Master Thesis
What it takes to become a leader:
How idea generation and idea realization affect leadership emergence and why gender matters
MSc. Human Resource Management
University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
29th January 2020
Student: Lea Jach (S3734439)
l.jach@student.rug.nl
Supervisor: Tim Vriend
ABSTRACT
The study (N = 131) aimed at extending previous research by incorporating creativity and gender into the leadership emergence framework. The moderating role of gender on idea generation and leadership emergence as well as on idea realization and leadership emergence was investigated. Unexpectedly, the study revealed no moderation of gender. However, creativity was found to be a significant predictor of leadership prototypes because a creative behavior seemed to matter in determining leadership emergence. The findings emphasize the integration of creativity into people's mental models of leaders and remaining potential for research on gender. Further implications for organizations and leaders are presented and directions for future research are suggested.
Keywords:
INTRODUCTION
The description of an ideal leader mostly contains masculine features (Gmür, 2006). Despite a decline in the preference for the masculine type, the majority of the management level is still composed of men (Gmür, 2006; Fritz & van Knippenberg, 2019). In 2014 only 3.8 percent of the Fortune 500 CEOs were female. In 2019 the number raised to 6.6 percent. Still, women held a disproportionately little share of the management positions (Fortune, 2019). This disproportion can be explained by the Leadership Categorization Theory (LCT) and the social role theory. According to the LCT, people have predominantly masculine features in mind, when they think of leadership prototypes and leadership emergence (Epitropaki & Martin, 2005). The social role theory supports this impression because it defines men as agentic and leader-like and women as communal and caretakers (Eagly & Karau, 1991). Consequently, men exert a stronger influence on leadership (Powell & Butterfield, 2015). They severely correspond to leadership prototypes and are categorized as leader-like, which makes leadership emergence very likely (Koenig, Eagly, Mitchell & Ristikari, 2011; Badura, Grijalva, Newman, Yan & Jeon, 2018). Women, on the contrary, correspond less to leadership prototypes, which restricts their categorization and emergence as leaders (Rosette & Tost, 2010). However, the current discussion on gender diversity and the resulting female quota are intended to accomplish an equilibrated proportion of men and women on the management level (Alkalbani, Cuomo & Mallin, 2019). Nevertheless, indecisiveness about the impact of gender on leadership prototypes and leadership emergence dominates.
serves as additional support because it identifies an association between creativity and leadership emergence. Despite this empirical evidence, other studies demonstrated a negative effect (Kaufman & Beghetto, 2013). Mueller, Goncalo, and Kamdar (2011a) point towards an overall negative relationship between creativity and the ability to emerge as a leader. According to them, creativity harbors uncertainty because new ideas differ from the status quo. In the social perception of many people, leaders must provide a normative order and are therefore expected to diminish uncertainty (Mueller, Goncalo & Kamdar, 2011a). Consequently, the extent to which creativity is part of leadership prototypes and leadership emergence remains unsettled.
A recent study by Lee and Farh (2019) provides a possible solution for the inconsistent findings of creativity and leadership emergence. By looking at idea generation and idea realization a positive effect on leadership emergence is observed. Moreover, the two creative behaviors are considered to be either agentic or communal.
Idea generation is defined as the generation of novel and useful ideas (Janssen, 2000). Moreover, it gets associated with uncertainty, as new ideas deviate from the status quo (Janssen, van de Vliert & West, 2004). Agentic behavior equally incorporates uncertainty. As taking risks belongs to the definition of agentic behavior (Hill & Rogers, 2012) uncertain outcomes are likely to appear. Thus, idea generation corresponds to agentic behavior. Idea realization is described as the implementation of ideas (Janssen, 2000) and includes providing trust and encouragement in order to ensure a successful idea realization (West & Wallace, 1991). As communal behavior also involves providing care and support (Kemmelmeier & Walton, 2016) it corresponds to idea realization.
As the researchers use the social role theory on idea generation and idea realization without actually testing it, this study supposes that creative behaviors have different effects on leadership emergence when they are performed by different genders and their corresponding social roles. In order to test the expected effects of gender, several items and their relationships have to get examined. First, the effect of leadership prototypes on leadership emergence is tested. Next, the effects of idea generation and idea realization on leadership prototypes are examined. Since leadership prototypes and leadership emergence are expected to have a positive relation, the influence of idea generation and idea realization on leadership emergence are equally tested. As a last step, gender is incorporated into the model. Hence, both the effect of agentic behavior on idea generation and leadership prototypes as well as the effect of communal behavior on idea realization and leadership prototypes are determined (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Conceptual Model
Studies about leadership emergence have resulted in the overgeneralization of findings on personality and leadership perceptions (Lord, De Vader & Alliger, 1986). By incorporating creativity and gender into the existing study framework of leadership emergence, several theoretical contributions are expected. First, the present study could grant better insights into the relationship between leadership and creativity. It is expected to clarify whether creativity and leadership are contradictory in the minds of people (Mueller, Goncalo & Kamdar, 2011a) or
Idea Generation
whether people expect leaders to be creative (Offermann & Coats, 2017). Similarly, it is believed to close the existing gap between creativity and leadership emergence by identifying creativity as either helpful or useless for leadership emergence (Ensari et al., 2011, Mueller, Melwani & Goncalo, 2011b; Mueller, Goncalo & Kamdar, 2011a; Offermann & Coats, 2017). Third, the study is expected to show whether gender influences leadership emergence. It might reveal why the desire to increase the number of females in management positions (Hoyt & Murphy, 2016) has failed so far. Consequently, exploring creativity and gender in the context of leadership emergence creates much potential for novel research, cognizance, and social comprehension. The study's outcome is expected to be more representative and complete as the "zeitgeist" is matched.
In this way, the research contributes to organizational practice by highlighting the usefulness of creativity support measures such as error management and reward systems. Furthermore, it is supposed to provide leaders with recommendations in dealing with creativity in organizations such as how to successfully implement it. Shedding light at the biased perception of women's inability to succeed as leaders aims at creating awareness in businesses, institutions, and governments, which helps to counteract prejudices. This awareness is expected to realize the most suitable staffing of management levels.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESES
categorization applies (Tavares, Sobral, Goldszmidt & Araújo, 2018; Foti, Hansbrough, Epitropaki & Coyle, 2017).
Leadership prototypes display an additional component of the LCT. They are defined as "cognitive structures or prototypes constituted by individuals' conceptions of the traits and behaviors that characterize a leader" (Tavares et al., 2018, p. 2). This means that people possess certain expectations and assumptions about characteristics and behaviors which are inherent in leaders (MacDonald, Sulsky & Brown, 2008; Mueller, Goncalo & Kamdar, 2011a; Epitropaki & Martin, 2005; Kenney, Blascovich & Shaver, 1994). Offermann and Coats (2018) ascertained several items like character traits and appearance, which are part of leadership prototypes. Besides being competent, caring, motivating, and a good decision-maker, specific behaviors, and actions, like the elimination of uncertainty, complete their profile. Any deviation from the status quo hinders a normative order and results in a mismatch between leadership prototypes and uncertainty (Mueller, Melwani & Goncalo, 2011b).
