In these times of rapid change, more and more leaders have been realizing that in order to stay competitive, they need to make their followers actively involved in their work and stimulate their creative behaviour (Mumford, Scott, Gaddis and Strange, 2002). One of the main reasons why the topic of leading employee creativity has captured increasingly attention in the literature is that because creativity is more likely to influence company performance and survival (Nystrom, 1990; Kanter, 1988). Thus, it has become crucial for organisations to develop conditions encouraging creativity within the working environment.
Generally speaking, creativity is accepted as generation of unique, novel, potentially useful ideas (Amabile et. al., 1996). Torrance (1988) also argues that the nature of creativity stems from identifying problems, formulating hypothesis, discussion ideas with others and contradicting what is expected in order to produce new ideas. Tomas (1999), in addition, defines creativity as the production of original ideas. On the other hand, Shalley and Perry-Smith (2001) emphasizes that creativity is not only something original, but also appropriate, lawful and realistic ideas.
Over the years, creativity has inspired a number of researchers studying on the reasons why certain individuals or organisations are more likely to be creative and innovative than others (e.g. Amabile, 1988; Galbraith, 1982; Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993). After significant research attention has been paid to understanding how creativity in the work place could be fostered, it was concluded that encouragement for creativity, autonomy, challenging work and sufficient resources are associated positively with employee creativity whereas workload pressure and organisational impediments are negatively correlated (Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby, & Herron, 1996).
Amabile et al. (1996) have also argued that one of the resources for creativity is the role of supervisors. Prior research has, in addition, pointed out that leadership is widely accepted as one of the key factors that may have significant impact on creativity (Scott & Bruce, 1994; Tierney, Farmer, & Graen, 1999). The reason why leadership plays a crucial role in this context could be because leaders are more able to create conditions in which subordinates focus on creative actions to attain their goals (Mumford et al., 2002). Therefore, literature includes several studies examining the impact of different leadership style on creativity. For instance, it has been found that transformational leadership (Jung et al., 2003; Gumusluoglu & Ilsev, 2009) and participative leadership (Nystrom, 1979) is conducive to creativity whereas autocratic leadership has a negative effect on creativity.
Although a great deal of research has gone into the question what makes people creative, far less has gone into exploring the contribution that task-oriented and people-oriented leaders make. Despite the fact that task-oriented and people-oriented leadership have become unpopular after transactional/transformational leadership theories emerged, it has still been argued that these two major dimensions have dominated leadership research (Judge et.al., 2004). For instance, according to Judge et al. (2004), people orientation is more likely to lead to follower satisfaction, group performance and motivation whereas task orientation was more strongly related to job performance or effectiveness. In addition to all these contributions made by researchers, the purpose of the present study is particularly to examine this important yet relatively unstudied relationship between task-oriented and people-oriented leadership, and employee creativity.
It was purposed that people oriented leaders could stimulate employee creativity because when leaders express concern for their followers' needs and wants, show support and empathy, and encourage personal development, it is more likely that they might transform their followers into creative thinkers. Therefore, followers are likely to be more interested in their tasks by intrinsic motivation. It is also possible to argue that followers of people oriented leaders are likely to encourage and support each other to solve problems. Thereby, there is a strong likelihood that they might take risks to develop new ideas and different approaches on their own (Amabile, 1996; Deci & Ryan, 1985). As a result, it could build trust and openness between the relations-focussed leader and his/her follower, leading to creativity. Consequently, people-oriented leaders could arise and promote the ability of thinking in a creative ways.
Task-oriented leadership behaviours might also match the determinants of creativity at the workplace, some of which are clear objectives, deadlines, time pressure and challenging goals (Baer & Oldham, 2006). For instance, evidence shows that there is a positive, significant correlation between scientists' experienced time pressure and their creativity (Andrews and Farris, 1972). In addition, Shalley (1991) investigated that employees did not develop creative ideas, when they were given a 'do-your-best'. To put it another way, employees need to know what they are expected to do for generating new ideas. Hence, the present study proposes that if task oriented supervisors provide their subordinates with clear goals and processes, their followers may produce creative ideas.
More specifically, the present study argues the mediating effect of four possible variables on the relationship between leadership and creativity: goal clarity, process clarity, intrinsic motivation and co-worker support (see Figure 1 and Figure 2). Firstly, intrinsic motivation has been determined as one of the reasons why leadership contributes to creativity (Amabile, 1996; Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Shalley, 1995; Zhou, 1998). Zhou and George (2001), in addition, suggest that co-worker support is another important source of creativity in the workplace. It is also possible to examine that goal clarity and process clarity may influence creative work in organisations because if people know how to attain their goals and how to perform the job by certain processes, it could lead to creativity. Lastly, it could be investigated the moderating effect of affiliation and achievement orientation, because different followers are more likely to respond their leaders differently. What is unique about this study is that contrary to previous research (e.g. Amabile, 1996; Oldham and Cummings, 1996; Shalley, 1995; Zhou, 1998), it examines the effect of both initiation structure behaviour and consideration behaviour on creativity with different mediators and moderators. The following models were suggested.
Figure.1. the relationship between task-oriented leadership and employee creativity
Figure.2. the relationship between relation-oriented leadership and employee creativity
The major objective of this study is to investigate how task-oriented and people-oriented leadership affect followers' creativity. It is suggested that there are different mediators and moderators for different leadership types. The following objectives were proposed as part of this research:
' To examine the effect of intrinsic motivation and co-worker support on the relationship between people-oriented leadership and employee creativity.
' To discover the effect of affiliation orientation on the relationship between people oriented and employee creativity.
' To investigate the effect of goal and process clarity on the link between task-oriented leadership and creativity.
' To examine the effect of achievement orientation on the link between task oriented and creativity.
This study should also be a significant contribution to the literature because as Judge et al. (2004) reveals that since 1980 there have been only a handful of empirical studies on task/people oriented leadership, in other words, initiating structure and consideration. He also argues that it could be because these leadership behaviours are still premature, thus needs to be developed. Consequently, this project will discover some subjects which have not been deeply studied before. As a practical implication, managers might be clearly guided by the result of this project suggesting that both leadership behaviours could significantly enhance their employees' creative outcomes. Whether they are task-oriented or people-oriented, managers could implement the proposed mechanisms in their organisations by means of different mediators in order to boost the creative performance of their employees.
II. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND LITERATURE REVIEW
Task-oriented leadership, goal and process clarity and creativity
One of the most common leadership types within many organisations is task-oriented leadership (Bass and Bass, 2008). Kaiser and Kaplan (2001) showed that 46 percent of managers described themselves as task-oriented leaders. Task-oriented leadership is mainly based on production (Blake and Mouton, 1964) and need for achievement (McClelland, 1961; Wofford, 1970). These kinds of leaders are more likely to clarify expectations, set standards of performance, direct and improve operations (Zaleznik, 1977). Additionally, they rely on strategies, decision making, planning and rewarding (Eicher, 1998). The emphasis is on organisational goals rather than personal objectives or aims. Leaders who are perceived to have a leadership style of initiating structure (task orientation) do not care so much about employee well-being. They want followers to only perform the jobs as required (Eicher, 1998).
