Ejim 12 2018 0257

European Journal of Innovation Management
Transformational leadership and innovative work behavior: The role of motivation

to learn, task complexity and innovation climate
Bilal Afsar, Waheed Ali Umrani,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Bilal Afsar, Waheed Ali Umrani, (2019) "Transformational leadership and innovative work behavior:
The role of motivation to learn, task complexity and innovation climate", European Journal of
Innovation Management, https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-12-2018-0257
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-12-2018-0257
Downloaded by University Library At 06:35 21 June 2019 (PT)
Downloaded on: 21 June 2019, At: 06:35 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 131 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:485088 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
MUHAMMAD FAISAL JAMAL BIN

JAMALIS
4203002381
ARTICLE 8
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1460-1060.htm
Transformational leadership Transformational

leadership
and innovative work behavior
The role of motivation to learn, task
complexity and innovation climate
Bilal Afsar Received 10 December 2018
Department of Management Sciences, Revised 26 March 2019
Accepted 10 May 2019
Hazara University, Mansehra, Pakistan, and
Waheed Ali Umrani
Sukkur Institute of Business Administration, Sukkur, Pakistan
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate the effect of transformational leadership on
employee’s innovative work behavior, and the mediating role of motivation to learn, and the moderating
role of task complexity and innovation climate on the link between transformational leadership and
innovative work behavior.
Design/methodology/approach – A questionnaire, designed as a self-reported survey, was distributed to
full-time employees and their respective supervisors working in 35 firms (services and manufacturing sectors)
in Pakistan. Data were collected from 338 employee–supervisor dyads. The hypotheses were tested using
structural equation modeling.
Findings – Results showed that transformational leadership had a positive impact on employees’ innovative
work behavior and motivation to learn mediated transformational leadership–innovative work behavior link.
The study further showed that task complexity and innovation climate moderated the relationship between
transformational leadership and employees’ innovative work behavior.
Research limitations/implications – Based on the premises of interactionist perspectives on individual
innovation, this study integrated multi-level variables to investigate leaders’ influences on followers’
innovative work behavior. This study contributed to the existing literature by providing empirical evidence
on influence of transformational leadership on employees’ innovative work behavior as well as the impact of
both individual and organizational level variables.
Practical implications – The close connection among transformational leadership, motivation to learn and
innovative work behavior suggests that transformational leadership traits among managers are important to
enhance employees’ innovative work behavior. Organizations should pay attention to creating a climate that
is supportive of innovation and encourage individuals to learn new knowledge and skills, and provide
employees with opportunities to use their acquired knowledge and skills.
Originality/value – This paper contributed to leadership and innovation literatures and provided insights
into how the practitioners could use an appropriate leadership style to enhance innovative work behavior
among employees. The study adopted a distinct model comprising five variables to investigate innovative
work behavior from a multi-level perspective, i.e., motivation to learn and innovative work behavior at
the individual level, task complexity at the unit level and innovation climate and leadership at the
organizational level. This integrated model of using predictors from multiple levels supported
the theoretical assumptions that innovative work behavior resulted from the interaction of individual,
group and organizational level factors.
Keywords Organizational culture, Innovation, Leadership, Motivation psychology
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
An important factor in determining organizational competitive advantage is employees’
innovative work behavior ( Jiang and Gu, 2016; Shin et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2015).
Innovative work behavior refers to activities pertaining to the employee’s development,
promotion and implementation of a useful innovation at any organizational level European Journal of Innovation
Management
(Rank et al., 2004). Innovative work behavior includes the development of new ideas, © Emerald Publishing Limited
1460-1060
technology and techniques, as well as the trial and application of new methods related to DOI 10.1108/EJIM-12-2018-0257
EJIM business procedures, in specific work areas. Organizations need to develop innovations to
meet emerging problems and challenges due to increasing global competition, customer
expectations or market changes (Savelsbergh et al., 2012; Somech and Khalaili, 2014). These
challenges require employees to engage in innovative behaviors to improve the current
state. Innovation helps the organizations to become viable and widely accepted as a critical
factor for organizational success ( Janssen et al., 2004). One of the best ways to become
innovative is to capitalize employees’ innovative abilities which ensure the continuous and
long term effectiveness (De Jong and Den Hartog, 2010). Using their innovative abilities,
employees can better contribute to organizational success by generating, promoting and
implementing novel and useful ideas to improve work procedures, products and services
termed as innovative work behavior ( Janssen, 2000). It is therefore vital for organizations to
identify and enhance the factors that regulate individuals’ innovative work behavior.
Because of the complexity of the challenges, employees need to work and learn together to
develop novel and innovative solutions (Truijen et al., 2013). Although transformational
leadership is supposed to be positively related to follower innovative work behavior, the prior
studies have yielded inconsistent results and meta-analytic findings showed a high variation
in the relationship between transformational leadership and innovative work behavior
(Afsar et al., 2014; Uhl-Bien and Arena, 2018; Vessey et al., 2014). Given these inconclusive
findings, researchers question the simplistic transformational leadership–innovative work
behavior relationship in order to consider through what explanatory mechanisms (via what
mediators) and under what boundary conditions (in the presence of what moderators)
transformational leaders might promote innovative work behaviors (Rosing et al., 2011;
Tse et al., 2018). The goal of the present study is to address this important yet relatively
unclear issue. This study examines the mediating role of employees’ motivation to learn and
the moderating effects of organizations’ task complexity and innovation climate in the process
by which transformational leadership influences employees’ innovative work behavior.
Within the domain of creativity research, most studies have focused on leader’s
influence on employees’ creativity rather than on innovative work behaviors, leaving
employees’ engagement in the generation as well as implementation of ideas mostly
unearthed and unexplored (Hughes et al., 2018). A recurrent theme in the literature is that
innovative work behaviors are challenging, risky, complicated and uncertain; so there are
intervening variables that explain the link between transformational leadership and an
individual’s innovative work behavior (Afsar et al., 2014; Choi et al., 2016; Jaiswal and
Dhar, 2015), such as follower relational identification (Qu et al., 2015), promotion focus
(Henker et al., 2015) and knowledge sharing (Masood and Afsar, 2017). It has been
suggested that more research is needed that investigates the underlying mechanism
linking transformational leadership with innovative work behavior. Therefore,
considering the dearth of research on the relationship between leadership and
employees’ innovative work behavior, the research questions in this study could be
considered timely and appropriately to improve organizational innovation by exploring
transformational leaders’ influence on employees’ innovative work behavior and the
aforementioned multi-level mediating and moderating factors.
The reasons to select employees’ motivation to learn as a mediating factor and task
complexity and innovation climate as moderating factors lie within the notion of the
integration of multi-level factors (i.e. individual, unit and organizational) for a holistic
understanding of employees’ innovative work behaviors (Afsar et al., 2018; Choi et al., 2016).
The selection of such multi-level variables is based on the “interactionist perspective of
creativity” (IPC) framework, which explains individual differences in level of innovativeness
in the organizational context. From the interactionist perspective, employees’ behavior is the
outcome of a complex interaction of individual, situational and other related contextual or
contingency factors (Woodman et al., 1993). Therefore, employees’ innovative work behavior
could be seen as complex interactions and reciprocal causations of individual, unit and Transformational
organizational level factors, which could either facilitate or inhibit their initiative in leadership
organizational contexts (Anning-Dorson, 2017; Yuan et al., 2018). Based on this IPC, the
study assumes that leaders’ influence on followers’ innovative work behavior depends on
leaders’ interactions with followers as individuals, as well as other situational and
contextual factors (Koseoglu et al., 2017; Masood and Afsar, 2017).
Employees’ engagement in innovative work behaviors will vary depending on managers’
influence on an individual employee, as well as on the interaction with his or her level of
motivation to learn, the nature of task complexity and the innovation climate. Additionally,
as both employees’ innovative work behavior and managers’ transformational leadership
are multi-constructs and multi-level disperse phenomena (Braun et al., 2013), and factors
from multiple levels in the organizations would be appropriate to investigate the influence of
transformational leadership on employees’ innovative work behavior, therefore, the present
study selected employees’ motivation to learn as an individual-level factor, task complexity
as a group level factor and innovation climate as an organizational level factor to investigate
transformational leadership influence on employees’ innovative work behavior. While many

