BENEVOLENT LEADERSHIP AND EMPLOYEE CREATIVITY: THE MODERATING ROLE OF TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP

BENEVOLENT LEADERSHIP AND EMPLOYEE

CREATIVITY: THE MODERATING ROLE OF

TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP

August 26

, 2013

Master Thesis

MSc Human Resource Management

University of Groningen

Faculty of Economics and Business

Casper Johannes Heijmen

S1552090

Zocherstraat 85-1

1054 LW Amsterdam

06-48786532

c.j.heijmen@student.rug.nl

Supervisor:

prof. dr. O. Janssen

Co-assessor:

R. Said

Acknowledgement:

I wish to express my sincere gratitude to Prof. Mr. O. Janssen, my supervisor,

for his expertise and valuable guidance during the time that I worked on this

1

ABSTRACT

This study is the first to test the effects of benevolent leadership on employee creative performance in the Western business context. Specifically, this study proposes and tests that benevolent leadership is positively related to employee creativity and employee perceptions of transformational leadership strengthen this relationship. The interaction of benevolent and transformational leadership was empirically tested among 91 employees and their immediate supervisors in a major Dutch post company. Results showed a positive relationship between benevolent leadership and employee creativity when employees perceived high levels of transformational leadership.

2

1. INTRODUCTION

The interest in factors that promote the creativity of employees has increased in the last two decades. Numerous authors have claimed leadership to be one of the key conditions to promote the creative performance of employees in organizations (Scott & Bruce, 1994; Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Tierney, Farmer & Graen, 1999; Shin & Zhou, 2003). Creativity is, according to well-known researchers (Amabile, 1996; Oldham & Cummings, 1996), the production of novel and useful ideas are crucial to organizational innovation. Transformational leadership, in particular, received attention from leadership researchers and was proposed and found to be positively related to employee creativity (Avolio, Bass & Jung, 1999; Shin & Zhou, 2003; Wang & Rode, 2010). Transformational leadership has been defined as influencing followers by “broadening and elevating followers’ goals and providing them with confidence to perform beyond the expectations specified in the implicit or explicit exchange agreement” (Dvir, Eden, Avolio, & Shamir, 2002, p. 735). Such influential behaviors by leaders are widely claimed to be the most highly valued leadership style in the West (Yukl, 2002), and assumed to have characteristics such as intellectual stimulation and individual consideration that boost intrinsic motivation and are known for enhancing the creative performance of employee (Shin & Zhou, 2003).

3

discrimination.” Based on these qualifications, it is hard to propose paternalistic leadership as a proper and fruitful leadership style to enhance employee creativity.

However, Pearce (2005) claimed that paternalism is never completely removed from even the most rational-legal organizations and that the benevolent aspect of paternalism may be underappreciated in Western literature. Pellegrini and Scandura (2008) corroborate this argument by stating that this benevolent component might be “a construct that has more widespread endorsement as well as practical implication” (p. 586). Based on these statements and suggestions, the present study aims to examine the relationship between benevolent leadership and employee creativity. Benevolent leadership occurs according to Aycan (2006) when a leader has genuine concern for the welfare of employees, and employees show loyalty and deference out of respect and appreciation for the employer’s care and protection (p. 455). Also, creativity literature has repeatedly accentuated the positive effect of supportive supervision on creativity (Scott & Bruce, 1994; Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Tierney et al., 1999; Shin & Zhou, 2003; Wang & Cheng, 2009). This leadership type – similar to supportive leadership style – has been positively related to employee creativity by Wang & Cheng (2009). They suggest that benevolent leadership could have “a favorable side-effect” when subordinates consider it a support for a psychologically safe environment” (2009, p. 4). This side effect could be seen as part of other side effects that form a perfect breeding ground which functions as a facilitator for the enhancement of employee creativity when these employees perceive high levels of transformational leadership. Thus, the first goal is to propose and test that benevolent leadership is positively related to employee creative performance.

Furthermore, we assume that leaders can combine benevolent leadership with transformational leadership behaviors in their influence attempts towards employees.

Although benevolent leadership may create a facilitative environment for creative performance by employees, it does not include a direct motivational driver for creativity. Hence, we propose that when benevolent leaders use transformational behaviors, they not only create a facilitative environment but also directly motivate employees to engage in creative courses of action, thereby further amplifying their creative performance. Accordingly, the second goal of this study is to examine transformational leadership as a moderator in the relationship between benevolent leadership and employee creativity.

4

(Pellegrini & Scandura, 2008). Finally, the practical implications of the results help organizations and benevolent leaders to be successful in enhancing the creativity levels of their employees.

