LEADERSHIP AND CREATIVITY:
THE EFFECT OF THE LEADER’S EMOTIONAL EXPRESSIONS
ON THE SUBORDINATE’S CREATIVE PERFORMANCE
Master’s Thesis, MSc Human Resource Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
June 29th, 2018 Thijs Damstra Student number: s2727935 Korreweg 96A 9715AG Groningen +31 (0) 6 30 88 68 29 t.j.damstra@student.rug.nl Supervisor: Dr. T. Vriend University of Groningen
LEADERSHIP AND CREATIVITY:
THE EFFECT OF THE LEADER’S EMOTIONAL EXPRESSIONS
ON THE SUBORDINATE’S CREATIVE PERFORMANCE
ABSTRACT
In today’s rapidly changing and turbulent markets, with increasing competition and ongoing innovation, creativity is key to the survival of organizations. Leadership has been identified as the major motivator for creative performance of subordinates, but research in this area is often narrowly focused on specific leadership behaviors. The leader’s emotional expressions, which are inextricably linked to leadership and creativity, have been ignored. The present study contributes to what is unknown about the creative effects of emotional expressions within the leader-subordinate dyadic relationship, from a multilevel perspective on the basis of the Regulatory Focus Theory (Higgins, 1998). It is shown that understanding of the leader’s emotions is important in the light of subordinate creativity, but the study found no direct support for the expected straight emotional contagion effects.
Keywords: creativity, leadership, regulatory focus, promotion focus, prevention focus, emotions, and emotional contagion.
INTRODUCTION
Creativity is a ‘hot item’ in current tumultuous and quick-changing times and has become more important than ever for many organizations. Even though many people associate creativity with artistic or highly eccentric ideas, it is nowadays an essential part of daily businesses and is no longer solely attributed to the R&D or marketing department. Creativity is often recognized as the critical mean and indicator to survive in competitive markets, and to overcome difficult organizational problems, threatening competition, or quick technological developments (Wang, Wang, Liu & Dong, 2017). In terms of the quality of new ideas, solutions or products, novelty and appropriateness are considered as the hallmarks of creative input (Nijstad, De Dreu, Rietzschel, & Baas, 2010).
Central to the entire discipline of creativity is leadership, which is one of the most essential motivators with regard to the subordinate’s creative performance (Wu, McMullen, Neubert, & Yi, 2008; Johnson, King, Lin, Scott, Walker, & Wang, 2017). Research in this area recognizes the crucial role of leadership, but much is still unknown (Johnson et al., 2017). In organizational and creativity research, the focus is regularly on leadership behaviors, and the influence of the leaders' emotions on creativity is often ignored, even though emotions and creativity are inextricably linked (Zhou & George, 2003). And despite the importance of emotions, limited research is focused on whether positive or negative emotional expressions of someone have an impact on one's creative performance (Johnson et al., 2017).
The present study is focused at the relationship between leaders and subordinates, and takes the creative effects of emotional expressions into account, seen from a dyadic perspective (Johnson, Smith, Wallace, Hill, & Baron, 2015). The regulatory focus theory of Higgins (1998) gives a clear explanation of the link between inner motivation, self-regulation, and creativity, and forms the basis for identifying how emotions are related to the relationship between leadership and creativity.
stability (Brockner & Higgins, 2001). Positive quiescence-related emotions emerge from the avoidance of negative outcomes, whereas negative agitation-related outcomes emerge from experiencing a negative outcome or a loss (Brockner & Higgins, 2001).
The process of emotional contagion plays a substantial role in the transfer of emotions, because the concept is all about ‘sending' and ‘catching' emotions of others (Hatfield, Cacioppo, & Rapson, 1994). Nevertheless, research has not yet determined the direct effects of emotional contagion within leader-subordinate dyads on the subordinate’s creativity and deserves extra attention in the field of creativity-research (Wu et al., 2008; Vijayalakshmi & Bhattacharyya, 2012; Venus, Stam, & Van Knippenberg, 2013; Johnson et al., 2017). It is assumed that catching the positive or negative emotions of leaders and showing the same or corresponding emotions, will have an impact on the creative performance of subordinates (Venus et al., 2013). It is assumed that the expression of positive emotions elicits cognitive flexibility within subordinates, whereas negative emotions hinder the subordinate’s creative performance (Baas, De Dreu, & Nijstad, 2008; Johnson et al., 2017). However, it is shown that negative emotions could promote flexibility, convergent thinking, and the level of individual creativity in the same way, but there is still a lot of room for further research on the antecedents of individual creativity (Nijstad et al., 2010).
The present study contributes to what is still unclear, and examines the influence of the regulatory focus of leaders, the leader’s emotional expressions towards successes and failures, the subordinate’s experience of the same or corresponding emotions, and consequences for the subordinate’s creative performance. Therefore, the leading research question is as follows:
To what extent does the expression of positive and negative emotions of a promotion- or prevention-focused leader influence the emotional expressions of subordinates, and what is the effect on the individual creativity of subordinates?
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
The regulatory focus theory from a multilevel perspective
People must have a form of motivation and inner passion to align their actions to specific goals, to solve problems, and to come up with novel and useful ideas. The regulatory focus theory has been widely used for explaining these cognitive processes of internal desire and self-regulation, based on two motivational and independent orientations: the promotion focus and the prevention focus (Higgins, 1998). Even though both foci aid goal accomplishment, distinguishing between the promotion and prevention focus is important, because of different effects on behavior, cognition, affect, and different emotional expressions (Higgins, 1998).