leadership styles focus on leaders’ interactions with followers at the individual level,
transformational leadership integrates leaders’ interactions with followers at multiple levels,
i.e., through “individualized consideration” and “intellectual stimulation” at the individual
level, and “idealized influence” and “inspirational motivation” at the group and
organizational levels (Masood and Afsar, 2017). Because of multi-level influence,
transformational leadership is assumed to be better to assess the holistic view of
leadership’s influence on employees’ innovative work behavior (Hughes et al., 2018; Kark
et al., 2018; Masood and Afsar, 2017). Therefore, from the IPC, the study investigates the
influence of transformational leadership on employees’ innovative work behavior and the
possible intervening effects of motivation to learn, task complexity and innovation climate
in the influence process (Figure 1).
Literature review and hypotheses development

Transformational leadership is described as the process in which leaders play an idealized role
model, stimulate and encourage innovative work behavior, provide inspirational motivation
and engage in supporting and mentoring followers to achieve the organization’s shared vision
and goals (Bass and Avolio, 1994; Bednall et al., 2018; Suifan et al., 2018). Transformational
leaders’ personalized attention and support to followers’ needs and requirements could
Transformational
Leadership Task Complexity Innovation Climate
Team level
Individual level
Innovative Work
Motivation to Learn Behavior Figure 1.
Conceptual model
EJIM increase their influence on followers’ engagement in creative activities. By constantly
questioning and challenging followers’ assumptions and thinking, these leaders stimulate
followers’ intellectual thinking, which ultimately encourages followers to become involved in
generation and implementation of ideas. Such leaders have the ability to articulate the
organizational vision with individual goals, increasing inspirational motivation among
followers (Bednall et al., 2018). Therefore, it is assumed that transformational leaders will be
able to inspire individual employees by relating their future to the organization’s future and to
encourage them to engage in the innovative work behaviors by developing a strong sense of
shared vision and belongingness with the organizations.
Transformational leaders have a positive influence on enhancing organizational
innovation (Bass and Avolio, 1994). These transformational leaders move the employees
past, the employee’s self-interests into the state of motivation to vigorously pursue an
organizational vision. This effect is achieved through intellectual stimulation, emotional
appeal and inspiration from the leader and innovation goals seem vibrant, alive, engaging
and even tangible (Zuraik and Kelly, 2019). Transformational leaders, through their
visionary initiatives, functional expertise, individualized mentoring, supportive culture and

intellectual stimulation abilities, could influence employees to engage in innovative work
behaviors (Afsar et al., 2014). Such leaders typically encourage employees to engage in
innovative work behaviors by providing a supportive environment (Bednall et al., 2018;
Scott and Bruce, 1994). According to Masood and Afsar (2017), transformational leaders
create a supportive workplace via inspirational, motivation and individualized
considerations. Such a supportive environment effectively increase employees’ motivation
to engage in initiating and implementing new and novel ideas. This environment also
provides support and feedback in the search for innovative and optimal solutions
( Johannessen et al., 2001; Tse et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2014).
Qu et al. (2015) used a sample of 420 leader–follower dyads from an energy company in
mainland China and revealed the positive influence of transformational leadership on
employees’ innovative outcomes. They found that transformational leadership enhances
innovative performance of employees. Choi et al. (2016) conducted a study on 356 employees
working in Korea manufacturing firms and found that transformational leadership
facilitated innovative work behaviors among employees. Du et al. (2016) noted that
innovation is a time-consuming and risky effort and, therefore, that leaders should know the
right time and procedure to provide necessary support to enhance followers’ innovative
performance. Ma and Jiang (2018) suggested that transformational leaders encourage
employees’ openness, experimentation and risk-taking behavior, which consequently
promote innovative work behaviors in organizational contexts. Based on above arguments,
it is hypothesized:
H1. Transformational leadership is positively associated with innovative work behavior.
Motivation to learn as a mediating factor of innovative work behavior

