Running head: EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP AND CREATIVITY 1

Empowering Leadership and Employee Creativity: The Mediating Roles of Knowledge Sharing

Intention and Work Engagement

Authors’ Note

This paper is submitted for a refereed paper for the 2019 Eastern Academy of

Management Conference. This manuscript is the authors’ original work, has not been published

elsewhere, and is not under consideration for publication elsewhere at the time it is submitted.
EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP AND CREATIVITY 2

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between empowering

leadership and employee creativity and the mediating roles of work engagement and knowledge

sharing intention (KSI) in the relationships, using the data of 302 knowledge workers from a

leading South Korean telecommunication company (response rate: 70%). Based on the structural

equation modeling analyses, the direct effect of empowering leadership on employee creativity

turned out to be non-significant. However, we found the significant mediation effects of work

engagement and KSI. Empowering leadership explained 42% of the variance in work

engagement. In addition, empowering leadership and KSI accounted for 52% of the variance in

KSI. Then, empowering leadership, work engagement, and KSI explained 61% of the variance in

employee creativity. Based on Bootstrap analyses, both work engagement and KSI partially

mediated the relationships between empowering leadership and employee creativity except for

one hypothesis (i.e., empowering leadership – KSI – creativity).

Keywords: empowering leadership, knowledge sharing intention, work engagement,

employee creativity
EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP AND CREATIVITY 3

Empowering Leadership and Employee Creativity: The Mediating Roles of Knowledge Sharing

Intention and Work Engagement

For organizations to achieve organizational sustainability and long-term success it is

critical to consider environmental, economic, and human dimensions (Florea, Cheung, &

Herndon, 2013; Hart & Milstein, 2003; Kim & Park, 2017). In particular, to produce high quality

products and services incessantly, it is essential to keep the employees empowered so that they

can generate and implement more creative and innovative ideas (Sharma & Kirkman, 2015).

Another crucial component for creativity and innovation is to develop organizational culture that

brings employees to knowledge sharing and engagement (Kim & Park, 2017; Witherspoon,

Bergner, Cockrell, Stone, 2013). For an organization to sustain competitive advantage in the 21st

century’s product and service market, therefore, practitioners and researchers need to shed more

light on empowerment and creativity.

Problem Statement and Research Purpose

Creativity research in the workplace has received an increasing attention because

employee creativity has been the source of sustained competitive advantages in this knowledge-

based economy (Mittal & Dhar, 2015; Suh, Bae, Zhao, Kim, & Arnold, 2010). Although several

studies examined the relationship between employee empowerment and creativity (Sun, Zhang,

Qi, & Chen, 2012), it is necessary to focus more on leader’s behavior for empowerment to link it

with employee creative behaviors in the workplace. Many creativity studies have focused on

leadership styles (Mumford et al., 2002; Wang & Cheng, 2010) such as transformational

leadership (Sun, Zhang, Qi, & Chen, 2012). More recently, the notion of empowering leadership

has emerged as a unique construct that is different from other leadership styles (Amundsen &

Martinsen, 2014; Dong, Liao, Chuang, Zhou, & Campbell, 2015; Hon & Chan, 2013; Gupta &
EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP AND CREATIVITY 4

Singh, 2012). In this study we aimed to empirically test the role of empowering leadership on

employee creativity.

Knowledge is an essential source of competitive advantage to achieve organizational

sustainability in current knowledge-based society because organizational knowledge is context-

specific and thus difficult to imitate and substitute by others (Wang & Noe, 2010). Knowledge

sharing is the process of exchange information and expertise and effective knowledge sharing

enables organizations to create other knowledge and improve competitive advantages (Cumming,

2004; Wang & Noe, 2010). While a few studies found that knowledge sharing played a

mediating role between leadership and creativity (Carmeli & Paulus, 2015; Mittal & Dhar,

2015), only a few studies focused on the relationship between knowledge sharing and creativity

(Cameli, Gelbard, & Reiter-Palmon, 2013; Hu, Horng, & Sun, 2009).

Lastly, due to the emergence of positive psychology and positive organizational

scholarship, an increasing number of research on employee engagement has been conducted for

the last two decades. Work engagement refers to a psychological status that individuals have a

sense of achievement with active, autonomous involvement in their work (Scaufeli et al. 2008).

Nonaka (2010) argued that work engagement is essential to have employee creativity because

new knowledge creation begins from individuals and their engagement in work can lead to

creative performance. Work engagement has a positive impact on individual and organizational

performance (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008). Although a few researchers investigated the

relationship between work engagement and creativity (Kim & Park, 2017; Zhang & Bartol,

2010), we believe there still is a need for more empirical research. This study was to fill this

research gap.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between empowering
EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP AND CREATIVITY 5

leadership and employee creativity and the mediating roles of work engagement and knowledge

sharing intention (KSI) in the relationship. An overall research question was: What are the

relationships of empowering leadership, work engagement, and KSI on employee creativity?

This empirical study can contribute to the body of knowledge in the field of human resource

(HR) and organizational behavior (OB). First, this study introduced a relatively new concept,

empowering leadership, using data from the employees’ perception of their leaders in the

workplace. Second, this study aimed to identify its effect on positive work behaviors such as

work engagement, KSI, and creative behavior, integrating diverse research streams: leadership,

knowledge sharing, engagement, and creativity research. Lastly, using a mediation model, this

study attempted to unveil the process and dynamics of how these factors affect each other.

Literature Review

In this section, we provided a brief review of literature about empowering leadership,

employee creativity, work engagement, and knowledge sharing. The review explains the concept,

definition, and studies of each variable.

Empowering Leadership

Empowering leadership is considered as a key strategy to transfer power from top

management to knowledge workers so that employees can take initiative and make decisions

(Srivastava, Bartol, & Locke, 2006). Based on interviews of 52 scientists, Gupta and Singh

(2012) defined empowering leadership as leadership behavior that allows subordinates to have

substantial discretion and accountability in implementing work activities, handling problems, and

making important decisions. Hon and Chan (2013) categorized empowering leadership behaviors

as leading by example, coaching, participative decision making, informing, and showing

concern. Amundsen and Martinsen (2014) also identified three influencing processes of
EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP AND CREATIVITY 6

empowering leadership: (a) power sharing, (b) motivation support, and (c) development support.