This project proposes that task oriented leadership is associated with goal clarity and process clarity. In other words, leaders who exhibit a high level of task orientation are more likely to provide their followers with clear goals and processes. Looking at the literature, previous research demonstrated that clarifying the roles of others has been already accepted as one of the purposes of task oriented leader behaviour (Yukl, 1994). Bass and Bass (2008) also argue that role clarification is more related to task oriented leadership. Research findings have already proved that role clarity is associated with task oriented leaders (Fulk and Wendler, 1982). Moreover, it is argued that leadership is a crucial phenomenon for goal clarification (Bailyn, 1985).
As can be seen from the leadership literature, the focus is on only role clarity. However, this study divided aspects of role clarity into two: goal clarity (the extent to which goals of the job are clearly stated and well defined) and process clarity (the extent to which the employee is clear about how to perform the job) (Sawyer, 1992). Otherwise stated, task oriented leadership is concerned with maintaining standards and deciding in details what will be done (goal clarity) and how it should be done (process clarity) (Hersey and Blanchard, 1982). This is because task oriented leaders naturally try to clarify everything that makes the job done smoothly in order to boost production. Consequently, on the basis of the above arguments and evidence, this leads to H1 and H2.
Hypothesis 1: Task oriented leadership is positively related to goal clarity.
Hypothesis 2: Task oriented leadership is positively related to process clarity.
Moreover, this research also points out that goal and process clarity could result in creativity. It is because when individuals know what they need to engage in, they are more likely to generate creative ideas within organisations without any misunderstanding and misconception. As a result, followers will probably be more interested in their tasks instead of in external concerns. For instance, one of the studies demonstrated that defining problems is a part of the creative process (Getzels & Csikszentmihalyi, 1976) highlighting the importance of goal clarification in creative performance (Amabile et al., 1996). As Shalley (1995) found, setting creative goals led to higher level of employee creativity.
Regarding goal clarity, it would be presumed that employees who are aware of their work roles are likely to take actions that positively influence their creative problem solving (Sawyer, 1992). Additionally, it may be argued that process clarity fosters employee creativity because there will be no unexpected interruptions which distracts employees' attention from the work itself. To put it another way, process clarification might encourage employees to determine and take actions to complete tasks, and thus should potentially enhance their creativity.
Thus far, it has been argued that task-oriented leaders set their followers with goal and process clarity, which, in turn, contribute to creativity. The present study tests this theorized mediating role of goal clarity and process clarity. Building from all these arguments, the study proposes the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3. Goal clarity is positively related to creativity.
Hypothesis 4. Process clarity is positively related to creativity.
Hypothesis 5. Goal clarity mediates the relationship between task-oriented leadership and individual creativity.
Hypothesis 6. Process clarity mediates the relationship between task-oriented leadership and individual creativity.
The moderating role of high achievement-orientation
Achievement orientation refers to someone who is persistent, hard-working, organised and diligent about their works (Biernat, 1989). The leading indicators of a high degree of achievement orientation is to set challenging goals, do more extra work than asked, take actions before problems occur, and seek out interesting solutions (McCleand, 1987). McClelland (1987, p.221) pointed out that high achievers exhibit a higher performance in challenging tasks. He also emphasized that these types of people are more likely to be creative in the sense of seeking new and better ways to enhance their performance. It is also discovered that high achievement orientation is related to creative behaviour (e.g., Barron, 1965; Barron & Harrington, 1981; Singh, 1986). Thus, achievement orientation could be suggested as one of the most important predictors of creativity.
The present study particularly represents that subordinates who have a high need for achievement could be also more creative while being supervised by task oriented leaders. Although evidence indicated that high achievement oriented followers did not prefer their leaders to be task-oriented (Ehrhard and Klein, 2001), according to the research conducted by Mathieu (1990), it was found that task-oriented leaders are preferred by those who are high in need of achievement. It may be that followers may feel to be attracted to their task oriented leaders because they could share the same interests such as persistency and conscientiousness. Furthermore, it is also possible to argue that achievement-oriented followers would exhibit more creative behaviour since their task oriented leader enable them to obtain whatever they need in order to increase the volume of production such as extrinsic motivation or sufficient resources. It would be also assumed that the proposed relationship may occur because task-oriented leaders may form a work environment with clear structure and guidelines which may attract followers who value achievement at work. These arguments and evidence lead to H7.
Hypothesis 7: High achievement orientation moderates the relationship between task oriented leadership and creativity in such a way that for followers higher on achievement, task oriented leadership has a stronger, positive relationship with creativity than for followers lower on achievement.
Relationship-Oriented Leadership, Intrinsic Motivation, Creativity
If a leader practises the human relations approach and establishes friendly and supportive relationship with his/her followers, it is called relations-oriented leadership (Bass, and Bass, 2008). According to Yukl (1994), relations-oriented leadership overlaps with leaders who are paying more attention to the needs of others, trying to reduce emotional conflicts and providing regular participation. Such leaders are more likely to be expressive and establish social and emotional relationships (Bales, 1958), are concerned for people (Blake & Mounton, 1964) and also seem concerned about the welfare of subordinates (Hemphill, 1950). They probably facilitate effective communication between supervisors and subordinates (Kirmeyer and Lin, 1987). Hersey and Blanchard (1982) especially point out that such leaders tend to provide their subordinates opportunities in order to use their potential. Besides, relations-oriented leaders, who care about their employees' feelings and needs, and maintain confidence in them (Bass & Bass, 2008) are likely to enhance their employees' interest in their tasks.
In the present study, it was suggested that people-oriented leadership leads to intrinsic motivation. Looking at the literature, Oldham and Cummings (1996) found that supportive supervisory behaviour was a significant determinant of intrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation means motivational issue which employees enjoy doing a task for its own sake, instead of the external outcomes or rewards (Deci and Ryan, 1985). Basically, intrinsic motivation refers to what extent an employee is excited about a work activity (Utman, 1997). This study expects that employees working with this kind of supportive leaders will be intrinsically motivated. As a consequence of intrinsic motivation, a people-oriented leader is likely to promote the willingness of employees to give more attention and do better in their tasks.
This study also assumes that intrinsic motivation is associated with followers' creativity. According to Amabile (1983a, 1983b), one of the main determinants of creativity is motivation. There are various studies in order to investigate the relationship between intrinsic motivation and creativity (e.g., Amabile, 1996; Deci & Ryan, 1985). When an employee is intrinsically attracted to a task, he/she probably exhibits more creative behaviour and would be deeply taking part in the activity (Tierney et al., 1999). That is to say that people are more likely to discover novel cognitive pathways when being engaged with ideas and materials. Previous studies tested on R&D professionals showed that intrinsic motivation was critical for creativity (Amabile & Gryskiewicz, 1987; Smeltz & Cross, 1984) whereas it was found that extrinsic motivation had a negative effect on creativity (Amabile, 1979, 1983, 1993, 1996; Amabile, Hennessey, & Grossman, 1986).