Under a promotion focus, attention is predominantly allocated to maximal goals, successes and the pursuit of approach-oriented ends (Higgins, 1998; Wu et al., 2008). Promotion-focused people are attentive to the maximization of gains (Johnson et al., 2017). Positive emotional expressions, concerning the successful attainment of a maximal goal, are concerned with cheerfulness-related emotions as happy, upbeat, elated, enthusiastic, excited, peppy, and strong (Watson & Tellegen, 1985; Brockner & Higgins, 2001; Baas et al., 2008). Promotion-focused people are very likely to actively express emotions related to self-regulatory effectiveness (Brockner & Higgins, 2001; Lockwood et al., 2002), or when the ‘ideal self’ is confirmed (Summerville & Roese, 2008). Emotional expressions with regard to the unsuccessful achievement of maximal outcomes are concerned with dejection-related emotions as sad, discouraged, disappointment, drowsy, dull, sleepy, and sluggish (Watson & Tellegen, 1985; Brockner & Higgins, 2001; Baas et al., 2008). These emotions will be expressed when progress toward achieving the desired end state gets hindered, or when someone failed to achieve the desired end state (Baas et al., 2011).The ‘pain’ of failures and negative outcomes weakens the crucial eagerness within the promotion focus, which will result in an intense level of sadness, anger, and other negative dejection-related emotional expressions (Higgins, 1998; Idson, Liberman, & Higgins, 2000; Summerville & Roese, 2008).
(Watson & Tellegen, 1985; Brockner & Higgins, 2001; Baas et al., 2008). The display of quiescence-related emotions emerges from fulfilling personally important duties, responsibilities, and obligations. These are most often conveyed by leaders or are intrinsic to the dependence to teaching, social, or managerial roles (Summerville & Roese, 2008). The negative emotional expressions under a prevention focus, regarding unfulfilled goals, self-regulatory ineffectiveness, and undesired outcomes are concerned with agitation-related emotions as uneasy, unhappy, lonely, tense, disgust, jittery, nervous, and scornful (Watson & Tellegen, 1985; Brockner & Higgins, 2001; Baas et al., 2008). These emotions will be displayed when fulfilment of safety or security needs gets obstructed (Idson et al., 2000; Brockner & Higgins, 2001). Idson et al. (2000) concluded that the pleasure of success under a prevention focus weakens the necessary level of vigilance, which results in the expression of calm emotions, whilst the pain of failure causes the opposite effect and strengthens the level of vigilance, which will lead to the relatively high-intensity expression of agitation-related emotions (Idson et al., 2000).
turnover, increased feelings of value towards the leader, and substantial differences in organizational performance.
All of the findings of these authors are based on the leader’s regulatory focus and on transactional or transformational leadership behaviors. Rather surprisingly, the necessary focus on emotions and emotional influences is missing, even though emotions and one’s affective state are heavily intertwined with the regulatory focus theory, and because emotions are an integral part of everyday work life (Higgins, 1998; Johnson et al., 2015; Johnson et al., 2017). Emotional expressions and experiences are inextricably linked to the social interactions between leaders and subordinates, and emotions have been identified as key factors for effective leadership (Higgins, Qualls, & Couger, 1992). Leaders have the ability to use emotions to accomplish organizational goals, and to motivate or influence subordinates (Castro, Gomes, & De Sousa, 2012). For example, when leaders feel enthusiastic or excited, it could energize team members (Rajah, Song, & Arvey, 2011). But when leaders are stressed and express stress-related emotions, they could transmit the same negative affect to subordinates (Rajah et al., 2011). It is shown that emotions play a major role in job performance, job satisfaction, and also in the level of individual creativity of employees (Baas et al., 2008; Castro et al, 2012).
In this study, the multilevel hierarchical regulatory perspective serves as an overarching model in order to contribute to the understanding of the relationship between leadership, creativity, and the role of emotions (Johnson et al., 2015). Therefore, based on the expression of positive and negative emotions under a promotion or prevention focus of the leader, the following hypotheses are conducted:
Hypothesis 1A. A leader’s promotion focus is positively related to the expression of
cheerfulness-related emotions.
Hypothesis 1B. A leader’s promotion focus is positively related to the expression of
dejection-related emotions.
Hypothesis 1C. A leader’s prevention focus is positively related to the expression of
quiescence-related emotions.
Hypothesis 1D. A leader’s prevention focus is positively related to the expression of
Emotional contagion
In the present study, emotions are seen as the subjective feeling of a person at a certain moment, under certain circumstances and influenced by dynamic interactions with the physical or social environment (Rajah et al., 2011). What is important to note, is that both promotion- or prevention-focused leaders will express positive and negative emotions over time, because every leader will be exposed to successes and failures in the long run.
Emotional expressions provide information about the expresser’s affective state, beliefs, feelings, and relational orientations (Keltner & Haidt, 1999). Hatfield et al. (1994) stated that, during a conversation or social interaction, people who observe other’s emotional expressions by voice, face, and behavior, will mimic the expressed emotions or experience corresponding emotions. And above only mimicking the expressed emotions or showing corresponding emotions, the contagion of emotions is seen as a component of one's empathy in which people notice each other's feelings and explains why people feel what others feel (Doherty, 1997; Hatfield, Bensman, Thornton, & Rapson, 2014). For the sake of this study, emotional contagion is defined as “a process in which a person influences the emotions of another person through the conscious or unconscious induction of emotional states, through emotional expressions” (Barsade, 2002, p. 646). The evidence for emotional contagion was found in numerous experimental and neurological studies (Sy, Saavedra, & Côté, 2005; Vijayalakshmi & Bhattacharyya, 2012; Hatfield et al., 2014).
The emotional contagion process is twofold. First, subordinates ‘catch’ the emotional expressions, body language, and vocal tones of their leader (Hatfield et al., 1994). Second, through the process of neurological and physiological feedback from subjective, cognitive, and muscular responses, the catcher experiences the same or corresponding emotions (Hatfield et al., 2014). Even though the phenomenon of emotional contagion is an inevitable occurrence in the daily dyadic relationship between leaders and subordinates, research is often narrowly focused on single factors, whilst understanding of emotional contagion within a leader-subordinate dyad needs extension (Vijayalakshmi & Bhattacharyya, 2012).
When promotion-focused leaders experience negative outcomes, dejected emotions like frustration, and disappointment will be expressed, which signal that progress toward attained goals gets hindered, intended goals are unattainable, or that effort is insufficient (Baas et al., 2008). These emotions are easy to catch by subordinates (Sy et al., 2005), which is evolutionarily explainable (Kelly, Iannone, & McCarty, 2016). Dejection-related emotions often contain a lot of important information which is linked to the negative outcomes (Kelly et al., 2016). Leaders in a negative affective state will communicate this negative emotions actively (Kelly et al., 2016). These emotions contain information about potential threats and receive therefore more attention, leading to the fact that a process of emotional mimicking is capable of occurring (Kelly et al., 2016). This is in line with the findings of Sy et al. (2005), who found that subordinates experience more negative emotions after interacting with a leader who expresses negative emotions.