According to Conger and Kanungo (1988), empowerment is a motivational process rather

than simply the delegation of power to followers. Thus, empowering leadership is defined as

behaviors whereby power is shared with team members, thus raising their intrinsic motivation

level (Srivastava et al., 2006). Empowering leaders show four types of behaviors: emphasizing

the significance of work, providing participation in decision making, conveying confidence that

performance will be excellent, and removing any bureaucratic constraints (Ahearne, Mathieu, &

Rapp, 2005).

Previous studies demonstrated considerable evidence for the positive relationship

between empowering leadership and various team and organizational outcomes: job satisfaction

(Konczak et al., 2000; Vecchio et al., 2010), organizational commitment (Konczak et al., 2000),

job performance (Ahearne et al., 2005; Srivastava et al., 2006; Vecchio et al., 2010), and

organizational citizenship behavior (Yun et al., 2007). However, only a few studies examined the

influence of empowering leadership on employee creativity (e.g., Dong et al., 2015). In this

study we examined the relationship between leaders’ empowering leadership and not only

engagement, but also creativity of employees.

Employee Creativity

Employee creativity refers to activities or behaviors that promote the generation of new

and useful ideas concerning products, services, processes, and procedures in organizations

(Amabile, 1988; Oldham & Cummings, 1996). Based on creativity literature, Kaufman (2016)

classified four different perspectives on definitions of creativity and called those perspectives 4P:

person, place, process, and product perspectives. From the person perspective, creativity refers to

individual’s personal traits, such as personality and cognitive abilities (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996).
EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP AND CREATIVITY 7

Place perspective focuses on environmental and contextual factors that facilitate individual

creativity (Joo, McLean, & Yang, 2013; Woodman, 1995) whereas process perspective

emphasizes procedures and processes that individuals manifest their creativity. Lastly, product

perspective views creativity as new and useful outcomes such as products and services (Amabile,

1996). This last perspective is dominating view of creativity in organizational research because

this view enables organizations to capture and measure creativity in a relatively easier way than

other perspectives (Joo et al., 2013). Based on the product view of creativity, we define creativity

as “the development of ideas about products, services, practices, processes, and procedures that

are judged to be original and novel, and appropriate and potentially useful (Joo et al., 2014, p. 3).

Previous researchers (George & Zhou, 2001; Joo, Yang, & McLean, 2014; Oldham &

Cummings, 1996) have identified the predictors of creativity and categorized predictors as

personal factors (e.g. personality), contextual factors (e.g., job, work setting, and relationships

with managers), and cross-level factors (e.g., organizational, group, and individual). For

example, according to an interactionist model of organizational creativity (Woodman, Sawyer, &

Griffin, 1993), creative behaviors are influenced by individual creativity (cognitive styles,

abilities, knowledge, intrinsic motivation, and personality), group creativity (group composition,

characteristics, and processes), and organizational creativity (contextual influences). In this

study, we have examined a contextual factor (supervisors’ empowering behaviors) as well as

personal factors (individual motivation to share knowledge and the level of work engagement).

Knowledge Sharing

Knowledge sharing is crucial for employee creativity because it enables individuals to

exchange information and promote communication within the organizations (Hargadon &

Bechky, 2006). Knowledge sharing is defined as a process or behavior of knowledge exchange

EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP AND CREATIVITY 8

between or among two or more parties (Connelly, 2000; Ipe, 2003). According to Ipe (2003), the

process of knowledge sharing includes understanding, absorbing, and using someone’s

knowledge by others. Zheng (2017) identified the four basic characteristics of knowledge

sharing: (a) knowledge sharing basically occurs in individual level, (b) it is voluntary and

proactive behavior, (c) it can be controlled by organizational environment, system, and process,

and (d) its result is to be occupied by at least two parties.

A number of studies have attempted to find critical factors that affect knowledge sharing

in an organization. Those studies can be grouped in two: (a) studies that suggested primary

factors of knowledge sharing and (b) studies that identified multiple factors and their

relationships with knowledge sharing from a comprehensive perspective (Jo & Joo, 2011). In

terms of critical factors of knowledge sharing, Zheng (2017) categorized previous studies into

three levels: organizational level, team level, and individual level. At an organizational level,

technological infrastructure can encourage or limit knowledge sharing practice in an organization

(Cabrera & Cabrera, 2002; De Long & Fahey, 2000). Organizational culture is significant to

promote knowledge sharing (Barua, Ravindran, & Whinston, 1997; Li, Liu, & Lin, 2016).

Diversity of team members found to be critical for knowledge sharing in a team level (Hambrick,

2007; Liu & Jia, 2012). As for individual level, individual’s personality (Lin, 2007) and

individual motivation (Osterloh, Frost, & Frey, 2002; Yoon & Rolland, 2012) were found as

important factors that influence on knowledge sharing. In this study, we used knowledge sharing

intention (KSI) as a measure in an individual level rather than knowledge sharing in an

organizational or team level.

Work Engagement

Work engagement is considered as an essential factor of human dimension of

EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP AND CREATIVITY 9

organizational sustainability (Florea et al., 2013; Kim, Khan, Wood, & Mahmood, 2016; Kim &

Park, 2017). Work engagement refers to “a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is

characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption” (Schaufeli, Salanova, González-Romá, &

Bakker, 2002, p. 74). According to Schaufeli & Bakker (2004), work engagement consists of

three dimensions: vigor, dedication, and absorption. Vigor refers to a state that employee has

high-level of energy, mental resilience, and willingness to make effort to solve problems.

Dedication refers to employee’s enthusiasm and pride on his or her work and a sense of deep

involvement in work. Absorption refers to a state that employees concentrate in work identifying

themselves with their work.

Previous studies investigated the relationships between work engagement and other

variables in organizational context such as job demands, resources and burnout (Schaufeli &

Bakker, 2004), leadership behaviors (Joo, Lim, & Kim, 2016; Zhang & Bartol, 2010), and

organizational performance (Salanova, Agut, &Perio, 2005). Work engagement turned out to

play a mediating role between knowledge sharing and innovative behavior (Kim & Park, 2017),

between job characteristics and employee performance (Saks, 2006), between intrinsic corporate

social responsibility and creativity (Chaudhary & Akhouri, 2018), and between learning

organization culture and innovative work behavior (Park, Song, Yoon, & Kim, 2013). We believe

that this empirical study will contribute to the body of knowledge of engagement research

examining the relationships among relevant constructs: empowering leadership, KSI, and

employee creativity.