Thus far, it has been argued that relations-oriented leaders provide followers intrinsic motivation, which, in turn, contributes to creativity. The present study tests this theorized mediating role of intrinsic motivation.
Hypothesis 8. Intrinsic motivation is positively related to followers' creativity.
Hypothesis 9. Relations-oriented leadership is positively related to intrinsic motivation of followers.
Hypothesis 10. Intrinsic motivation mediates the relationship between relations-oriented leadership and creativity.
Relations-oriented leadership, co-worker support, creativity
Relations-focussed leadership is also associated with strong communication and interaction with followers (Bass and Bass, 2008). In other words, people-centred leaders tend to establish social and emotional relations differently or similarly with subordinates (Bales, 1958). Mostly, these kinds of leaders are more likely to maintain personal relationships, open channels of communication and provide followers opportunities to exploit their potential (Hersey & Blanchard, 1982). They mostly support and give recognition for good work, and communicate clearly (Bass &Bass, 2008). In this context, followers are encouraged to speak out and listen with respect. Therefore, the environment created by people oriented leaders could lead to co-workers helping and supporting within organisations. Co-worker support in this study means that co-workers assist other employees with his or her tasks when needed by sharing knowledge and expertise or providing encouragement and support (Zhou and George, 2001). To illustrate, when the employee encounters difficulties, co-workers may share their expertise to solve the problem (Scott & Bruce, 1994). Consequently, it would be assumed that people-oriented leaders are more likely to promote co-worker support within the workplace because leaders probably encourage their subordinates to help and support each other.
This study also suggests that when employees support and help each other, it is more likely to lead to higher levels of creativity. To put it another way, creativity could be stimulated when people develop relationships and interact with each other through shared experience by working together. One of the reasons why co-worker support could be a source of creative behaviour is that because employees might perceive their co-worker as noncontrolling supervisory behaviour. To support this view, it was found that individuals having supportive and helpful co-workers exhibited more creative behaviour (Amabile, 1996; Zhou and George, 2001). Contrarily, Shalley and Oldham (1997) interestingly found that competition in the workplace was more likely to be associated with employee creativity. In line with this, the results of the study of George and Zhou (2001) indicated that there was nonsignificant relationship between creativity and co-worker helping.
On the other hand, evidence shows that when co-workers are helpful and supportive, it would be rather easy for employees to use co-workers as a source for creative ideas (Farr, 1990; Scott & Bruce, 1994). Besides, if co-workers are willing to share their expertise, they may believe that new ideas could be generated and successfully implemented with the helping hands of co-workers (Farr & Ford, 1990). In addition, when an employee obtains task-relevant knowledge and expertise from co-workers, there is a good chance that he/she may create new ways of doing things (Woodman et al., 1993). Therefore, it could be asserted that sharing ideas, knowledge and information with co-workers might result in exhibiting more creativity in the tasks.
Thus far, it has been argued that relations-oriented leaders enable followers to support and help each other, which, in turn, contributes to creativity. The present study tests this theorized mediating role of co-worker support.
Hypothesis 11. Relations-oriented leadership is positively related to co-worker support.
Hypothesis 12. Co-worker support is positively related to creativity.
Hypothesis 13. Co-worker support mediates the relationship between relations-oriented leadership and creativity.
The moderating role of affiliation orientation
The present study suggests that employees who value affiliation orientation at work show more creative behaviours while working with relations-oriented leaders. This is because Turkey is a collectivist country in which people are more likely to be more affiliation oriented and have a preference for people oriented leaders. As a consequent, if people oriented leaders work with affiliation oriented followers, it would lead to more creative performance,
Affiliation could be described in this context as an interpersonal behaviour which people seek to establish a relationship with others and try to relate themselves with others (Leary, 2010). Zimbardo and Formica (1963) also defined it as personal, positive and mostly intimate interaction. In this study, the term affiliation orientation means the propensity to seek out the company of others in the work place versus the propensity to work alone (Buunk et al., 2005). People low in affiliation orientation, on the other hand, spend their free time alone and do not like being intruded on their privacy (Buunk et al., 2005). Those high in affiliation enjoy spending time with others, like team working and prefer to stay in the group. In other words, it means to put differences aside and come together with others. Prior research found that need for affiliation was also a significant predictor of creativity of females (Chusmir & Koberg, 1986). This implies that when the followers of people oriented leaders experience a high level of affiliation, it is more likely that they are more interested in and focus on their tasks, use their imagination, and produce new and useful ways of doing things. It might be because when leaders provide their subordinates with an environment which enables them to work as a team, contact and communicate each other easily, it is very likely to lead to a high level of creativity, in a collectivist country, Turkey (Hofstede, 1980). As a result, it could be suggested that affiliation orientation influences the relationship between people-oriented leadership and creativity. Thus, leading to H14:
Hypothesis 14. High affiliation orientation moderates the relationship between people-oriented leadership and creativity in such a way that for followers higher on affiliation, people-oriented leadership has a stronger, positive relationship with creativity than for followers lower on affiliation.
It is crucial to decide which research method is used in a single study so that it could have an impact on the ability to address particular research questions. If the method is wrong, there can be inconsistencies between aims and methodological choices (Edmondson, 2007). Thus, this study applied a quantitative method to test and prove hypothesis. It is because that according to Edmondson (2007), quantitative data fit best when research field is mature. Accepting creativity as a mature field, it is obvious that quantitative measure is more appropriate for the present study. She also argues that quantitative method might enable powerful and sufficient support for the objectives of the study as long as hypotheses are presented in the literature and are well argued. Considering the leadership domain, the vast majority of research is dominated by quantitative methods so that theory could be tested properly only with quantitative methods (Antonakis, Schriesheim, Donovan, Gopalakrishna-Pillai, Pellegrini and Rossomme, 2003). Consequently, questionnaires were used as a method of quantitative approach.
Sampling and Data Collection Procedures
Respondents in the present study were 114 subordinates and 33 leaders (a total of 147) from three different small and medium-sized companies from Turkey. Although 250 questionnaires were distributed, only 147 surveys were returned as completed. There were two separate questionnaires: one for the followers and the other for their leaders because employees' creativity needed to be evaluated by their supervisors. Therefore, data were collected in two waves. Firstly, followers were asked to fill in a questionnaire including measures of task-oriented/people oriented leadership, goal/process clarity, intrinsic motivation, co-worker support, and achievement/affiliation orientation. In addition, they were also asked to write their leader's name so that data collected from the leaders and employees could be matched and grouped for analysis. Secondly, after acquiring completed questionnaires from subordinates, leaders that their names were given by their subordinates were asked to rate the degree of their follower's creativity. All participants were also asked their age, gender, educational level, job tenure, and company tenure. The questionnaire items were carefully translated and back-translated into Turkish to make sure equivalence and comparability and to raise the naturalism of translation (Brislin, 1986; Van de Vijver and Leung, 1997).