It is argued that “a continuous commitment to learning is central to innovativeness”
(Rhee et al., 2010, p. 66). Weisberg (1999) reckoned that learning can be indispensable for
creativity, and the creative behavior of idea generation is a step-stone to innovative work
behavior of adoption and implementation of those ideas that are useful (Scott and Bruce,
1994). Learning orientation can be presumed as one of many motivational orientations, and
according to Sujan et al. (1994), this kind of behavior engages the individual in activities that
help individuals in generating and implementing useful ideas. Employees’ decision to engage
or not to engage in innovative behaviors is influenced by their motivation to learn (Yu et al.,
2018). Motivation to learn refers to employees’ desire to learn new knowledge or insights that
drives an individual to be creative and innovative in their work (Gong et al., 2009).
Individuals with strong motivation to learn make efforts to learn whenever they Transformational
identify a learning opportunity, potentially leading to acquiring new knowledge and skills. leadership
Sujan et al. (1994) advocate that individuals who value learning, are often motivated, value
personal growth and take pleasure in mastering any given task. Individuals with strong
motivation to learn see difficult tasks as opportunities for growth and development
(Payne et al., 2007), seek feedback from others in order to improve (VandeWalle and
Cummings, 1997), and frame failure as an opportunity to learn (Farr et al., 1993). A strong
learning orientation reduces the concern with protecting image and reputation during
interpersonal interactions (Frink and Ferris, 1998) and frees individuals to engage in
constant improvement. Other studies supported this notion by arguing that individuals with
a learning orientation often would search out challenges that offered individuals,
opportunities to learn and to master any given task in an effective way (Colquitt et al., 2000).
Previous studies have supported the relationship between motivation to learn and
acquisition of new knowledge (e.g. Wang and Noe, 2010). For instance, with a sample from a
manufacturing organization in the UK, Birdi et al. (1997) report that employees with high
motivation to learn are engaged in four types of developmental activities: required training,
on-the-job training, voluntary job-related learning and voluntary non-job-related learning.
A meta-analytical study also provided compelling evidence that motivation to learn was
positively correlated with learning outcomes on declarative knowledge and skill acquisition
(Colquitt et al., 2000).
According to componential framework of creativity (Amabile, 1983), domain-relevant
skills include factual knowledge, technical skills and special talents that provide essential
background knowledge and basis for innovation. Amabile (1983) posits that domain-
relevant skills can be seen as a set of cognitive pathways for a given problem or task. The
larger the skill set, the more alternatives are available for generating, developing and
implementing something new. Empirical findings confirm that the acquisition of knowledge
and skills can assist individuals in generating new ideas (Auernhammer and Hall, 2014;
Dong et al., 2017). Accordingly, we argue that motivation to learn enables employees to pay
more attention to, and exert more effort in, acquiring new knowledge and skills, leading to
an expansion of their “cognitive pathways,” thus increased innovative behavior. Empirical
studies also showed that learning orientation focused on developing competence and task
mastery, when compared to performance orientation (Yu et al., 2018), was positively related
to innovative behaviors. Additionally, transformational leaders, through their idealized
influence and intellectual stimulation, could enhance followers’ intrinsic motivation and
encourage them to engage in innovative activities (Braun et al., 2013; Kark et al., 2018;
Zuraik and Kelly, 2019).
According to Marshall (1987, p. 424), the motivation for learning is “the meaningfulness,
value, and benefits of academic tasks to the learner – regardless of whether or not they are
intrinsically interesting.” Leaders contribute to the willingness of employees to learn and to
seek continuous updating of their knowledge about various aspects of their daily practice
(Khaola and Coldwell, 2019; Sattayaraksa and Boon-itt, 2018). Transformational leaders
focus on intrinsic motivation, facilitate the professional development of employees, and have
a common vision (Yukl, 2009). It is also assumed that transformational leadership, by
developing a fair climate, can increase employees’ intrinsic motivation and ultimately foster
innovativeness in organizational contexts. Leithwood and Jantzi (2006) found that
transformational leadership had a significant effect on the desire of employees to change
their practices, their motivation to learn and make an additional effort at work, and their
ability to implement innovations.
Usually, transformational leadership creates an environment that inspires employees in
challenging and non-routinized tasks and makes employees’ jobs more interesting and
enjoyable (Golden and Shriner, 2017). Such a supportive environment leads employees to
EJIM involve themselves in the creative process and to seek innovative outcomes (Ma and
Jiang, 2018; Uusi-Kakkuri et al., 2016). Additionally, Zhang and Bartol (2010) found that
transformational leaders improve employee creativity by providing psychological
empowerment, which boosts employees’ motivation to learn. Yu et al. (2018) reported the
finding that employees’ intrinsic motivation contributes to innovative work behaviors
because they feel in control of their activities. It is assumed that motivation to learn could
play a mediating role in the process of transformational leaders’ influences on employees’
engagement (Kark et al., 2018; Saeed et al., 2019). Therefore, based on the theoretical
assumptions and earlier research evidence, this study proposes the following hypothesis:
H2. Motivation to learn mediates the relationship between transformational leadership
and employees’ innovative work behavior.
Moderating role of task complexity