Hypotheses

In this section, we proposed hypotheses by describing the constructs and their

relationships. An overall research model is presented in Figure 1.

EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP AND CREATIVITY 10

---------------------------------------------

Insert Figure 1 about here

---------------------------------------------

Empowering Leadership and Employee Creativity

Several studies reported the positive relationship between empowering leadership and

employee creativity (Harris, Li, Boswell, Zhang, & Xie, 2014; Slåtten, Svensson, & Sværi, 2011;

Zhang & Bartol, 2010; Zhang & Zhou, 2014). Focusing on employees’ creative process

engagement (e.g., problem identification, information searching and encoding, and idea

generation), Zhang and Bartol (2010) proposed a framework linking empowering leadership with

creativity by using several intervening variables (e.g., psychological empowerment, creative

process engagement, and intrinsic motivation). Zhang and Zhou (2014) also reported that

empowering leadership was most helpful for employee creativity when they trusted their

supervisors.

Empowering leadership positively predicted newcomer creativity depending on the

organizational context (Harris et al., 2014). Empowering leadership and a humorous work

climate can help enhance frontline service employees’ creativity (Slåtten et al., 2011). Based on

52 interviews to explore how leaders stimulate employees’ creativity, Gupta and Singh (2012)

listed 55 desirable behavioral items of the leader including allowing employees to have shared

responsibility and decision making power.

Hypothesis 1: Empowering leadership will be positively related to employee creativity.

Empowering Leadership and Work Engagement

Several empirical studies found the positive relationship between empowering leadership

and work engagement (Albrecht & Andreetta, 2011; Greco, Laschinger, & Wong, 2006; Lee,
EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP AND CREATIVITY 11

Idris, & Delfabbro, 2017; Mendes & Stander, 2011; Tuckey, Bakker, & Dollard, 2012).

Empowering leaders’ behavior is found to be a positive predictor for role clarity, psychological

empowerment, and work engagement, which in turn, increase retention of talent (Mendes &

Stander, 2011). Albrecht and Andreetta (2011) also reported that empowering leadership

indirectly influenced employees’ work engagement via empowerment. Empowering leadership

behaviors were positively associated with engagement and negatively related to burnout (Greco

et al., 2006). Finally, using a multilevel framework, Tuckey et al. (2012) found the statistically

positive the role of empowering leadership at the group level with individual employees’ work

engagement.

Hypothesis 2: Empowering leadership will be positively related to work engagement.

Empowering Leadership and KSI

Empowering leadership was found to be effective for management teams as it allowed

employees to share knowledge and eventually led to team performance (Lee, Lee, & Park, 2014;

Srivastava et al., 2006; Tung, & Chang, 2011). Srivastava et al. (2006) used knowledge sharing

and team efficacy to explain the relationship between empowering leadership and team

performance with teams in 102 hotels in the United States. Using 315 individuals from 85

different IT projects, Lee, Lee, and Park (2014) found empowering behaviors of team leaders

increased the level of knowledge sharing among team members, which in turn, increased the

level of team project performance. Based on data from 434 college students, Xue, Bradley, and

Liang (2011) found that both empowering behaviors of leadership and team climate can impact

individuals’ attitude, which may impact knowledge sharing behaviors.

Hypothesis 3: Empowering leadership has a positive influence on KSI.

Work Engagement and KSI

EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP AND CREATIVITY 12

Work engagement is regarded as a critical factor for knowledge sharing because

employees tend to share their knowledge proactively when they are engaged in their work (Chen,

Zhang, & Vogel, 2011; Sonnentag, 2003). Nevertheless, few studies empirically investigated the

direct relationship between work engagement and knowledge sharing. Kim and Park (2017)

reported that work engagement promoted employee knowledge sharing. Chen et al. (2011) found

that task and relationship conflicts affected employees’ knowledge sharing behavior through

work engagement. Tamta and Rao (2017) found that work engagement partially mediated the

relationship between emotional intelligence and knowledge sharing.

Hypothesis 4: Work engagement will be positively related to KSI.

Work Engagement and Employee Creativity

In the current competitive business environment, employees who are more engaged in

their work tend to demonstrate more creative behaviors (Bakker, 2017; Demerouti &

Cropanzano, 2010; Zhang, Jax, Peng, & Wang, 2017). Increasingly, practitioners and researcher

have shed more light on employee engagement and creativity in the workplace for the last two

decades. Surprisingly, however, there are only a few studies that investigated the relationship

between work engagement and creativity (Chaudhary & Akhouri, 2018). For instance, Bakker

and Xanthopoulou (2013) reported that work engagement has a positive effect on creativity

among female school principals and teachers, mediating the relationship between job resources

between creativity. Similarly, Demerouti, Bakker, and Gevers (2015) also found that crafting of

job demands and resources positively related to employee creativity through work engagement.

Li, Chen, and Cao (2017) reported the positive effects of high-commitment work systems and

leader-member exchange on employee creativity, and that engagement fully mediated the

relationships. Chaudhary and Akhouri (2018) found that work engagement mediated the
EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP AND CREATIVITY 13

relationship between corporate social responsibility and creativity.

Hypothesis 5. Work engagement will be positively related to employee creativity.

KSI and Employee Creativity

Knowledge sharing is a significant factor of creativity in an organization. Communication

of individual knowledge in a team is a viable resource for the team to generate new ideas

(Paulus, Dzindolet, Kohn, 2011) as exchange of knowledge helps in boosting the repository of

available expertise, skills, and knowledge in the team (Gong et al., 2013). A greater team

knowledge stock offers more opportunities to recombine existing information and ideas by

making rich cognitive resources and diverse approaches available (Choi, 2012). Previous

research provided evidence that when teams identify relevant knowledge and activate the value

of knowledge distributed among members, they can achieve higher levels of creativity. The

positive association between knowledge sharing and creativity has received some empirical

support in a variety of teams, including research and development teams, manufacturing groups,

and management teams (Gong et al., 2013; Sung & Choi, 2012; Zhang et al., 2011).

Hypothesis 6. KSI will be positively related to employee creativity.

Mediating Roles of Work Engagement and KSI

Several studies demonstrated the importance of intervening role of knowledge sharing in

their study models. While there are not many studies that examined knowledge sharing as a

mediator between empowering leadership and employee engagement/creativity, scholars tested

the mediation effects of internal and external knowledge sharing between leader behaviors and

creativity concerning creative problem-solving ability and found the positive and significant

mediation effects (Carmeli, Gelbard, & Reiter‐Palmon, 2013).