At every stages of the research, it was ensured that all potential ethical issues were taken into account. According to Creswell (2008, p.88), there are three major areas that ethical problems may arise. These areas are 'specifying the research problem, identifying a purpose statement and research questions; and collecting, analysing and writing up the results of data'. Firstly, in terms of selection of research questions, creativity and leadership was chosen because not only the researcher but also participants could find it meaningful and benefit from it (Punch, 2005). Secondly, a common purpose statement was generated which both the participants and the researcher clearly understood (Sarantakos, 2005). Thirdly, regarding data collection, participants were treated with dignity, and their rights and welfare was protected. It was also ensured that the research did not have any potential risk to the participants. Additionally, despite the fact that followers and also leaders were asked to write their names on the questionnaires in order to match each other, confidentiality was guaranteed for all responses. All participants were voluntary, and allowed to withdraw from the study at any time without penalty. Finally, as Sieber suggests (1998), all data will be kept secured between 5 and 10 years, and discarded after.
Description of measures
Task-oriented leadership-Relations-oriented leadership
There is a continuing debate on which scale is the best to measure leadership. Fleishman (1995) argued that SBDQ (Supervisor Behaviour Description Questionnaire) and LOQ (Leader Opinion Questionnaire) were better measures whereas Schriesheim and Kerr (1974) disagreed, arguing that LBDQ-XII was the best measurement of task-oriented and people-oriented leadership. In the present study, leadership behaviour description scale (LBDQ-XII) was used to measure task oriented and relations oriented behaviours of leaders. LBDQ was first developed by Halpin in 1957 and revised by Stogdill in 1963 calling LDBQ-XII. The scale originally involved 100 items. For the present study, the number of the items was reduced to 20 items (10 items each). Reliability was .88 and .93, people oriented and task oriented leadership respectively. All items were rated using a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (Never) to 5 (Always). Sample items were ' friendly and approachable' and 'Schedule the work to be done'
The level of creativity of employees was evaluated by their supervisors. It is because the most common method to measure creativity is supervisor ratings for employee creativity (e.g. George &Zhou, 2001, 2002; Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Scott & Bruce, 1994; Shin & Zhou, 2003; Tierney & Farmer, 2002; Tierney, Farmer &Graen, 1999; Zhou, 2003; Zhou & George, 2001). It was measured by a five-item scale which four of them developed by Zhou and George's (2001) and just one developed by Scott & Bruce (1994) on a five-point scale ranging from 1, 'not at all characteristic,' to 5, 'very characteristic'. Reliability was .93. Sample items were 'He/she is a good source of creative ideas' and 'He/she is not afraid to take risks'
Goal and Process Clarity
Goal and process clarity were measured with a 10-item questionnaire (5 items each) developed by Sawyer (1992) on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Reliability was .83 and .78, goal clarity and process clarity respectively. Samples were 'What aspects of my work will lead to positive evaluations' and 'The procedures I use to do my job are correct and proper'.
Achievement and affiliation orientation was measured by the Personality Research Form developed by Jackson in 1974. Additionally, three items of affiliation were adapted from Buunk et al. (2005). All items were rated using a 5-point scale ranging from 1 ('strongly disagree') to 5('strongly agree'). There were a total of 10 items (5 items each). Reliability was .74 and .81, achievement orientation and affiliation orientation respectively. Sample items were 'I will not be satisfied until I am the best in my field of work' and 'I do not like to undertake something totally on my own'
Intrinsic motivation was measured by five items adapted from Tierney et al. (1999). All items were rated using a 5-point scale ranging from 1 ('strongly disagree') to 5('strongly agree'). Sample items were 'I enjoy finding solutions to complex problems' and 'I enjoy coming up with new ideas for products'. Reliability was found .89.
Co-worker helping and support
Co-worker helping and support was measured by the four-item scale developed by Zhou and George (2001). On a 5-point scale ranging from 1 ('Strongly disagree') to 5 ('Strongly agree'), employees indicated the extent to which their co-workers supported each other. Cronbach alpha was found .91. Sample items were 'My co-workers are willingly sharing their expertise with each other' and 'My co-workers are encouraging each other when someone is down'.
In this study, there are several control variables suggested by prior research. First, sector (0, 'public sector,' 1, 'private sector') was created in order to control for differences in how leadership might function. For instance, followers in state owned organisations are likely to depend on well-established principles and rules in addition to leadership to influence their work behaviours, while employees in private sector could rely on their leaders. Second, followers' educational level (doctoral, master's and bachelor's degrees) was controlled in order that it might be related to creativity through task domain expertise (Amabile, 1988). Thirdly, job tenure was used as an indicator of experience (Amabile, 1998). Lastly, the length of relationship between follower and leader was used as a control variable (Duarte, Goodson, & Klich, 1994).
Description of data analysis techniques
All analyses were conducted via statistic software, called PASW Statistics 18. Firstly, descriptive analysis was carried out in order to test whether there were positive, significant intercorrelations among all variables. Secondly, to test the hypotheses, it was conducted regression analyses. To test mediation, the procedure suggested by Baron and Kenny (1986) was followed. In this procedure, three conditions need to be established for full mediation. To meet first condition, the independent variable should be significantly related to the mediator variable. To meet second condition, the independent variable should be related to the dependent variable. To meet third condition, the mediator variable should be related to the dependent variable with the independent variable included in the equation. If the independent variable is still significant, but the coefficient decreases when the mediator is included, partial mediation occurs. However, if the coefficient for the independent variable becomes nonsignificant when the mediator is included, complete mediation occurs (Baron and Kenny, 1986).
Additionally, to determine whether there is indirect effect or not, Sobel test was used. This test is important to assess the significance of indirect effects (MacKinnon, Lockwood, Hoffman, West, & Sheets, 2002; Sobel, 1982). Thirdly, in order to test moderation (Hypotheses 7 and 14), regression analysis was used to investigate whether a change in the affiliation/achievement orientation leads to a change in the relationship between the leadership and creativity. Besides, educational level, sector, length of relationship between supervisors and subordinates and job tenure of the employees were controlled for in all models.
As already discussed before, a total of 147 employees (115 followers and 33 their leaders) completed the questionnaire. All participants were Turkish. The average age of the followers was 28.5 years (SD=5.6) with a range of 18 to 48. The number of followers consisted of 45 female (40%) and 69 male (60%). 1.8% held other degree, 12.3% had high school degree, 71.1% of them had bachelor's degree, 14% had master's degree and 0.9% had PhD's. The employees were working with their current supervisors for 2.67 years, and had 3.41 years of average job tenure in the sector (See Appendix 1 for the figures).
Moving onto the demographic features of leaders, the average age was 39.55 with a range of 28 to 59. There were only 9 female leaders comparing to 24 male leaders, 27% and 73% respectively. Education levels of leaders illustrated that 6.1% held high school degrees,78.8% held a bachelor's degree, 15.2% had a master's degree. The leaders, in addition, had 6.9 years of average job tenure (See Appendix 2 for the figures).
