themselves as autonomous, unique personalities with own attributes and goals (independent self-construal) versus seeing themselves connected to others with attributes and goals based on preferences of the group (interdependent self-construal; Shao, Nijstad & Tauber, 2018; Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Although previous research has linked self-construal to creativity, more knowledge is necessary to be able to understand the underlying psychological mechanisms that explain how a person’s view of the self can influence creativity motivation (Shao et al., 2018). Therefore, this study will examine whether a leaders’ self-construal moderates the relationship between voiced creative input (radical versus incremental) and leader reputation concerns (image treat versus gain appraisals), and subsequently a leaders’ motivation to implement the creative input.
7 THEORY
Type of creative input and leader implementation motivation
Research shows that management plays a significant role in organizations with respect to the judgment of and motivation to implement subordinate creative input (Balogun & Johnson, 2004; Caughron & Mumford, 2012). As leaders are the ones in charge of the resources and power to decide whether they support or reject creative voiced input (Detert & Burris, 2007), their motivation can significantly influence further realization of creativity in the organization (Sijbom et al, 2015a; Sijbom et al, 205b). A leaders’ motivation to implement subordinate creative input, in this regard, refers to listening to the subordinates’ ideas, being interested in the ideas, giving fair consideration to the ideas presented, and at least sometimes take action to address the idea raised (Detert & Burris, 2007).
9
Hypothesis 1: Subordinate incremental creative input results in higher leader
implementation motivation than subordinate radical creative input.
Mediator: leader reputation concerns
Although leaders will certainly be concerned with the organizational status quo, they also look for ways to improve or protect themselves from threats to their reputation within the organization (De Dreu, Nijstad & Van Knippenberg, 2008). That is, leaders might have mixed motives whereby they balance what is best for the organization versus how things affect their reputation within the organization (Burris, 2012). As protecting and defending one’s ego and reputation is a human nature instinct, leaders seem to employ a variety of cognitive mechanisms that help them to focus on positive and to avoid negative appraisals regarding their self-image (Baumeister, 1999). These positive and negative appraisals are different expectations of how one’s behavior influences his or her reputation (Sijbom et al, 2015b; Yuan & Woodman, 2010). Leaders acting based on image threat appraisals, triggered by negative affective states (e.g. embarrassment, failure), are mainly concerned with protecting their perceived reputation within the organization (Yuan & Woodman, 2010). The aim of this motive is to prevent for negative consequences such as image damage or leadership competences doubts from fellow colleagues (Sijbom et al., 2015b). Contrary, leaders acting based on image gain appraisals (e.g. respect, status), triggered by self-enhancing motives, are mainly concerned with improving their social image, for example by trying to create a favorable impression on others (Yuan & Woodman, 2010; Sijbom et al., 2015b).
10 coming from subordinates (Burris, 2012). This may lead to leaders perceiving the creative input as threatening for their image of being a good leader (Baumeister, 1999). Additionally, as radical creative input challenges the current roles, policies and power structures in the organization (Sijbom et al., 2015b), these ideas may increase the probability of conflict in the organization (Damanpour, 1988). As a result, these consequences may trigger leader expectations of image threat such as embarrassment or failure, leading to an increase in image threat appraisals (Van Aalst, 2018). In contrast, incremental creative input fits within the status quo, and therefore confirms the policies and practices a leader feels responsible for (Burris, 2012). Therefore, when considering these ideas, leaders might expect that they will lead to appreciation from fellow colleagues and supervisors, as they fit in what is expected from the leader. As a result, leaders may expect that this will lead to potential image gains, such as an increased status within the organization or an improved reputation (Van Aalst, 2018), and thus increases their image gain appraisals. Leading to the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 2a: Leader image threat appraisals are higher for radical creative input
than for incremental creative input.
Hypothesis 2b: Leader image gain appraisals are higher for incremental creative input
than for radical creative input.
Moderator: Leader independent and interdependent self-construal values
11 own personality, and rely rather on features of their personal identity (Tajfel, Turner, Austin & Worchel, 1979; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher & Wetherell, 1987; Goncalo & Staw, 2006). They see themselves as separate from others, and are concerned with expressing the self, distinguishing themselves from others and promoting one’s own goals and gains above those of the group (Bechtoldt et al., 2012; Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Singelis, 1994). In contrast, leaders high in interdependent self-construal define themselves based on group memberships and interrelations with others (Tajfel et al., 1979; Turner, et al., 1987). They emphasize the importance of group goals rather than personal goals, relationships, and belonging and fitting in within the organization (Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Singelis, 1994).
The moderating effect of leader self-construal
12 that leaders with a high independent self-construal have a stronger desire to positively distinguish themselves from others and to focus on potential gains than leaders with a low independent self-construal. Relating this to the expected image gains resulting from incremental creative ideas, I expect that this effect is moderated in such a way that the relationship between incremental (rather than radical) creative input and image gain appraisals is stronger for leader high in independent self-construal comparted to leaders low in independent-self construal.
13 and conflicts (Elliot & Trash, 2002), which may help their goals to maintain harmonious relationship, and to fit within the society (Shao et al., 2018). As a result, I expect that leaders with a high interdependent self-construal have a stronger desire to prevent from negative and harming reputation situations than leaders with a low independent self-construal. Relating this to the expected image threat resulting from radical creative ideas, I expect that this effect is moderated in such a way that the relationship between radical (rather than incremental) creative input and image threat appraisals is stronger for leader high in interdependent self-construal comparted to leaders low in interdependent-self construal.
14
Hypothesis 3a: The negative relationship between subordinate creative input and
leader image threat appraisals is moderated by leader interdependent self-construal, such that radical (rather than incremental) creative input causes a stronger negative effect for leaders with an high (rather than low) interdependent self-construal.
Hypothesis 3b: The positive relationship between subordinate creative input and leader
image gain appraisals is moderated by leader independent self-construal, such that incremental (rather than radical) creative input causes a stronger positive effect for leaders with an high (rather than low) independent self-construal.
Reputation concerns and leader motivation to implement creative ideas
According to Vroom’s (1964) expectancy theory of motivation, individuals act based on the expected consequences of their behavior. Vroom (1964) argues that an individuals’ motivation is affected by expectations, such as expectations of payoff and outcomes. That is, positive expectations may positively influence an individuals’ motivation, whereas negative expectations may negatively influence an individuals’ motivation. Based on Vroom’s (1964) theory, as image threat appraisals lead to a leaders’ negative personal expectations about his or her reputation (Yuan & Woodman, 2010), this may negatively influence a leaders’ motivation to listen to and consider the implementation of creative subordinate voiced input. In contrast, as image gain appraisals lead to a leaders’ personal positive personal expectations for a leaders’ about his or her reputation (Yuan & Woodman, 2010), this may positively influence leader motivation for creative input voiced by subordinates. Leading to the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 4a: Leader image threat appraisals negatively influence leader motivation
15
Hypothesis 4b: Leader image gain appraisals positively influence leader motivation to
implement subordinate creative input.
The complete moderated-mediation analyses
To conclude, as radical creative input challenges the status quo a leader feels responsible for (Burris, 2012), this may lead to higher leader expectations of image threat such as embarrassment and failure than incremental creative input that fits within the status quo (Van Aalst, 2018). Therefore, this may negatively influence a leaders’ motivation to implement the creative idea. As leaders high in interdependent self-construal (compared to leaders low in interdependent self-construal) have a strong desire to maintain harmonious relationships and to fit within the society (Markus & Kitayama, 1991), they may perceive radical creative input as more threatening for their reputation, resulting in higher expectations of image threat which subsequently may negatively influence their motivation. Leading to the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 5a: The relationship between the type of creative input and leader
motivation to implement the input is mediated by leader image threat appraisals.
Hypothesis 5b: The negative relationship between subordinate creative input and
leader image threat appraisals is moderated by leader interdependent self-construal, such that radical (rather than incremental) creative input causes a stronger negative effect for leaders with a high (rather than low) interdependent self-construal, which subsequently negatively influences leader motivation to implement the creative input.
16 Therefore, this may positively influence a leaders’ motivation to implement the creative idea. As leaders high in independent construal (compared to leaders low in independent self-construal) have a strong desire to positively distinguish themselves from others (Markus & Kitayama, 1991), they may perceive incremental creative input as an opportunity to enhance their reputation. This may result in higher expectations of image gain which subsequently may positively influence their motivation. Leading to the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 5c: The relationship between the type of creative input and leader motivation to implement the input is mediated by leader image gain appraisals.
Hypothesis 5d: The positive relationship between subordinate creative input and leader
image gain appraisals is moderated by leader independent self-construal, such that incremental (rather than radical) creative input causes a stronger positive effect for leaders with a high (rather than low) independent self-construal, which subsequently positively influences leader motivation to implement the creative input.
Figure 1 below provides a visual overview of the proposed hypotheses.
Figure 1: conceptual model.
Leader implementation motivation of subordinate creative input Subordinate creative input (incremental vs. radical) Leader interdependent self-construal
17 METHOD
Participants and design
Students participated in an experiment conducted in the research lab of the Faculty of Economics and Business of the University of Groningen. The participants received either a financial compensation or study points for participation. The total sample of the experiment consisted of 257 participants, divided into a radical (127 participants, 49.4%) and an incremental (130 participants, 50.6%) manipulation group. Amongst the participants were 116 males (45.1%) and 141 females (54.9%), with an average age of 21.97 years (SD = 2.90).
In the experiment, I manipulated the independent variable ‘subordinate creative input’. To test whether leaders differ in their motivation to implement different type of creative ideas, participants were randomly assigned to either a radical creative idea or an incremental creative idea condition.
Procedure
18 an e-mail from Linda, a subordinate, proposing a (radical or incremental) creative idea for the launch strategy of the new product line “BRIGHT FLOWER POTS” (for details: Appendix A). Participants randomly received either a radical or incremental idea. In the incremental idea condition, Linda proposed the idea to add online channels to the current promotion channels for the new launch strategy. With this idea, Linda suggested a small adaptation, that fitted within the current procedures and processes. In the radical idea condition, Linda proposed the idea to set up an online webshop to serve the end-consumer directly. With this idea, Linda suggested to set the launch strategy in an entirely different way. After reading the e-mail, participants answered questions evaluating the proposed creative input. The experiment finished with questions regarding the leaders’ reputation concerns, the manipulation and the control variables.
Measurements
All variables, except for the control variables, are measured using a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Appendix A and B provide a complete overview of the experimental manipulations and questionnaires.
19 Leader implementation motivation of subordinate creative input. I asked participants five questions about their motivation to implement the proposed radical or incremental creative idea, for example: “How likely is it that you will use the idea for your launching strategy?” I adapted previous questions of Sijbom et al., (2015b) to the context of this research. Reliability analysis showed an internal consistency of α = .90.
Leader independent self-construal. I used the twelve item self-construal scale of Singelis (1994) to measure leader independent self-construal. An example item was: “I am comfortable with being singled out for praise or rewards”. Reliability analysis showed a moderate internal consistency of α = .65.
Leader interdependent self-construal. I used the twelve item self-construal scale of Singelis (1994) to measure leader interdependent self-construal. An example item was: “I have respect for the authority figures with whom I interact”. Reliability analysis showed an internal consistency of α = .74.
Leader image gain appraisals. I measured leader image gain appraisals using a four item scale developed by Ashford, Rothbard, Piderit & Dutton (1998), adapted to the context of this study. An example item was: “supporting Linda’s idea will improve my image in the organization”. Reliability analysis showed an internal consistency of α = .89.
Leader image threat appraisals. I measured leader image threats appraisals using a six item scale developed by Sijbom et al., (2015b) adapted to the context of this research, an example item was: “my subordinates will think worse of me when I support Linda’s idea”. Reliability analysis showed an internal consistency of α = .90.
20 Data analysis
To analyze the data, I first performed an independent t-test for the manipulation check to compare the means of the radical and incremental idea control group. Next, I calculated the bivariate statistics of the unique variables of the conceptual model. Subsequently, I performed a regression analysis to analyze the relationship between the subordinate creative idea (incremental vs. radical) and leader support of the idea. To be able to perform the mediation and moderated-mediation analysis, I standardized the independent, moderating, mediating and control variables. To analyze the mediating effect of leader image threat and gain appraisals on subordinate creative input (incremental vs. radical) and leader implementation motivation for the creative input, I performed a mediation analysis using PROCESS macro model number 4 with 5000 bootstrap samples (Hayes, 2013) in SPSS. Finally, to analyze the moderating effect of leader independent and interdependent self-construal, I performed a moderated-mediation analysis using PROCESS macro model number 9 with 5000 bootstrap samples (Hayes, 2013).
RESULTS Manipulation check and overview
21 Table 2 provides an overview of the means, standard deviations, correlations, and Cronbach’s Alphas of the variables of the model. The table shows that gender (1= male, 2 = female) correlates significantly with leader motivation implementation (r = .18, p < .01), independent self-construal (r = -.17, p < .01) and interdependent self-construal (r = .19, p < .01). These results indicate that female (compared to male) participants have a higher motivation to implement the creative input. Additionally, in general male participants show a higher independent self-construal, whereas female participants show a higher interdependent self-construal. Table 3 presents an overview of the regression analysis of the subordinate creative input (radical vs. incremental) and leader motivation to implement the subordinate creative input. Table 4 provides the results of the mediation analysis. Table 5 presents the results of the moderation-mediation analysis. Finally, table 6 and 7 present the results of supplementary analyses.
Hypotheses testing
Hypothesis 1 stated that subordinate incremental creative input results in higher leader implementation motivation than subordinate radical creative input. The result of the regression analysis in Table 3 confirms Hypothesis 1, by showing a significant higher leader implementation motivation for incremental than for radical creative input (B = 0.47, SE = 0.11, p < .001).
Hypothesis 2a stated that leader image threat appraisals are higher for radical creative input than for incremental creative input. Unfortunately, Table 4 does not show a significant effect (B = 0.019, SE = 0.06, ns.). Therefore, the results do not confirm Hypothesis 2a.
22 effect of type of creative input on image gain appraisals, thereby showing a higher image gain appraisal for incremental than for radical creative input (B = 0.15, SE = 0.06, p < .05).
Hypothesis 3a stated that the negative relationship between ideas voiced by subordinates and leader expectations of image threats is moderated by leader interdependent self-construal, such that radical (rather than incremental) ideas cause a stronger negative effect for leaders with a high (rather than low) interdependent self-construal. Table 5 shows that this moderation effect is non-significant (B = -0.01, SE = 0.06, ns). Therefore, the results do not confirm Hypothesis 3a.
Hypothesis 3b stated that the positive relationship between ideas voiced by subordinates and leader expectations of image gains is moderated by leader independent self-construal, such that incremental (rather than radical) ideas have a stronger positive effect for leaders with a high (rather than low) independent self-construal. Table 5 shows that this moderation effect is non-significant (B = -0.059, SE = 0.06, ns). Therefore, the results do not confirm Hypothesis 3c.
Hypothesis 4a stated that leader image threat appraisals negatively influence leader motivation to implement subordinate creative input. The results in Table 4 confirm Hypothesis 2b by showing a negative significant effect (B = -0.19, SE = 0.05, p < .001).
Hypothesis 4b states that leader image gain appraisals positively influence leader motivation to implement subordinate creative input. The results in Table 4 confirm this hypothesis by showing a significant positive relationship (B = 0.44, SD = 0.05, p < .001).
23 leader image threat appraisals does not cause an indirect effect (Effect = -0.00, SE = 0.01), as the 95% confidence interval (-.03; .02) contains zero. Therefore, the results do not confirm Hypothesis 2c.
Hypothesis 5b stated that the negative relationship between subordinate creative input and leader image threat appraisals is moderated by leader interdependent self-construal, such that radical (rather than incremental) ideas cause a stronger negative effect for leaders with an high (rather than low) interdependent self-construal, which subsequently negatively influences leader motivation to implement the voiced idea. As mentioned in Hypothesis 3a, the interaction between voiced creative idea and interdependent self-construal is not confirmed. Additionally, Table 5 shows the results of the moderated-mediation analysis with a 95% confidence interval of (-.05; .03) for -1 SD and a 95% confidence interval of (-.04; .03) for +1 SD. Both confidence intervals contain zero and are therefore not significant. Therefore, the results do not confirm Hypothesis 5b.
Hypothesis 5c stated that the relationship between the type of creative input and leader motivation to implement the input is mediated by leader image gain appraisals. Additionally, to the confirmation of Hypotheses 2b and 4b, Table 4 also shows an indirect effect of image gain on the relationship between creative voiced idea and leader implementation of creative ideas (Effect = 0.06, SE = 0.03) with a 95% confidence interval (.01; .13) that does not contain zero. Confirming Hypothesis 5c.
24 Additionally, Table 5 shows results of the moderated-mediation analysis with a 95% confidence interval of (.02; -.19) for -1 SD and a 95% confidence interval of (-.03; .13) for +1 SD. The +1 SD confidence interval contains zero and is therefore not significant. Therefore, the results do not confirm Hypothesis 5d.
Supplementary analysis
As the results did not show a significant moderating-mediating effect of self-construal, I conducted supplementary analyses (Table 6 and 7 in Appendix C) for the direct effect of interdependent self-construal on the relationship between type of creative idea (incremental vs radical) and leader implementation motivation for the idea (Process model 1 with 5000 bootstrap samples, Hayes (2013)) as well as for the mediating-moderating effect of self-construal on leader reputation concerns and leader motivation (Process model 16 with 5000 bootstrap samples, Hayes (2013)). The direct moderating effect on the relationship between type of creative input and leader motivation for the creative input did not show significant results, as the interaction effect was non-significant (B = 0.02, SE = 0.06, p = ns). Besides, the moderated-mediation effect of self-construal on leader reputation concerns and leader motivation was also not significant, as all interaction effect were non-significant (Image gain appraisals x interdependent self-construal: B = -0.04, SE = 0.04, p = ns; image gain appraisals x independent self-construal: B = 0.01, SE = 0.05, p = ns; image threat appraisals x interdependent self-construal: B = 0.03, SE = 0.04, p = ns; image threat appraisals x independent self-construal: B = 0.00, SE = 0.06, p = ns).
DISCUSSION
25 are crucial for organizational survival (Bechtoldt et al, 2012; Amabile, 1988; Sijbom et al,. 2015; Sijbom et al., 2016). Therefore, identifying the factors that foster employee creativity is crucial for organizations. Leaders show to be one of the most essential motivators regarding subordinate creative performance in organizations (Wu et al., 2008; Johnson et al, 2017), however limited is known about how leaders are motivated to recognize, select, and implement these ideas (Mueller, Wakslak & Krishnan, 2014). Although previous research suggested that leader motivation for creativity is influenced, and sometimes even determined, by a leaders’ self-construal, literature examining the underlying psychological mechanisms is still scarce (Shao et al., 2018). To fill this gap in literature, this study analyzed how a leaders’ self-construal, through his or her reputation concerns (image gain vs. image threat appraisals), influences leader motivation for the implementation of creative input voiced by subordinates, thereby distinguishing between radical and incremental creative input.
26 implementation of subordinate creative input. Finally, the results showed no significant support for the moderated-mediation analysis. As such, the moderating effect of leader independent and interdependent self-construal on the mediating relationship of leader image threat and gain appraisals on leader motivation to implement subordinate creative input was not significant.
Theoretical and practical implications
Theoretically, this research contributes to the literature in creativity and leadership in several ways. First of all, research stressed the importance of employee creativity for organizations for survival, and organizational growth and performance (West, 2002; Zhou & Shalley, 2003; Montag et al., 2012; Amabile et al., 2004). As leaders show to be one of the most essential motivators regarding a subordinate’s creative performance (Wu et al., 2008; Johnson, King, Lin, Scott, Jackson Walker & Wang, 2017), their motives and motivations may have large impact on the stimulation of creativity for subordinates. As empirical evidence of how leaders recognize and select creative input voiced by their employees is limited (for exceptions: Burris, 2012; Sijbom et al, 2015b; Van Aalst, 2018), this research elaborated by analyzing how leaders recognize and select creative input. By doing so, this research focused on how different creative ideas voiced by subordinates may differently influence leader motivation for the creative input. The results confirmed that leaders prefer incremental over radical creative input in their motivation to implement subordinate creative input. This is in line with previous arguments of Csikszentmihalyi (1990) and Burris (2012), who argued that leaders, due to their gatekeepers function, have a preference for creative ideas that fit within the current status quo.
27 confirm that radical creative ideas lead to higher image threat appraisals than incremental creative ideas. This is interesting, as based on previous arguments of Burris (2012), Sijbom et al (2015b) and Madjar et al., (2011) emphasizing the challenging nature of radical creative ideas, I expected that these types of ideas to result in higher image threat appraisals than incremental creative ideas. An explanation for this lack of support may be that I tested the hypotheses in a fictive experimental design. Although the manipulation was significant and successful, participants were fictive leaders in fictive organizations. Therefore, they did not really have to implement the voiced idea, and they might have felt less responsible for the consequences. As a result, the perceived image threat appraisals by participants might have been lower than in case of real leaders in real organizations.
28 A second explanation for this could be that a leaders’ self-construal does not determine whether a leader sees image threat or gain appraisals, but that a leaders’ self-construal determines whether leaders act upon possible image threat or gain appraisals. As such, a leaders’ self-construal might moderate the relationship between a leaders’ reputation concerns and implementation motivation for creative input. Lockwood, Marshall & Sadler (2005) found partial support for this assumption. In their research, they examined whether individualistic (similar to independent) and collectivistic (similar to interdependent) individuals were differently motivated by different role models. The results showed that individualistic individuals were more motivated by positive role models focusing on pursuing success, whereas collectivistic individuals were more motivated by negative role models focusing on avoiding failure. Based on these findings, a high independent self-construal might trigger leader motivation for creativity based on image gain appraisals, whereas a high interdependent self-construal might trigger leader motivation for creativity based on image threat appraisals. To test both assumptions, I conducted supplementary analyses. Unfortunately, the results did not show evidence for the assumptions.