Hypothesis 7a. Work engagement will significantly mediate the relationship between
EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP AND CREATIVITY 14

empowering leadership and KSI.

Hypothesis 7b. Work engagement will significantly mediate the relationship between

empowering leadership and employee creativity.

Several researchers examined work engagement as an important mediator in the field of

HR, OB and organizational psychology, (Rich, Lepine, & Crawford, 2010; Saks, 2006; Salanova

& Schaufeli, 2008). Since engaged employees appear to be more self-directed and encouraged

(Saks, 2008), it is likely that work engagement will be affected by empowering leadership

(Simpson, 2009). While it is very difficult to find the studies that explored the mediating effect of

work engagement KSI in the relationship between empowering leadership and employee

creativity, previous studies suggest some possible mediating effects. For example, Bhatnagar

(2012) found that work engagement mediated the relationship between psychological

empowerment, innovation, and turnover intention. Amundsen and Martinsen (2014) reported that

empowering leadership increased psychological empowerment, which in turn affected both job

satisfaction and work effort.

Hypothesis 8a. KSI will significantly mediate the relationship between empowering

leadership and employee creativity.

Hypothesis 8b. KSI will significantly mediate the relationship between work engagement

and employee creativity.

Finally, no study investigated both KSIs and work engagement as mediators between

empowering leadership and employee creativity. However, several studies suggested some

possibility of mediating mechanisms of two variables in our model. For example, Zhang and

Bartol (2010) hypothesized three mediating mechanisms to explain linkages between

empowering leadership and creativity. One of the mediator was creative process engagement.
EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP AND CREATIVITY 15

Despite slight difference with work engagement, creative process engagement refers to employee

involvement in creativity-relevant processes, including (1) problem identification, (2)

information searching and encoding, and (3) idea and alternative generation (Reiter Palmon &

lilies, 2004). Carmeli et al. (2013) also addressed the importance of internal and external

knowledge in their mediated structural equation model. Their findings assert that leaders may

facilitate both internal and external knowledge sharing and employee creativity.

Hypothesis 9. Both work engagement and KSI will significantly mediate the relationship

between empowering leadership and employee creativity.

Method

Sample and Data Collection

Data were collected from employees in a leading telecommunication firm in South

Korea. HR managers of each company distributed the survey questionnaires to 430 employees,

and 302 were returned (70% response rate). The demographic variables included gender, age,

education level, and hierarchical level. Most respondents were male (76%) in their 30s (34%)

and 40s (35%) in managerial positions (75%). Regarding education, 72% of the respondents

graduated from a four-year college and 20% from graduate school. As deemed, most respondents

were highly educated male managers in their 30s and 40s.

Measures

All constructs used multi-item scales that have been developed and used in the United

States. We used the instruments prepared and validated in South Korea, using appropriate

translation-back-translation procedures: forward translation, assessment, backward translation,

and assessment based on the criteria of clarity, common language, and cultural adequacy (Presser

et al., 2004). We used a survey questionnaire with a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1
EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP AND CREATIVITY 16

(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

Empowering leadership. For empowering leadership, 12 items adopted from Ahearne et

al. (2005) were used. We used a Korean version that was translated and validated by Joo, Park,

and Lim (2016). In this study, the reliability of empowering leadership was 0.94. Sample items

were: “My manager helps me understand how my objectives and goals relate to that of the

company” and “My manager allows me to do my job my way”.

KSI. Knowledge sharing was measured by using Bock, Lee, Zmud, and Kim (2005)’s

instrument. This measuring instrument consists of five items with two subconstructs: tacit

knowledge-sharing intentions and implicit knowledge-sharing intentions. We used a Korean

version that was translated and validated by Jo and Joo (2011). The reliability of these items

was .91 in this study. A sample item included: “I intend to share my experience or know-how

from work with other organizational members.”

Work engagement. We used the nine items of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale

(UWES 9; Schaufeli et al., 2006) to measure the level of perceived work engagement of the

participants. The items in the UWES include three aspects of employee engagement: vigor,

dedication, and absorption. A Korean version that was translated by Joo, Lim, and Kim (2016)

was used. The internal consistency reliability was 0.95. Sample questions for each dimension

were “I am enthusiastic about my job” and “I am immersed in my work”.

Employee creativity. Zhou and George (2001) developed a 13-item scale to measure

creativity. We used a Korean version that was translated and validated by Shin and Zhou (2003).

In this study, the internal consistency reliability was .96. A sample item was “I suggest new ways

to achieve goals or objectives”.

EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP AND CREATIVITY 17

Results

The results of the study are reported in three parts. First, the measurement model is

presented. Second, descriptive statistics are reported, and then, the results of structural equation

modeling analysis are presented. Last, the results of the bootstrap analyses are reported.

Measurement Model

To check for possible common method bias, we first conducted Harman’s single factor

test. According to Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, and Podsakoff (2003), a common method bias

exists if the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) result presents only one factor or a dominant

single factor, thus explaining the majority of the covariances of independent and dependent

variables. The EFA based on a maximum likelihood estimation showed five factors with

eigenvalues greater than 1. The five factors together explained 66% of the total variance, with

the first factor explaining 23% of the variance.

An overall confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed to assess the construct

validity of the measurement model. The goodness-of-fit indices used in this study include chi-

square (χ2), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), non-normed fit index (NNFI),

comparative fit index (CFI), and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR). As a result of

an overall CFA, the measurement model indicated an acceptable fit to the data (χ2 [696] = 1,854;

p = .00; χ2/df = 2.66; RMSEA = .075; NNFI = .98; CFI = .98; SRMR = .054). All the factor

loadings were above .60.

Descriptive Statistics, Correlations, and Reliabilities

Table 1 presents the correlations among the demographic variables and the five

constructs. It also reports descriptive statistics and the reliabilities. All the correlations indicated

significant (p < .01) and moderate relationships among the constructs (r = .50 - .73). All
EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP AND CREATIVITY 18

measures demonstrated excellent levels of reliability ( = .91 - .96). Regarding the effects of

demographic variables, the older workers who were in higher hierarchical levels tended to

respond positively to all the constructs. Male employees perceived higher level of work

engagement and creativity. However, educational level had no effect on the three constructs in

this study.