Reliability and Correlation Analysis
The reliability of all instruments was assessed by Cronbach's Alpha (??) which provides evidence for the internal consistency of the scales. As exhibited in Table 1, all of the scales had adequate levels of reliability ranging from 0.74 to 0.93 because it is suggested that ?? over .70 is acceptable (Bryman and Bell, 2007). Table 1 also displays correlations among all variables. The most striking feature of the results is that creativity is positively and significantly correlated with people oriented leadership ( r=0.47, p<0.01 ), task oriented leadership (r=0.35, p<0.01), intrinsic motivation (r=37, p<0.01), co-worker support (r=0.27, p<0.01), goal clarity (r=0.28, p<0.05) and job tenure (r=0.22, p<0.05) although it was found no significant relationship between creativity and process clarity, affiliation orientation, and achievement orientation. Surprisingly, it is also found that there is a negative
N Mean s.d. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
1. Creativity 115 3.36 1,28 (.93)
2. People oriented leadership 115 3.11 0.97 .47** (.88)
3. Task oriented leadership 115 3.07 1.20 .35** -.22* (.93)
4. Intrinsic motivation 115 3.16 1.25 .37** .36** .03 (.89)
5. Co-worker support 115 3.48 1.20 .27** .52** -.28** -.00 (.91)
6. Goal clarity 115 2.43 0.83 .28** -.10 .36** -.14 -.07 (.83)
7. Process clarity 115 2.51 0.83 .15 -.13 .29** -.05 -.22* .52** (.78)
8. Affiliation orientation 115 2.71 0.91 .11 .19* .03 .05 .10 .06 .10 (.81)
9. Achievement orientation 115 2.84 0.54 .08 -.04 .11 -.19* .13 .14 .14 .08 (.74)
10. Education level 115 4.00 0.60 -.02 -.18* .19* -.02 -.21* .09 .05 .07 .01 -
11. Length of leader-follower relationship 115 2.68 2.82 .13 .30** -.17 .20* .12 -.13 -.02 .10 .03 -.17 -
12. Sector 115 1.83 0.37 -.05 -.00 .01 -.01 .11 -.07 -.10 -.06 .02 .11 .17 -
13. Job Tenure 115 3.42 3.79 .22* .38** -.16 .29** .17 -.12 -.08 .15 -09 -.21* .75** -.15 -
Table 1. Descriptive statistics, alpha coefficients, and correlations
Alpha coefficients are on the diagonal, in parentheses.
significant relationship between achievement orientation and intrinsic motivation (r= -0.19, p<0.05). It is significant to note that task oriented leadership is negatively correlated with people oriented leadership (r= -0.22, p<0.05).
Tests of hypothesis
Hypothesis 1 predicts that task oriented leadership is positively related to goal clarity. Besides, Hypothesis 2 states that task oriented leadership is positively related to process clarity. The results of the analysis reveal that Hypothesis 1 and 2 are supported (??=.35, p< 0.01 and ?? =.29, p<0.05 respectively). Furthermore, Hypothesis 3 suggests that goal clarity is positively related to individual creativity. In addition, Hypothesis 4 states that process clarity is positively related to followers' creativity. The findings support that Hypothesis 3 is supported (??=.31, p<0.05) whereas it is found nonsignificant correlation between process clarity and individual creativity (??=13, n.s.). As a result, Hypothesises 1, 2, and 3 were supported while Hypothesis 4 was not supported.
Hypothesis 5 states that goal clarity mediates the relationship between task oriented leadership and creativity. The findings in Table 2 represents that there is a significant association between task oriented leadership and creativity (?? =.40, p<.001), which provides the first condition for mediation. Furthermore, task-oriented leadership was found significantly related to creativity, thereby meeting the second precondition for mediation (Kenny et al., 1998) (?? =.35, p<.001). Finally, results from the third steps showed that goal clarity was significantly and positively related to individual creativity (?? = .20, p < .05) when entered together with task oriented leadership into the equation predicting creativity. In addition, task oriented leadership remained significant but was reduced in magnitude (?? = .33, p < .001). Furthermore, results from the Sobel tests point out that as expected, there is an indirect effect of task oriented leadership on goal clarity and employee creativity (z= 2.74, p=.006). Therefore, it was found that goal clarity partially mediated the effect of task oriented leadership on follower creativity, supporting Hypothesis 5.
Creativity Goal clarity Process clarity
The length of relationship of leader-follower
Task oriented leadership -0.03 (0.18)
The length of relationship of leader-follower
Task oriented leadership 0.01(0.12)
The length of relationship of leader-follower
Task oriented leadership
Goal clarity -0.04 (0.18)
The length of relationship of leader-follower
Task oriented leadership 0.00(0.13)
The length of relationship of leader-follower
Task oriented leadership
Process clarity -0.03 (0.18)
Table 2. Results of Hierarchical Linear Modelling for Mediation in the First Model
Values in parentheses are the standard errors of the coefficients.
Hypothesis 6 predicts that process clarity mediates the relationship between task oriented leadership and creativity. As indicated above, there is significant positive relationship between task oriented leadership and creativity (??=.40, p<0.01), thus Condition 1 was met. In the second step, it was regressed task oriented leadership and control variables on the mediating variable (process clarity). As shown in Table 2, task oriented leadership was also significantly related to process clarity (??=.29, p<.05), thus the second condition was satisfied. For the third condition, entering the mediator (process clarity) together with task oriented leadership into the equation predicting creativity did not provide any significant result (??=.02, n.s.). Because the third condition was not met, Hypothesis 6 was not supported.
Hypothesis 8 predicts that there is a positive relationship between people oriented leadership and intrinsic motivation. It was found that people oriented leadership was significantly and positively related to intrinsic motivation (??=0.30, p<0.05), after controlling for education, sector, length of relationship of leader-follower and job tenure. Therefore, the findings support Hypothesis 8.
Hypothesis 9 predicts that there is a positive relationship between intrinsic motivation and followers' creativity. The findings indicate that the regression coefficient associated with people-oriented leadership was significant at the conventional p<.05 level (??=.33, p<0.05). Therefore, the findings support Hypothesis 9.
Hypothesis 10 proposes that intrinsic motivation mediates the relationship between people oriented leadership and follower individual creativity. Following Kenny et al.'s (1998) recommendation, it was followed a three-step procedure to test the mediation and control variables in the analyses. In the first step, it was regressed control variables followed by people oriented leadership on follower individual creativity. As indicated in Table 3, people oriented leadership is significantly related to follower creativity (??=.46 , p< 0.01), thus condition 1 was met. In the second step, it was regressed people oriented leadership and control variables on the mediating variable which is intrinsic motivation. As shown in Table 3, people oriented leadership had a significant effect on intrinsic motivation (?? = .30, p < 0.05), thereby meeting the second precondition for mediation (Kenny et al., 1998). Results from the final step showed that, when both independent variables and the mediating variable were regressed on the dependent variable, intrinsic motivation was significantly and positively related to follower creativity (?? = .22, p < 0.05), whereas the effect of people oriented leadership remained significant but was reduced in magnitude (??= . 40, p < 0.01). Therefore, intrinsic motivation partially mediated the effect of people oriented leadership on follower creativity. The results of the Sobel test also reveals a significant mediated relationship (z=2.46, p=0.01). Thus, hypothesis 10 is supported.