Proponents of the IPC model identified task complexity as the major contextual factor that
can influence individuals’ creative behavior (Urbach et al., 2010). In the organizational
context, task complexity refers to individuals’ perception of the challenging nature of the
work (Dóci and Hofmans, 2015; Wojtczuk-Turek and Turek, 2015). However, the nature of
the task still plays a critical role in employees’ innovative performance (Dóci and Hofmans,
2015; Hughes et al., 2018). The degree of employees’ intent toward innovative activities
depends on complexity and the challenging nature of the tasks. Cummings and Oldham
(1997) noted that when the completion of complex tasks requires a variety of skills,
employees feel more motivated to pursue new ideas. Complex tasks typically stimulate
group discussions about work-related problems, and as a consequence, engaged and
skilled team members provide insights that stimulate the process of forming a shared
understanding of the need for change (Lantz, 2011). It is less likely that employees will look
for creative ideas when the task is ordinary and simple. Complex tasks provide substantial
decision-making latitude and opportunities to use high-level skills, thereby urging
employees to proactively identify the task challenges and explore new possibilities and
alternative courses of action (West, 2002). Performing these intrinsically motivating tasks
also promotes risk-taking and experimental behaviors among employees because such
tasks generate sufficient attention and motivation to experiment with unorthodox
approaches when resolving given challenges (Sung et al., 2017).
Complex tasks also help satisfy employees’ basic needs (e.g. the need for autonomy), need
for personal growth and competence (Maloni et al., 2016), or extrinsically motivating
because they are instrumental to the achievement of work goals (Bakker and Demerouti,
2007). Shalley and Gilson (2004) suggest that jobs that are complex enhance employees’
excitement about their work activities and their interest in completing these activities; this
excitement can increase innovative endeavors under a leadership approach that is
supportive of risk taking and pursuing intellect. When task complexity is high, task-specific
motivation of employees toward learning and self-development enhance. Innovative
work behavior is an effective means of fulfilling high-order needs (Chae and Choi, 2018).
To exhibit innovative responses to complex tasks, individuals need internal desires to strive
and learn because these needs enable them to persevere despite the challenges, inconsistent
findings and performance pressures (Gorman et al., 2012).
Zhang and Kwan (2018) found that team task complexity strengthened the direct effect
of empowering leadership on team learning behavior and team creativity. Extending their
argument, it is reasonable to propose that task complexity would also moderate the effect of
transformational leadership on motivation to learn and innovative work behavior at the
individual level. Employees with strong growth needs perceive task-related complexity as
opportunities to fulfill their developmental and learning needs. Such motivational tendency
renders individuals to respond positively to complex jobs that enable them to search new Transformational
possibilities and experiment with various alternatives, thereby achieving personal growth leadership
and learning ( Jeng, 2018). The lack of appreciation for growth and learning among
employees, when task complexity is low, urges them to avoid frustrations of dealing with
the challenges of complex jobs. In this case, these employees withdraw work efforts, thereby
leading to reduced creative engagement and performance, even when their leaders support
them to take risks and stimulate intellectual abilities. When performing simple tasks,
individuals may perceive that the task “is too easy” and therefore do not dedicate their full
attention and processing capabilities to performing the task at hand (Speier et al., 2003).
As complexity increases, the knowledge, skills and abilities of a single person are
unlikely to meet the task demands (Pearce, 2004). In these cases, the need for leadership
increases (Bligh et al., 2006). Shared leadership facilitates that different members use their
expertise to lead the team by sharing knowledge and information and integrating
feedback to problem solving within the team (Resick et al., 2014). Müller et al. (2018) found
that the relationship between shared leadership and team performance is moderated by
perceived task complexity, such that shared leadership is more strongly related to team
performance when teams perceive high task complexity. Cooperation and exchange of
information are then strongly required in facing the contextual demands and
consequently achieving team goals in complex tasks (Pearce, 2004). On the opposite,
teams that centralize influence and knowledge compromise their performance in complex
tasks (Bunderson et al., 2016).
From a leadership perspective, a complex task environment requires a non-controlling
and supportive leader, such as one who exhibits transformational leadership qualities and
generates self-determination, autonomy and feelings of achievement among followers
(Mahmood et al., 2019; Omri, 2015). A highly complex task coupled with high motivation to
learn could accelerate leaders’ influence on employees’ desire to engage in innovative
endeavors (Dóci and Hofmans, 2015; Poutanen et al., 2016; Willis et al., 2017). It is assumed
that task complexity, supported by substantial autonomy and skill variety, will drive
employees’ interest and motivation in the innovative work behaviors collectively with other
contextual factors. Therefore, the study proposes the following hypotheses:
H3. Task complexity moderates the relationship between transformational leadership
and motivation to learn.
H4. Task complexity moderates the relationship between motivation to learn and
employees’ innovative work behavior.
H5. Task complexity moderates the relationship between transformational leadership
Innovation climate as a moderating variable