---------------------------------------------

Insert Table 1 about here

---------------------------------------------

Structural Model Assessment

To examine the structural model, we conducted structural equation modeling (SEM)

analysis. We compared our baseline model with an alternative model. As shown in Figure 2, the

structural model demonstrated an acceptable fit to the data (2 [696] = 1,854; p = .00; RMSEA

= .075; NNFI = .98; CFI = .98; SRMR = .054). The hypotheses were examined based on the path

coefficients and the total effect sizes of the constructs. The higher the gamma () and beta (),

the stronger the relationship. H2 through H6 were supported, showing statistically significant

path coefficients (t > 1.96, p < .05). However, the direct effect of empowering leadership on

employee creativity (H1) turned out to be non-significant in this structural model due to the

mediators.

---------------------------------------------

Insert Figure 2 about here

---------------------------------------------

An alternative structural model excluding the direct relationship (H1) also indicated an

acceptable fit to the data (2 [697] = 1,815; p = .00; RMSEA = .074; NNFI = .98; CFI = .98;
EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP AND CREATIVITY 19

SRMR = .054). As the alternative model was more parsimonious with an equivalent fit, it was

accepted as the final model (see Figure 3). In terms of squared multiple correlation (SMC),

empowering leadership explained 31% of the variance in work engagement. Empowering

leadership and work engagement accounted for 60% of the variance in KSI. Overall,

empowering leadership, work engagement, and KSI explained 61% of the variance in employee

creativity.

---------------------------------------------

Insert Figure 3 about here

---------------------------------------------

Bootstrap Analyses

In a recent article, Nimon (2017) recommended bootstrapping as a preferred technique

over the Sobel test that is appropriate only for large samples. To examine the mediation effects

more rigorously, therefore, we conducted five Bootstrap analyses, using SPSS (Hayes, Preacher,

& Myers, 2011; Preacher & Hayes, 2008). By creating 5,000 bootstrap samples, we calculated

the percentage of estimates that were at or below zero in the distribution and compared this with

an alpha of .05.

The first bootstrap analysis revealed the significant indirect effect of empowering

leadership on KSI through work engagement. Across the bootstrap samples, the values for the

mediated effect ranged from .21 to .35, indicating the significant indirect path as zero was not in

the 95% confidence interval. Thus, H7a was supported. As for the effect ratio, the threshold of a

full/partial mediation is .80 in terms of the effect ratio (Jose, 2008). Since the effect ratio

was .62, we concluded that work engagement partially mediated the relationship between

empowering leadership and KSI. Likewise, H7b, H8a, and H9 were supported, indicating the
EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP AND CREATIVITY 20

significant partial mediations. However, H8b (WE – KSI – EC) turned out to be non-significant,

because the 95% confidence interval included zero (-.01, .03).

---------------------------------------------

Insert Table 2 about here

---------------------------------------------

Discussion

The findings and theoretical contributions of this study are discussed with comparisons to

previous research. Then, we discuss practical implications of this study and limitations and

recommendations for future research.

Research Findings

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between empowering

leadership and employee creativity and the mediating roles of work engagement and KSI in the

relationship, using the data of 302 knowledge workers from a leading South Korean

telecommunication company (response rate: 70%). Based on the structural equation modeling

analyses, the direct effect of empowering leadership on employee creativity turned out to be non-

significant. However, we found the significant mediation effects of work engagement and KSI.

Empowering leadership explained 42% of the variance in work engagement. In addition,

empowering leadership and KSI accounted for 52% of the variance in KSI. Then, empowering

leadership, work engagement, and KSI explained 61% of the variance in employee creativity.

Based on Bootstrap analyses, both work engagement and KSI partially mediated the

relationships between empowering leadership and employee creativity except for one hypothesis

(i.e., empowering leadership – KSI – creativity).

EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP AND CREATIVITY 21

Theoretical and Practice Implications

In terms of theoretical contributions, this empirical study can contribute to the body of

knowledge in the field of HR and OB in several ways. First, this study introduced a relatively

new leadership concept, empowering leadership, using data from the employees’ perception of

their leaders in the workplace. This study aimed to identify its effect on positive work behaviors

such as KSI, work engagement and creative behavior, integrating diverse research streams:

leadership, knowledge sharing, engagement, and creativity research. Different from the previous

studies (Harris et al., 2014; Slåtten et al., 2011; Zhang & Bartol, 2010; Zhang & Zhou, 2014), we

found that while empowering leadership had no significant direct effect on employee creativity,

indirectly it had a significant effect on creativity, suggesting the dynamic roles of work

engagement and KSI as the mediators toward creative behavior. Put differently, employees’

creativity depend on the level of work engagement and their willingness to share knowledge in

the workplace. Based on a mediation model, this study attempted to unveil the process and

dynamics of how these factors affect each other.

Another theoretical contribution lies in that it investigates empowering leadership, work

engagement, and KSI as possible antecedents of employee creativity. As mentioned earlier, there

are three perspectives of creativity research: personal characteristics, contextual characteristics

view, and integrative view (Joo, McLean, & Yang, 2013). Aligned with integrative view, our

study also suggested person-centered variable (willingness to share knowledge), job context

variable (employee engagement), and environment-centered variable (empowering leadership)

can influence employee creativity, holistically. Little research has simultaneously investigated

these factors to reflect the dynamics of these factors.

Last, our study used KSI as a variable indicating the individual level perceptions. In spite
EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP AND CREATIVITY 22

of its intuitive linkage, little research has empirically investigated the direct relationship between

work engagement and KSI. It is hoped that this finding can be replicated in different cultural

settings to be more generalizable.

With regards to practical implications, to enhance employees’ creative behaviors,

managers and HR practitioners can implement relevant practices to support supervisors to

embrace empowering leadership skills and thus employees can be more engaged and freely share

knowledge to create creative outcomes. Empowering leadership behaviors play a significant role

in boosting the followers’ engagement level and encouraging knowledge sharing. Although

many leaders encourage their subordinates to be more autonomous and participatory, we believe

that conveying confidence and collaborating with them to reduce work barriers are less

frequently practiced in today’s workplace. HR professionals can incorporate such elements into

leadership training as well as coaching or mentoring practices. Further, HR practitioners can

enhance knowledge sharing in their organizations not only by developing mutual trust and

securing reciprocity but also by developing an environment that enhances and facilitates learning

in organization.