Creativity Intrinsic motivation Co-worker support
The length of relationship of leader-follower
People oriented leadership 0.08 (0.18)
0.46 ** (0.12)
The length of relationship of leader-follower
People oriented leadership 0.07 (0.18)
The length of relationship of leader-follower
People oriented leadership
Intrinsic motivation 0.06 (0.18)
The length of relationship of leader-follower
People oriented leadership -0.13 (0.16)
The length of relationship of leader-follower
People oriented leadership
Co-worker support 0.09 (0.18)
Table 3. Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Mediation in Second model
Values in parentheses are the standard errors of the coefficients.
Hypothesis 11 predicts a positive relationship between people oriented leadership and co-worker support. Results of the analysis reveal that, people oriented leadership has a significant positive effect on co-worker support (??=0.51, p<0.01). Therefore, Hypothesis 11 was supported.
Hypothesis 12 proposes that co-worker support have a significant positive relationship with creativity. The results indicate that the regression coefficient associated with co-worker support was significant at the .01 level (??=.26), so Hypothesis 12 was supported.
Hypothesis 13 predicted that co-worker helping and support mediates the relationship between people oriented leadership and creativity. Following Baron and Kenny's procedure (1986), it was conducted a three-step approach to test proposed mediation effect and control variables in the analyses. At Step 1, people oriented leadership and control variables were entered into the model to predict creativity. As also indicated in Table 3, people oriented leadership was positively and significantly related to follower creativity (?? = .46, p < .001), meeting the first requirement. At Step 2, it was regressed people oriented leadership and control variables onto co-worker support and found that people oriented leadership was significantly related to co-worker support (?? = .51, p < .001). However, entering the mediator (co-worker support) together with people oriented leadership into the equation predicting creativity did not provide any significant result (??=.06, n.s.). Thus, there was no mediating effect due to the fact that third condition of the method was not met. As shown in Table 3, even though the beta for people oriented leadership decreased (from .46 to .43) remaining significant, and the beta for the mediator (co-worker support) was found nonsignificant. Therefore, Hypothesis 13 was not supported.
To test the hypotheses regarding moderation, it was conducted hierarchical regression analysis. Any variable used as a component of an interaction term was centred (Aiken & West, 1991). Table 4 summarizes the regression results for testing Hypothesis 7, which states that achievement orientation moderates the relationship between task oriented leadership and creativity. Specifically, it was firstly entered the control variables, task oriented leadership, achievement orientation, and the interaction of task oriented leadership and achievement orientation, respectively. In support of Hypotheses 7, the results showed that the unstandardised coefficient of the interaction is significant (??= .25, p <.05). In other words, there is moderation. Figure 3 also shows that the proposed moderator (achievement orientation) does moderate the effect of predictor (task oriented leadership) on the outcome variable (employee creativity). Thus, hypothesis 7 was supported.
R?? Adj R?? ??R?? ??
Step 1: Controls
The length of relationship of leader-follower .053
Task oriented leadership
Achievement orientation .215 .172 .162
Step 3: Interaction term (Task oriented leadership X Achievement orientation) .253 .204 .038 .25*
Table 4. Results of Regression Analysis of Creativity on Task-oriented Leadership, Achievement orientation, and Their Interaction
Figure 3. Task-oriented Leadership'Achievement orientation Interaction for Creativity
Lastly, the result of the research failed to support Hypothesis 14 which predicts that high affiliation orientation moderates the relationship between people-oriented leadership and creativity in such a way that for followers higher on affiliation, people-oriented leadership has a stronger, positive relationship with creativity than for followers lower on affiliation. Again, hierarchical regression analysis was conducted to test the moderation effect of affiliation orientation (See Table 5). However, the beta associated with the interaction term (people oriented leadership X followers' creativity) was found statistically nonsignificant (??=-.00, n.s.). Thereby, hypothesis 14 was not supported.
R?? Adj R?? ??R?? ??
Step 1: Controls
The length of relationship of leader-follower .053
People oriented leadership
Affiliation orientation .237 .194 .184
Step 3: Interaction term (People oriented leadership X Affiliation orientation) .237 .187 .000 -.00
Table 5. Results of Regression Analysis of Creativity on People-oriented Leadership, Affiliation orientation, and Their Interaction.
To sum up, after several tests and analysis, unfortunately, all of the hypotheses were not significantly supported. Namely, hypothesis 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 were supported whereas hypothesis 4, 6, 13 and 14 were not supported.
The present study has proposed two different models. One of them examined the relationship between task oriented leadership and employee creativity in a model that took into account the mediating effects of goal and process clarity, and the moderating role of achievement orientation. Another one predicted the relationship between people-oriented leadership and employee creativity in a model that took into consideration the mediating effects of intrinsic motivation and co-worker support, and the moderating role of affiliation orientation. The results indicated that both leadership styles could have an impact on creativity through different mechanisms.
First and foremost, as can be seen from the results section, task oriented leadership was positively related to both goal and process clarity. It means that task oriented leaders make their subordinates clearly understand what they are expected to achieve and how. This is very consistent with the arguments by Yukl (1994) saying that what will be done (goal clarity) and how it should be done (process clarity) are the main components of task oriented leadership behaviours.
The findings also underline the importance of goal clarity, in comparison to process clarity. Results show that goal clarity is positively related to creativity. It might be that goals could be accepted by followers as a target to achieve. Thus, they can exhibit more creative performance to reach this target more quickly. Otherwise stated, employees working under expected conditions are more likely to be more able to create new ideas. This is in line with a conclusion made by Shalley (1995) that people exhibit a more creative performance when they are given difficult goals to achieve. On the other hand, the proposed relationship between process clarity and creativity was not significant. The mediating effect of process clarity was also nonsignificant. The possible explanation of this result might be that when employees have to pursue predetermined processes and procedures, they are not able to perform the job in a different way that fosters creative behaviour. So, process clarity does not give the opportunity of trying out new ideas.
Another key finding in this study is that contrary to process clarity, goal clarity was also found as a mediator of the relationship between task-oriented leadership and followers' creativity. What this means is that employees with much clearer goals exhibit much more creative behaviour. It may be that goal setting and goal clarity provides clear targets for followers introducing what they need to achieve. Hence, they direct their attention to a particular task, expanding the range of potential solutions. As a result, goal clarity enables a deeper involvement in work content that results in creative outcomes.
The hypothesis regarding the relationship between co-worker support and people-oriented leadership was supported. This positive relationship could stem from the nature of the people oriented leaders who are trying to build strong relationship with their subordinates. Thus, it is not surprising that employees working in such an environment support and help each other by sharing knowledge and expertise.