Accordingly, based on the leader’s expression of positive and negative emotions under a promotion focus, the following hypotheses are conducted:
Hypothesis 2A. The leader’s expression of cheerfulness-related emotions is positively related
to the subordinate’s experience of cheerfulness-related emotions.
Hypothesis 2B. The leader’s expression of dejection-related emotions is positively related to
the subordinate’s experience of dejection-related emotions.
Prevention-focused leaders who experience quiescence-related emotions concerning undesired end states that are successfully avoided, feel relaxed, calm, and serene (Baas et al., 2008). Kark and Van Dijk (2007) argued that the expression of quiescence may prime the same emotional expressions within others. The authors specified this more towards leaders and subordinates. When prevention-focused goals of the leader are fulfilled, and the leader expresses calm emotions, subordinates will not get triggered and will feel calm too, because further action, new input or more effort are not required (George & Zhou, 2002).
tend to elicit the same emotional responses (Cacioppo, Gardner, & Bernston, 1997; Barsade, 2002; George & Zhou, 2002). The main reason for this effect is that the emotional reactions towards failures under a prevention focus are mainly shown quite active (Baas et al., 2011). Due to the active display of these emotions, a relatively easy contagion of these emotions is possible (Barsade, 2002; Kelly et al., 2016).
Accordingly, based on the leader’s expression of positive and negative emotions under a prevention focus, the following hypotheses are conducted:
Hypothesis 2C. The leader’s expression of quiescence-related emotions is positively related to
the subordinate’s experience of quiescence-related emotions.
Hypothesis 2D. The leader’s expression of agitation-related emotions is positively related to
the subordinate’s experience of agitation-related emotions.
The subordinate’s emotional experiences and individual creativity
Many researchers focused on different factors which can affect one’s individual creative performance (Wang et al., 2017). Therefore, a lot of different conceptualizations and often overlapping definitions exist, but for the sake of this research, creativity is broadly defined as “the generation or production of ideas, concepts, and/or products that are both novel and useful” (Amabile, 1996). In this definition, the concept of organizational or individual creativity is used in its broadest sense. It includes tangible or intangible products, new concepts, new organizational goals, new strategies, or new relationships (Amabile, 1996).
cognitive processes involve combinations of flexible, global, and associative thinking, where flexibility is the most important factor (Baas et al., 2011). Flexible thinking facilitates creativity because it promotes the exploration of new concepts and approaches (Baas et al., 2011). Idea generation benefits from this new, explorative way of thinking, but needs a level of cognitive activation (Baas et al., 2011). Activation involves affective reactions, which could be triggered by positive emotional expressions (Baas et al., 2011). It is therefore arguable that subordinates with happy emotional expressions and the experience of a more positive affect, be it through the process of emotional contagion, tend to be more creative than people who are sad (Wu et al., 2008; Baas et al., 2011). Baas et al. (2012) emphasize that positive emotions positively influence the flexibility in the use of old and new information during the creative process, which will cause ‘cognitive breadth’. This could lead to outstanding creative ideas (Baas et al., 2012). The neuroscientific explanation is that positive emotions are linked to dopaminergic activities in one’s brain, which influence cognitive flexibility and the regulation of information (Dreisbach & Goschke, 2004). This provokes the generation of more new, creative, and outstanding innovative ideas (De Dreu, Baas, & Nijstad, 2008).
In contrast, Higgins et al. (1992) argued that also negative, dejection-related emotions have a substantial impact on the creative process. Experiencing these emotions narrows one’s flexible cognitive style, curiosity, and playfulness (Visser et al., 2013), which are the most important triggers for creative thinking (Baas et al., 2011). This will lead to a lower level of creative performance of the subordinates (Johnson et al., 2017), because these dejected emotions cause a person to be unable to focus and to be unwilling to take risks, which could lead to hindered information integration and de- or overvaluation of new insights (Higgins et al., 1992).
Accordingly, based on the expression of cheerfulness- and dejection-related emotions and the effect on the individual creativity of subordinates, the following hypotheses are conducted:
Hypothesis 3A. The subordinate’s expression of cheerfulness-related emotions is positively
related to the level of individual creativity.
Hypothesis 3B. The subordinate’s expression of dejection-related emotions is negatively
related to the level of individual creativity.
et al., 2013). Subordinates will not be triggered to come up with new, creative ideas, and the creative process will get hindered (George & Zhou, 2002; Baas et al., 2011; Venus et al., 2013). Additionally, the satisfaction with previous creative achievements was identified as a demotivator for creativity (George & Zhou, 2002). Research has shown that people who experience positive quiescence-related emotions are more confident and optimistic about their abilities and previous creative achievements, which will lead to a breakdown of future creative ideas (George & Zhou, 2002). Concerning the creative input, employees must have a form of attention and the feeling of cognitive energy towards their creative intentions, but when employees perceive that creative performance is recognized and rewarded, they could decide that additional effort is unnecessary (George & Zhou, 2002). “Everything is going well, and the good feelings suggest that things are going fine” (George & Zhou, 2002). In contrast, agitation-related emotions can promote creative performance, because these negative emotions signal that things are not going well, and that more effort is necessary (George & Zhou, 2002) Baas et al. (2011) emphasized, in contrast to the common idea (Johnson et al., 2017), that people with emotions related to fear and agitation can produce the same creative ideas on the same creative level as people experiencing happy emotions, because they feel that more effort is needed to get things done. And because people are still not satisfied with the outcomes, negative emotions in the context of agitation favor convergent thinking and flexibility, which are triggers for creative thinking and new creative ideas, according to George and Zhou (2002). The same yields for the situation when people recognize that the negative emotions originate from an unsolved problem (Guastello, Guastello, & Hanson, 2004). Sy et al. (2005) emphasized that negative emotions trigger creative performance, because of increased effort and creative thinking. The dissatisfaction and fear concerning the current situation will trigger people to think more creatively, and many novel and useful ideas and arise.