Limitations and Future Research

There are several limitations concerning the method. First, we relied on a survey method

with potential common method bias. Using these methods could inflate the relationships among

the variables, leaving room for questions about their causality. Second, employee creativity is

measured by individuals based on their self-perceptions. As we aimed to measure creativity in

connection to organizational performance, we recommend other peers or supervisors to evaluate

employee creativity. Third, we have conducted a survey from one company in South Korea. To

generalize the results of this study, researchers should examine the links in organizations in
EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP AND CREATIVITY 23

different industries or different countries. Forth, the survey is measured in one point, however,

measuring constructs in several time points may enhance the rigor of the study. Finally, we have

examined individual level constructs, however, other contextual factors, such as the effects of

organizational culture, assessment system, or team climate, can add more holistic view when

expanding the current model.

EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP AND CREATIVITY 24

References

Ahearne, M., Mathieu, J., & Rapp, A. (2005). To empower or not to empower your sales force? An
empirical examination of the influence of leadership empowerment behavior on customer
satisfaction and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 945-955.
Albrecht, S. L., & Andreetta, M. (2011). The influence of empowering leadership, empowerment and
engagement on affective commitment and turnover intentions in community health service workers:
Test of a model. Leadership in Health Services, 24(3), 228-237.
Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in organizational
behavior, 10(1), 123-167.
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.
Amundsen, S., & Martinsen, Ø . L. (2014). Empowering leadership: Construct clarification,
conceptualization, and validation of a new scale. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(3), 487-511.
Bakker, A. B. (2017). Strategic and proactive approaches to work engagement. Organizational Dynamics,
46(2), 67-75.
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2008). Towards a model of work engagement. Career development
international, 13(3), 209-223.
Bakker, A. B., & Xanthopoulou, D. (2013). Creativity and charisma among female leaders: The role of
resources and work engagement. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 24(14), 2760-2779.
Barua, A., Ravindran, S., & Whinston, A. B. (1997). Effective intra-organizational information
exchange. Journal of Information Science, 23(3), 239-248.
Bhatnagar, J. (2012). Management of innovation: role of psychological empowerment, work engagement
and turnover intention in the Indian context. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 23(5), 928-951.
Bock, G., Lee, J., Zmud, R., & Kim, Y. (2005). Behavioral intention formation in knowledge sharing:
Examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological forces, and organizational
climate. MIS Quarterly, 29, 87-111.
Cabrera, A., & Cabrera, E. F. (2002). Knowledge-sharing dilemmas. Organization studies, 23(5), 687-
710.
Carmeli, A., & Paulus, P. B. (2015). CEO Ideational Facilitation Leadership and Team Creativity: The
Mediating Role of Knowledge Sharing. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 49(1), 53-75. doi:
10.1002/jocb.59
Carmeli, A., Gelbard, R., & Reiter‐Palmon, R. (2013). Leadership, creative problem‐solving capacity, and
EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP AND CREATIVITY 25

creative performance: The importance of knowledge sharing. Human Resource Management, 52(1),
95-121.
Chaudhary, R., & Akhouri, A. (2018). Linking corporate social responsibility attributions and creativity:
Modeling work engagement as a mediator. Journal of Cleaner Production, 190, 809-821.
Chen, Z. J., Zhang, X., & Vogel, D. (2011). Exploring the underlying processes between conflict and
knowledge sharing: A work‐engagement perspective 1. Journal of applied social psychology, 41(5),
1005-1033.
Conger, J.A., & Kanungo, R.N. (1988). The empowerment process: integrating theory and practice.
Academy of Management Review, 13(3), 471-482.
Connelly, C. E. (2000). Predictors of knowledge sharing in organizations (Doctoral dissertation, Queen's
School of Business, Queen's University).
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). The creative personality. Psychology today, 29(4), 36-40.
Cummings, J. N. (2004). Work groups, structural diversity, and knowledge sharing in a global
organization. Management Science, 50(3), 352-364.
De Long, D. W., & Fahey, L. (2000). Diagnosing cultural barriers to knowledge management. Academy
of Management Perspectives, 14(4), 113-127.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., & Gevers, J. M. (2015). Job crafting and extra-role behavior: The role of
work engagement and flourishing. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 91, 87-96.
Demerouti, E., Cropanzano, R., 2010. From thought to action: employee work engagement and job
performance. In: Bakker, A.B., Leiter, M.P. (Eds.), Work Engagement: a Handbook of Essential
Theory and Research, vol. 65. Psychology Press, East Sussex, pp. 147-163
Dong, Y., Liao, H., Chuang, A., Zhou, J., & Campbell, E. M. (2015). Fostering employee service
creativity: Joint effects of customer empowering behaviors and supervisory empowering
leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(5), 1364-1380.
Florea, L., Cheung, Y. H., & Herndon, N. C. (2013). For all good reasons: Role of values in
organizational sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics, 114(3), 393-408.
George, J. M., & Zhou, J. (2001). When openness to experience and conscientiousness are related to
creative behavior: an interactional approach. Journal of applied psychology, 86(3), 513-524.
Gong, Y., Huang, J.C. & Farh, J.L. (2009). Employee learning orientation, transformational leadership,
and employee creativity: The mediating role of employee creative self efficacy. Academy of
Management Journal, 52(4), 765-778.
Greco, P., Laschinger, H. K. S., & Wong, C. (2006). Leader empowering behaviours, staff nurse
empowerment and work engagement/burnout. Nursing Leadership, 19(4), 41-56.
Gupta, V., & Singh, S. (2012). How leaders impact employee creativity: A study of Indian R&D
EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP AND CREATIVITY 26

laboratories. Management Research Review, 36(1), 66-88.