Besides, co-worker support was positively significantly related to creativity. Similarly, previous research interested in creative performance within the workplace revealed that supportive managers and co-workers are conducive to creative outcomes (Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Zhou, 2003). Contrary to the expectation of this study, co-worker support did not have a mediating effect on relationship between creativity and people oriented leadership. This finding might have resulted from the people-oriented leader's direct behaviour on employees, such as consideration, relationship orientation might influence their emotional interests and enable direct and clear hints that leaders expect them to exhibit creative behaviour. Thus, this could foster employees' creativity without a mediating role of co-worker support.
Furthermore, it was also found that people oriented leadership was positively related to intrinsic motivation. This result is consistent with the argument of which supportive supervisors have a motivating influence within the working environment (Oldham and Cummings, 1996). Assuming that motivation is one of the main determinants of people oriented leadership (Judge et al., 2004), the findings seems to be consistent with prior research.
Additionally, the findings also indicated that intrinsic motivation was positively related to creativity. As several early studies suggested, intrinsically motivated employees exhibit more creative behaviour (e.g., Tierney et al., 1999; Jaussi and Dionne, 2003). In other words, individuals have a tendency to show a higher level of creativity when they are having the interest, enjoyment, and satisfaction in the work place. It is because two significant characteristics of intrinsic motivation which are positive sense of challenge and focus on the job (Amabile, Hill, Hennessey, & Tighe, 1994; Harter, 1978; White, 1959) may trigger creative behaviour of employees.
Besides, the present study also found the partial mediating effect of intrinsic motivation on the relationship between people oriented leadership and creativity. In the literature, there is mixed support for the arguments about whether intrinsic motivation has a mediating effect or not. For instance, Shin and Zhou (2003) discovered that there was a partial mediating role of intrinsic motivation on the link between transformational leadership and employee creativity whilst Gumusoglu and Ilsev (2009) did not find any mediating effect of intrinsic motivation on this relationship. However, this present study produced evidence about the assumption made by Amabile (1996, p.192), which is that 'motivation may be an important mediator of social influences on creativity'.
Moving onto the moderation analysis, it demonstrates very interesting results. The proposed hypothesis was that people oriented leadership might be more strongly related with employee creativity when followers obtained a high level of affiliation orientation. Contrary to the predictions, a high level of affiliation orientation did not significantly moderate this relationship. It could be because Turkish culture and Turks could have started to change toward individualism due to the effect of globalization. It means that affiliation does not have an impact on their creativity. In addition, it may be because affiliation orientation does not have any moderating role on the relationship between leadership and employee creativity regardless of cultural differences.
Conversely, high achievement did indeed moderate the relationship between task oriented leadership and creativity. As is shown in Figure 1, a high level of achievement orientation enhanced the relationship between task-oriented leadership and employee creativity, whereas a low level of achievement orientation reduced this relationship. To put it another way, since employees already experience high level of achievement orientation, task oriented leadership may produce a weaker effect on employee creativity. This is in line with Howell et al.'s arguments (1986) which when the moderator (achievement orientation) has no relationship with outcome variables (creativity), it could be determined as an enhancer (when it was high) or a neutralizer (when it was low) instead of a leadership substitute (Shin and Zhou, 2003, p.710). It means that if there is the absence of high level of achievement orientation, subordinates must rely heavily on the leader for reassurance that creative actions will be appreciated or not. Furthermore, this findings are also in line with what Amabile (1988) argues that high level of achievement orientation may allow subordinates to more fully engage in creative outcomes. What is so surprising about this study is that in a collectivist country, Turkey, affiliation orientation did not moderate the relationship between people-oriented leadership and creativity whilst there was a moderation effect of achievement orientation on the relationship between task-oriented leadership and creativity.
To conclude, this study aimed to discover the extent to which different leadership behaviours influence followers' creativity in Turkey. It was found that employee creativity was stimulated by both people oriented leaders and task oriented leaders through different mechanism. First, it was clear that task oriented leadership had positively correlated with goal clarity and process clarity. In addition, task oriented leadership behaviour was investigated to significantly related to creativity by the mediation of goal clarity. Next, it was investigated that people oriented leadership was positively related to co-worker support and intrinsic motivation, which in return contributed to creativity. Third, intrinsic motivation also did have a mediating effect on the link between people oriented leadership and employee creativity.
Contrary to the predictions, this study failed to support that process clarity was related to employee creativity. It was also found that process clarity had no mediating effect on the link between task-oriented leadership and followers' creativity. In addition, it was failed to underpin that co-worker support had a mediating role on the relationship between people-oriented leadership and followers' creativity. Regarding the moderation effect proposed in both models, affiliation orientation did not moderate the relationship of follower creativity-people oriented leader in any respect although high achievement oriented employees responded to their task oriented leaders by exhibiting more creative behaviour.
This study makes both theoretical and practical contributions to the creativity and the leadership literatures in several ways. First, it was shown that organisations do not have to rely on only one leadership style for fostering creativity. This study shows that both leadership behaviours could be effective in terms of promoting employee creativity at work. For example, it can be inferred from the current finding that goal clarity provided by task oriented leaders and intrinsic motivation provided by people oriented leaders can help promote followers' creative performance. More specifically, this type of research will contribute not only to better understanding in the influence this mechanism on employee creativity, but also to knowledge with respect to the ways that leaders can change and enhance followers' creativity by providing considerably clearer goals or making them intrinsically motivated.
In the same vein, leaders willing to encourage their followers to put extra efforts into trying out new and creative approaches to their problems can implement the result of the present study into the real business world. As shown in the results section, a leader who has high degree of people orientation should stimulate his/her followers' creativity through intrinsic motivation. Thus, it would be asserted that organisations that have people oriented leaders could develop a culture that promote intrinsic motivation, because Amabile (1998) argues that changing organisational culture could enhance creativity in workplace. As a result, leaders might assist their followers become more intrinsically motivated to foster their creativity.
The third practical contribution of this study is that organisations could provide their managers with specific training activities with the respect to key characteristics of different leadership styles in order to foster and promote employee creativity. To illustrate, a people oriented leader could be trained to understand how to increase intrinsic motivation of employees in the workplace whilst a task oriented leader might be trained to learn how to fully clarify goals and objectives that need to be achieved by followers. Consequently, there will be a supportive environment for creativity set by leaders.
Based on the findings, and relative to the above discussions, another practical implication which could be used during recruiting process is that individuals high in affiliation orientation could be employed if they have to work under the supervision of task oriented leader. For instance, this could be used as a selection tool for matching the right leader with right follower. Thereafter, task oriented managers could have the ability to stimulate employee creativity for a long period of time by recruiting affiliation oriented employees.
On the other hand, it should be also considered that followers might resist to their leaders in a way that followers who value more relationships and feelings could focus on less creative activities while working with task-oriented leaders. Similarly, achievement oriented subordinates who are supervised by people oriented leaders may probably exhibit less creative behaviour. For this reasons, organisations need to take into account that which subordinates should be assigned to which leaders in order to make the proposed mechanism work properly.