One of the organizational factors affecting innovation is organizational climate. It has been
stated that to foster innovation, it is particularly important to create an organizational
climate that is non-threatening psychologically, supports risk taking and motivates the
employees to apply initiative (Parzefall et al., 2008). It has also been emphasized that
organizational climate needs to include certain characteristics, such as team cohesion,
supervisor support and autonomy, to foster the innovative work behavior of employees
(Martins and Terblanche, 2003; Sönmez and Yıldırım, 2019). Studies have empirically shown
that supportive innovation climate enhances innovative work behavior among employees
by fostering receptiveness to new ideas and improving proactiveness in exploring new
opportunities (Yeoh and Mahmood, 2013; Yu et al., 2013). Nonetheless, limited literatures on
innovation climate have integrated to advance a more precise role of innovative climate at
EJIM different levels, which limits our understanding of innovation climate as a multi-level
phenomenon (Wang et al., 2013).
Recent multi-level studies have demonstrated that individual innovative work behavior
positively relates to group level variables including leadership style, supportive coworker
(Afsar et al., 2014) and support for innovation (Chen et al., 2013), signifying the importance of
multi-level consideration of innovation climate. However, as innovation climate is a broad
concept, very limited studies have address cross-level issues, including whether group
climate motivates individual level innovative work behavior (Yeoh and Mahmood, 2013;
Yu et al., 2013). Therefore, this study assumed that innovation climate could mediate
transformational leaders’ influence on employees’ innovative work behavior. Usually, the
internal organizational environment plays a significant role in innovative work behavior by
inspiring employee’s proactivity (Widmann and Mulder, 2018).
Earlier empirical research on organizational support, such as climate for innovation
(Chen and Hou, 2016), support for innovation (Sarros et al., 2011) and psychological
empowerment for innovation (Afsar et al., 2014), indicated that organizational support
drives employees’ innovation behavior. When a climate encourages the employees’
innovation capacity, tolerates risk and supports personal growth and development, the
culture may be described as an innovative climate or culture (Martín-de Castro et al., 2013).
Innovation-oriented cultural values are flexibility, creativity and openness to innovation.
Innovation-oriented cultural norms include a willingness to find unbureaucratic solutions
quickly, an expectation to develop new products permanently, and an appreciation of
unconventional ideas. Moreover, cultural values enhance the flexibility of organization to
innovate (Stock et al., 2013). Thus, the values support the innovation process via inserting
expected behaviors within an organization’s culture (Hogan and Coote, 2014). As such,
cultural values are intangible and abstract, thus providing an essential basis for norms
such as shared social expectations and rules in the organization. Likewise, norms predict
acceptable behaviors that should be followed by employees. A number of studies have
investigated the correlation between organizational innovative climate and innovative
work behavior (e.g. De Jong and Den Hartog, 2007; Scott and Bruce, 1994; Shanker et al.,
2017; Sönmez and Yıldırım, 2019; Yu et al., 2013). For example, in the study by Scott and
Bruce (1994) on this subject, they highlighted the necessity of having an organizational
climate that supports innovation and provides necessary resources. In the qualitative
study by De Jong and Den Hartog (2007), managers stated that the innovative climate of
the organization was the precursor to employees’ innovative work behavior. Yu et al.
(2013), in their study, reported there to be a positive correlation between knowledge
sharing and innovative work behavior and between a pro-innovation organizational
climate and innovative work behavior. Furthermore, Shanker et al. (2017), in their study,
revealed that the innovative climate of an organization enhances employee’s innovative
work behavior.
When the organization itself nurtures a climate for innovativeness and risk taking,
employees feel empowered and view their successes as the result of voluntary engagement
in innovative activities (Afsar et al., 2014). In some cases, contextual factors, such as
support for innovation, can act as a moderating variable and weaken (negatively impact)
the effects of transformational leadership on employees’ innovative work behavior.
In their study of 93 teams and their leaders in multinational organizations, Si and
Wei (2012) found that the effect of transformational leadership on employees’ creative
performance is relatively high when the employees’ empowerment climate is low, and vice
versa. Therefore, based on theoretical grounds and previous literature reviews, this study
proposes the following hypothesis:
H6. Innovation climate moderates the relationship between transformational leadership
Research methods Transformational
Quantitative approach and survey methodology were employed to collect employee– leadership
supervisor/colleague dyadic data. For the purpose of this study, initially, 44 organizations
located in Pakistan were contacted. To stipulate their participation in the study, a
presentation to the top management of each organization was delivered to inform them
about the need and significance of the study, emphasizing its managerial implications.
The authorities from 35 organizations showed their willingness to participate in the study.
Next, with the cooperation of the management, a special orientation session for the
employees and their immediate supervisors was organized at each participating
organization. In the sessions, participants were informed about the importance of their
careful observation of each survey item. At the end of each session, two different types of
sealed envelopes (employee survey and supervisor survey) containing a questionnaire,
cover letter and return envelope were hand-delivered and the participants were requested to
personally complete it and return it in a sealed envelope to their HR department.
Data were collected from the full-time employees and their respective supervisors working
in the services and manufacturing sectors. The services sector included industries, such as
banking and insurance, hotels, healthcare and telecommunication, while the manufacturing
sector included industries, such as textile and automobile. Employees were asked to
voluntarily fill out questionnaires containing statements on demographics, transformational
leadership, motivation to learn, innovation climate and task complexity. Employees were also
asked to identify their immediate supervisor who could rate them on their innovative work
behaviors on a separate questionnaire to be placed in an envelope which was provided at the
time of distribution of the surveys. The questionnaires contained the names of the respondents
on the back which was used only for identification and matching purposes. Complete
confidentiality was assured whereby the names of the respondents were only disclosed to
supervisors for rating their innovative work behaviors. Supervisors identified by their
employees were thus approached and asked to rate the remaining part of the questionnaire and
put it back in the same envelope. Both employees’ and supervisors’ responses were kept
confidential from each other. We ensured no supervisor rated more than three respondents in
order to avoid the challenges of personal bias and within-group issues of inflated results.
Altogether 240 supervisors and 850 subordinates were selected to participate in the study.
In total, 117 supervisors (response rate ¼ 48.7 percent) and 349 subordinates (response
rate ¼ 41.05 percent) provided complete responses. Of these, 11 questionnaires were unusable
due to missing value, unengaged responses or outliers (Hair et al., 2014). After removing
incomplete or invalid responses, the final supervisor–employee dyad responses were
338, yielding a response rate of 39.7 percent. A majority of the respondents (63 percent) worked
in the services industry, 65.9 percent were male, 30.8 percent were in non-managerial positions,
22.7 percent were comprised of lower management, 29.6 percent were in middle management
and 16.9 percent were in senior management positions. Among them, 42.6 percent had been
with the organization for 5 years or less, 23.6 percent had been with the organization from
6 to 10 years, and 33.9 percent had been with the organization for 10 years or more.
Measures
All constructs were measured on a five-point Likert scale. All the measurement items were
taken from past research after studying the evolution of the variables of interest.
Innovative work behavior