The interplay between leadership perception and leadership prototypes leads to congruence in LCT and causes an automatic categorization process (Foti et al., 2017). Hence, leadership prototypes are activated because the observed actions and characteristics correspond to people's mental model of leaders. The activation of leadership prototypes is an interpersonal process. The evaluation of a potential leader is based on the implicit beliefs of leaders (Foti et al., 2017; Ensari et al., 2011). Accordingly, leadership prototypes get activated, and leadership perception is triggered regardless of a formal title (Tavares et al., 2018).
previous performances of leaders and the perceived leadership potential determine the teams' willingness to concede leadership to an appropriate individual (Lee & Farh, 2019).
Based on the LCT, it is suggested that the activation of leadership prototypes initiates a categorization process in which people are classified as leaders. This implies that leadership emergence is dependent on leadership prototypes as there is neither a categorization process nor a classification of leaders without prior activation of leadership prototypes. Deriving, the following hypothesis is suggested.
Hypothesis 1: Leadership prototypes have a positive effect on leadership emergence. As previously mentioned, leadership prototypes have been identified as schemas which determine people's expectations about leadership traits and behaviors (Offermann & Coats, 2018). A study by Offermann, Kennedy, and Wirtz (1994) identified such traits and behaviors and integrated them into a factor structure of leadership prototypes. A replication by Offermann and Coats (2018) mostly confirmed the original findings and recognized nine attributes such as being charismatic, creative, intelligent and masculine to be leader-like.
However, leadership prototypes are shaped by various factors, including culture, socialization processes, opinions and values (van Knippenberg, 2011). Therefore, people vary in the extent to which they ascribe to these prototypes. If a country's culture is, for instance, known to be tight, it implies greater resistance to change. Therefore, a culture is less likely to deviate from traditional leadership prototypes (Chua, Roth & Lemoine, 2015) because there exists less variance about leadership expectations. These similar expectations are known as general beliefs about leadership traits (Türetgen, Unsal & Erdem, 2008).
of creativity as a leadership prototype is divided. Hence, discrepancy about creative behaviors persists, although on average an effect is present.
Creativity is applied for the formulation of new ideas that are valuable in approaching social needs (Lee, Legood, Hughes, Tian, Newman & Knight, 2019; Mumford, Mobley, Reiter-Palmon, Uhlman & Doares, 1991). This means that people acquire useful knowledge, for instance by engaging in knowledge-transfers, to create a valuable and creative output.
As creativity is a cognitive process (da Costa, Páez, Sánchez, Garaigordobil & Gondim, 2015), it includes a sequence of thoughts and actions, which are known as creative behaviors (Lubart, 2001). The generation of an idea depicts one example of creative behaviors. It is described as the process in which people produce new and useful results. The idea promotion is another example of creative behaviors. It means engaging in social actions to call attention to an idea and to foster it. The realization of an idea entails the creation of the idea's model to experience and make use of it at micro and macro levels (Janssen, 2000). The evaluation of an idea is a further creative behavior. It implies the evaluation of alternative ideas to bring the most valued result (Mumford et al., 1991).
As a recent study by Lee and Farh (2019) addresses idea generation and idea realization in the context of leadership emergence, these two creative behaviors were chosen as a theoretical framework. Idea generation is identified as the generation of new and useful ideas (Janssen, 2000). However, their generation includes unpredictability and uncertainty because it presents alternatives to the status-quo (Janssen, van de Vliert & West, 2004). As a newly voiced idea is not yet tested for error-freeness, social acceptance, and reliability (Chua, Roth & Lemoine, 2015) it depicts the chance of unintended costs (Janssen, van de Vliert & West, 2004).
of the implicit beliefs about leaders. This is grounded on the fact that any state of uncertainty results in discomfort and triggers the motivation of diminishing and avoiding it (Mueller, Goncalo & Kamdar, 2011a; Whitson & Galinsky, 2008). Consequently, creative idea generation is expected to result in low leadership potential as it objects to the prototypes of emergent leaders. Therefore, the following is hypothesized.
Hypothesis 2a: Idea generation has a negative effect on leadership prototypes.
The realization of an idea illustrates another creative behavior. A new idea has already been generated, and by engaging in social activities, its promotion has been accomplished (Janssen, 2000). This implies that idea realization is neither impelled by novelty nor contains a lack of publicity. Instead, it is about efficiently deciding which idea is the most useful and how to implement it in the work environment (Janssen, 2000).
According to Offermann and Coats (2018), good decision-making is a part of the implicit beliefs about leaders. Participation in decision-making often leads to involvement and commitment because of the entitlement to play a decisive role in the given scenario. Therefore, care for the successful implementation of the idea is taken (West & Wallace, 1991), which might additionally contribute to the overall success of an organization. Ideas preferably get implemented based on their usefulness, valuableness (Amabile, Barsade, Mueller & Staw, 2005; Lee & Farh, 2019) and their potential success to enhance the market value (Chiu & Kwan, 2010). Based on these indices, uncertainty reduction is expected when the idea gets implemented. The diminution of uncertainty is an action, which is expected of leaders and corresponds to the leadership prototypes (Mueller, Goncalo & Kamdar, 2011a). According to the LCT by Koenig and associates (2011), the management level is responsible for the overall success of an organization. Thus, another implicit belief of a leader complies.
Hypothesis 2b: Idea realization has a positive effect on leadership prototypes.
By considering the above-stated hypotheses, it becomes clear that idea generation and idea realization have an effect on leadership prototypes. When a creative idea is expressed any stage of uncertainty is included (Mueller, Goncalo & Kamdar, 2011a). Hence, perceived characteristics and behaviors do not comply with implicit beliefs about leaders. Therefore, leadership categorization and leadership emergence are reduced.
Idea realization means that the implementation of an idea comprises good and efficient decision-making. Furthermore, idea realization relies on indices such as usefulness, valuableness (Amabile et al., 2005; Lee & Farh, 2019) and the potential success to improve the market value (Chiu & Kwan, 2010). As good decision-making and the diminution of uncertainty correspond to implicit beliefs about leaders (Offermann & Coats, 2018; Mueller, Goncalo & Kamdar, 2011a) leadership categorization applies and leadership emergence is likely.
The dependence leadership prototypes have on leadership emergence is based on several observations. Cognitive frameworks and categorization systems are a rudiment for both leadership prototypes and leadership emergence. Along with it, components of prototypes like specific traits and behaviors are shown to trigger the categorization and the emergence of a leader. When someone is categorized as a leader, it implies that perceived characteristics and behaviors in conjunction with leadership prototypes cause this categorization. Someone is identified as leader-like because the evaluation of his/her actions and attributes correspond to the observers' mental model of leaders. Leadership potential gets ascribed and leadership emergence takes place. Hence, leadership prototypes seem to depict the requirement for the emergence of leaders (Hollander, 1992).
fails to do so (Offermann & Coats, 2018; Mueller, Goncalo & Kamdar, 2011a; Amabile et al., 2005; Lee & Farh, 2019; Chiu & Kwan, 2011). Therefore, the following is hypothesized.
Hypothesis 3a: Leadership prototypes mediate the negative relationship between idea generation and leadership emergence.
Hypothesis 3b: Leadership prototypes mediate the positive relationship between idea realization and leadership emergence.