First, although leadership has been linked to employee creativity, this study is a preliminary attempt to explore the mechanisms by which both people oriented and task oriented leadership influences follower creativity. It was because there is not always one type of leadership approach being practised in the real business world. Individuals obtain different personalities, traits, behaviour, skills, knowledge and ability which shape their leadership style (Yukl, 1994). So, contrary to the fact that many prior studies focus on the effect of only one leadership approach on creativity (Shin & Zhou, 2003, 2007; Sosik et al., 1998; Sosik, Kahai, & Avolio, 1999), this study take into account two different leadership styles: people oriented and task oriented leadership. Thus, the present study has shown that both people oriented and task oriented leadership approaches could be accepted as creative conducive leadership styles.
Second, this study specifically focused on people oriented and task oriented leadership; in other words consideration and initiating structure. Prior research assumes (Judge et al., 2004) that there is a lack of studies in the field of the effect of these two leadership styles on other aspects of the organisational behaviour such as creativity. As a result, due to the surprisingly absent empirical research on the relationship between people oriented/task oriented leadership and employee creativity, this study contributes to the understanding and knowledge of the effect and process of these two different leadership styles on creativity.
Third, the study also helped illuminate the fact that goal clarity led to employee creativity. Furthermore, it was shown that goal clarity could also play a mediating role over the effect of task oriented leadership on employee creativity. It is significant evidence because most of prior studies have focused only on the link between goal clarity and the effectiveness of employee performance (Bass, Farrow and Valenzi, 1977). However, this study revealed that goal clarity could also result in employee creativity.
Fourth, these results are akin to the findings of Shin and Zhou's (2003) about a partial mediating role of intrinsic motivation on creativity. The only difference between these two studies is that Shin and Zhou used transformational leadership style as an independent variable whilst the present study suggest people oriented leadership as an independent variable. To conclude, the findings presented that intrinsic motivation could also be associated with another leadership style.
Finally, more interesting is that affiliation oriented followers were not influenced by their people oriented leaders to foster their creativity. On the other hand, achievement oriented followers led by task oriented leaders revealed more creative performance. This is so surprising because this study was conducted in a collectivist country, Turkey. These findings do not seem to fit into to the collectivist character of the Turkish participants (Hofstede, 1980) in which employees seek more close relationship with their supervisors. More specifically, Turkish followers who have a tendency towards high achievement orientation would be accepted as a source of creativity while under the supervision of task oriented leaders. The reason behind these findings could be because high achievement orientation is more likely to be associated with creative behaviour (e.g., Barron, 1965; Barron & Harrington, 1981; Singh, 1986) regardless of the cultural differences. Consequently, this study has shown that the theories that could have been applied in individualist culture of Western also take a place in a collectivist country, Turkey.
VIII. LIMITATIONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH
The most critical limitation of this study is that it does not include any cross level analyses for leadership style. For example, leadership could be analysed at individual level, group level and also organisational level. The reason why a theory should be tested at different levels is because the conclusion could be drawn in a different direction according to the levels (Dansereau, Alutto, et al., 1984; Klein et al., 1994). The Journal of Leadership Quarterly (2002, Vol. 13, No. 1) were especially highlighted the difficulties of multilevel analysis in leadership research. As a simple example, statistics analyzed at the individual level was not successful to discover a moderation effect of leadership climate on task significance of followers (Bliese, Halverson, & Schriesheim, 2002). Nevertheless, some other research was found evidence of the same moderator while testing at the group-level that was ignored by other studies (Bliese & Halverson, 2002; Gavin & Hofmann, 2002; Markham & Halverson, 2002).
What is more, Antonakis et al, (2003, p.63) clearly articulated that 'If a leader's behaviour'as perceived by followers'is not homogeneously viewed by followers, then the leader's behaviour operates at the individual level of analysis. However, if the leader's behaviour is viewed homogeneously, then it is justifiable to aggregate the individual data to the group level and make inferences at the group level of analysis, because individual responses are dependent on group membership'. This could be the case for the present study as well. One of the reasons why affiliation orientation did not moderate the relationship between people oriented leadership and employee creativity might be because leadership was not analysed at the organisational level or group level. Consequently, unless analysis or measurement levels are accurately aligned, 'we may wind up erecting theoretical skyscrapers on foundations of empirical jello' (Schriesheim, Castro, Zhou, et al., 2001, p. 516). Thus, it could be interesting for further studies to test the mechanism of leadership-creativity at the different level.
Another limitation of this study is creativity rating scales. As Shalley and Zhou (2009) emphasize, the most common method to measure creativity is to have supervisors evaluate their subordinates' creativity. Thus, this study has used survey data asking leaders to rate their followers' creative performance. Looking at the literature, there are a number of different scales produced for different purposes such as George and Zhou's (2001, 2002) 13-item scale, Oldham and Cummings' (1996) 3-item scale, Scott and Bruce's (1994) 6-item scale, and Tierney et al.'s (1999) 9-item scale. However, there is no evidence in any published journals or articles about which certain scales are more reliable measures for certain type of jobs or employees (Shalley and Zhou, 2009). As a result, the scale used in the present study (George and Zhou, 2001; Scott and Bruce, 1994) is not based on any assumptions making that it is the most suitable scale. So further studies would examine which scales are the most appropriate ones for particular research subject. Additionally, it might be also interesting for future research to examine the effect of task oriented/people oriented leadership behaviour on group/team creativity which has limited empirical study on.
These limitations notwithstanding, this study contributes literature by exploring the way of how different leadership behaviours affect creativity in a real setting. Furthermore, questionnaires were used as a field study which enables the author to generalize the results and obtain greater external validity comparing to laboratory studies (Shalley and Zhou, 2009). However, it causes a limitation due to the fact that all data was collected within a short time and at the same time, thus it cannot be assumed that one factor brought about another factor. Besides, because the study was cross-sectional in design, findings cannot give any information about causality. Hence, generalizability of the present findings could be investigated in future studies including two different cultures, which one is collectivist and another is individualist as control variables in order to present a clear picture of cultural differences.
If this essay isn't quite what you're looking for, why not order your own custom Management essay, dissertation or piece of coursework that answers your exact question? There are UK writers just like me on hand, waiting to help you. Each of us is qualified to a high level in our area of expertise, and we can write you a fully researched, fully referenced complete original answer to your essay question. Just complete our simple order form and you could have your customised Management work in your email box, in as little as 3 hours.
This Management essay was submitted to us by a student in order to help you with your studies.
This page has approximately words.
If you use part of this page in your own work, you need to provide a citation, as follows:
Essay UK, Impact Of Different Leadership Styles On Follower Creativity. Available from: <http://buystrangestuff.com/free-essays/management/impact-different-leadership-styles.php> [19-03-18].
If you are the original author of this content and no longer wish to have it published on our website then please click on the link below to request removal: