Guptaetal2017 IJIM

International Journal of Innovation Management
Vol. 21, No. 7 (October 2017) 1750055 (30 pages)

© World Scientific Publishing Europe Ltd.
DOI: 10.1142/S1363919617500554
THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LEADERSHIP,

by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT - AHMEDABAD LIBRARY on 03/26/17. For personal use only.
WORK ENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE INNOVATIVE

PERFORMANCE: EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FROM
THE INDIAN R&D CONTEXT
Int. J. Innov. Mgt. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
VISHAL GUPTA*
Organizational Behavior Area
Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India
vishal@iima.ac.in
SHAILENDRA SINGH
Human Resource Management Group
Indian Institute of Management Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India
shail@iiml.ac.in
ABHIJIT BHATTACHARYA
Decision Science Group
Indian Institute of Management Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India
abhijit@iiml.ac.in
Published 21 March 2017
Integrating the behavioural theory of leadership with job demands–resources theory of

engagement, the present study examines the process through which leadership impact
R&D professionals’ innovative work behaviours and innovative performance (measured
through peer-reviewed journal papers, patents, PhDs guided and keynote addresses de-
livered). Data from 467 scientists working in India’s largest civilian R&D organisation
were collected and analysed using structural equation modelling. The study found that
work engagement was positively related to innovative work behaviours as well
as innovative performance. Leader behaviours had significant indirect effects on innovative
work behaviours as well as innovative performance via work engagement. While the total
effect of leadership on innovative work behaviours, the total effect was non-significant for
innovative performance. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.
Keywords: Leadership; work engagement; innovative performance; innovative work

behaviours; R&D management.
⁄
Corresponding author.
1750055-1
V. Gupta, S. Singh & A. Bhattacharya
Introduction
Organisations of today operate in a turbulent economic environment characterised
by heightened competition and unpredictable technological changes. The success
of an organisation is greatly influenced by the innovative contributions of its
workforce. Research and Development (R&D) departments are of strategic im-
portance for organisations as they shoulder the mission of carrying out major
innovations by the effective generation, deployment, transfer and integration of
knowledge, particularly technological knowledge (Ángel and Sánchez, 2009;
Manolopoulos, 2006; Gupta and Singh, 2015; Zhang and Bartol, 2010). While the
identification of key factors that can foster and sustain innovative performance
carries significant implications for enhancing organisational competitiveness,

studies examining the relationship between workplace factors and employee-level
innovation have majorly focused on creativity and innovative work behaviours
(e.g., Çokpekin and Knudsen, 2012; Koch et al., 2015; Shalley et al., 2004;
Somech and Drach-Zahavy, 2013). Given that innovative performance is the ul-
timate goal and that the subjective ratings of innovative work behaviour are only
useful to the organisation to the degree that they are related to instances of novel
and useful outcomes, it is essential that scholars must turn their attention to un-
derstanding innovative performance, that scholars argue may be a very different
phenomenon from creativity and innovative work behaviours (Baer, 2012;
Castañer, 2016; Çokpekin and Knudsen, 2012; Montag et al., 2012; Gomes et al.,
2015).
The central task of R&D management is to blend powerful leadership with an
empowered workforce, clear goals with an open and participative culture, and a
focus on the task at hand as well as the process of working together (Judge et al.,
1997). Engaging in behaviours that drive innovative work processes and outcomes
is an integral part of an R&D leader’s role requirement (Hirst and Mann, 2004;
Paulsen et al., 2013). There is evidence of the influence of leadership on R&D
professionals’ innovative performance (Tierney et al., 1999; Zheng et al., 2010).
However, research examining the process through which this effect occurs has
been limited (Berson and Linton, 2005; Choi et al., 2015; Henker et al., 2015;
Wallace et al., 2016).
In order to be innovative, organisations need employees who are psychologi-
cally connected to their work, are proactive and committed to high performance
standards, are willing and able to invest themselves fully in their roles and who are
engaged with their work (Bakker et al., 2011; Bakker and Schaufeli, 2008). Work
engagement is task-oriented (Hallberg and Schaufeli, 2006), is the positive pole of
a continuum of employee well-being, of which burnout constitutes the opposite
negative pole (Schaufeli et al., 2009), and can be influenced by workplace factor
1750055-2
Leadership, Engagement and Innovative Performance
(Bakker and Demerouti, 2007, 2008). Research examining the relationships be-
tween engagement and employee-level innovation has been limited to only crea-
tivity and innovative work behaviours so far (Agarwal et al., 2012; Bakker and
Xanthopoulou, 2013; Bhatnagar, 2012; Zhang and Bartol, 2010). Researchers
(e.g., Bakker and Demerouti, 2008; Bakker and Xanthopoulou, 2013; Christian
et al., 2011; Eldor, 2016) have argued that there is a need for more systematic
studies that test the relationship between work engagement and employee inno-
vative performance.
The goal of the present study is to examine the process through which
leadership affects innovative performance of R&D professionals. Drawing on
the behavioural theory of leadership (Yukl, 2008) and the job demands–
resources (JD–R) theory (Bakker and Demerouti, 2008), the study examines
the mediating role of work engagement for the positive relationship between
leadership and individual-level innovative performance in the context of R&D
work.
The present study makes multiple contributions to theory and practice. First, the
study tests the mediating role of work engagement for the relationships between
leadership and employee-level innovative work behaviours and innovative per-
formance. Second, we use multiple criterion measures — papers published in
journals, patents applied and awarded, PhDs trained and invited keynote
addresses — to assess R&D professionals’ innovative performance alongside their
self-reported ratings of innovative work behaviours. Third, the study provides a
test of all the above mentioned relationships in an applied (R&D) setting. Through
replication, this study provides a validation of the relationships that have been
suggested in the leadership, work engagement and creativity and innovation
management literatures.
The study has been organised as follows. The next section describes the the-
oretical background and rationale for the hypotheses. The ‘Method’ and ‘Results’
sections present details about the study sample, the measures used in the study and
the data analyses performed. The final section discusses the main findings, the
implications for both theory and practice, the limitations of the research and the
directions for future research.
Literature Review and Hypotheses Development

Leading R&D individuals requires leaders to possess certain skills in addition to
technical expertise. However, leadership and interpersonal skills are not some-
thing for which R&D leaders have been formally trained (Elkins and Keller,
1750055-3
2003; Mumford et al., 2002; Cassanelli et al., 2017). R&D professionals

are often more educated than professionals in other departments (Berson and
Linton, 2005; Zheng et al., 2010). Operating in an environment of high com-
plexity and uncertainty, R&D departments are organic in design where sub-
ordinates are given greater autonomy to explore, discuss, and challenge ideas
and expect personalised recognition and group cohesiveness (Gupta and Singh,
2015).
The apparent differences between the leadership requirements of traditional and
R&D environments suggest that the conventional measures of leadership may apply
only partially to empowered environments (Arnold et al., 2000; Yukl, 2008). In our
close review of the literature, we have observed that researchers continue to use an
available, “validated” questionnaire for their research without careful consideration
about the relevance of the content for their research question and sample.
Researchers (e.g., Berson and Linton, 2005; Stoker et al., 2001; Paulsen et al.,
2013) studying leadership in R&D context have mostly tested the impact of aspects
of transformational leadership on performance. Leadership and creativity scholars
have argued that such leadership taxonomies are too multifaceted, broad, abstract,
and the measurement is arbitrary to yield consistent results on subordinate per-
ceptions or performance (Amabile et al., 2004; van Knippenberg and Sitkin, 2013;
Yukl, 1999; Yukl and van Fleet, 1992). We believe that field studies that measure
only the behaviours included in a traditional measure usually miss the opportunity to
examine a wide range of behaviours, or to collect rich, descriptive information about
leader behaviours considered to be important for a specific context.
Following the call for testing the impact of alternate conceptualisations of
leadership (Bakker et al., 2011; van Knippenberg and Sitkin, 2013) and given the
uniqueness of R&D settings in the present study, we adopted the five-factor
behavioural conceptualisation of R&D leadership developed and validated by
Gupta and colleagues (Gupta and Singh, 2013; Gupta et al., 2013) for R&D
settings. The five-factor conceptualisation is based on the behavioural theory of
leadership (Yukl, 2008; Yukl et al., 2002; Yukl and van Fleet, 1990) and includes
positive leader behaviours like task-oriented, recognising and inspiring, team
building, empowering and leading by example behaviours. The conceptualisation
is grounded in the context of R&D work and has been tested and validated in
previous studies (Gupta and Singh, 2014, 2015). Empowering, team building,
supporting, problem solving, monitoring, developing behaviours have been found
to be important for R&D settings in Western studies as well (e.g., Amabile et al.,
2004; Berson and Linton, 2005; Hirst and Mann, 2004). However, there were a
few other behaviours (e.g., leading-by-example, inspiring) that were also consid-
ered to be very important for R&D work. We discuss the five-factors of R&D
leadership very briefly below.
1750055-4
Task-oriented behaviour comprises of behaviours that help in accomplishing a

given task in an efficient manner. The behaviour category includes clarifying roles
and objectives, monitoring, problem solving and planning behaviours. Recognis-
ing and inspiring behaviour is primarily relation-oriented and concerned with the
well-being of an individual. Recognizing involves giving praise and appreciation
for effective performance. Inspiring behaviour instils a sense of optimism, makes
the juniors understand the importance of the work and promotes the proud feeling
of contributing to a larger cause. Empowering refers to involving others in the
decision-making process and giving them autonomy to complete the work in the
manner they deem fit. Team-building behaviour is important when the organisa-
tional mission requires employees to share information and resources, help each
other, and work together for long periods of time. Leading by example is about
setting high standards of integrity and performance by one’s own behaviours.
Authority exercised by a non-qualified supervisor is resented, as it violates
employees’ professional pride. Leading by example behaviour, on the other hand,
develops trust and mutual respect.
Innovation constitutes the logical sequel to creativity (Baer, 2012). Profes-
sionals who are innovative need to indulge in not just idea generation, considered
to be central to creativity (Zhang and Bartol, 2010), but also in idea promotion and
idea implementation (Janssen, 2000; West, 2002; Gomes et al., 2015). Recent
research studies have also revealed that innovation (idea promotion and imple-
mentation) may be different from creativity (idea generation) and may place very
different demands on the leadership of the organisation. For example, Çokpekin
and Knudsen (2012) studying the relationship between creativity and innovation
observed opposite and contradicting relationships between work environment
characteristics (e.g., autonomy) and product and process innovations. Montag et
al. (2012) observed non-significant to only small correlations between idea gen-
eration and innovation outcomes. In order to measure the construct of innovation
holistically and to bring out the differences between the impact of workplace
factors on subjective (innovative work behaviours) and objective (innovation
outcomes) dimensions of innovation, we measured both the dimensions. Innova-
tive work behaviours were measured using a self-reported subjective measure,
whereas innovative performance was measured using objective measures such as
papers published in peer-reviewed journals, patents applied and awarded, number
of PhD students trained, and invited keynote addresses.
Relationship between leadership and employee innovative performance

Leaders, by displaying suitable behaviours, can promote R&D professionals’
innovative performance. Task-oriented behaviour can help subordinates acquire
1750055-5
the necessary skills in tasks that can aid in eventual task accomplishment (Gupta
and Singh, 2015). Clarifying includes setting specific task-related objectives,
encouraging search for efficient ways to do the work, and facilitating evaluation
of performance by providing a benchmark against which to compare it (Yukl
et al., 2002). Empowering behaviour can fulfill the need for autonomy, an
essential prerequisite for promoting innovative performance (Amabile, 1983;
Deci and Ryan, 2000). Acknowledgement of ideas and opportunities for self-
direction, and frequent constructive feedback confirm competence and provide
important information on how to improve performance (Amabile et al., 1996).
Innovative work often is an outcome of team work (Ángel and Sánchez, 2009;
Hirst et al., 2009). Leaders who promote teamwork increase the frequency of
interactions between team members thereby leading to a better understanding of

the problem and its innovative solution (Hoegl et al., 2004; Mumford et al.,
2002). Teams composed of diversely skilled individuals, and that are led by
leaders who set well-defined goals and allow operational autonomy in achieving
those goals are more likely to be creative (Amabile, 1997; Gupta and Singh,
2015). Developing behaviour increases a person’s skills, facilitates job adjust-
ment, and fosters higher willingness to invest energy at work (Yukl, 2008; Yukl
et al., 2002).
Learning often happens vicariously (Bandura, 2001). R&D professionals
may be likely to perform better at work after a visual demonstration of suc-
cessful behaviour, appropriate rules and thought processes (Shalley and Perry-
Smith, 2001). Employees who work under leaders that lead-by-example are
bound to receive greater modelling experience and are likely to be inspired to
be successful at work. R&D professionals are more likely to accept expertise-
based than hierarchy-based authority, and leaders who lead-by-example serve
many roles including recognising good ideas, defining the significant problems,
demonstrating solutions, and providing technical stimulation (Gupta and
Singh, 2015).
Based on the above arguments, we hypothesize the following:
H1: Leader behaviours (a) task-oriented, (b) recognising and inspiring; (c) team-
building; (d) empowering; (e) leading by example) will be positively related
to R&D professionals’ innovative work behaviour.
building; (d) empowering; (e) leading by example) will be positively related
to R&D professionals’ innovative performance (i) papers published; (ii)
patents applied and awarded; (iii) PhDs trained; and (iv) keynote
addresses).
1750055-6
Relationships between leadership, work engagement and

innovative performance
Work engagement is defined as a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that
is characterised by vigour, dedication, and absorption (Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004).
Vigour is characterised by high levels of energy and mental resilience while
working. Dedication is characterised by a sense of significance, enthusiasm, in-

spiration, pride and challenge. Absorption is characterised by being fully engrossed
in one’s work. Work engagement is considered as the positive pole of a continuum
of employee well-being, of which burnout constitutes the opposite negative pole
(Schaufeli et al., 2009a). Following past researches (e.g., Bakker et al., 2014; Harju
et al., 2016; Schmitt et al., 2016) that have conceptualised work engagement as a
higher second-order construct comprising of underlying dimensions of vigour,

dedication and absorption, we also conceptualised work engagement as a second-
order construct in the present study. We next present the arguments for expecting its
relationship with leadership and innovative performance.
Job demands are characteristics of the job that require continuous physical,
emotional or cognitive effort (Bakker et al., 2014). Some of the important job
demands have been found to be role ambiguity, role conflict, role stress, stressful
events, workload, and work pressure (Lee and Ashforth, 1996). Innovative work is
highly demanding. R&D professionals are expected to engage in innovative tasks
that are highly unstructured and that have a time-lagged, sporadic, and non-market
nature to its outputs (Elkins and Keller, 2003; Gupta and Singh, 2015). Innovative
tasks usually involve high risk of failure and frequently experience disruptions,
delays, and setbacks (Kim et al., 1999; Quinn, 1979). R&D professionals have to
often put in sustained cognitive and emotional effort over a long period in order to
be successful at developing an innovative product.
Job resources are the physical, psychological, social, or organisational aspects
of the job that can help in reducing job demands, the associated physiological and
psychological costs, and lead to achievement of work goals (Bakker and
Demerouti, 2007). Leaders can be important source of job resources needed by
employees to be creative and to succeed at work (Blomme et al., 2015). The JD–R
model (Bakker and Demerouti, 2007, 2008; Bakker et al., 2014) describes au-
tonomy, performance feedback, social support and supervisory coaching as job
resources that may be positively associated with engagement and eventually
performance. While leadership is suggested as an important workplace factor that
leads to work engagement (Bakker and Demerouti, 2008; Brunetto et al., 2012),
role of the leader in fostering work engagement in R&D contexts has received
limited empirical research attention (Aryee et al., 2012; de Jong and den Hartog,
2007; Gupta and Singh, 2015; Hemlin and Olsson, 2011).
1750055-7
Leaders can play a variety of roles depending on the work situation like
recognising good ideas, defining the significant problems, influencing work goals
and providing technical stimulation (Badawy, 1988). Leaders, by providing su-
pervision (task-oriented behaviour), and by being supportive can enhance per-
ceptions of social support at work. Social support from the supervisor may buffer
the impact of job demands on levels of engagement because employees receive
work-related help and emotional support (Bakker and Schaufeli, 2008). Empow-
ering leader behaviour has been found to be positively related to both affiliative
extra-role behaviours (having an interpersonal, cooperative focus like helping
and supporting behaviours) and challenging extra-role behaviours (challenging
status quo) (Raub and Robert, 2010). By empowering subordinates at work, lea-
ders can help in coping with job demands because subordinates have discretion on
when and how to respond to the demands. Choice, acknowledgement of ideas,
and opportunities for self-direction are vital preconditions for enhancing enthu-
siasm (vigour) at work and can significantly promote employee dedication to work
(Deci and Ryan, 2008; Kahn, 1990). Feedback and recognition can have positive
impact on dedication at work as it provides them with the information necessary to
maintain their performance and promotes a sense of significance.
Team building behaviour can help build an environment of trust and cohesive-
ness. Leaders, by emphasising team work, can increase the frequency of interactions
between the team members (Mumford et al., 2002), thereby, fulfilling the need for
relatedness and safety (Deci and Ryan, 2000; Rich et al., 2010) and promoting
absorption. When employees perceive the presence of a cohesive work group, they
feel more attached and relate better to it (Deci and Ryan, 2000). Expert leaders can
provide coaching to subordinates and promote subordinate’s levels of energy and
mental resilience (components of vigour). Individuals are more likely to perform a
work after a visual demonstration of a successful behaviour or through setting
examples of appropriate rules and thought processes (Bandura, 2001; Shalley and
Perry-Smith, 2001). Employees who work under expert supervisors are bound to
receive greater modelling experience that can enhance their competence and even-
tually vigour at work. Based on the above arguments, we hypothesize:
building; (d) empowering; (e) leading by example) will be related to R&D
professionals’ work engagement.
Work engagement among employees provides organisations with a competitive

advantage (Eldor, 2016). The concept of work engagement is particularly
relevant to the promotion and support of employee innovative performance at
workplace. Innovation is usually nonlinear, exhausting, uncertain, and involves
1750055-8
competition with time-tested courses of actions (Elkins and Keller, 2003; Huhtala
and Parzefall, 2007; Thamhain, 2003). Beyond knowledge and skills, innovative
work requires a certain level of inner force that pushes the employee to persevere
in the face of challenges inherent in the creative work (Shalley and Gilson, 2004).
In the present study, we argue that when work engagement is high, employees are
not just more motivated at work (Schaufeli et al., 2009b) but are also more likely
to engage in activities that can help them in converting ideas into innovative
outputs (Bakker and Xanthopoulou, 2013). Engaged employees are dedicated and
vigorous at work and are more likely to be physically, cognitively, and emo-
tionally connected with their work roles (Kahn, 1990). Engaged employees show
high levels of self-efficacy in terms of directing their own career and investing
energy in it (Blomme et al., 2015).

Engaged employees are more absorbed at work and often experience positive
emotions (like joy, calmness, enthusiasm) that are likely to broaden people’s
thought–action repertoire, implying that they constantly work on their ideas to
convert them into end products (Fredrickson, 2001). Positive moods promote
initiative taking and proactive behaviours that can be essential when it comes to
idea implementation leading to better innovative performance (Eisenberger et al.,
2005; Huhtala and Parzefall, 2007). On the other hand, employees who are dis-
engaged are not enthusiastic and are likely to struggle to carry out even those
duties that are formally required of them.
Employees who are more engaged at work are dedicated and absorbed at work.
They are likely to take less time off, stay with the organisation for longer and are
happier, more proactive, and take greater responsibility (Dvir et al., 2002; Harter
et al., 2002; Salanova and Schaufeli, 2008). Engaged workers are not just engaged
themselves, but they also transfer their engagement to others in their immediate
environment (Bakker, 2011; Bakker and Xanthopoulou, 2009), thereby improving
the innovative performance of their team members. Based on the above arguments,
we hypothesize:
H4: Work engagement will be positively related to R&D professionals’ innova-

tive work behaviour.
H5: Work engagement will be positively related to R&D professionals’ innova-
tive performance (a) papers published; (b) patents applied and awarded; (c)
PhDs trained; (d) keynote addresses).
In a workplace where supervisors exhibit positive leader behaviours, employees

are likely to be positively engaged at their work and consequently achieve greater
innovative performance. Empowering behaviour promotes the sense of signifi-
cance and challenge at work thereby likely promoting dedication toward
1750055-9
innovative work (Deci and Ryan, 2000). Employees who perceive high supervi-
sory support are more likely to have higher levels of mental resilience (strength
and vigour) and have lesser reasons to fear incurring damaging consequences for
their self-images, statuses, or careers as a result of investing themselves fully into
innovative work (Rich et al., 2010; Zhou and Pan, 2015). Leading by example
behaviours can influence subordinates modelling and self-control processes
(Bandura, 2001). Individuals are more likely to feel confident, and capable of
performing a work after a visual demonstration of a successful innovation or
through the transmission of examples of appropriate rules and thought processes
(Shalley and Perry-Smith, 2001). By observing exemplary behaviours and psy-
chological strengths of their leaders (i.e., vicarious learning), and by receiving
critical feedback from them, employees may develop greater confidence in their
abilities, be absorbed at work and persist in innovative pursuits (Rego et al., 2012).
Based on the above arguments, we hypothesize:
H6: Work engagement will mediate the relationships between leader behaviours
(a) task-oriented, (b) recognizing and inspiring; (c) team-building; (d)
empowering; (e) leading by example) and R&D professionals’ innovative
work behaviours.
H7: Work engagement will mediate the relationships between leader behaviours
(a) task-oriented, (b) recognising and inspiring; (c) team-building;
(d) empowering; (e) leading by example) and R&D professionals’ innovative
performance (i) papers published; (ii) patents applied and awarded;
(iii) PhDs trained; (iv) keynote addresses).
Method
Sample and data collection
The research study was conducted in 11 R&D institutes of India’s largest civilian
research and development agency. With 37 constituent institutes and about 4,000
R&D scientists, the agency produces one of the world’s largest collections of
industrially-oriented public research that are measured in terms of peer-reviewed
scientific and technical publications and patents. Innovation is among the clearly
stated goals in the agency’s mission statement. Furthermore, the scientists working
in the organisation are very well aware that innovation (technology/product de-
velopment) is expected from them. Thus, innovation is a part of employees’ in-role
performance. The 11 surveyed institutes represented each of the major research
domains of the agency (biological sciences, chemical sciences, physical sciences,
and engineering sciences).
1750055-10
Each respondent received a blank envelope to return the completed question-

naire. Responses were anonymous and respondents were asked not to mention any
personal identification detail on the envelopes. All respondents had been associ-
ated with their leaders (supervisors) for at least 2 years. This ensured that there had
been substantial overlap between the leader and the subordinate in order to make
an accurate assessment of the leader. Out of 730 scientists working in the 11
institutes, 467 completely filled surveys were obtained (response rate of sixty-four
percent). Twenty-five percent of the respondents were females. Five percent of the
respondents had a graduate degree, 33% had a post-graduate qualification and 62%
had a Ph.D. degree. The average job tenure was 13.4 years. Forty-one percent of
the respondents were junior level scientists, 39% were middle-level scientists,
and 20% were senior-level scientists.
Measures
The specific measures used in the study are described below along with the results
of the confirmatory factor analyses (CFA).
R&D leadership. Positive R&D leadership was measured using the 39 item scale
developed by Gupta et al. (2013). The responses were measured using a five-point
Likert scale (1 ¼ not at all, 5 ¼ great extent). Model consisting of five first-order
factors (task-oriented, recognising and inspiring, team building and developing,
empowering and leading-by-example) showed strong interrelationships between
the first-order factors (average r ¼ 0.79) suggesting the presence of a higher-order
common factor (Kline, 2011). The high correlations among the behaviour
dimensions suggested the presence of a ‘halo effect’, or the subordinates’ tendency
to have a holistic perception of their leaders that affects their ratings. Conse-
quently, another model was specified consisting of the first-order dimensions plus
one second-order factor labelled as positive R&D leadership. The model showed
very good fit with the data ( 2 [657] ¼ 1172.81, p < 0.01; GFI ¼ 0.89; CFI ¼
0.96; TLI ¼ 0.96; RMSEA ¼ 0.04). Sample items included ‘monitors key process
variables as well as outcomes’ (task-oriented behaviour), ‘develops in me proud
feeling of giving something back to society’ (recognising and inspiring behaviour),
‘provides me decision-making autonomy’ (empowering behaviour), ‘encourages
interaction among colleagues’ (team-building behaviour), and ‘works as hard as
he/she can’ (leading-by-example behaviour).
In order to keep the ratio of manifest indicators to latent constructs manageable,
reduce the number of free parameters in the model, decrease sample size
requirements, and increase the chances of adequate model fit, we used partially
disaggregated parceling for the construct. Partially disaggregated model uses the
1750055-11
average of subsets of items from a measure to form indicators for a latent variable,
with these indicators referred to as parcels (Bagozzi and Edwards, 1998; Hall
et al., 1999; Williams and O’Boyle Jr, 2008). The leadership construct had five
sub-dimensions, namely, task-oriented, recognising and inspiring, empowering,
team-building and leading by example that were measured by their respective
items. All the items representing task-oriented behaviour were combined (aver-
aged) to form the first parcel in order to maximise the internal consistency of the
parcel (Williams and O’Boyle Jr, 2008). Similarly, items measuring ‘recognizing
and inspiring’ behaviour were combined to form the second parcel. The procedure
was repeated for the remaining three behaviours. With this approach, the parcels
together reflected all of the facets (or dimensions) present within the positive R&D
leadership construct. The partially disaggregated model showed excellent fit with
the data ( 2 [3] ¼ 1.08, p > 0.05; GFI ¼ 0.99; CFI ¼ 1.00; TLI ¼ 1.00; RMSEA
< 0.001).
Work engagement. Work engagement was measured using Utrecht Work
Engagement Scale (UWES)-9 developed by Schaufeli et al. (2006). The Utrecht
scale was used as it has been shown to be discriminant from job involvement and
organisational commitment (Hallberg and Schaufeli, 2006), and has also been
validated for the Indian context (e.g., Agarwal et al., 2012; Bhatnagar, 2012;
Gupta and Kumar, 2013). The responses were measured using a five-point Likert
scale (1 ¼ never, 5 ¼ very frequently). This was done to ensure consistency of
scales being used to measure different constructs and also to reduce any possible
errors that may creep in switching between different response scales. Sample items
included ‘at my job, I feel strong and vigorous’ (vigour), ‘when I am working, I
lose track of time’ (absorption), and ‘my job inspires me’ (dedication). Three first-
order factors plus one second-order factor (labelled as work engagement) model
showed very good fit with the data ( 2 [30] ¼ 67.36, p < 0.01; GFI ¼ 0.97; CFI ¼
0.98; TLI ¼ 0.97; RMSEA ¼ 0.05). In order to keep the ratio of manifest indi-
cators to latent constructs manageable, reduce the number of free parameters in the
model, decrease sample size requirements, and increase the chances of adequate
model fit, we used partially disaggregated parceling for the engagement construct.
Three partially disaggregated parcels were created for the three sub-dimensions
(vigour, dedication, absorption) of engagement in a manner similar to that fol-
lowed for the R&D leadership construct above. The model showed excellent fit
with the data ( 2 [1] ¼ 0.18, p > 0.05; GFI ¼ 1.00; CFI ¼ 1.00; TLI ¼ 1.00;
RMSEA < 0.001).
Innovative performance. A preliminary understanding of innovative perfor-
mance indicators was generated through the review of literature (e.g., Oldham and
Cummings, 1996; Dewett, 2007; Tierney et al., 1999). Interview-based pilot study
was conducted about four months before the survey collection to validate and
1750055-12
refine the indicators of innovative performance. Semi-structured interviews con-

sisted of 45–60 min sessions with scientists, directors of R&D laboratories and
leaders of business development groups within the laboratories. Overall, we
conducted 52 interviews. The scientists mentioned that measures like papers
published in peer-reviewed journals of repute, patents applied and awarded in
India and abroad, number of PhD students guided, and invited keynote addresses
were indicative of their innovative performance. Indicators such as ‘technologies

developed’ and ‘new products developed’ were not used in the study as they are
team-level measures of innovative performance, take longer time to develop
(Hoegl et al., 2004). It was felt, therefore, that it will be inappropriate to attribute
product or technology developed to one single individual and to use it as a
measure of individual-level innovative performance. Based on the discussions

with scientists and the management of the organisation, three years were con-
sidered as a reasonable period to assess an individual’s innovative performance.
In order to mitigate potential social desirability bias in self-report of innovative
performance, scientists were asked to report their performance in the last three
years on the above-mentioned metrics as had been reported in their performance
records. Researchers (e.g., Carmeli et al., 2015; Schoorman and Mayer, 2008)
have suggested that using a common perspective (asking respondents for other’s
[supervisor/organisation] assessment of their performance rather than for their own
assessment) significantly improves the accuracy of self-reported data. Moreover,
under conditions of anonymity and complete confidentiality, the information
provided by the respondents is most likely to be correct and free from social
desirability bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003). This was the most appropriate method of
collecting data on objective performance of scientists as there was no way of
matching their performance data with their filled-in forms (the forms were filled
anonymously).
Innovative work behaviour. Innovative work behaviours were measured using
a scale adapted from Zhang and Bartol (2010) and Ramamoorthy et al. (2005).
The scale had been validated in the Indian context (Gupta and Singh, 2014, 2015).
It was not feasible to have the leader rate employee innovative work behaviours
since our methodology assured participant anonymity and there was no reasonable
way to follow up and match individuals. Moreover, as suggested by researchers
(e.g., Baer, 2012; Henker et al., 2015; Janssen, 2000; Shalley et al., 2009),
employees are best suited to self-report innovative work behaviours as they are the
ones who are aware of the subtle things they do at their jobs that make them more
innovative. Also, employee self-reports on creative behaviours have been shown
to be correlated with supervisory ratings (Axtell et al., 2000; Ng et al., 2010;
To et al., 2015). Sample items included “I spend considerable time trying to
understand the nature of problem” (for problem identification), “I consult a wide
1750055-13
variety of information when solving a problem” (for information search), “I en-

gage in generating original solutions for problems” (for idea generation), and “I
mobilise support for innovative ideas” (for idea promotion). Model consisting of
four first-order factors showed strong interrelationships between the first-order
factors (average r ¼ 0.64) suggesting the presence of a higher-order common
factor (Kline, 2011). Consequently, we specified another model consisting of the
first-order dimensions plus one second-order factor labelled as innovative work

behaviour. The model showed very good fit with the data ( 2 [67] ¼ 126.02, p <
0.01; GFI ¼ 0.96; CFI ¼ 0.97; TLI ¼ 0.96; RMSEA ¼ 0.05). To keep the ratio of
manifest indicators to latent constructs manageable, reduce the number of free
parameters in the model and, thus, to decrease sample size requirements and
increase the chances of adequate model fit, we used partially disaggregated
parceling for the four sub-dimensions of innovative work behaviour (as explained
for the leadership construct above). The partially disaggregated model showed
excellent fit with the data ( 2 [1] ¼ 0.03, p > 0.05; GFI ¼ 1.00; CFI ¼ 1.00; TLI
¼ 1.01; RMSEA < 0.001).
Control variables. We controlled for demographic variables (age, gender,
education, job tenure, and job level) that have been found to be significantly
related to creativity in the previous studies (e.g., Dewett, 2007; George and Zhou,
2007; Madjar and Ortiz-Walters, 2009; Shin and Zhou, 2003; Tierney and Farmer,
2002; Tierney et al., 1999; Zhang and Bartol, 2010). Age was measured as a
continuous variable. Gender was modelled as a categorical variable. Education
was measured as an ordinal variable. Graduates were assigned a code of 2, post-
graduates were assigned a code of 1, and Ph.D. degree holders were assigned a
code of 0. Employee job tenure was measured as years in service and was mod-
elled as a continuous variable. Job level was measured as an ordinal variable.
Junior-level scientists were assigned a code of 2, middle-level scientists were
assigned a code of 1 and senior-level scientists were assigned a code of 0. Dummy
variables were developed for education and job level in order to conduct regres-
sion analyses.
Level of analysis of study variables

Though the measures of leadership and work engagement refer to individual
employees, they may also be considered as variables at the R&D institute level.
We calculated Intra-Class Correlations (ICCs) to determine the variability and the
reliability of these variables across the 11 R&D institutes in the sample (Bliese,
2000). We used the ICC(1) to examine the degree of variability in the measure at
the individual level that is attributed to being part of the group (R&D institute).
The ICC(1) value of leadership was only 0.01. We used the ICC(2) to examine the
1750055-14
reliability of the group means. The ICC(2) value of leadership was 0.38, lower
than the criterion of 0.70 (Bliese, 2000). The values of ICC(1) and ICC(2) for
work engagement were 0.01 and 0.93. The above results showed that there was
not sufficient evidence for aggregating the individual-level variables to R&D in-
stitute-level. Individual employees may act according to what they perceive are the
behaviours of their supervisors, and since we were concerned about the effects of
leadership on their work engagement, it was appropriate to let the study variables
be at the individual level in order to capture the uniqueness of the survey
respondents.
Discriminant and convergent validity

The convergent and discriminant validity of the perceptual variables were tested
through CFA. Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics and inter-correlations
between study variables.
The results in Table 1 point to desirable psychometric properties of the sub-
jective measures. In particular, Cronbach alpha and composite reliability values
were well above the suggested minimum value of 0.70 (Anderson and Gerbing,
1988; Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994). Measurement model consisting of the study
variables showed very good fit with the data ( 2 [85] ¼ 199.55, p < 0.01; 2 =df ¼
2.35; GFI ¼ 0.95; TLI ¼ 0.96; CFI ¼ 0.97; RMSEA ¼ 0.05). The discriminant
validity of the latent constructs was analysed by applying the Fornell and Larcker
(1981) test. This test requires average variance extracted (AVE) of each construct
to exceed the square of inter-correlations between the latent constructs. Results of
Table 1 show that the AVE of leadership and work engagement were greater than
0.5 and that the square of correlations between constructs was lesser than AVEs of
individual constructs. The results of the above-mentioned tests provided strong
evidence of the discriminant validity of the constructs.
Common method-common source bias

Following recommendation of Podsakoff et al. (2003), antecedents were separated
from outcomes in the survey, respondents were ensured anonymity and confi-
dentiality of their responses and surveys were returned, sealed in an envelope
directly to the researcher. To verify whether these procedures successfully reduced
shared method variance, we re-estimated the measurement model after including
an additional orthogonal latent method factor related to all items. The average
variance extracted by the method factor was about 17.22%. The measurement
model also showed good fit with the data ( 2 [85] ¼ 218.84, p < 0.01; 2 =df ¼
2.58; GFI ¼ 0.94; TLI ¼ 0.95; CFI ¼ 0.96; RMSEA ¼ 0.06). Given that there was
1750055-15
Table 1. Descriptive statistics and inter-construct correlations.
a CR b M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1. Age — — 42.1 10.5 —
2. Gender — — 0.75 0.43 0.17 * —
3. Education — — 1.59 0.58 0.30 * 0.00 —
4. Tenure — — 13.7 10.6 0.89 * 0.15 * 0.12 ** —
5. Job Level — — 0.83 0.76 0.68 * 0.16 * 0.42 * 0.54 * —
6. R&D leadership 0.92 0.92 3.72 0.77 0.03 0.05 0.02 0.03 0.06 (0.70) 0.10
7. Work 0.85 0.85 4.15 0.57 0.13 * 0.13 * 0.15 * 0.10 ** 0.11 ** 0.32 * (0.66) 0.08
engagement
8. Innovative work 0.79 0.83 3.98 0.49 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.29 * 0.57 * (0.52) 0.32
behaviours
1750055-16
9. Peer-reviewed — — 7.25 10.1 0.28 * 0.03 0.38 * 0.19 * 0.37 * 0.02 0.17 * 0.04 —
journal papers
10. Patents — — 1.00 2.49 0.20 * 0.01 0.23 * 0.15 * 0.21 * 0.01 0.12 ** 0.05 0.37 * —
11. PhDs guided — — 1.01 2.40 0.31 * 0.06 0.29 * 0.19 * 0.37 * 0.01 0.22 * 0.07 0.58 * 0.28 * —
12. Keynote — — 2.41 5.08 0.28 * 0.12 * 0.24 * 0.19 * 0.37 * 0.01 0.15 * 0.01 0.34 * 0.17 * 0.36 * —
addresses
Notes: a : Cronbach alpha reliability; b CR: Composite reliability of the construct measures.
AVE for each construct (Nos. 6–8) is provided in parentheses along the diagonal; Values below the diagonal are inter-construct correlations; Values
above the diagonal (i.e., AVE) are square of correlations (Nos. 6–8).
* p < 0.01 (two-tailed); ** p < 0.05 (two-tailed); N ¼ 467.
a possibility of contamination due to common method bias, we included the

common method factor in the structural model that was used to perform
hypotheses testing.
Results
Hypotheses testing
Relationships between perceptual measures were estimated using covariance based
Structural Equation Modelling (SEM), performed through AMOS 22. We esti-
mated the structural model comprising of control variables, leadership, work en-
gagement, innovative work behaviour, innovative performance measures and
common method factor. The structural model showed very good fit with the data
( 2 [152] ¼ 333.37, p < 0.01; 2 =df ¼ 2.19; GFI ¼ 0.94; TLI ¼ 0.94; CFI ¼ 0.96;
RMSEA ¼ 0.05).
Innovative performance was measured using count data representing the
number of times an event occurred during a given time period. Skewness and
restrictions of range associated with event counts result in a high degree of non-
normality (Cameron and Trivedi, 1998). In order to account for the non-normality
of the data, we analysed the structural model comprising of control variables,
leadership, work engagement, innovative work behaviour and innovative perfor-
mance measures using the bootstrap algorithm (Arbuckle, 2013; Byrne, 2010). We
Innovative Work
Behaviour
Journal Papers
.14**
.23** .13** Patents Filed

.10*** and Awarded
R&D .26* Work
.13**
Leadership Engagement PhDs Guided
.14**
Keynote
Addresses
Notes: Results represent bootstrap estimates of the standardised path coefficients. Control variables (age, gender,
tenure, education and job level) and common method factor are not shown for ease of presentation. Paths from
leadership to objective measures and from innovative work behaviour to objective measures were non-significant
and are not shown for ease of presentation. Full results can be found in Table 2.
Model fit: 2 [152] ¼ 333.37, p < 0.01; 2 =df ¼ 2.19; GFI ¼ 0.94; TLI ¼ 0.94; CFI ¼ 0.96; RMSEA ¼ 0.05.
*p < 0.01; **p < 0.05; ***p ¼ 0.1; N ¼ 467.
Fig. 1. Structural model with standardised path results.
1750055-17
generated 10,000 bootstrap samples and estimated the 95% bias-corrected confi-
dence intervals for the bootstrap estimates. The results of the bootstrap runs and
SEM analyses are presented in Fig. 1 and Table 2.
Leadership was positively related to innovative work behaviour ( ¼ 0.20, p <
0.05) but was not related to peer-reviewed journal papers published, patents filed
and awarded, PhDs guided and number of invited keynote addresses. Thus, only
Table 2. Bootstrap regression results.
Paths a LBCI b UBCI c

Hypothesized model results
Standardised total effects

R&D leadership ! Work engagement (WE) 0.26 0.16 0.36
R&D leadership ! Innovative work behaviour (IWB) 0.20 0.10 0.30
R&D leadership ! journal papers 0.02 0.07 0.12
R&D leadership ! Patents filed and awarded 0.04 0.06 0.14
R&D leadership ! PhDs guided 0.03 0.12 0.09
R&D leadership ! invited keynote addresses 0.03 0.14 0.11
WE ! IWB 0.23 0.06 0.39
WE ! journal papers 0.13 0.03 0.23
WE ! patents filed and awarded 0.10 0.02 0.19
WE ! PhDs guided 0.13 0.01 0.24
WE ! invited keynote addresses 0.14 0.03 0.25
Standardised indirect effects
R&D leadership ! WE ! IWB 0.06 0.02 0.12
R&D leadership ! WE ! journal papers 0.03 0.01 0.07
R&D leadership ! WE ! Patents filed and awarded 0.03 0.01 0.06
R&D leadership ! WE ! PhDs guided 0.03 0.004 0.07
R&D leadership ! WE ! keynote addresses 0.04 0.01 0.08
Alternated model results
Standardised direct effects
Journal papers ! WE 0.07 0.11 0.26
Patents filed and awarded ! WE 0.03 0.09 0.15
PhDs guided ! WE 0.02 0.19 0.22
Invited keynote addresses ! WE 0.12 0.02 0.27
Notes: a Bootstrap estimate of standardised regression coefficient; b Lower bound of

95% bootstrap bias-corrected confidence interval; c Upper bound of 95% bootstrap
bias-corrected confidence interval.
Hypothesized model fit: 2 [152] ¼ 333.37, p < 0.01; 2 =df ¼ 2.19; GFI ¼ 0.94;
TLI ¼ 0.94; CFI ¼ 0.96; RMSEA ¼ 0.05.
Alternated model fit: 2 [152] ¼ 335.87, p < 0.01; 2 =df ¼ 2.21; GFI ¼ 0.94; TLI ¼
0.94; CFI ¼ 0.96; RMSEA ¼ 0.05.
N ¼ 467.
1750055-18
H1 was supported and H2 was not supported. Leadership was positively related to
work engagement ( ¼ 0.26, p < 0.01), providing support to H3. Work en-
gagement was positively related to innovative work behaviour ( ¼ 0.23, p <
0.05). Work engagement was significantly related to all the employee-level in-
novation outcomes. The direct effect of work engagement on peer-reviewed
journal papers published ( ¼ 0.13, p < 0.05), on patents filed and awarded ( ¼
0.10, p ¼ 0.1), on PhDs guided ( ¼ 0.13, p < 0.05), and on number of invited
keynote addresses ( ¼ 0.14, p < 0.05) were positive and significant. The 95%
bootstrap confidence intervals for all of the paths between work engagement and
innovative outcomes and 90% confidence interval for the path between work
engagement and PhDs guided did not contain 0, thereby, signifying the existence
of significant direct effects. The results provided evidence for a positive rela-
tionship between work engagement and innovative outcomes measures. The above
results provided support for H4 and H5.
The path from leadership to innovative work behaviour was significant ( ¼
0.14, p < 0.05) even in the presence of work engagement, thereby suggesting the
presence of mediation. The standardised indirect effect was 0.06 with 95%
bootstrap confidence interval ranging from 0.02 to 0.12. H6 was, therefore,
supported. As can be seen from Table 2, the 95% confidence intervals for the
indirect paths from leadership to peer-reviewed journals, patents filed and
awarded, keynote addresses and PhDs guided did not contain a 0. The results
suggested that leadership had an indirect effect on innovation outcomes through
work engagement. However, the direct paths from leadership to innovative out-
comes were non-significant. Overall, because the direct effect of leadership on
innovation outcomes (H2) was non-significant, we conclude that H7 was not
supported.
Following Anderson and Gerbing (1988) suggestion, an alternate model for
the hypothesized model was tested. Given that the innovative performance
measures referred to the three years before the administration of the survey, it is
possible that they are the drivers of current work engagement because
employees’ previous performance gives them feedback about how well they do
and can play the role of a job resource (Huhtala and Parzefall, 2007). In order to
check this possibility, we performed regression of work engagement on inno-
vative performance measures. The alternate model had a fit that was poorer
( 2 [0] ¼ 2.50). As shown in Table 2, the direct paths from innovative per-
formance measures to work engagement were not significant (95% bootstrap
confidence intervals contained a zero), thereby ruling out the possibility of
reverse relationships.
1750055-19
Discussion
Theoretical contributions
The study makes important contributions to theory. First, the study demonstrates
relationships between leadership, work engagement and employee innovative
performance. Researchers (e.g., Bakker et al., 2011; Bakker and Xanthopoulou,
2013; Bhatnagar, 2012) have often observed that there exists scant literature
testing the relationships between leader interventions and employee innovative
outcomes, and between work engagement and employee innovative outcomes. To
the best of our knowledge, this is one of the few studies that has tested the
relationships between leadership, work engagement and employee innovative
performance using objective measures. The study showed that employees who are
engaged at work are more likely to exhibit behaviours and conduct activities that
will lead to innovative performance.
Leadership was not found to be directly related to innovative outcomes. While
display and engagement of innovative behaviours is under the control of the
employee, innovative output depends on a lot of external factors like available
resources, teamwork, team constitution, type of project (academic/non-academic),
market conditions, etc. (Montag et al., 2012). Also, R&D professionals are more
likely to autonomous in their work and thinking (Elkins and Keller, 2003). The
self-image of R&D professionals is usually that of men who make things work,
avoid waste of time, capital, and labor, and are independent in thought and action.
It is, therefore, possible that leaders may not have a direct relationship with the
outcomes produced by them. The results of the study provide support to the
substitutes of leadership theory (Kerr and Jermier, 1978) by showing that the type
of work and the educational qualifications of individuals can act as a substitute for
leadership. Also, the results agreed with the previous research studies (e.g.,
Dewett, 2007; Montag et al., 2012; Oldham and Cummings, 1996; Tierney et al.,
1999) that have shown that the pattern of findings varies significantly depending
on the type of innovation indicators (subjective, objective) used, and that it will be
a mistake to conceptualise innovation as a unitary construct. Future studies should
validate this finding.
Second, by examining the mediating role of work engagement the study sheds
light on the process through which leadership is related to employee innovative
performance. The study supports the theoretical position of the importance of
promoting employee engagement at work and shows that it is a much surer way of
promoting innovation. An important way in which leaders can impact employee-
level innovation is by seeing to it that their subordinates feel energetic and en-
gaged at work. While the leader may not be able to directly influence the inno-
vative outcomes, by keeping her people engaged she is creating the possibility of
1750055-20
achieving greater innovative performance. Although the statistical relations be-

tween engagement and performance may seem low, two things are worth noting
about them. First, the criterion measures included here are only exploratory and
limited in content. Even these crude measures, however, demonstrate that en-
gagement predicts criteria independently. Secondly, it is worth recalling that in-
dividual differences (personality, attitudinal, behavioural) tend to be small but
consistent over the years. This small but consistent influence can substantially
change a person’s position in life, just like a slow but steady current can move a
boat a considerable distance across a lake over time (Mayer et al., 2000).
Third, the study validated some of the findings that have been obtained in
western contexts earlier and added new insights about the relationships that have
not been tested in the literature earlier. Replication studies are needed in social
sciences (King, 2011; Yong, 2012). Findings that have been established need to be
continuously revalidated in different work contexts in order to provide evidence of
their generalisability. The study makes contribution to leadership, work engage-
ment and creativity and innovation management literature in this regard. By testing
the conceptual model in an R&D setting, the study not only provides new evi-
dences of relationships between leadership, work engagement and innovative
performance, but also validates the already known associations between the study
variables.
Implications for practice

The management of R&D professionals has become increasingly important in the
face of growing competitive pressures, as organisations constantly seek to opti-
mise their research potential (Ángel and Sánchez, 2009; Manolopoulos, 2006).
The study has significant implications for practice. First, the study explored the
workplace characteristics necessary for effective management of people engaged
in innovative pursuits in R&D setting. The study found that leadership plays a role
in encouraging employee innovative performance. Specifically, study results
suggest that organisations should try to promote positive leader behaviours like
task-oriented, empowering, recognising, inspiring, team-building, developing and
leading by example. Second, the framework tested here provides insights to the
management practitioners about how leadership is related to subordinate innova-
tive performance. The study reported direct positive relationships between leader
behaviours and work engagement. Work engagement was, in turn, positively re-
lated to innovative performance. While concentrating on their own work, the
leaders should see to it that employee attitudinal and behavioural variables are kept
at high levels at all times. Finally, the study has been conducted in the R&D
1750055-21
setting and should provide useful insights to the management of innovativeness

of R&D professionals.
Strengths, limitations and directions for future research

We were able to directly access a large sample of full-time professionals from
R&D organisations that are generally considered to be difficult to approach and

gain access to. In addition, we were aware of potential limitations associated with
this methodology and took steps to minimise their seriousness by taking care of the
ordering of items, incorporating controls, testing for discriminant and convergent
validities of constructs and collecting data on objective measures of performance.
Although the findings of this study are in line with the developed theory, the study
has some limitations that can be addressed in future research. The research was
cross-sectional, so any inferences regarding causality may be limited. The data
were self-reported and collected at a single point in time. Though we have made
every attempt to minimise concerns of common method variance and checked for
the common method variance through procedural control (assuring respondents of
anonymity of their responses) and statistical control (modelling a latent common
method factor), the possibility of this error cannot be all together eliminated.
Future studies should test the relationship between leadership and innovativeness
through other study designs, like longitudinal study, analysis of daily diary entries
of scientists in order to better understand the interrelationships between the con-
structs. An interesting direction for future study might be to assess the extent to
which individual differences (e.g., role identity, personality, cognitive style,
knowledge, etc.) interact with aspects of leadership and work engagement to
influence innovative outcomes. For instance, it is possible that an individual with a
creative personality (e.g., openness to experience) may be more willing to engage
in idea promotion behaviours to produce the needed novel and useful outcomes.
The present study was done at an individual level of analysis. While the perfor-
mance measures we collected were valid indicators of individual performance,
future research studies should conduct analysis at group level to analyse the impact
of leadership and work engagement on group-level innovation.
References
Agarwal, UA, S Dutta, S Blake-Beard and S Bhargava (2012). Linking LMX, innovative
work behaviour and turnover intentions: The mediating role of work engagement.
Career Development International, 17, 208–230.
Amabile, TM (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptuali-
zation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 357–376.
1750055-22
Amabile, TM (1997). Motivating creativity in organizations. California Management

Review, 40, 39–58.
Amabile, TM, R Conti, H Coon, J Lazenby and M Herron (1996). Assessing the work
environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1154–1184.
Amabile, TM, EA Schatzel, GB Moneta and SJ Kramer (2004). Leader behaviors and the
work environment for creativity: Perceived leader support. The Leadership Quarterly,
15, 5–32.
Anderson, JC and DW Gerbing (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review
and recommended two step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411–423.
Ángel, PO and LS Sánchez (2009). “R&D managers” adaptation of firms’ HRM practices.
R&D Management, 39, 271–290.
Arbuckle, JL (2013). IBM SPSS AMOS 22 User Guide. New York: Microsoft.
Arnold, JA, S Arad, JA Rhoades and F Drasgow (2000). The empowering leadership
questionnaire: The construction and validation of a new scale for measuring leader
behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 249–269.
Aryee, S, FO Walumbwa, Q Zhou and CA Hartnell (2012). Transformational leadership,
innovative behavior, and task performance: Test of mediation and moderation pro-
cesses. Human Performance, 25, 1–25.
Axtell, CM, DJ Holman, KL Unsworth, TD Wall and PE Waterson (2000). Shopfloor
innovation: Facilitating the suggestion and implementation of ideas. Journal of Oc-
cupational and Organizational Psychology, 73, 265–285.
Badawy, MK (1988). What we’ve learned: Managing human resources. Research-Tech-
nology Management, 31(5), 19–35.
Baer, M (2012). Putting creativity to work: The implementation of creative ideas in
organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 1102–1119.
Bagozzi, RP and JR Edwards (1998). A general approach for representing constructs in
organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 1, 45–87.
Bakker, AB (2011). An evidence-based model of work engagement. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 20(4), 265–269.
Bakker, AB, Albrecht, SL and MP Leiter (2011). Key questions regarding work
engagement. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20, 4–28.
Bakker, AB and E Demerouti (2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the art.
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22, 309–328.
Bakker, AB and E Demerouti (2008). Towards a model of work engagement. Career
Development International, 13, 209–223.
Bakker, AB, E Demerouti and AI Sanz-Vergel (2014). Burnout and work engagement:
The JD–R approach. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organiza-
tional Behavior, 1, 389–411.
Bakker, AB and WB Schaufeli (2008). Positive organizational behavior: Engaged
employees in flourishing organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
29, 147–154.
1750055-23
Bakker, AB and D Xanthopoulou (2009). The crossover of daily work engagement: Test
of an actor–partner interdependence model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94,
1562–1571.
Bakker, AB and D Xanthopoulou (2013). Creativity and charisma among female leaders:
The role of resources and work engagement. The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 24, 2760–2779.
Bandura, A (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of

Psychology, 52, 1–26.
Berson, Y and JD Linton (2005). An examination of the relationships between leadership
style, quality, and employee satisfaction in R&D versus administrative environments.
R&D Management, 35, 51–60.
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, 928–951.
Bliese, PD (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implica-
tions for data aggregation and analyses. In Multilevel Theory, Research, and Methods
in Organizations: Foundations, Extensions, and New Directions, KJ Klein and SWJ
Kozlowski (eds.), San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, pp. 349–381.
Blomme, RJ, B Kodden and A Beasley-Suffolk (2015). Leadership theories and the
concept of work engagement: Creating a conceptual framework for management
implications and research. Journal of Management & Organization, 21, 125–144.
Brunetto, Y, S Teo, K Shacklock and R Farr-Wharton (2012). Emotional intelligence,
job satisfaction, well-being and engagement: Explaining organisational commitment
and turnover intentions in policing. Human Resource Management Journal, 22,
428–441.
Byrne, BM (2010). Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Appli-
cations, and Programming. New York: Routledge.
Cameron, AC and RK Trivedi (1998). Regression Analysis of Count Data. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Carmeli, A, JE Dutton and AE Hardin (2015). Respect as an engine for new ideas: Linking
respectful engagement, relational information processing and creativity among
employees and teams. Human Relations, 68, 1021–1047.
Cassanelli, AN, G Fernandez-Sanchez and MC Guiridlian (2017). Principal researcher and
project manager: Who should drive R&D projects? R&D Management, 47, 277–287.
Castañer, X (2016). Redefining creativity and innovation in organisations: Suggestions for
redirecting research. International Journal of Innovation Management, 20, 1–23.
Choi, SB, TBH Tran and BI Park (2015). Inclusive leadership and work engagement:
Mediating roles of affective organizational commitment and creativity. Social Be-
havior and Personality, 43, 931–944.
Christian, MS, AS Garza and JE Slaughter (2011). Work engagement: A quantitative
review and test of its relations with a contextual performance. Personnel Psychology,
64, 89–136.
1750055-24
Çokpekin, Ö and MP Knudsen (2012). Does organizing for creativity really lead to
innovation? Creativity and Innovation Management, 21, 304–314.
de Jong, JPJ and DN den Hartog (2007). How leaders influence employees’ innovative
behavior. European Journal of Innovation Management, 10, 41–64.
Deci, EL and RM Ryan (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and
the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268.
Deci, EL and RM Ryan (2008). Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human

motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychology, 49, 182–185.
Dewett, T (2007). Linking intrinsic motivation, risk taking, and employee creativity in an
R&D environment. R&D Management, 37, 197–208.
Dvir, T, D Eden, BJ Avolio and B Shamir (2002). Impact of transformational leadership
on follower development and performance: A field experiment. Academy of Man-
agement Journal, 45, 735–744.

Eisenberger, R, JR Jones, F Stinglhamber, L Shanock and AT Randall (2005). Flow
experiences at work: For high need achievers alone? Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 26, 755–75.
Eldor, L (2016). Work engagement: Toward a general theoretical enriching model. Human
Resource Development Review, 15, 317–339.
Elkins, T and RT Keller (2003). Leadership in research and development organizations:
A literature review and conceptual framework. The Leadership Quarterly, 14,
587–606.
Fornell, C and DF Larcker (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unob-
servable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research,
18, 39–50.
Fredrickson, BL (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology:
The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56,
218–226.
George, JM and J Zhou (2007). Dual tuning in a supportive context: Joint contributions of
positive mood, negative mood, and supervisory behaviors to employee creativity.
Academy of Management Journal, 50, 605–622.
Gomes, C, L Curral and A Caetano (2015). The mediating effect of work engagement on
the relationship between self-leadership and individual innovation. International
Journal of Innovation Management, 19, 1–18.
Gupta, V and S Kumar (2013). Impact of performance appraisal justice on employee
engagement: A study of Indian professionals. Employee Relations: The International
Journal, 35, 61–78.
Gupta, V and S Singh (2013). How leaders impact employee creativity: A study of Indian
R&D laboratories. Management Research Review, 36, 66–88.
Gupta, V and S Singh (2014). Psychological capital as a mediator of the relationship
between leadership and creative performance behaviors: Empirical evidence from
the Indian R&D sector. The International Journal of Human Resource Management,
25, 1373–1394.
1750055-25
Gupta, V and S Singh (2015). Leadership and creative performance behaviors in R&D
laboratories: Examining the role of justice perceptions. Journal of Leadership and
Organizational Studies, 22, 21–36.
Gupta, V, S Singh and N Khatri (2013). Creativity in research and development
laboratories: A new scale for leader behaviors. IIMB Management Review, 25, 83–90.
Hall, RJ, AF Snell and MS Foust (1999). Item parceling strategies in SEM: Investigating
the subtle effects of unmodeled secondary constructs. Organizational Research

Methods, 2, 233–256.
Hallberg, UE and WB Schaufeli (2006). “Same same” but different? Can work engage-
ment be discriminated from job involvement and organizational commitment? Eu-
ropean Psychologist, 11, 119–127.
Harju, LK, JJ Hakanen and WB Shaufeli (2016). Can job crafting reduce job boredom and
increase work engagement? A three-year cross-lagged panel study. Journal of Vo-

cational Behavior, 95–96, 11–20.
Harter, JK, FL Schmidt and TL Hayes (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between
employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-anal-
ysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 268–279.
Hemlin, S and L Olsson (2011). Creativity-stimulating leadership: A critical incident study
of leaders’ influence on creativity in research groups. Creativity and Innovation
Management, 20, 49–58.
Henker, N, S Sonnentag and D Unger (2015). Transformational leadership and employee
creativity: The mediating role of promotion focus and creative process engagement.
Journal of Business Psychology, 30, 235–247.
Hirst, G and L Mann (2004). A model of R&D leadership and team communication:
The relationship with project performance. R&D Management, 34, 147–160.
Hirst, G, D van Knippenberg and J Zhou (2009). A cross-level perspective on employee
creativity: Goal orientation, team learning behavior, and individual creativity.
Academy of Management Journal, 52, 280–293.
Hoegl, M, K Weinkauf and HG Gemuenden (2004). Interteam coordination, project
commitment, and teamwork in multiteam R&D projects: A longitudinal study.
Organization Science, 15, 38–55.
Huhtala, H and M-R Parzefall (2007). A review of employee well-being and innova-
tiveness: An opportunity for a mutual benefit. Creativity and Innovation Manage-
ment, 16, 299–306.
Janssen, O (2000). Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fairness and innovative work
behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73, 287–302.
Judge, WQ, GE Fryxell and RS Dooley (1997). The new task of R&D management:
Creating goal-directed communities for innovation. California Management Review,
39, 72–85.
Kahn, WA (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement
at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692–724.
Kerr, S and JM Jermier (1978). Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and measure-
ment. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 22, 375–403.
1750055-26
Kim, Y, B Min and J Cha (1999). The roles of R&D team leaders in Korea: A contingent
approach. R&D Management, 29, 153–165.
King, G (2011). Ensuring the data-rich future of the social sciences. Science (Washington),
331(6018), 719–721.
Kline, RB (2011). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 3rd edn. New
York: Guildford Press.
Koch, AR, C Binnewies and C Dormann (2015). Motivating innovation in schools: School
principals’ work engagement as a motivator for schools’ innovation. European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24, 505–517.
Lee, RT and BE Ashforth (1996). A meta-analytic examination of the correlates of the
three dimensions of job burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 8, 123–133.
Madjar, N and R Ortiz-Walters (2009). Trust in supervisors and trust in customers: Their
independent, relative, and joint effects on employee performance and creativity.

Human Performance, 22, 128–142.
Manolopoulos, D (2006). What motivates R&D professionals? Evidence from decen-
tralized laboratories in Greece. The International Journal of Human Resource
Mayer, JD, DR Caruso and P Salovey (2000). Emotional intelligence meets traditional
standards for an intelligence. Intelligence, 27, 267–298.
Montag, T, CP Maertz Jr and M Baer (2012). A critical analysis of the workplace
creativity criterion space. Journal of Management, 38, 1362–1386.
Mumford, MD, GM Scott, B Gaddis and JM Strange (2002). Leading creative people:
Orchestrating expertise and relationships. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 705–750.
Ng, TWH, DC Feldman and SSK Lam (2010). Psychological contract breaches, organi-
zational commitment, and innovation-related behaviors: A latent growth modeling
approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 744–751.
Nunnally, JC and IH Bernstein (1994). Psychometric Theory, 3rd edn. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Oldham, GR and A Cummings (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual
factors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 607–634.
Paulsen, N, AJ Callan, O Ayoko and D Saunders (2013). Transformational leadership and
innovation in an R&D organization experiencing major change. Journal of Organi-
zational Change Management, 26, 595–610.
Podsakoff, PM, SB MacKenzie, JY Lee and NP Podsakoff (2003). Common method
biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.
Quinn, JB (1979). Technological innovation, entrepreneurship, and strategy. Sloan
Management Review, 20, 19–30.
Ramamoorthy, N, PC Flood, T Slattery and R Sardessai (2005). Determinants of inno-
vative work behaviour: Development and test of an integrated model. Creativity and
Innovation Management, 14, 142–150.
1750055-27
Raub, S and C Robert (2010). Differential effects of empowering leadership on in-role and
extra-role employee behaviors: Exploring the role of psychological empowerment
and power values. Human Relations, 63, 1743–1770.
Rego, A, F Sousa, C Marques and MP e Cunha (2012). Authentic leadership promoting
employees’ psychological capital and creativity. Journal of Business Research, 65,
429–437.
Rich, BL, JA Lepine and ER Crawford (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and effects
on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 617–635.
Salanova, M and WB Schaufeli (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, 116–131.
Schaufeli, WB and AB Bakker (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship
with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 25, 293–315.
Schaufeli, WB, AB Bakker and M Salanova (2006). The measurement of work engage-
ment with a short questionnaire. Educational and Psychological Measurement,
66, 701–716.
Schaufeli, WB, AB Bakker and W van Rhenen (2009a). How changes in job demands and
resources predict burnout, work engagement, and sickness absenteeism. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 30, 893–917.
Schaufeli, WB, MP Leiter and C Maslach (2009b). Burnout: 35 years of research and
practice. Career Development International, 14, 204–220.
Schmitt, A, DND Hartog and FD Belschak (2016). Transformational leadership
and proactive work behaviour: A moderated mediation model including work en-
gagement and job strain. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,
89, 588–610.
Schoorman, FD and RC Mayer (2008). The value of common perspectives in self-reported
appraisals: You get what you ask for. Organizational Research Methods, 11,
148–159.
Shalley, CE and LL Gilson (2004). What leaders need to know: A review of social and
contextual factors that can foster or hinder creativity. The Leadership Quarterly, 15,
33–53.
Shalley, CE, LL Gilson and TC Blum (2009). Interactive effects of growth need strength,
work context, and job complexity on self-reported creative performance. Academy of
Management Journal, 52, 489–505.
Shalley, CE and JE Perry-Smith (2001). Effects of social-psychological factors on creative
performance: The role of informational and controlling expected evaluation and
modeling experience. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
84, 1–22.
Shalley, CE, J Zhou and GR Oldham (2004). The effects of personal and contextual
characteristics on creativity: Where should we go from here? Journal of Manage-
ment, 30, 933–958.
1750055-28
Shin, SJ and J Zhou (2003). Transformational leadership, conservation, and creativity:

Evidence from Korea. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 703–714.
Somech, A and A Drach-Zahavy (2013). Translating team creativity to innovation im-
plementation: The role of team composition and climate for innovation. Journal of
Stoker, JI, JC Looise, OAM Fisscher and RD De Jong (2001). Leadership and innovation:
Relations between leadership, individual characteristics and the functioning of R&D

teams. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 12, 1141–1151.
Thamhain, H (2003). Managing innovative R&D teams. R&D Management, 33, 297–311.
Tierney, P and SM Farmer (2002). Creative self-efficacy: Its potential antecedents
and relationship to creative performance. Academy of Management Journal,
45, 1137–1148.
Tierney, P, SM Farmer and GB Graen (1999). An examination of leadership and

employee creativity: The relevance of traits and relationships. Personnel Psychology,
52, 591–620.
To, ML, CD Fisher and NM Ashkanasy (2015). Unleashing angst: Negative mood,
learning goal orientation, psychological empowerment and creative behaviour.
Human Relations, 68, 1601–1622. doi: 10.1177/0018726714562235.
van Knippenberg, D and SB Sitkin (2013). A critical assessment of charismatic —
transformational leadership research: Back to the drawing board? The Academy of
Management Annals, 7, 1–60.
Wallace, JC, MM Butts, PD Johnson, FG Stevens and MB Smith (2016). A multilevel
model of employee innovation: Understanding the effects of regulatory
focus, thriving, and employee involvement climate. Journal of Management, 42,
982–1004.
West, MA (2002). Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model of crea-
tivity and innovation implementation in work groups. Applied Psychology: An
International Review, 51, 355–424.
Williams, LJ and EH O’Boyle Jr (2008). Measurement models for linking latent variables
and indicators: A review of human resource management research using parcels.
Human Resource Management Review, 18, 233–242.
Yong, E (2012). In the wake of high profile controversies, psychologists are facing up to
problems with replication. Nature, 483, 298–300.
Yukl, GA (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and
charismatic leadership theories. The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 285–305.
Yukl, GA (2008). Leadership in Organizations, 6th edn. New Delhi: Pearson Education.
Yukl, GA, A Gordon and T Taber (2002). A hierarchical taxonomy of leadership behavior:
Integrating a half century of behavior research. Journal of Leadership and Organi-
zational Studies, 9, 15–32.
Yukl, GA and DD van Fleet (1992). Theory and research on leadership in organizations. In
Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, MD Dunnette and LM
Hough (Eds.), 2nd edn., Vol. 3, pp. 147–197, Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists
Press.
1750055-29
Zhang, X and KM Bartol (2010). Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity:
The influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative
process engagement. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 107–128.
Zheng, W, AE Khoury, and C Grobmeiher (2010). How do leadership and context matter
in R&D team innovation? A multiple case study. Human Resource Development
International, 13, 265–283.
Zhou, Q and W Pan (2015). A cross-level examination of the process linking transfor-
mational leadership and creativity: The role of psychological safety climate. Human
Performance, 28, 405–424.
1750055-30

Guptaetal2017 IJIM

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Guptaetal2017 IJIM

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Innovation Management

Vol. 21, No. 7 (October 2017) 1750055 (30 pages)

THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LEADERSHIP,

WORK ENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE INNOVATIVE

Published 21 March 2017

Integrating the behavioural theory of leadership with job demands–resources theory of

Keywords: Leadership; work engagement; innovative performance; innovative work

carries signiﬁcant implications for enhancing organisational competitiveness,

Literature Review and Hypotheses Development

2003; Mumford et al., 2002; Cassanelli et al., 2017). R&D professionals

Task-oriented behaviour comprises of behaviours that help in accomplishing a

Relationship between leadership and employee innovative performance

interactions between team members thereby leading to a better understanding of

Relationships between leadership, work engagement and

working. Dedication is characterised by a sense of signiﬁcance, enthusiasm, in-

higher second-order construct comprising of underlying dimensions of vigour,

Work engagement among employees provides organisations with a competitive

energy in it (Blomme et al., 2015).

H4: Work engagement will be positively related to R&D professionals’ innova-

In a workplace where supervisors exhibit positive leader behaviours, employees

Each respondent received a blank envelope to return the completed question-

and 20% were senior-level scientists.

reﬁne the indicators of innovative performance. Semi-structured interviews con-

were indicative of their innovative performance. Indicators such as ‘technologies

measure of individual-level innovative performance. Based on the discussions

variety of information when solving a problem” (for information search), “I en-

ﬁrst-order dimensions plus one second-order factor labelled as innovative work

Level of analysis of study variables

Discriminant and convergent validity

Common method-common source bias

Table 1. Descriptive statistics and inter-construct correlations.

a possibility of contamination due to common method bias, we included the

.23** .13** Patents Filed

Fig. 1. Structural model with standardised path results.

Table 2. Bootstrap regression results.

Paths a LBCI b UBCI c

Standardised total effects

Notes: a Bootstrap estimate of standardised regression coefﬁcient; b Lower bound of

achieving greater innovative performance. Although the statistical relations be-

Implications for practice

setting and should provide useful insights to the management of innovativeness

Strengths, limitations and directions for future research

R&D organisations that are generally considered to be difﬁcult to approach and

Amabile, TM (1997). Motivating creativity in organizations. California Management

Bandura, A (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of

Deci, EL and RM Ryan (2008). Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human

agement Journal, 45, 735–744.

the subtle effects of unmodeled secondary constructs. Organizational Research

increase work engagement? A three-year cross-lagged panel study. Journal of Vo-

independent, relative, and joint effects on employee performance and creativity.

with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational

Shin, SJ and J Zhou (2003). Transformational leadership, conservation, and creativity:

Relations between leadership, individual characteristics and the functioning of R&D

Tierney, P, SM Farmer and GB Graen (1999). An examination of leadership and

You might also like

.23 .13 Patents Filed