The ten-item scale for innovative work behavior was adopted from the study of De Jong and
Den Hartog (2010). Supervisors were asked to give their opinions about innovative work
behavior of their subordinates. Sample item includes: “This employee pays attention to issues
that are no part of his daily work.” Cronbach’s α for innovative work behavior was 0.84.
EJIM Transformational leadership
Transformational leadership was measured using employee ratings on the 20
transformational leadership items from the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire,
specifically the Form5X-Short for which followers rate their leaders. This scale has 20
items measuring four subscales (idealized influence, individualized consideration,
inspirational motivation and intellectual stimulation), each having five items (Bass and
Avolio, 1997). These subscales have been converted into one higher-order factor which is
consistent with recent empirical (Afsar et al., 2014; Masood and Afsar, 2017) and theoretical
developments (Muenjohn and Armstrong, 2008) of transformational leadership.
Transformational leadership was conceptualized at the group level. To evaluate the
appropriateness of accumulating this construct to the group level, we examined Rwg
(within-group agreement), ICC(1) (intra-class correlation coefficient), and ICC(2). The mean
value of Rwg for transformational leadership was 0.783. ICC(1) and ICC(2) were 0.217
( p o0.001) and 0.426, respectively. Some scholars suggest that despite low ICC(2) value, it is
also feasible to aggregate provided that there are high Rwg value and significant between-
group variance of the construct (Chen and Bliese, 2002; Kozlowski and Hattrup, 1992).
Hence, we aggregated subordinates’ ratings of transformational leadership to the group
level. The Cronbach’s α for transformational leadership was 0.91.
Motivation to learn
Motivation to learn was measured by three items adapted from Noe and Schmitt (1986),
supplemented by one item in VandeWalle’s (1997). The sample items include “I often look
for opportunities to develop new skills and knowledge,” and “I will try to learn as much as I
can from my job.” Cronbach’s α for motivation to learn was 0.87.
Innovation climate
Innovation climate was measured using 16-item scale developed by Scott and Bruce (1994).
It measures the degree to which individuals view the organization they work for as being
open to change, and the level of support for innovation. In general, the innovation climate
scale measures the shared expectations and perceptions of the employees of policies and
practices that support employees taking initiative and exploring innovative approaches
(Ostroff et al., 2003). This scale demonstrated adequate coefficient alpha reliability (α ¼ 0.92).
Task complexity
To measure task complexity, a four-item scale developed by Maynard and Hakel (1997) was
used. Example includes “my task is mentally demanding.” Cronbach’s α for this scale was
recorded as 0.81.
Measurement model
To assess the adequacy of the scales used, confirmatory factor analyses were performed.
The measurement model estimates showed that the factor loadings (all W0.50), average
variance extracted (AVE) (AVE W0.50) and CA (allW0.81) were all greater than the
minimum threshold limit (Hair et al., 2014). As can be seen from Table I, the AVE values
were greater than 0.50 and all the composite reliability values were greater than AVE
values. This further confirms convergent validity of the proposed model. Furthermore, all
the ASV and MSV values were found to be less than their respective AVE values confirming
the discriminant validity of the constructs. Thus, the construct validity was established for
all the study constructs. In addition, the VIF values ranged from 1.93 to 4.83 (below 10),
indicating the absence of multicollinearity.
Transformational
Latent variables Factor
and sources Measure items AVE CR CA MSV ASV loadings leadership
Transformational My leader instills pride in me when 0.76 0.92 0.91 0.28 0.41 0.735
leadership (Podsakoff associated with others
et al., 1996) My leader talks about my most important 0.584
values and beliefs
My leader specifies the importance of a 0.638
strong sense of purpose
My leader convinces me to go beyond self- 0.618
interest for the good of the group
My leader acts in ways that build others’ 0.737
respect for me
My leader considers moral and ethical 0.794
consequences of decisions
My leader displays a sense of power and 0.673
confidence
My leader emphasizes the importance of 0.599
having a collective sense of mission

My leader talks optimistically about future 0.684
My leader talks enthusiastically about 0.817
what needs to be established
My leader articulates a compelling vision 0.728
of future
My leader expresses confidence through 0.595
his/her behaviors that goals will be
achieved
My leader re-examines the critical 0.693
assumptions and questions whether they
are appropriate
My leader seeks differing perspective 0.627
when solving problems
My leader gets others to look at problems 0.717
from many different angles
My leader suggests new ways of looking at 0.727
how to complete assignments
My leader spends time coaching, teaching 0.595
and mentoring his/her followers
My leader treats others as individuals 0.684
rather than just as a member of a group
My leader considers an individual as 0.594
having different needs, abilities and
aspirations from others
My leader helps others to develop their 0.728
strengths
Innovative work How often this employee pays attention to 0.69 0.86 0.84 0.27 0.32 0.817
behavior (De Jong and issues that are no part of his daily work
Den Hartog, 2010) How often this employee wonders how 0.943
things can be improved
How often this employee searches out new 0.916
working methods, techniques or
instruments
How often this employee generates original 0.638
solutions for problems
How often this employee finds new 0.718
approaches to execute tasks
Table I.
Survey measures and
(continued ) their estimates
EJIM Latent variables Factor
and sources Measure items AVE CR CA MSV ASV loadings
How often this employee makes important 0.733

organizational members enthusiastic for
innovative ideas
How often this employee attempts 0.817
to convince people to support an
innovative idea
How often this employee systematically 0.716
introduces innovative ideas into
work practices
How often this employee contributes to the 0.625
implementation of new ideas
How often this employee puts effort in the 0.684
development of new things
Motivation to learn I am motivated to learn the skills 0.71 0.88 0.87 0.29 0.36 0.895
(Noe and Schmitt, 1986) emphasized in the job

I will try to learn as much as I can from 0.911
my job
I am willing to exert considerable effort in 0.776
my job in order to improve my skills
I often look for opportunities to develop 0.828
new skills and knowledge
Task complexity I found my job as a complex task 0.64 0.82 0.81 0.23 0.27 0.673
(Maynard and Hakel, My task is mentally demanding 0.818
1997) My task required a lot of thought 0.773
and problem solving
I found my job to be a challenging task 0.875
Innovation climate How do you rate your organization’s 0.76 0.95 0.92 0.41 0.53 0.919
(Scott and Bruce, 1994) support of innovation?
Creativity is encouraged here 0.737
Our ability to function creatively is 0.794
respected by the leadership
Around here, people are allowed to try to 0.703
solve the same problems in different ways
The main function of members in this 0.585
organization is to follow orders which
come down through channels
Around here, a person can get in a lot of 0.578
trouble by being different
This organization can be described as 0.737
flexible and continually adapting to change
A person cannot do things that are 0.842
too different around here without
provoking anger
The best way to get along in this 0.638
organization is to think the way the rest
of the group does
People around here are expected to deal 0.915
with problems in the same way
This organization is open and responsive 0.825
to change
The people in charge around here usually 0.628
get credit for others’ ideas
Table I. (continued )
Transformational
Latent variables Factor
and sources Measure items AVE CR CA MSV ASV loadings leadership
In this organization, we tend to stick to 0.553
tried and true ways
This place seems to be more concerned 0.603
with the status quo than with change
The reward system here encourages 0.717
innovation
This organization publicly recognizes 0.832
those who are innovative
The reward system here benefits mainly 0.834
those who do not rock the boat
Notes: AVE, average variance extracted; CR, composite reliability; CA, Cronbach’s α; MSV, maximum
shared variance; ASV, average shared variance Table I.
For controlling the effect of method bias, procedural remedies as recommended by

Podsakoff et al. (2012) were adopted such as data collection from different measures,
i.e., predictor measures from one person and criterion from another (see Podsakoff et al.,
2012 for further details). Likewise, to assess the threat of CMV, we employed Herman’s
single-factor approach as recommended by Podsakoff et al. (2003) using confirmatory factor
analyses to determine whether all the latent variables are explained through a single factor.
The results indicate that a χ2 for a single factor recorded was l2194 ¼ 2956:39 and λ2 for a
five-factor model was recorded as l2188 ¼ 345:32. Since the fit of a single-factor model is
significantly worse than the four-factor model (Dl26 ¼ 2611:07), we have evidence to
conclude that are no serious threats of CMV in this data. To examine the fit of the five-factor
model (transformational leadership, motivation to learn, task complexity, innovation climate
and innovative work behavior), we performed confirmatory factor analysis before testing
the hypotheses. The five-factor model tested on overall sample showed superior fit to the
data when compared to the four-factor model where motivation to learn and task complexity
were loaded on a single factor and the two-factor model where motivation to learn, task
complexity and innovation climate and the one-factor model where are all the items were
loaded on a single factor (see Table II).
Table III presents the means, standard deviations and inter-correlations among the
study variables. As can be seen, significant positive correlations were found between the
predictor, mediator and outcome variable, thereby, providing preliminary support for
the study hypotheses.
Structural model
The structural model in Figure 2 shows the influence of task complexity and innovation climate
on influencing innovative work behavior. It mirrors the R2 value, path coefficient and their
associated significance levels with respect to the p-value, with bootstrapping of 4,000 cases.
Model χ2/df CFI NFI TLI RMSEA
Five-factor model 2.218 0.942 0.926 0.938 0.052 Table II.

Four-factor model 2.739 0.863 0.742 0.827 0.068 Confirmatory factor
Three-factor model 3.621 0.726 0.653 0.674 0.113 analysis to establish
Two-factor model 4.739 0.618 0.513 0.573 0.135 the distinctiveness of
One-factor model 7.832 0.521 0.426 0.518 0.273 the constructs
EJIM The β-value in a path relationship exhibits the strength of the relationship between exogenous
and endogenous variables, and the R2 value indicates the overall predictive power of the
structural model.
Figure 2 reveals that the transformational leadership was a significant predictor of both
motivation to learn (β ¼ 0.436, p o0.01) and innovative work behavior (β ¼ 0.503, po0.01).
Motivation to learn also had a significant effect (β ¼ 0.363, p o0.001) on innovative work
behavior. While task complexity had a significant effect on motivation to learn (β ¼ 0.228,
p o0.001), task complexity (β ¼ 0.174, p ¼ 0.231) and innovation climate (β ¼ 0.073,
p ¼ 0.128) had no evident significant effect on innovative work behavior.
Regarding the coefficient of determination, the structural model estimates that task
complexity and transformational leadership explain 35.8 percent (R2) of the variance in
motivation to learn, whereas transformational leadership, task complexity and motivation
to learn explain 48.4 percent (R2) of the variance in innovative work behavior, excluding all
the insignificant path relationships. Cohen (1988) defined three threshold limits: R2 values
less than 0.13 are not significant; R2 values less than 0.26 are not tangent; and R2 values
greater than 0.26 are significant. This study estimates the minimum R2 value to be 0.358,
which is statistically significant.
Hypotheses testing
Table IV represents the path coefficients of transformational leadership to innovative work
behavior, transformational leadership to motivation to learn and motivation to learn to
innovative work behavior relationships. The estimated path coefficients (βs) are significant
S.No. Variables Mean (SD) 1 2 3 4 5
1. Transformational leadership 3.23 (0.49) 1