The effects of leadership prototype activation are, however, not the same for all circumstances. Some situational factors might ask for gender-specific skills in order to get perceived as a leader (Lee & Farh, 2019). The effects of gender on creativity convey a good example, as creativity is measured based on gender-typical characteristics (Stoltzfus, Nibbelink, Vredenburg & Thyrum, 2011). If people assign creativity to make supportive contributions, they automatically associate creativity with femininity because being supportive corresponds to the expectations of women (Proudfoot, Kay & Koval, 2015). The findings of gender's effects on leadership prototypes and leadership emergence are similar. They suggest that gender-specific behaviors decide upon the activation of leadership prototypes and leadership emergence (Badura et al., 2018). If dominant behavior, which is predominantly masculine (Eagly & Karau, 2002), results in the activation of leadership prototypes and the emergence of a leader, gender exerts an indirect effect on leadership.
caretakers, which indicates a lower status. They are associated with communal features like being interpersonally sensitive, helpful and sympathetic (Paustian-Underdahl, Walker & Woehr, 2014). Consequently, people believe that certain qualities and behavioral tendencies are desirable for either males or females.
Given the social role theory, agentic effects are stronger for men and communal effects are stronger for women (Eagly & Karau, 1991; Koenig et al., 2011). As agentic behavior is identified as leader-like, a fit between agentic behavior and leadership prototypes seems to be likely. Fit is understood to have a strengthening effect, it means that if men engage in agentic behavior, they correspond more strongly to leadership prototypes. Likewise, it indicates that women are evaluated more positively if they act in a communal way (Rosette & Tost, 2010).
Based on their nurturing role, women possess superior interpersonal skills (Eagly, Wood & Diekman, 2000). This means that communal behavior incorporates establishing commitment as well as trustful relationships and engagement in encouraging behavior (West & Wallace, 1991). As men were rather accommodated to the employment role, agentic behavior includes being assertive (Eagly & Steffen, 1984) and taking risks (Hill & Rogers, 2012) in order to lead to success.
A study by Lee and Farh (2019) hinted towards the possible effects of communal and agentic behavior. They identified idea generation to result in leadership emergence when constructive contributions are performed and idea realization to result in leadership emergence by making supportive contributions (Lee & Farh, 2019). These contributions, however, bear resemblance to the social role theory. Constructive contributions are already labeled to be of agentic nature (Lee & Farh, 2019). Supportive contributions incorporate actions, which make employees feel supported and sustain the group (Badura et al., 2018) and therefore resemble communal behavior.
problematic. The generation of an idea is likely to harbor uncertainty since a novel idea deviates from the status quo (Janssen, van de Vliert & West, 2004). Therefore, no guidance can be provided when an idea is generated. Moreover, the idea's outcome remains unclear until a successful implementation has been arranged. Thus, idea generation might rely on taking risks and could result in rejection and failure (Hill & Rogers, 2012; Janssen, van de Vliert & West, 2004). As agentic behavior equals taking risks and making motivational contributions (Hill & Rogers, 2012), idea generation corresponds to the social role of men. However, the definition of idea generation does not correspond to leadership expectations. Leaders are not supposed to take risks, instead, they are expected to ensure structure and stability to diminish uncertainty (Phillips & Lord, 1981). Hence, this particular creative behavior contradicts the prototypical characteristics of a leader, even though it conforms to agentic behavior.
Idea realization is described as providing people with trust and encouragement in order to make sure that they remain committed to the implementation. The involvement in the realization process as well as the entitlement to play a decisive role within the implementation offer incentives to keep the commitment high (West & Wallace, 1991). As communal behavior involves providing support and care (Kemmelmeier & Walton, 2016), idea realization matches the female social role. Moreover, the displayed behavior corresponds to leadership expectations as vision is provided (Mueller, Goncalo & Kamdar, 2011a).
Within the framework of the study by Lee and Farh (2019), this implies that men do not emerge as leaders during the idea generation phase. As men are dealing with uncertainty and risks when they are generating ideas, they pertain to the social role of men, but they do not fit leadership prototypes and do not trigger leadership emergence (Offermann & Coats, 2018; Koenig et al., 2011).
Consequently, men are exposed to a disadvantage as they correspond to agentic behavior, which is known to be leader-like, but do not emerge as leaders. Women, on the contrary, who are usually victims of discrimination (Eagly & Carli, 2007), do not experience it and emerge as leaders in the idea realization phase. As a result, the following can be hypothesized.
Hypothesis 4a: Gender moderates the negative relationship between idea generation and leadership prototypes, such as the relationship is stronger when a man generates ideas. Hypothesis 4b: Gender moderates the positive relationship between idea realization and leadership prototypes, such as the relationship is stronger when a woman realizes ideas.
METHODOLOGY Procedure and Participants
For the data collection, I collaborated with another student. We recruited dyads of leaders and employees and gathered their data from October 22nd, 2019 until December 11th, 2019 via an online survey. As a first step, either leaders or employees received a cover letter, which described the research procedure. Consequently, they could decide whether to participate or not. If they agreed to take part, they were asked to send us the e-mail addresses of them and their partner(s). Afterwards, all participants received a link to the online questionnaire (Appendix A). There were two versions of this questionnaire. One individualized version for the leaders and an individualized version for the employees. Both questionnaires were available in German and English. 12.9% of the leaders and 9.3% of the employees made use of the English version. The questionnaires took ten minutes to complete.
The survey yielded 144 responses from leaders and 144 responses from employees. As 13 questionnaires were not fully completed, they were excluded from the sample. Hence, the overall sample size amounted to 131 leader-employee dyads (131 leaders [Mage = 44.58, SD = 11.675;
52.7% female]; 131 employees [Mage = 35.59, SD = 11.653; 69.5% female]). The participants
occupied a top management position while 43.5% were in middle and 12.2% in non-management positions. 34.4% of the leaders supervised 1 to 5 employees and 22.9% were in charge of 6 to 10 employees. 77.9% of the leaders possessed a bachelor's degree or higher. 64.1% of the employees occupied a non-management position while 19.8% were in the lower and 13.7% in the middle management. 60.3% of the employees did not supervise anyone and 26.7% took care of 1 to 5 other employees. 58% of the employees possessed a bachelor's or master's degree.
Measures
All measures included a rating scale with anchors from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), except the demographic variables (age, tenure, gender, and education) and the details about the current employment (sector, management position, level of organizational hierarchy, supervision and seniority level).
Idea Generation. A three-item measure based on Janssen (2000) was completed to test the
employees' self-perceptions regarding their generation of ideas (a=.62). The items included assertions like "I mobilize support for innovative ideas".
Idea Realization. The employees' self-perceptions to realize an idea were assessed based
on Janssen (2000; a=.61). "I transform innovative ideas into useful applications" was a statement, which was used in the questionnaire.
Leadership Prototypes. Leaders provided information about the extent to which their
Leadership Emergence. The four-item measure by Mueller, Goncalo, and Kamdar (2011a)
was used to evaluate the potential of leadership emergence. Leaders had to answer statements concerning their employees such as "(S)He will become an effective leader". Hence, this measure was used to reflect on the employees' potential to emerge as leaders (a=.89).
Control Variables. Details about the current employment were composed of four items,
namely management position, level in the organizational hierarchy, supervision and seniority level (a=.11). They controlled for the external conditions to emerge as leaders (Lammers, Stoker & Stapel, 2010) by indicating whether they were in a non-management, lower management, middle management or top management position.