29 strategies based on preventing as well as enhancing creativity, firms should take this into account when hiring new managers. That is, if companies are looking for a manager that enhances creativity, they might prefer to look for an applicant who prefers to use motivational strategies based on image gain appraisals, as this has shown to positively influence leader motivation.
Strengths, limitations and future directions
Besides the strengths, this present study also has certain limitations and consequently directions for future research. First, although an as real as possible atmosphere was created, the hypotheses were tested in a fictive experiment, which participants may have perceived as artificial. Thereby, most participants were students from the university without any real leadership experience or knowledge. Participants were no real leaders working for a real organizations with real risks and consequences. As the consequences and the negative effects for choosing a riskier idea were probably much lower for the fictive leaders than is the case in real situations, the fictive leaders might have responded differently than they would normally do. In addition, due to their lack of experience, the participants were possibly less able to assess the possible risks. This might also explain why no evidence was found for the proposed hypothesis that subordinate creative input (incremental vs. radical) influences leader expectations of image threats. When generalizing the results of the study, this important limitation should be taken into account. For future research it would be highly interesting to repeat the same study in a real company with real leaders.
30 leaders on minimizing goals, security and prevention from losses (Higgins, 1998). These promotion goals seem in line with image gain appraisals as both are triggered by positive events, self-enhancing motives and improving the social image. However, contrary to findings in this research, previous research has related promotion goals to radical creativity (Li, Lin & Liu, 2018). As radical creativity, despite the challenging nature, may also enhance breakthrough innovations (Morris & Leung, 2010), this may help to maximize goals and advancement and therefore lead to promotion strategies. Therefore, for future research it would be highly interesting to analyze how two different types of creativity (radical vs. incremental) may lead to similar goals and aspirations (image gain appraisals vs. promotion goals).
31 CONCLUSION
32 REFERENCES
Aalst, van, M., 2018. To support or not to support creative ideas voiced by subordinates? The role of leaders’ impression management considerations and performance goals: a moderated-mediation analysis. University of Groningen.
Amabile, T.M., 1988. A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in
organizational behavior, 10(1): 123-167.
Amabile, T. M., 1996. Creativity in context: update to the social psychology of creativity. Hachette UK.
Amabile, T.M., Schatzel, E. A., Moneta, G. B., & Kramer, S.J., 2004. Leader behaviors and the work environment for creativity: perceived leader support. The leadership
quarterly. 15(1): 5-32.
Argyris, C., & Schon, D. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action approach. Reading, MA: Addision Wesley.
Ashford, S. J., Rothbard, N. P., Piderit, S. K., & Dutton, J. E., 1998. Out on a limb: The role of context and impression management in selling gender-equity issues. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 23-57.
Axtell, C. M., Holman, D. J., Unsworth, K. L., Wall, T. D., Waterson, P. E., & Harrington, E., 2000. Shopfloor innovation: Facilitating the suggestion and implementation of ideas.
Journal of occupational and organizational psychology, 73(3): 265-285.
Baer, M., 2012. Putting creativity to work: The implementation of creative ideas in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 55(5): 1102-1119.
Balogun, J., & Johnson, G., 2004. Organizational restructuring and middle manager sensemaking. Academy of management journal, 47(4): 523-549.
33 Bechtoldt, M. N., Choi, H. S., & Nijstad, B. A., 2012. Individuals in mind, mates by heart: Individualistic self-construal and collective value orientation as predictors of group creativity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(4): 838-844.
Burris, E. R., 2012. The risks and rewards of speaking up: Managerial responses to employee voice. Academy of Management Journal, 55(4): 851-875.
Carmeli, A., & Schaubroeck, J., 2007. The influence of leaders' and other referents' normative expectations on individual involvement in creative work. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(1), 35-48.
Caughron, J. J., & Mumford, M. D., 2012. Embedded leadership: How do a leader's superiors impact middle-management performance? The leadership quarterly, 23(3): 342-353. Cooper, D., & Thatcher, S. M., 2010. Identification in organizations: The role of self-concept
orientations and identification motives. Academy of management review, 35(4), 516-538.
Cross, S. E., Hardin, E. E., & Gercek-Swing, B., 2011. The what, how, why, and where of self-construal. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15(2), 142-179.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., 1990. The domain of creativity.
Damanpour, F., 1988. Innovation type, radicalness, and the adoption process. Communication research, 15(5): 545-567.
De Dreu, C. K., Nijstad, B. A., & van Knippenberg, D., 2008. Motivated information processing in group judgment and decision making. Personality and social psychology
review, 12(1), 22-49.
Dewar, R. D., & Dutton, J. E., 1986. The adoption of radical and incremental innovations: An empirical analysis. Management science, 32(11): 1422-1433.
34 Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M., 2002. Approach-avoidance motivation in personality: approach and avoidance temperaments and goals. Journal of personality and social psychology, 82(5): 804.
Ford, C. M., 1996. A theory of individual creative action in multiple social domains. Academy
of Management review, 21(4), 1112-1142.
Friedman, R. S., & Förster, J., 2001. The effects of promotion and prevention cues on creativity.
Journal of personality and social psychology, 81(6), 1001.
George, J. M., & Zhou, J., 2001. When openness to experience and conscientiousness are related to creative behavior: an interactional approach. Journal of applied psychology, 86(3): 513.
Goncalo, J. A., & Staw, B. M., 2006. Individualism–collectivism and group creativity.
Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 100(1): 96-109.
Green, S. G., Gavin, M. B., & Aiman-Smith, L. 1995. Assessing a multidimensional measure of radical technological innovation. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 42: 203–214.
Green, S. G., Welsh, M. A., & Dehler, G. E., 2003. Advocacy, performance, and threshold influences on decisions to terminate new product development. Academy of
Management Journal, 46(4), 419-434.
Guo, C., Miller, J. K., Woodard, M. S., Miller, D. J., Silvernail, K. D., Aydin, M. D., Heloisa da Costa Lemos, A., Kumpikaite-Valiuniene, V., Nair, S., Donnely, P. F., Marx, R. D., & Peters., L., 2018. Self-concept orientation and organizational identification: a mediated relationship. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 33(4/5), 358-371.
Heine, S. J., & Lehman, D. R., 1999. Culture, self-discrepancies, and self-satisfaction.
35 Heine, S. J., Lehman, D. R., Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S., 1999. Is there a universal need for
positive self-regard?. Psychological review, 106(4), 766.
Higgins, E. T., 1998. Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 1-46). Academic Press. Hovland, C. I., Harvey, O. J., & Sherif, M., 1957. Assimilation and contrast effects in reactions
to communication and attitude change. The Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 55(2), 244.
Johnson, R. E., King, D. D., Lin, S. H. J., Scott, B. A., Walker, E. M. J., & Wang, M., 2017. Regulatory focus trickle-down: How leader regulatory focus and behavior shape follower regulatory focus. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 140: 29-45.
Lee, A. Y., Aaker, J. L., & Gardner, W. L., 2000. The pleasures and pains of distinct self-construals: The role of interdependence in regulatory focus. Journal of personality and
social psychology, 78(6), 1122.
Li, C. R., Lin, C. J., & Liu, J., 2018. The Role of Team Regulatory Focus and Team Learning in Team Radical and Incremental Creativity. Group & Organization Management, 1059601118775196.
Lockwood, P., Marshall, T. C., & Sadler, P., 2005. Promoting success or preventing failure: Cultural differences in motivation by positive and negative role models. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(3), 379-392.
Madjar, N., Greenberg, E., & Chen, Z., 2011. Factors for radical creativity, incremental creativity, and routine, noncreative performance. Journal of applied psychology, 96(4): 730.
36 Montag, T., Maertz, C. P., & Baer, M., 2012. A critical analysis of the workplace creativity
criterion space. Journal of Management, 38(4): 1362-1386.
Morris, M. W., & Leung, K., 2010. Creativity east and west: Perspectives and parallels.
Management and Organization Review, 6(3): 313-327.
Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. J., 2000. Organizational silence: A barrier to change and development in a pluralistic world. Academy of Management review, 25(4), 706-725. Mueller, J. S., Wakslak, C. J., & Krishnan, V., 2014. Construing creativity: The how and why
of recognizing creative ideas. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 51: 81-87. Mumford, M. D., & Gustafson, S. B., 1988. Creativity syndrome: Integration, application, and
innovation. Psychological bulletin, 103(1): 27.
Mumford, M. D., Scott, G. M., Gaddis, B., & Strange, J. M., 2002. Leading creative people: Orchestrating expertise and relationships. The leadership quarterly, 13(6): 705-750. Nijstad, B. A., De Dreu, C. K., Rietzschel, E. F., & Baas, M., 2010. The dual pathway to
creativity model: Creative ideation as a function of flexibility and persistence. European Review of Social Psychology, 21(1): 34-77.
Said, R. (2016). Rethinking the leadership-employee creativity relationship: A regulatory
focus approach [Groningen]: University of Groningen, SOM research school
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.
Shao, Y., Nijstad, B. A., & Täuber, S., 2018. Linking Self-Construal to Creativity: The Role of Approach Motivation and Cognitive Flexibility. Frontiers in psychology, 9
Sijbom, R. B., Janssen, O., & Van Yperen, N. W., 2015a. How to get radical creative ideas into a leader’s mind? Leader’s achievement goals and subordinates’ voice of creative ideas.
37 Sijbom, R. B., Janssen, O., & Van Yperen, N. W., 2015b. Leaders’ receptivity to subordinates’ creative input: The role of achievement goals and composition of creative input.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24(3): 462-478.
Sijbom, R. B., Janssen, O., & Van Yperen, N. W., 2016. Leaders' achievement goals and their integrative management of creative ideas voiced by subordinates or superiors.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 46(6): 732-745.
Singelis, T. M., 1994. The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals.
Personality and social psychology bulletin, 20(5): 580-591.
Tajfel, H., Turner, J. C., Austin, W. G., & Worchel, S., 1979. An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. Organizational identity: A reader, 56-65.
Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M., 2002. Creative self-efficacy: Its potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance. Academy of Management journal, 45(6), 1137-1148.
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S., 1987.
Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Basil Blackwell.
Vroom, V. H., 1964. Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.
West, M. A., 2002. Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model of creativity and innovation implementation in work groups. Applied psychology, 51(3): 355-387. Wu, C., McMullen, J. S., Neubert, M. J., & Yi, X., 2008. The influence of leader regulatory
focus on employee creativity. Journal of Business Venturing, 23(5): 587-602.
38 Zhou, J., & Shalley, C. E., 2003. Research on employee creativity: A critical review and directions for future research. In Research in personnel and human resources
39 APPENDIX A: INCREMENTAL AND RADICAL IDEA MANIPULATIONS
STRATEGY
As mentioned before your task is to lead the new launch of the BRIGHT FLOWER POTS. Currently, together with your team you are brainstorming about the new marketing launch strategy. Although the new product line already exists, the launch strategy is still in the developing phase.
Being the leader of the project team, you have asked your team members to come up with input and ideas that can be used to shape the new launch. One of these team members is Linda, who is working at the marketing department of Greenplants B.V.
INCREMENTAL IDEA (GROUP 1) Hi,
Last week I have been thinking about suggestions for the launch strategy of the ‘BRIGHT FLOWER POTS’. Currently, when promoting our products of Greenplants B.V. we make use of offline channels like television advertising, brochures and sponsorship activities. I still think that these channels are highly effective. However, I came up with a small idea that can incrementally improve the new launch.
Given the increasing importance of the online world, I believe that we should add online channels to our current promotion channels. Some ideas for the online promotion channels: - The creation of a social media account for Greenplants B.V.
- Contact and collaborate with online influencers. - Implementation of video marketing.
I expect these small adaptations to be beneficial to our current way of doing things. An important advantage of adding the online channels to our promotion strategy is that we can create a larger reach of customers. Additionally, where we normally focus on customers aged 35-50 years old, the online promotion can improve our presence among the younger generations. I think that it is important that we keep up with the new online developments. As a result, I foresee that these modifications will increase the effectiveness of our launch strategy.
Please let me know what you think about it. Best,
40 RADICAL IDEA (GROUP 2)
Hi,
Last week I have been thinking about suggestions for the launch strategy of the ‘BRIGHT FLOWER POTS’. Currently, we sell our products B2B to retailers, and in turn, the retailers sell the products to end-consumers (e.g. private use, families). I think that we can improve our performance if we directly serve the end-consumer (business-to-consumer [B2C]) without involving the retailers. Therefore, I have come up with an alternative marketing and sales strategy to change our current way of working.
Due to the increasing accessibility and importance of the online world, I believe that we should set up an online webshop to serve the end-consumer directly. Some ideas:
- Set up an online platform for the sales of B2C.
- Use the ‘BRIGHT FLOWER POTS’ as the pilot (trial) for the new online webshop. - Use the new online webshop to actively promote our new product line.
I expect these large changes to be a beneficial way of doing things in a new way. An important advantage is that we can serve the end-consumer directly. We can benefit from the new target group by increasing our profit and are not dependent anymore on intermediate retailers. Additionally, I believe that it is important that we keep up with the new online developments. By setting up an online platform, we can increase our reach of customers and (end-) consumers. As a result, I foresee that this new and different strategy will increase the effectiveness of our launch strategy.
Please let me know what you think about it. Best,
41 APPENDIX B: EXPERIMENTAL QUESTIONS
Manipulation check Linda suggests…
1 …Small ideas for incremental improvements.
2 …Small adaptations to the existing ways of doing things.
3 …Minor modifications to current procedures, work, processes, products, or service lines. 4 …Highly new ideas different from how we used to work.
5 …Really original solutions that change the existing strategies. 6 …Radically new ways of doing things.
Leader support for creative voiced ideas by subordinates How likely is it that you will…
1 … Use the idea for your launching strategy? 2 … Use Linda’s suggestion?
3 … Implement Linda’s suggestion? 4 … Consider Linda’s suggestion? 5 … Support Linda’s suggestion? Leader image gain appraisal
Please indicate whether you agree or disagree with the following statements based on Linda’s idea.
1. Supporting Linda’s idea will improve my image in the organization. 2. Supporting Linda’s idea will improve my image.
3. Suggesting to implement Linda’s idea enhances my credibility as a leader in the organization.
4. Supporting Linda’s idea will improve my supervisor’s evaluation of me. Leader image threat appraisal
Please indicate whether you agree or disagree with the following statements based on Linda’s idea.
1. My subordinates will think worse of me when I support Linda’s idea. 2. Linda’s input is an attack on my own ideas as a leader.
3. My supervisors will think worse of me if I support Linda’s idea.
4. I consider the creative input of Linda as negative feedback on my position as a manager. 5. I have the feeling that Linda betrays me.
6. I have the feeling that Linda is against me. Control variables
1. What year were you born?
42 APPENDIX C: RESULTS
Table 1
Independent Samples Test Manipulation check type of creative idea Radical idea (N = 127) Incremental Idea (N = 130)
M SD M SD df t-test
Incremental check 3.41 1.47 4.50 1.26 255 6.38***
Radical check 5.21 1.00 4.22 1.31 255 6.80***
Notes. * p < 0.05 ** p < 0.01 *** p < 0.001
Table 2
Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations
M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1. Leader implementation motivation 5.70 0.94 (.90) 2. Type of creative idea 1.51 0.50 .25** - 3. Image threats 1.75 0.77 -.17** .01 (.90) 4. Image gain 4.72 1.07 .46** .15* .03 (.90) 5. Independent self-construal 4.90 0.67 -.04 .70 -.09 .07 (.65) 6. Interdependent self-construal 4.65 0.72 .25** -.04 -.03 .19** -.04 (.74) 7. Gender 1.55 0.50 .18** .02 .01 -.02 -.17** .19** - 8. Age 15.38 30.57 .047 -.04 .02 -.04 -.06 .05 .13* -
Notes. N = 257. Cronbach’s Alpha’s between parentheses on diagonal. * p < 0.05 ** p < 0.01. Type of creative idea is coded (1=radical, 2=incremental), gender is coded (1=male, 2=female).
Table 3
Regression analyses type of creative idea and leader support
Leader implementation motivation of voiced creative ideas Hypothesis 1 Model 1 Model 2 Intercept 5.19 (0.19)*** 4.46 (0.25)*** Age 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) Gender 0.33 (0.12)** 0.33 (0.11)** Type of Idea - 0.47 (0.11)*** R² .03 .09 ΔR² .06
Notes. N = 257. Standard Errors between parentheses. Type of idea is coded (radical =1, incremental = 2)
43 Table 4
Regression Analysis Mediation Image Gain – Image Threat on Leader Implementation Motivation of Creative Input
Image threat Image gain Leader motivation Hypothesis 2a Hypothesis 2b Hypothesis 4a, 4b, 5a, 5c
Intercept 0.00 (0.06) 0.00 (0.06) 0.00 (0.05) Age 0.01 (0.06) -0.03 (0.06) 0.05 (0.05) Gender 0.00 (0.06) -0.02 (0.06) 0.18 (0.05)*** Type of creative idea 0.02 (0.06) 0.15 (0.06)* 0.19 (0.05)*** Image gain - - 0.44 (0.05)*** Image threat - - -0.19 (0.05)*** R² .00 .03 .31
Indirect effect SE Effect 95% CI*
Image gain 0.03 0.06 .01; .14
Image risk 0.01 -0.00 -.03; .02
Notes. N = 257. Standard Errors between parentheses. * p < 0.05 ** p < 0.01 *** p < 0.001. Based on 5000
44 Table 5
Regression Analysis Moderation-Mediation on Leader Implementation Motivation of Creative Input. Image threat Hypothesis 3a Image gain Hypothesis 3b Leader motivation Intercept -0.01 (0.06) 0.00 (0.06) 5.70 (.05)*** Age 0.01 (0.06) -0.03 (0.06) .05 (.05) Gender -0.02 (0.07) -0.04 (0.06) .17 (.05)***
Type of creative idea 0.02 (0.06) 0.16 (0.06)*
Image gain - - .42 (.05)*** Image threat - - -.18 (.05)*** Independent self-construal -0.09 (0.06) 0.06 (0.06) - Interdependent self-construal -0.04 (0.06) 0.22 (.06)*** -
Interaction idea x ind 0.12 (0.06) -0.06 (0.06) - Interaction idea x inter 0.01 (0.06) -0.04 (0.06) -
R² .02 .07 .31
Conditional Indirect Effects Hypothesis 5b: Image threat
Independent self-construal Effect SE 95% CI*
- 1 SD .02 .02 -.01; .05
Mean SD -.00 .01 -.03; .02
+ 1 SD -.02 .02 -.07; .00
Interdependent self-construal Effect SE 95% CI*
- 1 SD -.00 .02 -.05; .03
Mean SD -.00 .01 -.03; .02
+ 1 SD -.00 .02 -.04; .03
Hypothesis 5d: Image gain
Independent self-construal Effect SE 95% CI*
- 1 SD .09 .04 .02; .19
Mean SD .07 .03 .02; .13
+ 1 SD .04 .04 -.03; .13
Interdependent self-construal Effect SE 95% CI*
- 1 SD .08 .05 -.00; .18
Mean SD .07 .03 .02; .13
+ 1 SD .05 .04 -.02; .13
Notes. N = 257. Standard Errors between parentheses. * p < 0.05 ** p < 0.01 *** p < 0.001. 95% CI* = confidence
45
SUPPLEMENTARY ANALYSES
Table 6
Regression Analysis Moderation independent self-construal Leader motivation
for implementation
Intercept 5.70 (0.06)
Age 0.03 (0.06)
Gender 0.13 (0.06)*
Type of creative idea 0.25 (0.06)*** Interdependent
self-construal
0.22 (0.06)*** Interaction idea x inter 0.02 (0.06)
R² .15
Conditional Indirect Effects
Interdependent self-construal Effect SE 95% CI*
- 1 SD .23 .08 .08; .38
Mean SD .25 .06 .14; .36
+ 1 SD .26 .08 .11; .42
Notes. N = 257. Standard Errors between parentheses. * p < 0.05 ** p < 0.01 *** p < 0.001. 95% CI* = confidence
46 Table 7
Regression Analysis Moderation-Mediation on Leader Implementation Motivation of Creative Input (moderator on reputation concern – leader motivation).
Image threat Image gain Leader motivation
Intercept 0.00 (0.06) 0.00 (0.06) 5.71 (0.05)
Age 0.02 (0.06) -0.03 (0.06) 0.03 (0.05)
Gender 0.00 (0.06) -0.02 (0.06) 0.14 (0.05)***
Type of creative idea 0.01 (0.06) 0.15 (0.06)* 0.19 (0.05)***
Image gain - - 0.39 (0.05)*** Image threat - - -0.18 (0.05)*** Independent self-construal - - 0.13 (0.05)*** Interdependent self-construal - - -0.05 (0.05)
Interaction gain x inter - - -0.04 (0.04)
Interaction gain x ind - - 0.01 (0.05)
Interaction threat x inter 0.03 (0.04)
Interaction threat x ind 0.00 (0.06)
R² 0.02 0.16 0.58
Conditional Indirect Effects Hypothesis 4a,4b: Image threat
Independent self-construal Effect SE 95% CI*
- 1 SD .00 .01 -.03; .02
Mean SD .00 .01 -.03; .02
+ 1 SD .00 .01 -.03; .02
Interdependent self-construal Effect SE 95% CI*
- 1 SD .00 .01 -.03; .02
Mean SD .00 .01 -.02; .02
+ 1 SD .00 .01 -.02; 02
Hypothesis 4c,4d: Image gain
Independent self-construal Effect SE 95% CI*
- 1 SD .06 .03 .01; .13
Mean SD .06 .03 .01; .13
+ 1 SD .06 .03 .01; .13
Interdependent self-construal Effect SE 95% CI*
- 1 SD .07 .03 .01; .13
Mean SD .06 .03 .01; .13
+ 1 SD .05 .03 .01; .13
Notes. N = 257. Standard Errors between parentheses. * p < 0.05 ** p < 0.01 *** p < 0.001. 95% CI* = confidence