2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESES

Paternalism, benevolent leadership, and employee creativity

Max Weber (1947) was the first to describe paternalism in a management context and conceptualized it as one form of legitimated authority. He distinguished three types of legitimate domination: tradition, charismatic and bureaucratic (Weber, 1968). Traditional forms of rule are those led by a paternal authority with a filial following. Especially the definition of the tradition form has similarities to a modern definition of paternalism formulated by Gelfand, Erez, and Aycan (2007). They define paternalism as a “hierarchical relationship in which a leader guides professional and personal lives of subordinates in a manner resembling a parent, and in exchange expects loyalty and deference” (p. 493). Paternalistic leaders show great interest in the personal lives of their employees and attempt to promote the personal welfare of workers (Pasa, Kabasakal and Bodur 2001; Gelfand et al., 2007; Pelligrini & Scandura 2008).

Farh and Cheng (2000) argued that paternalistic leadership (PL) consists of three main elements: authoritarian, benevolence and moral leadership which form a unified construct. They came up with this theory after examining all research and theory on PL since the first introduction of a framework on this topic in 1976 (Cheng et al., 2004). They defined PL as “a style that combines strong discipline and authority with fatherly benevolence and moral integrity couched in a personalistic atmosphere (p. 91). However, recent empirical findings by these same authors suggest that authoritarianism is negatively related to the other two dimensions. Moreover, authoritarianism was also negatively related to subordinate outcomes whereas benevolence and morality where both positively associated with subordinate outcomes (Cheng et al., 2004). Due to this negative inter-dimensional correlation between the three domains, the authors suggest that an overall paternalistic leadership construct is not practical and measuring scales are to be used separately.

5

paternalism. She describes a different approach, based on the intent of the leader, to capture this “complex, intriguing and controversial leadership construct” (Aycan, p. 453). She expands on the work of Kim (1994) by selecting the various forms of paternalism on basis of the motivation of the leader. Exploitative paternalism and benevolent paternalism are the two most frequently cited types and can be best distinguished by the motivating force behind leader generosity and care and employee loyalty. According to Aycan (2006) benevolent paternalism occurs when a leader has a genuine concern for the welfare of employees, and employees show loyalty and deference out of respect and appreciation for the employer’s care and protection. An exploitative paternalistic leader also displays care and nurturance. However, employees show loyalty and respect because of the risk of their leader’s power to fulfill their needs and the possibility that their leader may withdraw critical resources from them. Aycan (2006) states that the biggest difference between the two types is whether the emphasis is mainly on self-oriented outcomes (exploitative paternalism) or on the overall welfare of the employee (benevolent paternalism).

According to Pelligrini & Scandura (2008), exploitative paternalism does not predict the desired outcome, whereas benevolent leadership (BL) may influence positive subordinate performances. Furthermore, Pelligrini et al., (2010) found empirical evidence that suggests that benevolent paternalism may also be of value in the Western business context; the evidence specifically indicates that benevolent paternalism has a positive relationship with employee organizational commitment.

A comment in the article of Pelligrini & Scandura (2008, p. 572) illustrates the potential of BL to address employees’ need for frequent contact and close personal relationships:

When I worked in Istanbul, I felt extremely overwhelmed by my managers’ interest in my personal life. After four years of working in the U.S., I now find myself longing for that attention. American managers are disinterested and distant. They could at least ask me how my children are doing or whether I’m planning to have more. I’m not expecting a detailed discussion about my personal life, but I feel like managers here only focus on the task and not on us—the people.

6

(TFL). Like benevolent leaders, supportive supervisors show concern for the needs and feelings of employees, provide positive and informative feedback, and help them to develop necessary skills (Deci & Ryan, 1987; Wang & Cheng, 2009). However, the intent of supportive supervision is to help employees accomplish their work tasks, while a benevolent leader intends to make sure that the employees feel comfortable at work by providing support in work-related and personal pursuits.

The LMX theory implicates that effective leadership occurs when leaders and followers maintain a high quality relationship characterized by mutual trust, respect, and obligation (Graen & Uhl-Bien 1995, Pelligrini, et al., 2010). According to Pelligrini et al. (2010) when levels of LMX are high, leaders count on their followers to provide them with assistance and followers rely on their leaders for support and career investment. However, Graen, and Scandura (1987) have stated that even high ratings on LMX may not necessarily imply that the leader is committed to the long-term career opportunities of the employee, whereas a benevolent leadership emphasizes the long-term relationship with his or her employees (Pellegrini et al., 2010). The biggest difference between benevolent leadership and LMX is that the latter involves an economic component. That is, “leaders in LMX relations pursue a cost-benefit calculation and use positional resources (e.g., delegation, promotion) to meet subordinate’s needs in return for services rendered by the subordinate (e.g., performance), which exemplifies an economic transaction in a social relationship” (Pelligrini et al., 2010, p. 397). This economic transaction is absent in BL because the only motivation of such a leader is a genuine concern for the overall welfare of employees (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). Wang and Cheng (2009) add to this that a benevolent leader may still demonstrate benevolent behavior without expecting anything in return from the subordinates. Another major difference is based on the domain of the relationship and the way decisions are taken. LMX is limited to the work-domain whereas an important part of benevolence is the interest of the leader in the personal life of the employee.

7

between individual consideration and BL. First, like the difference between BL and LMX, BL is not restricted to the work domain and extends to a subordinate’s personal issues. Wang and Cheng (2009) argue that “a benevolent leader also takes care of subordinates beyond professional relationships”. Secondly, BL does not directly intend to enhance the feelings of employees of increased capabilities and to develop their capacity to think on their own. These feelings and/or effects might happen; however, they are not intended and should be considered as side-effects whereas individual consideration, as one of the dimensions of TFL, is intended to let employees perform beyond their expectations. That is, to increase their overall performance of the employee.

So far, we distinguished BL from paternalistic leadership, TFL, supportive supervision, leader-member exchange. By showing a genuine concern for the overall welfare of the employee, both in the work domain as well as in the personal life of the employee, a benevolent leader creates a strong and close relationship with his or her employees. The intent of BL is to make employees feel appreciated as a valuable individual, respected, as well as secure and comfortable in both the workplace and in their private lives. In return, employees show loyalty, gratitude and deference out of respect and appreciation for their leader. Yet, the strong relationship might also result in numerous side effects like enhanced levels of organizational commitment, intrinsic motivation, mutual trust, job satisfaction, and morale.

8

organizational innovation. The focus of this study is on the first concept, creative performance.

BL may set the stage for creativity in several ways. For example, a benevolent leader strongly signals that a leader approves of his or her follower’s role as a both an exemplary subordinate and as a valuable person (Farh & Cheng, 2000; Wang & Cheng, 2009). Benevolent leaders create supportive work environments in which employees feel appreciated and respected as a valuable individual, as well as secure and comfortable at their work place. Employees who perceive such approval are more likely to experience a strong sense of gratitude which will encourage the amount of comfort and interpersonal trust the follower perceives (Mumford & Gustafson, 1988; Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Cheng et al., 2004). Moreover, subordinates who perceive high levels of BL also receive more task-related resources and recognition that elicits them to take more risk, to work more independent and to be more playful with ideas and solutions. (Farh & Cheng, 2000; Farh, Liang, Chou & Cheng, 2008; Wang & Cheng, 2009). Consequently, they may be encouraged to try new and different approaches to their work which would lead to more creative behavior.

Previous research supports the proposed association between a supportive leader and employee creativity. For example, West (1989) found that health care employees were most creative when their supervisors provided high levels of social support. Furthermore, Carson and Carson (1993) demonstrated that workers who were given informational feedback about their creativity on their first trial of a task exhibited higher creativity on subsequent trials than workers who were given no feedback. Lastly, Scott and Bruce (1994) showed that professional employees who reported high-quality relationships with their supervisors were described by those supervisors as more likely to generate creative ideas.

Although BL does not include a direct motivational driver for creativity, based on the used literature and empirical findings it can be hypothesized that benevolent leaders stimulate creative work behavior. Therefore, the following hypothesis is advanced:

H1: Benevolent leadership is positively related to employee creativity

Transformational leadership

9

explain what is required of them and what compensation they will receive if they fulfill these requirements” (Bass, 1990). Bass (1990) states that this kind of management will lead to mediocrity because a leader will probably only intervene when procedures and standards for the accomplishment of tasks will not be met.

The new paradigm is named transformational leadership (TFL) and aims to deal with this mediocrity by enhancing the development of subordinates, challenging them to think in new ways and patterns they are not accustomed to, inspiring them to bring about results beyond their expectations, and to motivate them in such a way that they keep in mind the values and high moral standards that guide their performance (Bass, Avolio, Jung & Berson, 2003; Avolio, 1999). Bass (1998) adds to this that, when employees see “the big picture” and understand the consequence of their contributions to the overall performance of the company, they are likely more motivated to work creatively to achieve the organization’s vision (Bass, 1998; Shin & Zhou, 2003; Wang & Rode, 2009).

Bass (1990) states that TFL is build on four dimensions, namely: idealized influence, inspiration, intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration. According to Avolio, Waldman, and Yammarino (1991) both empirical and theoretical studies of TFL have suggested that leaders who display the four I’s to realign the norms and values of subordinates, promote both internal and external changes if necessary, and help followers perform beyond their initial expectations, including their level of creative behavior. Shin & Zhou (2003) expect that all four dimensions of TFL relate positively to employee creativity, because they all boost the intrinsic motivation of followers. Amabile (1996) links intrinsic motivation based on increased enthusiasm, vigor and concentration with high levels of creativity.

10

A leader displays inspirational motivation when he or she shows confidence, articulates a sense of mission and a compelling vision, and achieves desired goals, followers emulate their leader and the leader’s behaviors and as a result followers are expected to be excited and energized to work hard toward a superior goal and achievement (Shin & Zhou, 2003). Consequently, employees will exhibit more creative behavior.

Intellectual stimulation takes place when followers are stimulated by their leaders to challenge the status quo. Furthermore, the leader encourages subordinates to challenge their imagination, intellectual curiosity, and novel approaches (Bass, 1995; Shin & Zhou, 2003). Intellectual stimulation is an important part of developing followers’ capability to recognize, understand, and solve their problems individually (Bass, 1995). In a culture shaped by transformational leaders, creative behavior is valued and encouraged, but only if it is useful for the overall wellbeing of the organization. Followers that are being intellectually stimulated have a long-term focus in achieving goals and development.

Individual consideration is practiced when leaders pay attention to the needs of their employees, show support and empathy, and encourage personal development and expression. Given these facts, employees are expected to focus on their tasks instead of on extraneous worries and fears, and they are likely to take risks and to freely explore and experiment with ideas and approaches (Shin & Zhou, 2003).Furthermore, leaders enhance the capabilities of the employees by advising, and coaching them. In return, followers may be encouraged to try new and different approaches to their work and to operate independently. All these factors are considered to enhance the intrinsic motivation of the employee, which is one of the key ingredients of creativity, and thereby enhancing their creative performance (Amabile, 1996; Zhou & Oldham, 2001).

Besides the theoretical base, that suggests that TFL is positively related to employee creativity, much empirical research has proven that TFL may enhance employee creativity (Bass, 1985; Avolio, et al., 1999; Shin & Zhou, 2003; Wang & Rode, 2009). Considering the direct motivational drivers for creative behavior, TFL seems to be an ideal leadership for enhancing the creative performance of employees. Based on the above explained literature the following hypothesis is advanced:

11

Transformational leadership as a Moderator

The goal of this analysis is to study the moderation effect of TFL on the relationship between BL and employees’ creativity. The above-mentioned analysis suggests that if employees perceive levels of BL employees will feel more appreciated and respected as a valuable individual, as well as secure and comfortable in the work place. These feelings and employee perceptions can be pictured as a facilitative work environment for employees to be more creative. A benevolent leader creates high quality relationships with his or her subordinates and these relationships are characterized by trust, mutual liking and respect. These relationships implicate strong bonds between leaders and subordinates in both the work domain as in private settings. Therefore, the benevolent leader seems to develop the perfect working atmosphere for fostering creative behavior. Yet, it misses the direct motivational drivers for creativity. It is like a charge of gunpowder; however, it lacks the production of sparks that are necessary to start the train of creative activities by these employees.

Transformational leaders are known for being able to directly stimulate employees to behave more creatively. By stimulating the employees intellectually these leaders are capable to make employees rethink old assumptions and to challenge the status quo. Furthermore, by being a charismatic leader the intrinsic motivation – the key ingredient of creativity – is stimulated which results in more creative behavior of the employee.

This study assumes that when a benevolent leader possesses these transformational features he or she will be more successful in enhancing the creative behavior of subordinates. That is, employees who are involved in high quality relationships with their leaders will react more positively when exposed to leadership features that stimulate creative behavior because these employees have more trust in and respect for their leader compared to employees who are not involved in high quality relationships with their leader. Employees who experience BL know that the leader’s actions are intended to increase the overall welfare of the employees and are not only restricted to the overall performance of the company which makes them more receptive for features that stimulate creative performance. Therefore, the combination of BL and TFL is expected to be a perfect combination for the enhancement of creative behavior.

12

H3: Transformational leadership enhances the relationship between benevolent leadership and employee creativity in such a way that for employees who perceive higher levels of transformational leadership, benevolent leadership has a stronger, positive relationship with employee creativity than for employees perceiving lower levels of transformational leadership.

3. METHOD

Research context, sample, and procedure

In this study, research was conducted among supervisors and employees of a major post company in the Netherlands. Three top managers of the operating, network support, and HR department were contacted to obtain approval for the research and help to elicit attention and commitment of their subordinates for participating in the research. These employees were asked if they were also responsible for managing other employees. Hence, the overall amount of supervisors was increased and maximized the number of total dyads within the departments.

All participants received the appropriate questionnaire by e-mail accompanied by a brief explanation in which their confidentiality and anonymity in the research was assured. Subordinates provided information about their demographics, perceptions of experiencing BL and TFL. They also rated their own creative abilities. Supervisors rated on their turn the subordinates’ creativity in the workplace. All questionnaires were conducted online and the results were automatically sent to the author. Each participant had his own researcher-assigned code in order to match the subordinate outcomes with the immediate leader’s evaluation.

In total 117 dyads were selected and received a questionnaire. 91 were completed and matching questionnaires were received. One matching pair was removed from the sample due to an outlier rate of more than 50% on all items. This resulted in a data set of 90 dyads and an overall response rate of 78%. The majority of the sample was male (70%) and highly educated (58% held bachelor’s or higher degrees). The mean age of the participants was 45,50 years (SD = 11.96) and organizational tenure 21.78 years (SD = 14.20).

Measures

13

Eleven items of the benevolent leadership scale developed by Cheng et al. (2000) were used in order to test for perceived benevolent leadership (α = .86). The scale was originally developed for the Chinese society and was already translated into English. However, this forced the author to modify certain items, with the help of an expert in written Dutch and English, in order to make the items suitable and understandable for Dutch employees.

On a 7-point Likert scale that ranges from 1, “strongly disagree,” to 7 “strongly agree” subordinates provided information about the frequency of perceiving their supervisor’s benevolent behavior. Sample items include “my supervisor will help me when I am in an emergency” and “my supervisor handles what is difficult to do or manage in everyday life for me”.

Transformational leadership

A shortened version of a scale developed by Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman & Metter (1990) was used to measure TFL. As is explained above, BL and individual consideration have numerous similarities. That is, BL surpassed the body of individual consideration due to the genuine concern of the leader in the overall welfare of employees. In order to avoid potential overlap bias all items for individual consideration are excluded from the research.

Sample items for charisma include “facilitates the acceptance of group goals”. A typical item for inspirational motivation is “will not settle for second best”. “Has stimulated to rethink the way I do things” is a typical item for intellectual stimulation. This scale consists of a 7-point Likert scale that ranges from 1, “strongly disagree,” to 7, “strongly agree”. Items were only proposed to employees. This measure was considered to be reliable (α = 0.84).

Creativity

14

reasons support this decision. First, it is argued that employees are best suited to rate their creativity because they are experience every subtle action in their jobs that makes them creative (Janssen, 2000). Second, assessing creativity as discretionary work behavior is much like many forms of subjective performance appraisal and therefore, highly susceptible to idiosyncratic interpretations making them likely to differ across raters (Janssen, 2000). Third, chances are that genuine innovative actions of the subordinates have escaped the attention of their supervisors, and that the supervisors base their ratings on activities of employees that were intended to impress them. Finally, supervisor ratings are included in the research because these scores are not biased because the supervisors are not aware of the kind of other questions being asked in this research that could change their minds. Therefore, both subordinate as well as supervisor ratings are included in this study. The Cronbach’s α was .79 for the self-rated and .90 for the leader-rated scores of employee creativity.

Control variables

On the first page of the questionnaire participants provided information about their sex (1, “male,” 2, “female”), age (in years), education (1, “lower level highschool” to 7, “Master degree”), organizational tenure ( in years), number of years they have been working along their current leader. These facts were entered in the statistical analyses reported below, due to expected correlation with one of the independent variables. Wang & Cheng (2009) found a correlation suggesting that benevolent leaders tend to express more benevolence to subordinates who have spent a long time with them and therefore, this variable is also added to the list of control variables.

4. RESULTS

Descriptive statistics

15

that subordinates have worked with their leader. Whereas BL is positively related to leader-reports of creativity TFL has no significant relation with this criterion. In contrast to findings of Harris & Schaubroeck (1988), no significant correlation was found between leader-reports and self-reports of employee creativity.

Tests of Hypotheses

Leader-rated creativity. In order to test hypothesis 1, a hierarchical regression analysis was conducted which consisted of three successful steps. In the first step, the social-demographic variables were entered as control variables. In the second step, the independent variables were entered. Finally, the interaction of BL and TFL was entered. According to model 1, as is summarized by Table 2, control variables have a significant influence on the criterion (R² = .13, F = 2.545, p < .05). The first hypothesis stated BL is positively related to employee creativity. According to table 2, BL has a significant positive relation with the dependent variable (b = .32, p < .05) which supports Hypothesis 1. However, TFL has no significant relationship with employee creativity and the direction of the coefficient is not in line with expectations (r = -.09, p > .05). So hypothesis 2, which stated that TFL is positively related to employee creativity, is not supported. Furthermore, adding the two independent variables accounted for 6% of the proportion of the variance in the dependent variable of creativity (ΔR² = .06, p > .05, ΔF = 2.883). Finally, hypothesis 3 states that the positive relationship between BL and the criterion will be enhanced by the moderator. The results show no support for the third hypothesis (b = .05, p = > .05). This means that the interaction does not account for extra percentages of the proportion of the variance of the criterion (ΔF = .337, p < .05, ΔR² = .00).

16

TABLE 1

Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations of the Variables

Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Sex .30 .46

2. Age 45.50 11.96 -.48***

3. Education 4.40 1.98 .45*** -67***

4. Tenure with the organization 21.78 14.20 -.51*** .92*** -.61***

5. Tenure with leader in years 1.70 1.63 -.19* .12 -.12 .16

17

TABLE 2

Results of Regression Analyses Testing Hypothesis

Dependent variable: Leader-rated creativity

Step and independent variables Entry B Final B R² F Δ R² ΔF

Block 1: Control Variables

Sex -.00 -.00

Age -.79** -.70*

Education -.06 -.04

Tenure with the organization .74** .65* Tenure with leader .20 .19

.13 2.545* .13 2.545* Block 2: Main effects

Benevolent leadership .29* .32* Transformational leadership -.09 -.09

.19 2.723* .06 2.883 Block 3: Interaction effect

Benevolent leadership * Transfor- .05 mational leadership

.19 2.406* .00 .337

B = Unstandardized regression coefficients N = 90

*

18

TABLE 3

Results of Regression Analyses Testing Hypothesis

Dependent variable: Self-rated creativity

Step and independent variables Entry B Final B R² F Δ R² ΔF

Block 1: Control Variables

Sex -.21 -.11

Age .29 .14

Education -.14 -.16

Tenure with the organization -.25 -.10 Tenure with leader .20 .09

.16 3.182* .16 3.182* Block 2: Main effects

Benevolent leadership -.02 .09 Transformational leadership .33* .31*

.23 3.585** .08 4.019* Block 3: Interaction effect

Benevolent leadership * Transfor- .23** mational leadership

.30 4.298** .06 7.346**

B = Unstandardized regression coefficients N = 90

*

18

an enhancer effect appeared within the positive relationship between BL and employee creativity. The interaction effect accounted for another 6% of the proportion of explained variance of the criterion (ΔF= 7.346, p < .01, ΔR² = .06). Based on these results it can be concluded that the interaction effect of BL and TFL significant influence the dependent variable and therefore hypothesis three is accepted. To further clarify this interactive effect, the total equation was rearranged in simple main effects of BL on employee creativity for high (M + 1 SD) and low (M – 1 SD) values of TFL (cf. Aiken & West, 1991). When employees perceived high levels of TFL, higher levels of BL are positively linked to higher levels of employee creativity. This relationship is very close to being significant (b = .33, t = 1.911, p < .06). However, BL did not significantly relate to employee creativity in case when low levels of TFL were perceived by employees (b = -.14, t = -1.054, p > .05). As figure 1 illustrates, employees performed higher levels of creativity in response to higher levels of BL only when they perceived high levels of TFL. Furthermore, employees performed less creative behavior in response to higher levels of BL when low levels of TFL were perceived.

Figure 1. Visualized results of hypothesis 3

19

5.

DISCUSSION

In order to find an explanation for the rapid upsweep of innovation in Asia this study stripped down the paradigm of paternalism that encompasses the most prevalent leadership style in the Asia. BL was identified as a single leadership construct and considered to be a potential contributor to the success of innovation realized by Asian companies. BL is based on a genuine concern of the leader in the overall welfare of the employee that results in an “individualized care” for each employee. This research developed and tested the proposition that a benevolent leader would enhance the creative performance of employees. Furthermore, the direct influence of TFL on employee creativity was examined. Subsequently, the moderating effect of transformational features on the relation between BL and employee creativity was tested. Hence, transformational features were presumed to make employees who perceive BL perform more creative.

Theoretical implications

Based on the findings of this study, there are some theoretical implications that can be extracted. Evidence was found that BL is positively related to leader perceptions of employee creativity. Furthermore, TFL was positively related to self rated reports of employee creativity. Results showed an insignificant moderating effect of TFL on the relationship between BL and leader-rated reports of employee creativity. Conversely, a significant positive moderating effect was found of TFL on the relationship between BL and self-rated reports of employee creativity.

First of all, this study contributes to literature on BL, as this study is the first to test if BL is related to employee creativity in the Western business context. Thereby, answering to the call of several researchers for more empirical research on possible outcomes of BL (Pelligrini & Scandura, 2008; Wang & Cheng, 2009; Pelligrini et el., 2010).

20

benevolent leader will notice the creative behavior of an employee more often when the relationship between a leader and this particular employee is strong in both the private and professional domain. This is due to the fact that more frequent contact will take place between this employee and their leader compared to employees who are not involved in such a strong relationship with their leader. Second, a benevolent relationship in a professional domain implicates that an employee will show appreciation out of respect, gratitude and deference for the leader. This behavior may influence the leader ratings because leaders may be likely to grant higher ratings to employees who show greater appreciation out of respect, gratitude and deference for these leaders. That is, a leader may label the work of respectful employees more original and useful than the work of less respectful employees. Future researchers must take in account that benevolent leaders have the tendency to overrate the creative performance of employees they have developed strong personal relationships with compared to ratings given to employees to which they did not form close relationships with.

In contrast to the leader-rated scores, the creativity scores rated by employees were positively related to TFL. This is in line with prior academic scholars who also found a positive relationship between TFL and employee creativity (Shin & Zhou, 2003).

As stated above, an interaction effect of TFL was found on the relationship between BL and employee creativity. Hence, there is a positive relation between BL and employee creativity, when employees perceive high levels of TFL. This finding is in line with was hypothesized. It provides evidence for the idea that when benevolent leaders use transformational behaviors, they not only create a facilitative environment but also directly motivate employees to engage in creative courses of action, thereby further amplifying their creative performance.

21

The most important contribution is the evidence presented in this research that suggests that, in contrast to what several Western scholars have suggested, certain dimensions of paternalism can be useful in the Western business context. That is, establishing high quality relationships with employees may help leaders in influencing employees to perform in desired ways. It would be interesting to test for possible interaction effects of BL with other leadership styles that could amplify the amount of influence of leaders in enhancing employee outcomes.

Limitations

This research has several limitations that deserve attention. Firstly, the cross-sectional design of the study could be a limitation. The correlation evidence found does not necessarily reflect the causality which is proposed. That is, the direction of the relationship between BL and employee creativity is unknown and may be bi-directional. For example, TFL might have influenced BL behaviors. To overcome these problems longitudinal research, which analyzes same measurements at different moments in time, is necessary.

The second limitation is caused by the fact that this research is focused on one situational factor; namely TFL. Therefore, it does not join creativity researchers that have adopted the interactional approach. This approach suggests that to fully understand the relationship between BL and employee creativity, one also needs to look at the characteristics of the employees (Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Shin & Zhou, 2003; Wang & Cheng, 2009). It can be questioned whether employees in more individualistic countries want a leader who intervenes in their personal life, which can be seen as a violation of privacy (Pelligrini & Scandura, 2008).

Third, it would be interesting to investigate whether perceptions of employees of BL and TFL are in line with the way that a leader perceives its own actions. That is, when leaders and employees have the same perception about a certain leadership feature and the creative performance of the employee is amplified, leaders can be far more effective in influencing their employees.

22

individual consideration dimension could be extended in a way that it is not limited to the work domain, resulting in a more positive relation between TFL and employee creativity.

The final limitation concerns the generalizability of the results found in this study. The sample size of this study was limited, due to a relatively low amount of participants (N = 91). It can be questioned whether this sample is large enough to be generalizable. Moreover, the data was gathered from employees and immediate leaders who worked in a specific industry in one single country. Therefore, one might argue that the results of this study are not applicable to other cultures and work environments. However, the positive relationship between BL and employee creativity is in accordance with findings from prior research in different work contexts and cultures. Wang & Cheng (2009) also found a positive relationship between BL and employee creativity with workers in China.

Practical implications

Besides theoretical implications, this study also has some practical implications for organizations. The analysis suggests that when an organization with benevolent leaders is attempting to enhance the level of employee creativity, transformational features should be used accordingly. It is important for organizations to realize that they can enhance the level of creativity by applying transformational features. Being aware of this possibility may change organizational operations in several ways. Firstly, it could result in different recruiting strategies. Candidates might be selected on the basis of their ability to create high quality relationships with employees. However, on the other hand, these candidates should also possess transformational features that can directly motivate employees to act more creative. Secondly, organizations that have a supportive work environment, in which employees feel appreciated as a valuable individual, can attempt to increase the overall performance of their employees by training their personnel to become better at influencing their employees in such a way that they will perform beyond expectations. For example, organizations that aspire to become more innovative and creative could invest in trainings that will enhance the leadership abilities of managers. Bass (1999) has shown that leaders can become more transformational with the help of training.

23

Managers should be aware of this danger that could occur when leaders show a greater interest in the (private) lives of employees. BL might cause employees to get distracted from their work tasks and lose concentration on the duties that really matter.

Conclusion

24

REFERENCES

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. 1991. Multiple regression:Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In B. M. Staw, & L. L. Cummings(Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 10, pp. 123– 167). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Ashford, S. J., & Tsui, A. S. (1992). Self-regulation for managerial eVectiveness: The role of active feedback seeking. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 251–280. Avolio, B.J., Waldman, D.A., & Yammarino, F.J., (1991). Leading in the 1990’s: The Four

I’s of Transformational Leadership. Journal of European Industrial Training, 15(4), 9-16.

Avolio, B.J., Bass, B.M., & Jung, D.I. (1999). Re-examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72: 441– 462.

Aycan, Z. (2006). Paternalism: Towards conceptual refinement and operationalization. In U. Kim, K. S. Yang, & K. K. Hwang (Eds.), Indigenous and cultural psychology:

Understanding people in context (pp. 445-466). New York, NY: Springer.

Bass, B.M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational dynamics, 18 (3), 19-31.

Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1990) ‘The Implications of Transactional and Transformational Leadership for Individual, Team, and Organizational Development’. In Pasmore, W.A. and Woodman, R.W. (eds) Research in Organizational Change and

Development, Vol. 4.Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 231–72.

Bass, B.M., (1998) Transformational Leadership: Industry, Military, and Educational Impact, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational

leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8, 9−32. Bass, B.M., Avolio, B.J., Jung, D.I., and Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance by

assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied

25

Boston Consultancy Group, (2012). The Most Innovative Companies 2012,

https://www.bcgperspectives.com/content/articles/growth_innovation_the_most_inno vative_companies_2012/

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.

Cheng, B. S., Chou L. F., & Farh, J. L. (2000). A triad model of paternalistic leadership: The constructs and measurement. Indigenous Psychological Research in Chinese

Societies, 14: 3-64.

Cheng, B. S., Chou, L. F., Wu, T. Y., Huang, M. P., & Farh, J. L. (2004). Paternalistic leadership and subordinate responses: Establishing a leadership model in Chinese organizations. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 7, 89-117.

Colella, A., Garcia, F., Triana, M., & Riedel, L. (2005, August). Measuring paternalism: Opening the door to research. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Honolulu, HI.

Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31, 874-900.

Deci, E. L.,& Ryan, R. M. (1987). The support of autonomy and the control of behavior.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1024–1037.

Dvir, T., Eden, D. Avolio, B. J., & Shamir, B., (2002). Impact of transformational leadership on follower development and performance: A field experiment. Academy of

Management Journal, 45: 735–744.

Farh, J. L., & Cheng, B. S. (2000). A cultural analysis of paternalistic leadership in Chinese organizations. In J. T. Li., Tsui, A. S., & E. Weldon (Eds.), Managementand organizations in the Chinese context (pp. 84-130). London, England: Macmillan. Gelfand, M. J., Erez, M., & Aycan, Z. (2007). Cross-cultural organizational behavior.

Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 479-514.

Goodell, G. E. 1985. Paternalism, patronage, and potlatch: The dynamics of giving and being given to. Current Anthropology, 26: 247-257.

Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing.

Research on Organizational Behavior, 9, 175-208.

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. Leadership Quarterly, 6: 219-247. Farh, J. L., Liang, J., Chou, L. F., & Cheng, B. S. (2008). Paternalistic leadership in Chinese

26

T. Lee (Eds.), Business leadership in China: Philosophies, theories,and practices (pp. 171-205). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Harris, M. M., & Schaubroeck, J. (1988). A meta-analysis of self-supervisor, self-peer, and peer-supervisor ratings. Personnel Psychology, 41, 43–62.

Jung, D.I., Bass, B.M., & Sosik, J.J., (1995), Bridging Leadership and Culture: A Theoretical Consideration of Transformational Leadership and Collectivistic Cultures, The Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 2, No. 4.

Kim, U. M. (1994). Significance of paternalism and communalism in the occupational

welfare system of Korean firms: A national survey. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism:

Theory,method, and applications (pp. 251-266). London, England: Sage.

Kirkman, B.L., Chen, G., Farh, J., Chen, Z., & Lowe, K.B. (2009). Individual Power Distance Orientation and Follower Reactions to Transformational Leaders: a Cross-Level, Cross-Cultural Examination. Academy Of Management Journal, 52(4),

744-764.

Janssen, O. (2000). Job demands, perceptions of effortreward fairness, and innovative work behavior. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,73: 287–302.

Mumford, M. D., & Gustafson, S. B. (1988). Creativity syndrome: Integration, application, and innovation. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 27–43.

Northouse, P. G. (1997). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

Oldham, G. R.,& Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 607–634.

Pasa, S. F., Kabasakal, H., & Bodur, M. (2001). Society, organizations, and leadership in Turkey. Applied Psychology:An International Review, 50: 559-589.

Pearce, J. L. (2005). Paternalism and radical organizational change. Paper presented at the meeting of the Academy of Management, Honolulu, Hawaii.

Pellegrini, E. K., & Scandura, T. A. (2006). Leader-member exchange (LMX), paternalism and delegation in the Turkish business culture: An empirical investigation. Journal of

International Business Studies, 37(2): 264-279.

Pellegrini, E. K., & Scandura, T. A. (2008). Paternalistic Leadership: A Review and Agenda for Future Research. Journal Of Management, 34(3), 566-593.

27

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1: 107–142.

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.

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

Shin, S. J., & Zhou, J. (2003). Transformational leadership, conservation, and creativity: Evidence from Korea. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 703–714.

Staw, B. M. (1990). An evolutionary approach to creativity and innovation. In M. A. West & J. L. Farr (Eds.), Innovation and creativity at wark: 287-308. Chichester, UK: Wiley. Uhl-Bien, M. & Maslyn, M. (2005, August). Paternalism as a form of leadership:

Differentiating paternalism from leader-member exchange. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Honolulu, HI.

Wang, A., Cheng, B., (2009). When does benevolent leadership lead to creativity? The moderating role of creative role identity and job autonomy. Journal of

Organizational Behavior.

Wang, P., Rode, J.C., (2010). Transformational leadership and follower creativity: The moderating effects of identification with leader and organizational climate. Human

Relations, 63(8), 1105-1128.

Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization (A. M. Henderson & T. Parsons, Trans.). NewYork: Free Press.

Weber, M. (1968). The types of legitimate domination. In G. Roth & C. Wittich (Eds.),

Economy and society (Vol.3): 212-216. New York: Bedminster.