Four demographic variables were used because of their significant relation to creativity (a=.48; a=.40) (George & Zhou, 2001; Shalley, Zhou & Oldham., 2004). Age and tenure in the current position were measured in years. The participants used the drop-down function to indicate whether they were male, female or other. In order to control the participants' education, they had to indicate their highest diploma (high school, apprenticeship, bachelor, master, Ph.D. or professor).
Data Analysis
To test Hypothesis 1, namely whether leadership prototypes exert an effect on leadership emergence, a regression analysis was used. The influence idea generation (H2a) and idea realization (H2b) have on leadership prototypes, was equally tested by a regression. Furthermore, Hayes' (2015) PROCESS model 4 was used to explore Hypothesis 3. The effect of Hypothesis 4 was investigated using PROCESS model 7 (Hayes, 2015).
RESULTS Bivariate Correlations
TABLE 1 Descriptive Statistics
Notes: N = 131; *p < .10, **p < .05, ***p < .001; 1 age was coded in years; 2 gender was coded as male, female or other; hierarchical level was 3 tenure current position was coded in years; 4 highest diploma was coded “1” for high school,“2” for apprenticeship, “3”
for bachelor, “4” for master, “5” for PhD, “6” for professor; 5 management position was coded “1” for non-management, “2” for lower management, “3” for middle management, “4” for top management; 6 hierarchical level was measured in percentage from 0 to
100; 7 supervision was coded “1” for no supervision, “2” for 1-5 employees, “3” for 6-10 employees, “4” for 11-15 employees, “5” for 16-20 employees, “6” for >20 employees; 8 seniority level was coded “1” for very junior, “2” for junior, “3” for middle level, “4”
for senior, “5” for very senior.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Control Variable
1. Age1 1
2. Gender2 -.349** 1
3. Tenure Current Position3 .652** -.266** 1
4. Highest Diploma4 -.045 .157 -.049 1 5. Management Position5 .179* .011 .144 .094 1 6. Hierarchical Level6 .391** -.064 .314** -.068 .614** 1 7. Supervision7 .217* -.187* .048 -.091 .193* .224 1 8. Seniority Level8 .515** -.165 .254** .076 .415** .439** .245** 1 9. Age Employee .263** -.126 .186* -.113 .096 .151 .105 .007 1 10. Gender Employee .001 .047 .004 .011 .056 .067 -.108 .121 -.145 1
11. Tenure Current Position Employee .160 -.061 .143 -.029 .003 .112 .110 .027 .552** -141 1 12. Highest Diploma Employee -.126 -.031 -.099 .140 -.180* -.304** -.085 -.072 .004 -.056 -.082 1 13. Management Position Employee -.075 -.012 -.098 .136 .057 -.022 .109 .009 .149 -.144 .130 .039 1
14. Hierarchical Level Employee .092 -.034 .115 -.142 -.057 .019 .140 -.096 .383** -.134 .434** -.091 .375** 1 15. Supervision Employee .014 .030 -.040 -.006 .003 -.054 .195* -.018 .178* -.101 .159 -.023 .495** .397** 1 16. Seniority Level Employee .093 .012 .051 -.022 -.081 -.089 .073 .019. .543** -.159 .628** .115 .125 .481** .228** 1
Model Variable
17. Leadership Emergence -.035 -.002 .098 .019 .065 .055 -.141 -.041 -.015 .101 .048 -.042 .064 -.056 .026 -.051 1
Hypothesis Testing
Test of Hypothesis 1. Table 2 displays the results of the regression analysis conducted to
examine Hypotheses 1. As leaders display a more reliable source to rate the actual potential of leadership emergence (Day, Fleenor, Atwater, Sturm & McKee, 2014) their answers were used to measure the effect leadership prototypes exert on leadership emergence.
A positive relationship between leadership prototypes and leadership emergence (B = 1.12, p = .001) was predicted.
Test of Hypothesis 2. For analyzing the direct effect of idea generation (H2a) and idea
realization (H2b) on leadership prototypes, a multiple regression analysis was conducted (Table 3). This implies, that the creativity items were first separately and then jointly tested on leadership prototypes. As the creative behaviors were measured in a behavioral way, the answers of the employees were used in order to examine the expected effects.
The separate testing of idea generation on leadership prototypes revealed idea generation (B =.14, p = .001) to have a significantly positive effect on leadership prototypes. When solely idea realization was tested, it showed idea realization (B =.19, p = .000) to be significantly positively related to leadership prototypes. However, when the creativity items were tested jointly, the effects changed. Contrary to the assumption that idea generation was negatively associated with leadership prototypes, an insignificant relation was revealed (B =.06, p = .238). Idea realization met the expectations and showed a significantly positive relationship with leadership prototypes (B = .15, p = .006). Hence, only Hypothesis 2b can be approved.
Test of Hypothesis 3. The indirect influence of leadership prototypes on the relationships
After entering the leadership prototypes into the model, its' link to idea realization was calculated. It revealed that idea realization (B = .24, p = .000) significantly related to leadership prototypes. Assessing the relationship between the leadership prototypes and leadership emergence showed leadership prototypes (B = .60, p = .003) to have a significant effect on leadership emergence. Consequently, a mediation was indicated. In the final stage, the potency of a mediation effect on the relationship between idea realization and leadership emergence was tested. The effects of idea realization (B = .38, p = .003, indirect effect from = .142, 95%-CI [.039, .270]) on leadership emergence diminished and continued to predict it as significant. This indicates a partial mediation for Hypothesis 3b.
Test of Hypothesis 4. For evaluating the moderation of gender on idea generation and
leadership prototypes (H4a) as well as on idea realization and leadership prototypes (H4b) model 7 from the PROCESS was executed (Hayes, 2015; Table 3). Corresponding to Hypothesis 2, the analysis was conducted based on the employees' answers.
The proposed positive relation between idea realization (B = .20, p = .002) and leadership prototypes showed to be significant. The expected negative relation between idea generation (B = .00, p = .992) and leadership prototypes revealed to be insignificant. To test a possible moderation, the interaction effects between idea generation and gender and between idea realization and gender were analyzed. Both results (idea generation, B = .07, p = .775; idea realization, B = -.07, p = .773) showed to be insignificant. Thus, Hypothesis 4 could not be confirmed.
TABLE 2
Mediating Relationships
DV: Leadership Emergence
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
Control Variable
3. Tenure Current Position .013(.011) .008(.009) .014(.009) -002(.003) 4. Highest Diploma .000(.087) -.039(.073) -.014(.076) -.029(.032) 5. Management Position .040(.112) .023(.094) .067(.099) .086(.041)** 6. Hierarchical Level .004(.004) .001(.004) .005(.004) -.001(.001) 7. Supervision -.074(.053) -.065(.044) -.065(.046) -.004(.019) 8. Seniority Level -.077(.144) .021(.121) -.070(.125) .035(.053) Model Variable 9. Idea Generation .197(.123) .073(.054) 10. Idea Realization .520(.120) .238(.053)*** 11. Leadership Prototypes 1.12(.180)*** .596(.201)** Notes: N = 131; *p < .10, **p < .05, ***p < .001. TABLE 3 Moderating Relationships DV: Leadership Prototypes
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5
Control Variable
1. Age -.002(.003) -.004(.003) -.013(.002) -.013(.002) -.013(.002) 2. Gender -.197(.065)** -.169(.061)**
3. Tenure Current Position .009(.006) .008(.005) .010(.004)** .010(.004)** .010(.004)** 4. Highest Diploma -.021(.031) -.027(.029) -.036(.026) -.036(.026) -.036(.026) 5. Management Position .102(.045)** .067(.043) .046(.034) .046(.034) .046(.034) 6. Hierarchical Level .001(.002) 4,14E-5(.001) -.001(.001) -.001(.001) -.001(.001) 7. Supervision .025(.025) .014(.023) -.020(.017) -.020(.017) -.020(.017) 8. Seniority Level -.046(.036) -.006(.035) -.005(.041) -.005(.041) -.005(.041) Model Variable 9. Idea Generation .061(.051) .000(.050) .001(.050) .000(.050) 10. Idea Realization .157(.056)** .199(.051)** .199(.051)** .199(.051)** Idea Generation*Gender .058(.035) .058(.035) Idea Realization*Gender -.001(.034) -.001(.034) Notes: N = 131; *p < .10, **p < .05, ***p < .001. Supplementary Analyses
explore possible effects of the different categories, a regression analysis tested each category on leadership emergence (Table 4).
The results revealed creativity (B = .430 p = .008) and dedication (B = .197, p = .098) to have marginally positive relationships with leadership emergence. Gender (B = -.350, p = .028) showed to be significantly negative related to leadership emergence and tenure current position (B = 017, p = .085) had a significantly positive relationship with it (Table 4).
As creativity and dedication revealed to result in leadership emergence, further tests were conducted.
Creativity. First, a multiple regression was executed (Table 6). Hence, idea generation and
idea realization were tested separately on the leadership prototype creativity. Idea generation (B =.52, p = .000) had a significantly positive effect on this leadership prototype. Likewise, idea realization (B =.59, p = .000) showed to be significantly positively related to creativity. The combined testing showed idea generation (B =.20, p = .008) and idea realization (B =.46, p = .000) both to have a significantly positive relationship with creativity (Table 6).
A mediation was tested in a next step (Table 5). As only the confidence intervals of idea realization did not include zero it was considered as significant (Hayes, 2015). When creativity was entered into the model, the link between idea realization and creativity was calculated. It revealed that idea realization (B = .46, p = .000) significantly related to creativity. Assessing the relationship between creativity and leadership emergence showed creativity (B = .12, p = .424) to have an insignificant effect on leadership emergence. Consequently, no mediation was indicated (Table 5).
Dedication. Again, a multiple regression was used to test idea generation and idea
realization individually before they were jointly tested on dedication (Table 8). Idea generation (B =.47, p = .000) and idea realization (B =.31, p = .002) had a significantly positive effect on dedication. The combined test showed only idea generation (B =.46, p = .001) to be significantly positively related to it. Idea realization (B =.02, p = .872) had no effect on dedication (Table 8).
After entering dedication into the model, the link between idea generation and dedication as well as between idea realization and dedication was calculated (Table 7). It revealed that idea generation (B = .46, p = .001) had a significant effect on dedication, while idea realization (B = .02, p = .872) had an insignificant effect on it. Hence, the mediation for idea realization was terminated. Assessing the relationship between the dedication and leadership emergence showed dedication (B = .02, p = .786) to have an insignificant effect on leadership emergence. Consequently, no mediation was indicated (Table 7).
Then, the moderating effect of gender on idea generation and idea realization was tested (Table 8). Again, only idea generation (B =.45, p = .003) revealed a significantly positive relation with dedication. Idea realization (B =.07, p = .563) had an insignificant effect on it. A moderation for idea generation (B = .29, p = .104) and idea realization (B = -.07, p = .015) was rejected due to the insignificance of their interaction with gender.
Model Variable 9. Sensitivity .194(.128) 10. Dedication .190(.114)* 11. Tyranny .069(.131) 12: Charisma -.042(.143) 13. Strength .159(.126) 14. Creativity .430(.159)** 15. Well-Groomed .035(.138) 16. Masculinity .110(.069) 17. Intelligence .040(.160) Notes: N = 131; *p < .10, **p < .05, ***p < .001. TABLE 5 Mediating Relationships DV: Leadership Emergence Model 1 Model 2 Control Variable 1. Age -.013(.009) -.008 (.008) 2. Gender -.287(.154)* -.385(.145)** 3. Tenure Current Position .019(.010)* .009(.009) 4. Highest Diploma .051(.079) -.024(.075) 5. Management Position .049(.101) .026(.094) 6. Hierarchical Level .003(.004) .001(.003) 7. Supervision -.046(.048) -.060(.044) 8. Seniority Level -.057(.129) .013(.121) Model Variable 9. Idea Generation .172(.127) 10. Idea Realization .464(.138)** 11. Creativity .608(.112)*** .119(.148) Notes: N = 131;*p < .10, **p < .05, ***p < .001. TABLE 6 Moderating Relationships
DV: Leadership Prototype Creativity
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5
Control Variable
1. Age .004(.007) .007(.005) -.0006(.005) -.0006(.005) -.0006(.005) 2. Gender .186(.125) -.010(.090)
5. Management Position -.015(.082) -.029(.058) -.029(.058) -.029(.058) -.029(.058) 6. Hierarchical Level .003(.003) .001(.002) -.001(.002) -.001(.002) -.001(.002) 7. Supervision -.046(.039) .-.038(.028) -.035(.027) -.035(.027) -.035(.027) 8. Seniority Level -.033(.106) .060(.075) .059(.075) .059(.075) .059(.075) Model Variable 9. Idea Generation .206(.077)** .197(.077)** .197(.077)** .197(.077)** 10. Idea Realization .465(.075)*** .443(.077)*** .443(.077)*** .443(.077)*** Idea Generation*Gender .001(.025) .001(.025) Idea Realization*Gender .019(.031) .019(.031) Notes: N = 131; *p < .10, **p < .05, ***p < .001. TABLE 7 Mediating Relationships DV: Leadership Emergence Model 1 Model 2 Control Variable 1. Age -.014(.010) -.008(.008) 2. Gender -.260(.171) -.394(.148) 3. Tenure Current Position .015(.010)) .008(.008) 4. Highest Diploma .011(.086) -.036(-074) 5. Management Position .011(.111) .019(.095) 6. Hierarchical Level .055(.004) .001(.003) 7. Supervision -.077(.052) -.065(.044) 8. Seniority Level -.056(.142) .021(.121) Model Variable 9. Idea Generation .186(.120) 10. Idea Realization .519(.120)*** 11. Dedication .212(.092)** .023(.085) Notes: N = 131; *p < .10, **p < .05, ***p < .001. TABLE 8 Moderating Relationships
DV: Leadership Prototype Dedication
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5
Control Variable
1. Age -014(.010)) .016(.009)* .011(.008) .011(.008) .011(.008) 2. Gender .408(.166)** .320(.157)**
4. Highest Diploma -.052(.085) -.095(.080) -.079(.080) -.079(.080) -.079(.080) 5. Management Position .137(.110) .156(.102) .161(.103) .161(.103) .161(.103) 6. Hierarchical Level -.001(.004) -.005(.004) -.004(.004) -.004(.004) -.004(.004) 7. Supervision .014(.052) .009(.048) -.005(.048) -.005(.048) -.005(.048) 8. Seniority Level -.099(.141) -.013(.131) .454(.137) .454(.137) .454(.137)) Model Variable 9. Idea Generation .460(.134)** .454(.137)** .454(.137)** .454(.137)** 10. Idea Realization .021(.130) .079(.137) .079(.137) .079(.137) Idea Generation*Gender -.001(.019) -.001(.019) Idea Realization*Gender -.007(.036) -.007(.036) Notes: N = 131; *p < .10, **p < .05, ***p < .001. DISCUSSION
generation and leadership emergence (H4a) as well as on idea realization and leadership emergence (H4b) was not supported.
The supplementary analyses focused on creativity and dedication as leadership prototypes because they marginally positively related to leadership emergence. Unsurprisingly, idea generation and idea realization were both found to have a significantly positive relationship with the leadership prototype creativity. Moreover, the study did neither find support for the proposed mediations nor for the moderations.
Idea generation and idea realization were both found to have a significantly positive relation with the leadership prototype dedication. Again, there was no support for the proposed mediations and moderations.
Theoretical Implications
Existing literature on creativity and leadership emergence is divided (Ensari et al., 2011; Mueller, Goncalo & Kamdar, 2011a; Mueller, Melwani & Goncalo, 2011b). While some researchers observed an effect of creativity on leadership emergence (Ensari et al., 2011) others opposed these findings (Mueller, Goncalo & Kamdar, 2011a). The present study adds insights to this discrepancy as it reveals idea realization to be a predictor for leadership emergence. Consequently, particular creative behaviors seem to be helpful to emerge as a leader.
Lastly, this study integrates gender into the leadership emergence context. The findings are supposed to investigate whether gender exerts an influence on the emergence of leaders. As the number of women in management positions is reduced and discrimination against them is very likely, these outcomes display a crucial piece of information. The data analysis reveals that gender did not yield any significant outcome in this study. A possible explanation could be the conceptualization of gender. People might no longer relate to the social role theory when they think of men and women and, thus, were unable to connect gender with leadership emergence in the questionnaire. However, following the direction of spotlighting gender in the leadership emergence context is likely to result in interesting outcomes.
Practical Implications
From a practical perspective, the study results provide implications, particularly for leaders and organizations. As creativity was identified to be a significant characteristic of leadership emergence, organizations should establish positive error management. Building an environment where mistakes are communicated, detected and analyzed leads to positive consequences for creative behaviors. It provides employees with an opportunity to learn from mistakes, to experiment more and to dare to innovate (van Dyck, Frese, Baer & Sonnentag, 2005). A confident employee who does not have to fear blame or ridicule when mistakes are made produces very innovative outcomes (Edmondson, 1999). Moreover, he/she explores and experiments more when errors are labeled as a natural work outcome (Dormann & Frese, 1994). Hence, positive error management encourages employees to involve in creative actions.
The support and promotion of leaders for creativity is another crucial antecedent for a successful implementation of creativity in organizations (Zhang & Bartol, 2010). As the actions of leaders shape the working environment it is of great importance that they act in a creative way. If leaders engage in workplace creativity, employees are likely to replicate their behavior and equally act creatively (Lee et al., 2019). Hence, a creative working environment gets established.
Limitations and Future Research
To provide fellow researchers the possibility to replicate and extend the findings, certain limitations have to be kept in mind when interpreting the study's outcomes. First, the present conceptualization of creativity might be flawed. Idea generation and idea realization were chosen to test creative behaviors on leadership prototypes and leadership emergence. However, idea generation did not show any significant effects for the mediation and moderation. As it is defined as the generation of new and useful ideas (Janssen, 2000) it rather depicts an operational task. Instead, a more strategically oriented creative behavior could be incorporated since it better matches leadership tasks.
Moreover, the present study ascribed the social role theory to idea generation and idea realization. However, this conceptualization is not appropriate. It is not the creative behavior itself but rather the effect of the creative behavior, which is described according to the social role theory. Hence, the effect of idea generation is agentic, and the effect of idea realization is communal. This implies that a mediator lies between the creative behaviors and the social role theory, which is responsible for the observed effect. Follow studies could aim at identifying and measuring this mediator to detect the trigger of the social role theory when a creative behavior is executed.
evaluated whether they associate the creativity and leadership emergence items with agentic or communal behavior. As a consequence, gender can be assessed more comprehensively, and the results of the moderation are more transparent.
Another conceptual shortcoming of this thesis is the definition of leadership emergence. As it is described as the wish to increase uncertainty in order to maintain structure and order (Mueller, Goncalo & Kamdar, 2011a; Whitson & Galinsky, 2008) certain kinds of leadership have been disregarded. Charismatic leaders, for instance, embrace change and are still perceived as leaders (Mueller, Melwani & Goncalo, 2011b). Furthermore, the concept of transactional leaders is evolved around change and they are perceived as leaders (Mittal & Dhar, 2014). Consequently, future research should take different kinds of leadership into account to avoid its' overgeneralization.
Despite the limitations fellow researchers have to keep in mind, this study provides them with multiple directions for future research. In line with the premise that fitting the shared leadership prototypes of employees leads to leader categorization and eventually enables leadership emergence (Ensari et al., 2011; Tavares et al., 2018; Lord, De Vader & Alliger, 1986), the ascription of leadership potential was chosen to conceptualize leadership emergence. However, Acton, Foti, Lord, and Gladfelter (2018) describe leadership emergence as "a multilevel interactional process driven by deep-level cognitive and perceptual processes of group members that form a collective patterning of leader and follower interactions over time" and rather conceptualize it as an interactive dynamic. This would give a worthwhile insight into the interpersonal exchange employees expect in order to perceive someone as a leader.
(Mumford et al., 1991). Moreover, it requires wisdom and engagement in sensemaking, abilities leaders possess (Mumford, Todd, Higgs and McIntosh, 2017). Thus, idea evaluation might reveal to be positively related to leadership emergence given that it corresponds to managerial tasks and traits.
According to Loewenstein and Mueller (2016), the assessment of creativity is based on cultural differences. This implies, that creativity is relative to judgment and influenced by cultural norms. Consequently, culturally distant countries like China and America differ in their definition of creativity (Loewenstein & Mueller, 2016). The scope of the present study was, however, limited to a German and a Dutch sample and was, thus, very similar (Hofstede, 2010). Extending the findings to a more culturally distant sample might reveal interesting outcomes in terms of internal validity. Given the fact that gender plays a crucial role in this study, it might be of particular interest to integrate Scandinavian participants in the study due to their feminine culture (Hofstede, 2010).
CONCLUSION
The present study tried to shed light on the underdeveloped topics creativity and gender within the leadership emergence context. A crucial insight into research on creativity was added, as the findings suggested creativity to be a significant predictor of leadership emergence. Moreover, different types of creative behavior were tested and revealed idea realization to relate to leadership prototypes and leadership emergence. The use of gender did not show any significant results, which indicates that a preference for male leaders still prevails.
REFERENCES
Acton, B. P., Foti, R. J., Lord, R. G. & Gladfelter, J. A. 2018. Putting Emergence Back in Leadership Emergence: A Dynamic, Multilevel, Process-Oriented Framework. The
Leadership Quarterly, 30(1): 145-164.
Alkalbani, N., Cuomo, F. & Mallin, C. 2019. Gender Diversity and Say-On-Pay: Evidence from UK Remuneration Committees. Corporate Governance an International Review, 50: 378-400.
Amabile, T. M., Barsade, S. G., Mueller, J. S. & Staw, B. M. 2005. Affect and Creativity at Work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50: 367-403.
Badura, K. L., Grijalva, E., Newman, D. A., Yan, T. T. & Jeon, G. 2018. Gender and Leadership Emergence: A Meta-Analysis and explanatory Model. Personnel Psychology, 71: 335-367. Charbonnie-Voirin, A., Akremi, A., & Vandenberghe C. 2010. A multilevel model of transformational leadership and adaptive performance and the moderating role of climate for innovation. Journal of Group & Organization Management, 35(6): 699–726.
Chiu, C. & Kwan, L. Y-Y. 2010. Culture and Creativity: A Process Model. Management and
Organization Review, 6(3): 447-461.
Chua, R. Y., J., Roth, Y. & Lemoine, J.-F. 2015. The Impact of Culture on Creativity: How Cultural Tightness and Cultural Distance Affect Global Innovation Crowdsourcing Work.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 60(2): 189-227.
Cornelissen, J. P. 2013. Review: Portrait of an Entrepreneur: Vincent van Gogh, Steve Jobs, and the Entrepreneurial Imagination. The Academy of Management Review, 38(4): 700-709. da Costa, S., Páez, D., Sánchez, F., Garaigordobil, M. & Gondim, S. 2015. Personal Factors of
Creativity: A Second Order Meta-Analysis. Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 31: 165-173.
Day, D. V., Fleenor, J. W., Atwater, L. E., Sturm, R. E & McKee, R. A: 2014. Advances in Leader and Leadership Development: A Review of 25 Years of Research and Theory. The
Leadership Quarterly, 25: 63-82.
Dormann, T., & Frese, M. 1994. Error training: Replication and the function of exploratory behavior. International Journal of Human- Computer Interaction, 6: 365–372.
Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Eagly, A. & Carli, L. L. 2007. Women and the Labyrinth of Leadership. Harvard Business
Review: 1-9.
Eagly, A. H. & Karau, J. 1991. Gender and the Emergence of Leaders: A Meta-Analysis.
Eagly, A. H. & Karau, J. 2002. Role Congruity Theory of Prejudice toward Female Leaders.
Psychological Review, 109: 573-598.
Eagly, A. H. & Steffen, V. J. 1984. Gender Stereotypes Stem from the Distribution of Women and Men into Social Roles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(4): 735-754.
Eagly, A. H., Wood, W. & Diekman, A. B. 2000. Social Role Theory of Sex Differences and Similarities: A Current Appraisal. In T. Eckes & H. M. Trautner, The Developmental Social Psychology of Gender: 123-174, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Edmondson, A. 1999. Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 44: 350–383.
Ensari, N., Riggio, R., Christian, J. & Carslaw, G. 2011. Who Emerges as a Leader? Meta-Analyses of Individual Differences as Predictors of Leadership Emergence. Personality
and Individual Differences, 51: 532-536.
Epitropaki, O. & Martin, R. 2005. From Ideal to Real: A Longitudinal Study of the Role of Implicit Leadership Theories on Leader-Member Exchanges and Employee Outcomes.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4): 659-676.
Foti, R. J, Hansbrough, T. K., Epitropaki, O. & Coyle, P. T. 2017. Dynamic Viewpoints on Implicit Leadership and Followership Theories: Approaches, Findings, and Future Directions. The Leadership Quarterly, 28: 261-267.
Fritz, C. & van Knippenberg, D. 2019. Gender and Leadership Aspiration: Supervisor Gender, Support, and Job Control. Applied Psychology: An International Review: 1-28.
Fortune, 2019. The Fortune 500 Has More Female CEOs than Ever Before. https://fortune.com/2019/05/16/fortune-500-female-ceos/ (access date: 2019-11-24). 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: 513-524.
Gerlach, S. & Brem. A. 2017. Idea Management Revisited: A Review of the Literature and Guide for Implementation. International Journal of Innovation Studies, 1: 144-161.
Gmür, M. 2006. The Gendered Stereotype of the ‘Good Manager’ Sex Role Expectations towards Male and Female Managers. Management Revue, 17(2): 104-121.
Hayes, A. F. 2015. An index and test of linear moderated mediation. Multivariate Behavioral
Research, 50(1): 1–22.
He, W. & Wong, W. 2011. Gender Differences in Creative Thinking Revisited: Findings from Analysis of Variability. Personality and Individual Differences, 51: 807-811.
Hill, T. P. & Rogers, E. 2012. Gender Gaps in Science: The Creativity Factor. Springer
Hofstede, G. 2010. The GLOBE Debate: Back to Relevance. Journal of International Business
Studies, 41(8): 1339-1346.
Hogan, R., Curphy, G. J. & Hogan, J. 1994. What We Know about Leadership: Effectiveness and Personality. American Psychologist, 49(6): 493-504.
Hollander, E. P. 1992. The Essential Interdependence of Leadership and Followership.
American Psychological Society, 1(2): 71-75.
Hoyt, C. L. & Murphy, S. E. 2016. Managing to clear the air: Stereotype threat, women, and leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 27: 387-399
Janssen, O. 2000. Job Demands, Perceptions of Effort–Reward Fairness and Innovative Work Behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73: 287–302. Janssen, O., van de Vliert, E. & West, M. 2004. The Bright and Dark Sides of Individual and
Group Innovation: A Special Issues Introduction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25: 129-145.
Kaufman, J. & Beghetto, R. 2013. Do People Recognize the Four Cs? Examining Layperson Conception of Creativity. American Psychological Association, 7(3): 229-236.
Kern, F. 2010. What Chief Executives Really Want…: Bloomberg Businessweek.
Kemmelmeier, M. & Walton, A. P. 2016. Creativity in Men and Women: Threat, Other-Interest, and Self-Assessment. Creativity Research Journal, 28(1): 78-88.
Kenney, R. A., Blascovich, J & Shaver, P. R. 1994. Implicit Leadership Theories: Prototypes for New Leaders. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 15(4): 409-437.
Koenig, A. M, Eagly, A. H., Mitchell, A. A. & Ristikari, T. 2011. Are Leader Stereotypes Masculine? A Meta-Analysis of Three Research Paradigms. Psychological Bulletin, 137(4): 616-642.
Lammers, J., Stoker, J. I. & Stapel, D. A. 2010. Power and Behavioral Approach Orientation in Existing Power Relations and the Mediating Effect of Income. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 40: 543-551.
Lee, A., Legood, A., Hughes, D., Wei Tian, A., Newman, A. & Knight, C. Leadership, Creativity and Innovation: A Meta-Analytic Review. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology: 1-35.
Lee, S. & Farh, C. 2019. Dynamic Leadership Emergence: Differential Impact of Members’ and Peers’ Contributions in the Idea Generation and Idea Enactment Phases of Innovation Project Teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(39): 411-432.
Lord, R., de Vader, C. & Alliger, D. 1986. A Meta-Analysis of the Relation between Personality Traits and Leadership Perceptions: An application of Validity Generalization Procedures.
American Psychological Association, 71(3): 402-410.
Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. 1991. Leadership and information processing: Linking perceptions and performance. Boston, MA: Unwin Hyman.
Lubart, T. I. 2001. Models of the Creative Process: Past, Present and Future. Creativity Research
Journal, 13: 295-308.
MacDonald, H. A., Sulsky, L. M & Brown, D. J. 2008. Leadership and Perceiver Cognition: Examining the Role of Self-Identity in Implicit Leadership Theories. Human
Performance, 21: 333-353.
Mittal, S., & Dhar, R. 2015. Transformational leadership and employee creativity: Mediating role of creative self-efficacy and moderating role of knowledge sharing. Management
Decision, 53(5): 894-910.
Mueller, J., Goncalo, J. & Kamdar, D. 2011a. Recognizing Creative Leadership: Can Creative Idea Expression Negatively Relate to Perceptions of Leadership Potential? Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 47: 494-498.
Mueller, J., Melwani, S. & Goncalo, J. 2011b. The Bias against Creativity: Why People Desire but Reject Creative Ideas. Psychological Science, 23(1): 13-17.
Mumford, M., Mobley, M. I., Reiter-Palmon, R., Uhlman, C. E. & Doares, L. M. 1991. Process Analytic Models of Creative Capacities. Creativity Research Journal, 4(2): 91-122. Mumford, M., Todd, E. M, Higgs, C. & McIntosh, T. 2017. Cognitive Skills and Leadership
Performance: The Nine Critical Skills. The Leadership Quarterly, 28: 24-29.
Offermann, L. R. & Coats, M. R. 2018. Implicit Theories of Leadership: Stability and Change over Two Decades. The Leadership Quarterly, 29: 513-522.
Offermann, L. R., Kennedy, J. K. Jr. & Wirtz, P. W. 1994. Implicit Leadership Theories: Content, Structure and Generalizability. The Leadership Quarterly, 5: 43-58.
Paustian-Underdahl, S., Walker, L. & Woehr, D. 2014. Gender and Perceptions of Leadership Effectiveness: A Meta-Analysis of Contextual Moderators. American Psychological
Association, 99(6): 1129-1145.
Phillips, J. S., & Lord, R. G.1981. Causal attributions and perceptions of leadership.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 28(2): 143-163.
Proudfoot, D., Kay, A. & Koval, C. 2015. A Gender Bias in the Attribution of Creativity: Archival and Experimental Evidence for the Perceived Association Between Masculinity and Creative Thinking. Psychological Science, 26(11): 1751-1761.
Rosette, A. & Tost, L. 2010. Agentic Women and Communal Leadership: How Role Prescriptions Confer Advantage to Top Women Leaders. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(2): 221-235.
Shalley, C. E., Zhou, J. & Oldham, G. R. 2004. The Effects of Personal and Contextual Characteristics in Creativity: Where Should We Go from Here? Journal of Management, 30(6): 933-958.
Stoltzfus, G., Nibbelink, B. L., Vredenburg, D. & Thyrum, E. 2011. Gender, Gender Role, and Creativity. Social Behavior and Personality an International Journal, 39(3): 425-432. 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.
Tavares, G. M., Sobral, F., Goldszmidt, R. & Araújo, F. 2018. Opening the Implicit Leadership Theories’ Black Box: An Experimental Approach with Conjoint Analysis. Frontiers in
Psychology, 2: 2-11.
Türetgen, I. Ö., Unsal, P & Erdem, I. 2008. The Effects of Sex, Gender Role, and Personality Traits on Leader Emergence – Does Culture Make a Difference? Small Group Research, 39(5): 588-615.
West, M. A. & Wallace, M. 1991. Innovation in Health Care Teams. European Journal of
Social Psychology, 21: 202-315.
Whitson, J. & Galinsky, A. 2008. Lacking Control Increases Illusory Pattern Perception.
Science, 322: 115-117.
van Dyck, C., Frese, M., Baer, M. & Sonnentag, S. 2005. Organizational Error Management Culture and Its Impact on Performance: A Two-Study Replication. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 90(6): 1228-1240.
van Knippenberg, D. 2011. Embodying Who We Are: Leader Group Prototypically and Leadership Effectiveness. The Leadership Quarterly, 22: 1078-1091.
APPENDIX A LEADERSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE
Activated Leader Prototypes
The following questions are about your image of the ideal leader. For each statement, please indicate to what extent it reflects the ideal leader.
Your ideal leader is...
• Caring • Charismatic • Well-Groomed
• Sympathetic • Sociable • Well-Dressed
• Compassionate • Dynamic • Masculine
• Motivated • Commanding • Tall
• Dedicated • Assertive • Male
• Focused • Authoritative • Educated
• Controlling • Creative • Intellectual
• Pushy • Intimidating
• Innovative • Clever
• Intelligent
Leader Regulatory Focus
The following questions are about yourself. For each statement, please indicate to what extent it reflects your behavior.
I motivate my employees to primarily focus on… • ... achieving positive outcomes
• ... achieving success
• ... their aspirations and ideals
• ... fulfilling their tasks as successful as possible • ... avoiding negative outcomes
• ... avoiding failure
• ... their duties and responsibilities
• ... fulfilling their task as correct as possible
Activated Leader Prototypes
The following questions are about Employee XY. For each statement, please indicate to what extent it reflects his/her characteristics.
(S)He is...
• Caring • Charismatic • Well-Groomed
• Sympathetic • Sociable • Well-Dressed
• Compassionate • Dynamic • Masculine
• Motivated • Commanding • Tall
• Dedicated • Assertive • Male
• Focused • Authoritative • Educated
• Controlling • Creative • Intellectual
• Pushy • Intimidating
• Innovative • Clever
• Intelligent
Perceived Leader Emergence
The following questions are about Employee XY. For each statement, please indicate to what extent it reflects your perception of him/her.
• (S)He will advance to a leadership position
• (S)He will become a role-model for his/her current coworkers
Creativity
The following questions are about Employee XY. For each statement, please indicate to what extent it reflects your perception of him/her.
• (S)He mobilizes support for innovative ideas
• (S)He makes important organizational members enthusiastic for innovative ideas • (S)He acquires approval for innovative ideas
• (S)He creates new ideas for difficult issues
• (S)He searches for new working methods, techniques, or instruments • (S)He transforms innovative ideas to useful applications
• (S)He generates original solutions for problems
• (S)He introduces innovative ideas into the work environment in a systematic way • (S)He evaluates the utility of innovative ideas
• (S)He spends considerable time trying to understand the nature of the problem • (S)He thinks about the problem from multiple perspectives
• (S)He decomposes a difficult problem/assignment into parts to obtain greater understanding • (S)He consults a wide variety of information
• (S)He searches for information from multiple sources
• (S)He retains large amounts of detailed information in his/her area of expertise for future use
Sector
Please indicate in which sector your organization operates. • Retail/Distribution
• Government/Not-for-Profit • Services
• Production/Industry
Organizational Hierarchy
The following questions refer to your position within the hierarchy of your current organization.
What is your management position? • Non-Management
• Lower Management • Middle Management • Top Management
In your place of work, what level are you in the organizational hierarchy? Bottom (0) to Top (100)
In your current position, do you supervise other employees? • No
• Yes, 1-5 employees • Yes, 6-10 employees • Yes, 11-15 employees • Yes, 16-20 employees