Hambrick, D.C. (2007) Upper echelons theory: An update. Academy of Management Review 32(2), 334-
343.
Hargadon, A. B., & Bechky, B. A. (2006). When collections of creatives become creative collectives: A
field study of problem solving at work. Organization Science, 17, 484–500.
Harris, T. B., Li, N., Boswell, W. R., Zhang, X. A., & Xie, Z. (2014). Getting what's new from
newcomers: Empowering leadership, creativity, and adjustment in the socialization
context. Personnel Psychology, 67(3), 567-604.
Hart, S. L., & Milstein, M. B. (2003). Creating sustainable value. Academy of Management Perspectives,
17(2), 56-67.
Hayes, A. F., Preacher, K. J., & Myers, T. A. (2011). Mediation and the estimation of indirect effects in
political communication research. In E. P. Bucy & R. Lance Holbert (Eds.), Sourcebook for
political communication research: Methods, measures, and analytical
Hon, A. H., & Chan, W. W. (2013). Team creative performance: The roles of empowering leadership,
creative-related motivation, and task interdependence. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 54(2), 199-
210.
Hu, M. L. M., Horng, J. S., & Sun, Y. H. C. (2009). Hospitality teams: Knowledge sharing and service
innovation performance. Tourism management, 30(1), 41-50.
Ipe, M. (2003). Knowledge sharing in organizations: A conceptual framework. Human Resource
Development Review, 2,337-359.
Jo, S. J., & Joo. B.-K. (2011). Knowledge sharing: The influences of learning organization culture,
organizational commitment, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Leadership and
Organizational Studies. 18(3), 353-364.
Joo, B. K., McLean, G. N., & Yang, B. (2013). Creativity and human resource development: An
integrative literature review and a conceptual framework for future research. Human Resource
Development Review, 12(4), 390-421.
Joo, B. K., Yang, B., & McLean, G. N. (2014). Employee creativity: The effects of perceived learning
culture, leader–member exchange quality, job autonomy, and proactivity. Human Resource
Development International, 17(3), 297-317.
Joo, B.-K., Lim, D. H., & Kim, S. (2016). Enhancing work engagement: The roles of psychological
capital, authentic leadership, and work empowerment. Leadership & Organization Development
Journal, 37(8), 1117-1134.
Joo, B.-K., Lim, D. H., & Kim, S. W. (2016). Enhancing work engagement: The roles of psychological
capital, authentic leadership, and work empowerment. Leadership and Organization Development
EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP AND CREATIVITY 27

Journal, 37(8), 1117-1134.

Joo, B.-K., Park, J. G., & Lim, T. (2016). Structural determinants of psychological well-being for
knowledge workers in South Korea. Personnel Review, 45(5), 1069-1086.
Jose, E. P. (2008). Welcome to the Moderation/Mediation Help Centre, Version 2.0, School of
Psychology, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington.
Kaufman, J. C. (2016). Creativity 101 (3rd ed.). New York: Springer
Kim, W., & Park, J. (2017). Examining structural relationships between work engagement, organizational
procedural justice, knowledge sharing, and innovative work behavior for sustainable organizations.
Sustainability, 9(2), 205.
Kim, W., Khan, G. F., Wood, J., & Mahmood, M. T. J. S. (2016). Employee engagement for sustainable
organizations: Keyword analysis using social network analysis and burst detection approach. 8(7),
631.
Konczak, L.J., Stelly, D.J., & Trusty, M.L. (2000). Defining and measuring empowering leader
behaviors: development of an upward feedback instrument. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 60(2), 301-313.
Lee, J., Lee, H., & Park, J. G. (2014). Exploring the impact of empowering leadership on knowledge
sharing, absorptive capacity and team performance in IT service. Information Technology &
People, 27(3), 366-386.
Lee, M. C. C., Idris, M. A., & Delfabbro, P. H. (2017). The linkages between hierarchical culture and
empowering leadership and their effects on employees’ work engagement: Work meaningfulness as
a mediator. International Journal of Stress Management, 24(4), 392.
Li, H., Chen, T., & Cao, G. (2017). How high-commitment work systems enhance employee creativity: A
mediated moderation model. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 45(9),
1437-1450.
Li, Y., Liu, Z. and Lin, Y. (2016) Where is the driving force of employee’s knowledge sharing? The
multilevel effect of innovative culture. Economic Management, 5, 75-86.
Lin, H. F. (2007). Knowledge sharing and firm innovation capability: an empirical study. International
Journal of manpower, 28(3/4), 315-332.
Liu, N. and Jia, J. (2012) An empirical study on team diversity, knowledge sharing and innovation
performance in R&D teams. Nankai Business Review, 6, 85-92.
Mendes, F., & Stander, M. W. (2011). Positive organisation: The role of leader behaviour in work
engagement and retention. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 37(1), 1-13.
Mittal, S., & Dhar, R. L. (2015). Transformational leadership and employee creativity: mediating role of
creative self-efficacy and moderating role of knowledge sharing. Management Decision, 53(5),
EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP AND CREATIVITY 28

894-910.
Mumford, M.D., Scott, G.M., Gaddis, B., & Strange, J.M. (2002). Leading creative people:
Nimon, K. (2017). HRDQ submissions of quantitative research reports: Three common comments in
decision letters and a checklist. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 28(3), 281-298.
Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at
work. Academy of management journal, 39(3), 607-634.
orchestrating expertise and relationships. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(6), 705-750.
Osterloh, M., Frost, J., & Frey, B. S. (2002). The dynamics of motivation in new organizational
forms. International Journal of the Economics of Business, 9(1), 61-77.
Park, Y. K., Song, J. H., Yoon, S. W., & Kim, J. (2014). Learning organization and innovative behavior:
The mediating effect of work engagement. European Journal of Training and Development,
38(1/2), 75-94.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in
behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903.
Presser, S., Couper, M. P., Lessler, J. T., Martin, E., Martin, J., Rothgeb, J. M., & Singer, E. (2004).
Methods for testing and evaluating survey questions. Public Opinion Quarterly, 68(1), 109-130.
Reiter-Palmon, R., & Illies, J. J. (2004). Leadership and creativity: Understanding leadership from a
creative problem-solving perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(1), 55-77.
Rich, B. L., Lepine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job
performance. Academy of management journal, 53(3), 617-635.
Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of managerial
psychology, 21(7), 600-619.
Salanova, M., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2008). A cross-national study of work engagement as a mediator
between job resources and proactive behaviour. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 19(1), 116-131.
Salanova, M., Agut, S., & Peiró, J. M. (2005). Linking organizational resources and work engagement to
employee performance and customer loyalty: the mediation of service climate. Journal of applied
Psychology, 90(6), 1217.
Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout
and engagement: a multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(3), 293-315.
Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of
engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of
Happiness studies, 3(1), 71-92.
EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP AND CREATIVITY 29