Accordingly, based on the expression of quiescence- and agitation-related emotions and the effect on the individual creativity of subordinates, the following hypotheses are conducted:
Hypothesis 3C. The subordinate’s expression of quiescence-related emotions is negatively
related to the level of individual creativity.
Hypothesis 3D. The subordinate’s expression of agitation-related emotions is positively related
The conducted hypotheses are visualized in Figure 1:
Figure 1. The conceptual model shows the hypothesized relationships between the leader’s expression of positive and negative emotions under a promotion or prevention focus, the subordinate’s experience of the same emotions, and the influence of these emotions on the subordinate’s creative performance.
METHODS
Research setting, sample, and procedures
To test the hypotheses, data was collected via online 30 minute-questionnaires. There were two versions of the questionnaire. One individualized version for the leader and an individualized version for all corresponding subordinates (both available in English and Dutch). The questionnaire can be found in Appendix I. Leaders were asked to evaluate their own regulatory focus, their expression of positive and negative emotions, and the level of creativity of their subordinates. Subordinates were asked to evaluate their experience of positive and negative emotions, their level of emotional contagion, and their level of creativity.
Leaders. 13 of the participating leaders are female (38%), and 21 of the participating leaders are male (62%), with an average age of 49 years (SD = 8.81). 1 leader has a vocational training degree (2.94%), 21 leaders have a higher vocational education degree (61.76%), 8 leaders have a university degree (23.53%), and 4 leaders have a PhD degree (11.76%).
Subordinates. 98 of the participating subordinates are female (57,31%), and 71 of the participating subordinates are male (41.52%), with an average age of 40 years (SD = 11.38). The gender of two subordinates is unknown (1.17%). 5 subordinates have a high school degree (2.92%), 44 subordinates have a vocational training degree (25.73%), 82 subordinates have a higher vocational education degree (47.95%), 34 subordinates have a university degree (19.88%), and 4 subordinates have a PhD degree (2.34%).
Research instruments and variables
Regulatory focus. The leaders evaluated their regulatory focus a 5-point Likert scale (from 1 = “Fully Disagree” to 5 = “Fully Agree”) (Vriend, Hamstra, Said, Janssen, Nijstad, & Jordan, in preparation). First, leaders indicated how they score on striving to gains, advancements and ideals, and indicated the level of eagerness to measure their promotion focus (α = .72). Example items were: “At work, I constantly strive to gain desirable outcomes” for gains, “At work, I constantly strive to grow as a person” for advancements, “At work, I constantly strive to pursue my dreams” for ideals, and “At work, to attain my goals I enthusiastically embrace all opportunities” was an example item for eagerness. Second, leaders indicated how they score on avoiding non-losses, attaining security, and on perceived ought and vigilance to measure their prevention focus (α = .86). Example items were: “At work, I constantly strive to avoid undesirable outcomes” for non-losses, “At work, I constantly strive to avoid insecurity” for attaining security, “At work, I constantly strive to stay within my duties and obligations” for ought, and “At work, I am vigilant and play it safe” was an example item for vigilance.
Individual creativity. Leader-ratings were used to measure the level of individual creativity of subordinates (α = .84). On the basis of a 5-point Likert scale (from 1 = “Never” to 5 = “Almost always”), leaders answered the following questions: “How often do the following people come up with creative ideas?”, “How new and original are the creative ideas of the following people usually?”, and “How often are the creative ideas of the following people followed up on by your supervisor?”.
Emotional Contagion. For further analysis and to measure the interaction effect of emotional contagion, a rewritten version of The Emotional Contagion Scale (Doherty, 1997) with a 5-point Likert scale (from 1 = “Never” to 5 = “Often”) was used. The questions measured a variety of feelings in various situations (α = .70). Participants were asked to what extent the following statements apply to them: “Being with a happy person picks me up when I’m feeling
down”, “Being around with happy people fills my mind with happy thoughts”, “If someone I’m talking with begins to cry, I get teary-eyed”, “I cry at sad movies”, “It irritates me to be around angry people”, and “I tense when overhearing an angry quarrel”.
Control variable
Gender. Demographic information about gender was also controlled. Doherty (1997) found gender differences regarding emotional contagion, and found that women are more susceptible for emotional contagion than men.
Age. In addition to the presented variables, demographic information about age was also controlled.
Data analysis
To test the hypotheses, correlation between and among the regulatory focus of the leaders, the expression of emotions of the leaders, the emotions of the subordinates, and the level of individual creativity were measured by correlation analyses in SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences).
RESULTS Correlations
The correlations between the variables were tested using Pearson correlation. All the results are shown in Table 1, where the means, the standard deviations, and the Pearson correlation coefficients for both leaders and subordinates are given. When looking at the main variables of this study, it becomes clear that important correlations exist. The correlation table shows that there is a significant positive correlation between agitation- and dejection-related emotions of the leader (r = .69, p < .01). The same yields for the significant positive correlation between the leaders’ expression of quiescence-related emotions and the subordinate’s experience of cheerfulness-related emotions (r = .70, p < .01). The subordinate’s experience of dejection-related emotions is positively cordejection-related to the leader’s expression of cheerfulness-dejection-related emotions (r = .45, p < .01), but negatively to the subordinate’s experience of cheerfulness-related emotions (r = -.41, p < .05). Rather surprisingly are the significant positive correlations between the subordinate’s experience of quiescence-related emotions and the leader’s expression of dejection- (r = .46, p < .01), quiescence- (r = .50, p < .01), and agitation-related emotions (r = .40, p < .05). Besides these correlations is the subordinate’s expression of quiescence-related emotions also positively correlated to the experience of cheerfulness-related emotions of subordinates (r = .74, p < .01). The subordinate’s experience of agitation-related emotions is positively correlated to the expression of cheerfulness-related emotions of the leader (r = .46, p < .01) and to the experience of dejection-related emotions (r = .65, p < .01), but is negatively correlated to the experience of cheerfulness- (r = -.41, p < .05) and quiescence-related emotions (r = -.36, p < .05). The level of individual creativity of the subordinate is negatively correlated to the leader’s prevention focus (r = -.47, p < .01), indicating that the leader’s prevention focus is a breakdown for creativity. The same yields for the negative correlation between the level of creativity of the subordinate and the leader’s expression of quiescence-related emotions (r = -.44, p < .01), and the subordinate’s expressions of cheerfulness- (r = -.38, p < .05) and quiescence-related emotions (r = -.36, p < .05). Gender seems to play a significant part in the level of emotional contagion of the subordinate (r = .47,
p < .01), indicating that women are more susceptible for emotional contagion than men. There
Hypotheses testing
Linear regressions were conducted to test the 12 hypotheses. The first set of regressions examined the impact of the leader’s regulatory focus on the expression of cheerfulness-, dejection-, quiescence-, and agitation-related emotions. These results are shown in Table 2. The second set of regressions was used to examine the subordinate’s emotional experiences towards the expressed emotions by the leader. These results are presented in Table 3. The third set of regressions examined the relationship between the experienced emotions and the level of individual creativity of the subordinate. These results are set out in Table 4.
Hypothesis 1A. A significant main effect was found (p < .01), which indicates that promotion-focused leaders express cheerfulness-related emotions toward positive outcomes. Therefore, hypothesis 1A was supported.
Hypothesis 1B. No significant main effect was found (p > .05) and the expression of dejection-related emotions seems to be unaffected by the leader’s promotion focus. Therefore, hypothesis 1B was not supported.
Hypothesis 1D. No significant main effect was found (p > .05) and the expression of agitation-related emotions seems to be unaffected by the leader’s prevention focus. Therefore, hypothesis 1D was not supported.
Hypothesis 2A. The subordinate’s experience of cheerfulness-related emotions seems to be unaffected by the expression of these emotions by the leader, because no significant main effect was found (p > .05). Therefore, hypothesis 2A was not supported.
Hypothesis 2B. No significant main effect was found between the subordinate’s experience, and the leader’s expression of dejection-related emotions (p > .05). Therefore, hypothesis 2B was not supported.
Hypothesis 2C. The subordinate’s experience of quiescence-related emotions seems to be unaffected by the expression of these emotions by the leader, because no significant main effect was found (p > .05). Therefore, hypothesis 2A was not supported.
Hypothesis 2D. A moderately significant main effect was found between the subordinate’s experience, and the leader’s expression of agitation-related emotions (p < .10). Therefore, hypothesis 2D was partly supported.
Hypothesis 3A. No significant main effect was found between the subordinate’s individual creativity and the experience of cheerfulness-related emotions (p > .05). Therefore, hypothesis 3A was not supported.
Hypothesis 3B. No significant main effect was found between the subordinate’s individual creativity and the experience of dejection-related emotions (p > .05). Therefore, hypothesis 3B was not supported.
Hypothesis 3C. No significant main effect was found between the subordinate’s individual creativity and the experience of quiescence-related emotions (p > .05). Therefore, hypothesis 3C was not supported.
Hypothesis 3D. No significant main effect was found between the subordinate’s individual creativity and the experience of agitation-related emotions (p > .05). Therefore, hypothesis 3D was not supported.
Post-hoc analysis
leader’s expressions of cheerfulness-related emotions and the subordinate’s experience of agitation-related emotions (p < .05). Dejection- (p < .05), and quiescence-related emotional expressions from the leader (p < .05) negatively affect the experience of agitation-related emotions of subordinates. Another important outcome is the significant main effect of the leader’s expression of cheerfulness-related emotions on the subordinate’s level of individual creativity (p < .05), which could indicate that the leader’s expression of happy emotions will promote the subordinate’s creativity. The last unexpected outcome is the negative significant main effect of the leader’s expression of quiescence-related emotions on the subordinate’s level of individual creativity (p < .05), which could indicate that the leader’s expression of calm emotions will decrease the level of creativity of subordinates, but not by the contagion of these calm emotions.
As a supplementary analysis, based on the findings of Venus et al. (2013), the Emotional Contagion Scale (Doherty, 1997) was used to indicate and to measure the impact of the subordinate’s level of emotional contagion on the contagion of the leader’s cheerfulness-, dejection-, quiescence-, and agitation-related emotions. These results are presented in Table 5. The subordinate’s emotional contagion score, and the interaction effect between the (standardized) leader’s emotional expression (LE) and the score on emotional contagion (ECS) are given. As it is shown, the present study found no significant main effects.
DISCUSSION
multilevel, dyadic approach was used. First, it was expected that the leader shows corresponding emotions, according to his or her work regulatory focus. Second, it was expected that the expression of positive and negative emotions will elicit that same emotions within subordinates. In other words; they experience the same emotions as their leader. Third, it was expected that experiences of happy and agitated emotions will lead to a higher level of creativity for subordinates, where sad and calm emotional experiences will cause a lower level of creativity. The results of this study highlighted the most relevant findings, of which it is important to note that the direct links and effects are not always as expected, though the results of this study have shown that leaders are influential on subordinate’s creativity.
It was confirmed that leaders with a promotion focus express cheerful and happy emotions. These results corroborate the findings of Higgins (1998) and Brockner and Higgins (2001), who introduced the regulatory focus theory and highlighted the importance of the emotional aspect within this theory. Contrary to the expectations, the results of this study did not indicate that the leader’s promotion focus is linked to the expression of dejection-related emotions. Neither did the results of this study show that the expression of quiescence- or agitation-related emotions was affected by the prevention focus of the leader. No relation was found between the leader’s expression of cheerfulness-, dejection-, or quiescence-related emotions on the subordinate’s experience of these emotions, but it is partly confirmed that the expressions of agitation-related emotions affect the experience of the same emotions of the subordinate. With respect to the last four hypotheses, the results of this study did not show that there is a relationship between cheerfulness-, dejection-, quiescence-, or agitation-related emotional experiences and the subordinate’s creativity. These outcomes are contrary to the expectations.
Theoretical implications
without considering cross effects. Recently, Dijk, Fischer, Morina, Van Eeuwijk, and Van Kleef (2018) found that, after seeing someone who is happy, people could feel negative due to biased contagion. The present findings corroborate the findings of Dijk et al. (2018), who highlight that people catch the happy emotions of their leader, but it strongly depends on the interpretation of these emotions. Thus, researchers interested in the contagion of positive emotions should consider the cross effects and the implications that positive emotions are not always copied as they were intended.
Second, it was found that when leaders express dejection-related emotions, subordinates experience less agitation-related emotions, which could contribute to the theoretical and practical understanding of the contagion of negative emotions. The findings can partly be explained by the findings of Sy et al. (2005), who found that negative emotional expressions of the leader influence subordinates through the spread of a strong negative energy. In line with these findings, Barsade (2002) marked two important mediators for the contagion of these negative emotions: emotional valence, and emotional energy. The factors may partly explain the negative relation between dejection-related expressions, and agitation-related experiences. Regarding emotional valence, research has shown that people respond quicker towards negative emotions then they do towards positive emotions (Barsade, 2002). The emotional energy is concerned with the intensity with which emotions are expressed and communicated (Barsade, 2002). Overall, dejection-related emotions are negative, but less activating, compared to agitation-related emotions (Baas et al., 2008). According to these factors, it is likely that subordinate’s respond negatively towards the negative emotional valence, but less active due to the lower emotional energy of dejected emotions, which leads to a negative affective state, but with less agitated emotional experiences. These findings provide many opportunities for researchers.
emotions (Johnson et al., 2017). Emphasizing maximal goals towards followers prime cognitive flexibility, set-breaking, and cognitive restructuring within subordinates (Kark & Van Dijk, 2007; De Dreu et al., 2008). Overall, these elements lead to the use of many cognitive categories (Nijstad et al., 2010). It seems necessary that the expression, experience, and contagion of cheerfulness-related emotions should not be seen from a single point of view, but together with other behavioral expressions. Theoretically speaking, the interference could form a grounded explanation for the significant relation between the leader’s expression of happy and activating emotions, and the subordinate’s level of creativity
Fourth, the leader’s expression of quiescence-related emotions was found to negatively influence the level of individual creativity of subordinates, but not by the single contagion of these emotions. For this relationship, two alternative explanations could give more in-depth understanding. First, this results are to some extent consistent with the findings of Baas et al. (2008), who found that when goals are fulfilled, prevention-focused people will not remain activated to come up with creative ideas. The leader’s expression of quiescence-related emotions contains information about these fulfilled goals, and subordinates will not get activated or triggered (De Dreu et al., 2008). Activation, subsequent enhanced cognitive flexibility, and a broad attentional focus will get hindered, which could decrease creative insights (Nijstad et al., 2010). Second, Baas et al. (2012) stated that emotions that signal uncertainty could lead to structured thinking. Structured thinking entails systematic and predictable idea generation, which derive from mental images and existing knowledge, stored in long-term memory (Nijstad & Stroebe, 2006; Baas et al., 2012). The experience of quiescence, which is a positive emotion but scores low on arousal, leads to less structured thinking, because quiescence-related emotions elicit a signal of safety and structure, which will reduce motivation and effort (Baas et al., 2012). Moreover, quiescence-related emotions signal a predictive situation, which hinders structured thinking and therefore idea generation, originality, and in general, creativity (Baas et al., 2012). Theoretically, the revealed relationship between quiescence-related emotions and creativity further supports the findings of Nijstad et al. (2010) and Baas et al. (2012).
Limitations and suggestions for future research
or which subordinates were going to participate, the teams who participated were omnifarious. Only leaders were contacted via e-mail, which resulted in many mutually different teams, from various industries. It is arguable that leaders of teams which are very task-oriented differ in the level of emotional expressions, experiences and contagion, then leaders and teams who are very relationship-oriented. Even the level of power seems to play an important role (Hatfield et al., 2014), but this was not taken into account in the present study. Important to note is that most leaders are good acquaintances of the researcher, which means that goodwill plays an important part in the answers given. The possibility of social desirable answers inhibit validity and generalizability. Therefore, sample size and which teams are going to participate are important issues and considerations, regarding future studies. Third, all questionnaires were answered within the same period. An important limitation is that most obtained answers regarding emotions and creativity can change over time, and are very moment- and context dependent. For this reason, Johnson et al. (2017) asked the participants to fill in questionnaires at different moments in time. Future research may benefit from repeating the present study, but with a larger and more controlled sample and at two or more moments in time.
Methodologically, caution must be applied when people report about their own regulatory focus (Summerville & Roese, 2008). In the present study, the leader’s work regulatory focus was measured using items about gains, advancements, ideals, and eagerness, non-loss, security, ought and vigilance. The Regulatory Focus Questionnaire (RFQ) (Higgins, Friedman, Harlow, Idson, Ayduk, & Taylor, 2001) was possibly more suitable, with regard to the emotional outcomes (Summerville & Roese, 2008). Additionally, one’s work regulatory focus often differentiates from one’s chronic regulatory focus, which is more externally influenced than one’s work regulatory focus (Neubert, Carlson, Kacmar, Chonko, & Roberts, 2008). In this light, the authors developed the Work Regulatory Focus Scale (WRF), which could make sense when future studies examine one’s regulatory focus within work-settings (Neubert et al., 2008).
The same yields for the rewritten version of the PANAS questionnaire (Watson & Tellegen, 1985) which was used for the sake of this study. Sometimes, the difference between cheerfulness- and quiescence-related emotions, and between dejection- and agitation-related emotions is un clear, so further research should examine the coherence between the different positive and negative emotions, with regard to one’s regulatory focus.
their ideas. This issue should be taken into account in future research, which could be scenario-based studies, in which the actual creative ideas will be considered, executed multiple times.
Concerning emotional contagion, the present study did not take the specific facial expressions of leaders and subordinates into account. Facial expressions are essential, when it comes to the contagion or mimicking of emotions (Niedenthal et al., 2010), and new evidence supported the idea that people tend to feel emotions, consistent with the facial expressions they observe, with special regard to negative emotions (Hatfield et al., 2014). To develop the understanding of emotional contagion, additional experimental or observational studies are necessary. Within these experiments, facial, emotional, nonverbal, and vocal expressions and reactions should be included (Hatfield et al., 2014). By the same token, the present study was not designed to investigate individual differences in susceptibility to emotional contagion, even though research has shown that the extent to which someone is receptive to emotional contagion is multiple determined (Lundqvist, 2008). Stimuli can come from several variables, classified under individual, interpersonal, and contextual factors (Lundqvist, 2008). Further studies, which take these factors into account, will need to be undertaken.
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
Amabile, T.M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Amabile, T.M. (1998). How to kill creativity. Harvard Business Review, 87(1), 77-87. Arellano, M. (1987). Computing robust standard errors for within-group estimators. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 49(4), 431-434.
Baas, M., De Dreu, C.K.W., & Nijstad, B.A. (2008). A meta-Analysis of 25 years of mood-creativity research: Hedonic tone, activation, or regulatory focus? Psychological Bulletin, 134(6), 779-806.
Baas, M., De Dreu, C.K.W., & Nijstad, B.A. (2011). When prevention promotes creativity: The role of mood, regulatory focus, and regulatory closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(5), 794-809.
Baas, M., De Dreu, C.K.W., & Nijstad, B.A. (2012). Emotions that associate with uncertainty lead to structured ideation. American Psychological Association, 12(5), 1004-1014.
Barsade, S.G. (2002). The ripple effect: Emotional contagion and its influence on group Behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(4), 644-675.
Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
Bass, B.M., & Avolio, B.J. (1997). Full range leadership development: Manual for the multifactor leadership questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Mindgarden.
Brockner, J., & Higgins, E.T. (2001). Regulatory focus theory: Implications for the study of emotions at work. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(1), 35-66. Cacioppo, J.T., & Gardner, W.L. (1999). Emotion. Annual Review of Psychology, 50(1), 191-214.
Cacioppo, J.T., Gardner, W.L., & Berntson, G.G. (1997). Beyond bipolar conceptualizations and measures: The case of attitudes and evaluative space. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1(1), 3-25.
Castro, F., Gomes, J., & De Sousa, F.C. (2012). Do intelligent leaders make a difference? The effect of a leader’s emotional intelligence on followers’ creativity. Creativity and Innovation Management, 21(2), 171-182.
Dijk, C., Fischer, A.H., Morina, N., Van Eeuwijk, C., Van Kleef, G.A. (2018). Effects of social anxiety on emotional mimicry and contagion: Feeling negative, but smiling politely. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 42(1), 81-99.
Doherty, R.W. (1997). The emotional contagion scale: A measure of individual differences. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 21(2), 131-154.
Dreisbach, G., & Goschke, T. (2004). How positive affect modulates cognitive control: Reduced perseveration at the cost of increased distractibility. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30(2), 343-353.
Farmer, S.M., Tierney, P., & Kung-McIntyre, K. (2003). Employee creativity in Taiwan: an application of role identity theory. Academy of Management Journal, 46(5), 618-630.
Friedman, R.S., & Förster, J. (2001). The effects of promotion and prevention cues on creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(6), 1001-1013.
George, J.M., & Zhou, J. (2002). Understanding when bad moods foster creativity and good ones don’t: The role of context and clarity of feelings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 687-697.
Gilson, L.L., & Shalley, C.E. (2004). A little creativity goes a long way: An examination of teams’ engagement in creative processes. Journal of Management, 30(1), 453-470.
Gupta, R., & Banerjee, P. (2016). Antecedents of organizational creativity: A multi-level approach. Business Theory and Practice, 17(2), 167-177.
Hamstra, M.R., Van Yperen, N.W., Wisse, B., & Sassenberg, K. (2011). Transformational-transactional leadership styles and follower’s regulatory focus. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 10(4), 182-186.
Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J., & Rapson, R.L. (1994). Emotional contagion. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Hatfield, E., Bensman, L., Thornton, P.D., & Rapson, R.L. (2014). New perspectives on emotional contagion: A review of classic and recent research on facial mimicry and contagion. Interpersona, 8(2), 159-179.
Hess, U., & Fischer, A. (2014). Emotional mimicry, why and when we mimic emotions. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 8(2), 45-57.
Higgins, E.T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 30(1), 1-46.
Higgins, L.F., Qualls, S.H., & Couger, J.D. (1992). The role of emotions in employee creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 26(2), 119-129.
Idson, L.C., Liberman, N., & Higgins, E.T. (2000). Distinguishing gains from nonlosses and losses from nongains: A regulatory focus perspective on hedonic intensity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36(3), 252-274.
Johnson, P.D., Smith, M.B., Wallace, J.C., Hill, A.D., & Baron, R.A. 2015. A review of multilevel regulatory focus in organizations. Journal of Management, 41(5), 1501-1529.
Johnson, R.E., King, D.D., Lin, S.H, Scott, B.A., Jackson Walker, E.M., & Wang, M. (2017). Regulatory focus trickle-down: How leader regulatory focus and behavior shape follower regulatory focus. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 140(1), 29-45.
Kark, R., & Van Dijk, D. (2007). Motivation to lead, motivation to follow: The role of the self-regulatory focus in leadership processes. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 500-528.
Kelly, J.R., Iannone, N.E., & McCarty, M.K. (2016). Emotional contagion of anger is automatic: An evolutionary explanation. British Journal of Social Psychology, 55(1), 182-191. Keltner, D., & Haidt, J. (1999). Social functions of emotions at four levels of analysis. Cognition & Emotions, 13(5), 505-521.
Lockwood, P., Jordan, C.H., & Kunda, Z. (2002). Motivation by positive or negative role models: Regulatory focus determines who will best inspire us. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(1), 854-864.
Lundqvist, L.O. (2008). The relationship between the biosocial model of personality and susceptibility to emotional contagion: A structural equation modeling approach. Personality and Individual Differences, 45(1), 89-95.
Neubert, M.J., Carlson, D.S., Kacmar, K.M., Chonko, L.B., & Roberts, J.A. (2008). Regulatory focus as a mediator of the influence of initiating structure and servant leadership in employee behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1220-1233.
Niedenthal, P.M., Mermillod, M., Maringer, M., & Hess, U. (2010). The simulation of smiles (SIMS) model: Embodied simulation and the meaning of facial expression. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(6), 417-433.
Nijstad, B.A., & Stroebe, W. (2006). How the group affects the mind: A cognitive model of idea generation in groups. Personality and social Psychology, 10(3), 186-213.