Schaufeli, W.B., Bakker, A.B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a
short questionnaire: a cross-national study. Educational and Psychological
Sharma, P. N., & Kirkman, B. L. (2015). Leveraging leaders: A literature review and future lines of
inquiry for empowering leadership research. Group & Organization Management, 40(2), 193-237.
Shin, S. J., & Zhou, J. (2003). Transformational Leadership, Conservation, and Creativity:
Simpson, M. R. (2009). Engagement at work: A review of the literature. International journal of nursing
studies, 46(7), 1012-1024.
Slåtten, T., Svensson, G., & Svæ ri, S. (2011). Empowering leadership and the influence of a humorous
work climate on service employees' creativity and innovative behaviour in frontline service
jobs. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 3(3), 267-284.
Sonnentag, S. (2003). Recovery, work engagement, and proactive behavior: a new look at the interface
between nonwork and work. Journal of applied psychology, 88(3), 518-528.
Srivastava, A., Bartol, K. M., & Locke, E. A. (2006). Empowering leadership in management teams:
Effects on knowledge sharing, efficacy, and performance. Academy of management journal, 49(6),
1239-1251.
Suh, T., Bae, M., Zhao, H., Kim, S. H., & Arnold, M. J. (2010). A multi-level investigation of
international marketing projects: The roles of experiential knowledge and creativity on
performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(2), 211-220.
Sun, L. Y., Zhang, Z., Qi, J., & Chen, Z. X. (2012). Empowerment and creativity: A cross-level
investigation. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(1), 55-65.
Taggar, S. (2002). Individual creativity and group ability to utilize individual creative resources: A
multilevel model. Academy of management Journal, 45(2), 315-330.
Tamta, V., & Rao, M. (2017). Linking emotional intelligence to knowledge sharing behaviour:
Organizational justice and work engagement as mediators. Global Business Review, 18(6), 1580-
1596.
Tuckey, M. R., Bakker, A. B., & Dollard, M. F. (2012). Empowering leaders optimize working conditions
for engagement: A multilevel study. Journal of occupational health psychology, 17(1), 15.
Tung, H. L., & Chang, Y. H. (2011). Effects of empowering leadership on performance in management
team: Mediating effects of knowledge sharing and team cohesion. Journal of Chinese Human
Resources Management, 2(1), 43-60.
Vecchio, R.P., Justin, J.E., & Pearce, C.L. (2010). Empowering leadership: an examination of mediating
mechanisms within a hierarchical structure. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(3), 530-542.
Wang, A.C. & Cheng, B.S. (2010). When does benevolent leadership lead to creativity? The moderating
role of creative role identity and job autonomy, Journal of Organisational
EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP AND CREATIVITY 30

Wang, S., & Noe, R. A. (2010). Knowledge sharing: A review and directions for future research. Human
resource management review, 20(2), 115-131.
Witherspoon, C. L., Bergner, J., Cockrell, C., & Stone, D. N. (2013). Antecedents of organizational
knowledge sharing: a meta-analysis and critique. Journal of Knowledge Management, 17(2), 250-
277.
Woodman, R. W. (1995). Managing creativity. In C. M. Ford & D. A. Gioia (Eds.), Creative action in
organizations: Ivory tower visions and real world voices (pp. 60-64). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational
creativity. Academy of management review, 18(2), 293-321.
Xue, Y., Bradley, J., & Liang, H. (2011). Team climate, empowering leadership, and knowledge
sharing. Journal of knowledge management, 15(2), 299-312.
Yoon, C., & Rolland, E. (2012). Knowledge-sharing in virtual communities: familiarity, anonymity and
self-determination theory. Behaviour & Information Technology, 31(11), 1133-1143.
Yun, S., Cox, J., Sims, H.P. Jr., & Salam, S. (2007). Leadership and teamwork: the effects of leadership
and job satisfaction on team citizenship. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 2(3), 171-
193.
Zhang, X., & Bartol, K. M. (2010). Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: The
influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process
engagement. Academy of management journal, 53(1), 107-128.
Zhang, X., & Zhou, J. (2014). Empowering leadership, uncertainty avoidance, trust, and employee
creativity: Interaction effects and a mediating mechanism. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 124(2), 150-164.
Zheng, T. T. (2017). A literature review on knowledge sharing. Open Journal of Social Sciences 5(1), 51-
58.
Zhou, J., & J. M. George. (2001). When job satisfaction leads to creativity: Encouraging the expression of
voice. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 682–696.
EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP AND CREATIVITY 31

Table 1

Descriptive Statistics, Correlations, and Reliabilities

Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Empowering leadership 3.95 .67 (.94)
2. KSI 4.21 .69 .61** (.91)
3. Work engagement 3.73 .74 .54** .67** (.95)
4. Employee creativity 3.72 .67 .50** .66** .73** (.96)
5. Gender 1.76 .43 .09 .07 .18** .22** -
6. Age 2.71 .93 .15** .23** .30** .30** .40** -
7. Hierarchical level 2.07 .75 .26** .29** .35** .37** .34** .79** -
8. Education 2.11 .52 .01 .03 .03 .03 .01 .01 .01 -

Note, n = 302. ** p < .01. Internal reliability estimates are presented on the diagonal.
EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP AND CREATIVITY 32

Table 2

Path Coefficients and Indirect Effects for Mediation Models

Direct Effects Indirect Effects by Bootstrap Analysis

Hypothesis and Path Path Estimate Standard 95% Confidence Effect Ratio**
Coefficient Error Interval (a * b/c)
(lower, upper)
H1 EL EC n.s. -
H2 EL WE .56* (9.44) -
H3 EL KSI .37* (6.49) -
H4 WE KSI .51* (8.59) -
H5 WE EC .52* (7.89) -
H6 KSI EC .32* (5.03) -
H7a EL WE KSI - .27 .04 .21, .35 .45
H7b EL WE EC - .35 .05 .26, .46 .58
H8a EL KSI EC - .35 .06 .25, .47 .55
H8b WE KSI EC - .19 .03 -.01, .03 (n.s.) .31
H9 EL WE KSI EC - .45 .06 .34, .58 -
Note: n = 302. Bootstrap confidence intervals were constructed using 5,000 resamples.
*
p < .05 (t > 1.96), t-value in parenthesis
**
Effect ratio = a * b/c; where a is the effect of independent variable (IV) on mediator (M); b is the effect of M on dependent
variable (DV); c is the effect of IV on DV; The threshold is .80 (a partial mediation if < .80; a full mediation if > .80) (Jose,
2008).
EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP AND CREATIVITY 33

Figure 1. Research model

EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP AND CREATIVITY 34

Figure 2. Hypothesized structural model

EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP AND CREATIVITY 35

Figure 3. Final structural model