Rajah, R., Song, Z., & Arvey, R.D. (2011). Emotionality and leadership: Taking stock of the past decade of research. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(6), 1107-1119.
Rietzschel, E.F. (2011). Collective regulatory focus predicts specific aspects of team innovation. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14(3), 337-345.
Siu, K.W.M., & Wong, Y.L. (2016). Fostering creativity from an emotional perspective: Do teachers recognize and handle students’ emotions? International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 26(1), 105-121.
Summerville, A., & Roese, N.J. (2008). Self-report measures of individual differences in regulatory focus: A cautionary note. Journal of Research in Personality, 42(1), 247-254.
Tse, H.H.M., Troth, A.C., Ashkanasy, N.M., & Collins, A.L. (in press). Affect and leader-member exchange in the new millennium: A state-of-art review and guiding framework. The Leadership Quarterly.
Venus, M., Stam, D., & Van Knippenberg, D. (2013). Leader emotion as a catalyst of effective leader communication of visions, value-laden messages, and goals. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 122(1), 53-68.
Vijayalakshmi, V., & Bhattacharyya, S. (2012). Emotional contagion and its relevance to individual behavior and organizational processes: A proposition paper. Journal of Business and Psychology, 27(3), 363-374.
Visser, V.A., Van Knippenberg, D., Van Kleef, G.A., & Wisse, B. (2013). How leader displays of happiness and sadness influence follower performance: Emotional contagion and creative versus analytical performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(1), 172-188.
Vriend, T., Hamstra, M.R.W., Said, R., Janssen, O., Nijstad, B.A., & Jordan, J., manuscript in preparation. Regulatory focus theory: Disentangling goals and strategies.
Wang, J., Wang, J., Liu, R.D., & Dong, H.Z. (2017). How expected evaluation influences creativity: Regulatory focus as moderator. Motivation and Emotion, 41(2), 147-157.
Wu, C., McMullen, J.S., Neubert, M.J., & Yi, X. (2008). The influence of leader regulatory focus on employee creativity. Journal of Business Venturing, 23(5), 587-602.
APPENDIX I QUESTIONNAIRE
Questionnaire for leaders:
Promotion focus
1. At work, I constantly strive to gain desirable outcomes 2. At work, I constantly strive to gain advantages
3. At work, I constantly strive to maximize positive outcomes 4. At work, I constantly strive to grow as a person
5. At work, I constantly strive to develop personally 6. At work, I constantly strive to improve myself 7. At work, I constantly strive to pursue my dreams 8. At work, I constantly strive to live up to my ideals 9. At work, I constantly strive to fulfill my hopes
10. At work, to attain my goals I enthusiastically embrace all opportunities 11. At work, to attain my goals I am eager to use all possible ways or means 12. At work, to attain my goals I am eager to take all necessary actions
Prevention focus
13. At work, I constantly strive to avoid undesirable outcomes 14. At work, I constantly strive to minimize negative outcomes 15. At work, I constantly strive to minimize losses
16. At work, I constantly strive to avoid insecurity 17. At work, I constantly strive to avoid danger 18. At work, I constantly strive to avoid risks
19. At work, I constantly strive to stay within my duties and obligations 20. At work, I constantly strive to adhere to the rules
21. At work, I constantly strive to conform to norms
22. At work, to reach my goals I am concerned with making mistakes 23. At work, I am cautious about going down the wrong road
Positive and negative emotions and feelings
25. For each of these emotions and feelings, indicate to what extent you usually experience them at work: - Attentive - Alert - Scared - Sad - Ashamed - Worried - Happy - Angry - Active - Enthusiastic - Frustrated - Interested - Annoyed - Nervous - Calm - Discouraged - Relaxed - Elated - Guilty - Serene - Strong - Disappointed - Upset - Satisfied - Determined - Hostile - Irritable - Inspired - Proud - Nervous Creativity
26. How often do the following people come up with creative ideas?
27. How new and original are the creative ideas of the following people usually?
28. How often are the creative ideas of the following persons followed up on by your supervisor?
General
29. In which year where you born? 30. What is your highest education? 31. What is your gender?
Questionnaire for subordinates:
Promotion focus
1. At work, I constantly strive to gain desirable outcomes
2. At work, I constantly strive to gain advantages
3. At work, I constantly strive to maximize positive outcomes 4. At work, I constantly strive to grow as a person
9. At work, I constantly strive to fulfill my hopes
10. At work, to attain my goals I enthusiastically embrace all opportunities 11. At work, to attain my goals I am eager to use all possible ways or means 12. At work, to attain my goals I am eager to take all necessary actions 13. At work, I constantly strive to avoid undesirable outcomes
14. At work, I constantly strive to minimize negative outcomes
Prevention focus
15. At work, I constantly strive to minimize losses 16. At work, I constantly strive to avoid insecurity 17. At work, I constantly strive to avoid danger 18. At work, I constantly strive to avoid risks
19. At work, I constantly strive to stay within my duties and obligations 20. At work, I constantly strive to adhere to the rules
21. At work, I constantly strive to conform to norms
22. At work, to reach my goals I am concerned with making mistakes 23. At work, I am cautious about going down the wrong road
24. At work, I am vigilant and play it safe
Positive and negative emotions and feelings
Emotional contagion
25. Indicate to what extent this situation applies to you: Being with a happy person picks me up when I’m feeling down
26. Indicate to what extent this situation applies to you: Being around with happy people fills my mind with happy thoughts
27. Indicate to what extent this situation applies to you: If someone I’m talking with begins to cry, I get teary eyed
28. Indicate to what extent this situation applies to you: I cry at sad movies
29. Indicate to what extent this situation applies to you: It irritates me to be around with angry people
30. Indicate to what extent this situation applies to you: I tense when overhearing an angry quarrel
Creativity
31. How often do you usually invent creative ideas?
32. How often do the following people come up with creative ideas? 33. How new and original are your own creative ideas usually?
34. How new and original are the creative ideas of the following people usually? 35. How often are your creative ideas followed up on by your supervisor?
36. How often are the creative ideas of the following persons followed up on by your supervisor?
General