2. Motivation to learn 3.12 (0.67) 0.552** 1
Table III. 3. Task complexity 3.45 (0.73) 0.392** 0.423** 1
Mean, standard 4. Innovation climate 3.05 (0.44) 0.351** 0.296** 0.205** 1
deviation and inter- 5. Innovative work behavior 3.69 (0.52) 0.508** 0.586** 0.398** 0.311** 1
correlations Note: **Correlation is significant at 0.01 level (two-tailed)
Transformational
Leadership Task Complexity Innovation Climate
0.503** 0.073, p = 0.128
0.436** 0.174, p = 0.231 Team level
0.228*** Individual level
Innovative Work
Motivation to Learn
Behavior
Figure 2. R2 = 0.358 0.363***
R2 = 0.484
Structural model with
path coefficients
Notes: **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001
( p o0.05) before running mediation: 0.553 (Transformational leadership→Innovative work Transformational
behavior), 0.537 (Transformational leadership→Motivation to lead) and 0.571 (Motivation leadership
to lead→Innovative work behavior). The necessary condition is maintained for the running
mediation effect. The estimates of the effect of transformational leadership to innovative
work behavior are significant at p o0.001. Therefore, H1 is supported.
Table V represents the direct effects, standard error, indirect effects and total effects,
along with their significance levels. The Sobel (1982) test is also performed to measure the
significance of the indirect effect. The table exhibits the direct effect (of TL), indirect
effects (TL to MTL and MTL to IWB) and total effect on innovative work behavior after
the inclusion of the mediator (MTL). Regression coefficients of c ¼ 0.553 ( p o 0.001),
c ¼ 0.327 ( p o 0.001), a ¼ 0.537 ( p o 0.001) and b ¼ 0.378 ( p o 0.000) represent TL→IWB
(both c and c′), TL→MTL (a) and MTL→IWB (b), respectively. The estimated results
show that the indirect effect remains significant. However, the regression coefficient
decreases from 0.553 ( for c) to 0.327 ( for c′). Therefore, the results of the study indicate
that partial mediation occurs. To reaffirm the partial mediation, we also calculated the
variance accounted for (VAF), which is 0.375 and within the range of 0.20–0.80.
Further, Sobel’s (1982) test results showed that the indirect effect is also significant
at p o 0.001. We conclude that H2 is proven, given that motivation to learn
partially mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and innovative
work behavior.
Table VI represents the interactive effects of task complexity and innovation climate.
First, we tested the intervening effects of task complexity on the relationship between
transformational leadership and motivation to learn. We found that the moderating effect of
task complexity on the relationship between transformational leadership and motivation to
learn was significant (β ¼ 0.132, p o0.01). This result confirmed H3. Figure 3(a) reveals that
the relationship between transformational leadership and motivation to learn is stronger
when the task complexity is high rather than low. Second, task complexity was also used as
a moderating variable in the relationships between transformational leadership and
innovative work behavior and between motivation to learn and innovative work behavior.
We tested the impacts of the control variables on innovative work behavior in Model 1,
where no specific influence was found to be significant. Model 2 measured the effects of IVs,
such as transformational leadership and motivation to learn, on innovative work behavior.
The interaction effect of task complexity and transformational leadership on innovative
work behavior was significant (β ¼ 0.257, p o0.01), whereas the interaction effect of task
Direct relations Path coefficient (β) R2 t-value p-value
Transformational leadership→Innovative work behavior 0.553 0.336 9.483 0.000

Transformational leadership→Motivation to lead 0.537 0.318 8.628 0.000 Table IV.
Motivation to lead→Innovative work behavior 0.571 0.357 10.833 0.000 Result of unmediation
Direct relations β SE R2 Indirect effect Total effect VAF t-value Sobel’s test
TL→IWB (c) 0.553 0.057 0.336 11.836 z ¼ 4.274 p o0.001

TL→IWB (c′) 0.327 0.074 0.432 0.53b 0.375PM 5.935
TL→MTL (a) 0.537 0.063 10.047 Table V.
MTL→IWB (b) 0.378 0.038 0.203a 8.385 Result of mediation
Notes: PM, partial mediation; TL, transformational leadership; IWB, innovative work behavior; MTL, (MTL as a mediating
Motivation to lead. aIndirect effect ¼ coefficient (a×b); btotal effect ¼ c′+indirect effect variable)
EJIM Motivation to lead Innovative work behavior
Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Intercept 0.48 1.071

Transformational leadership (TL) 0.42*** 1.285
Task complexity (TC) 0.22** −0.058
TL × TC 0.132**
Intercept 2.163 1.043 1.849
Age −0.042 −0.037 −0.028
Gender −0.019 −0.063 −0.086
Education 0.092 −0.041 0.007
Experience 0.013 0.002 0.001
Rank 0.027 0.046 0.008
Transformational leadership 0.284*** 0.092
Motivation to learn (MTL) 0.335** −0.043
Task complexity 0.136* −0.361*
Innovation climate (IC) 0.083 −0.189
TL × TC 0.257**
TL × IC 0.139*
Table VI. MTL × TC −0.074
Hierarchical R2 38.62 39.98 2.76 42.57 48.38
regression analysis for ΔR 2
1.36 39.81 5.81
the interaction effects Notes: *po 0.05; **p o0.01; ***p o0.001
(a) (b)
3 3
High task
High task
complexity
Motivation to lead
complexity
2.5 Low task 2.5 Low task
complexity complexity
2 2
1.5 1.5
1.5 2 2.5 3 1.5 2 2.5 3
Transformational leadership Transformational leadership
(c) (d)
3 3
High task High innovation
complexity climate
Low task Low innovation
2.5 complexity 2.5 climate
2 2
Figure 3.
Moderating effects of
1.5 1.5
task complexity and
1.5 2 2.5 3 1.5 2 2.5 3
innovation climate
Motivation to lead Transformational leadership
complexity and motivation to learn on innovative work behavior was insignificant

( β ¼ −0.074, p o 0.01). Figure 3(b) demonstrates that the relationship between
transformational leadership and innovative work behavior is stronger when the task
complexity is high rather than low. However, Figure 3(c) demonstrates that the relationship
between motivation to learn and innovative work behavior is not affected by the presence of Transformational
a high or low level of task complexity. The moderating effect of innovation climate on the leadership
relationship between transformational leadership and innovative work behavior is found to
be significant (β ¼ 0.139, po0.05). Finally, regarding H6, Figure 3(d) also shows that the
positive association between motivation to learn and innovative work behavior strengthens
with higher levels of innovation climate.
Discussion
The increasing importance of innovative work behaviors in all types of business
organizations has fostered researchers to search out the mechanisms that stimulate
innovative work behaviors among employees. There is a consistent gap in the literature
about what constitute mediating and moderating effect on the process of predicting
employee innovative work behaviors through various antecedents. The present study
delves into the process of promoting employee innovative work behavior through
transformational leadership and motivation to learn, and the role of task complexity and
innovation climate in determining the strength of the relationship, from a multi-level

interactionist perspective. We found that transformational leadership substantially
influences employees’ innovative work behavior. This finding is in line with previous
studies that found a direct positive link between transformational leadership and innovative
work behaviors (Afsar and Masood, 2018; Wang et al., 2015).
Consistent with the assumptions of the IPC, the findings further revealed mediating
effects of motivation to learn and moderating effects of task complexity and innovation
climate on the relationship between transformational leadership and innovative work
behavior. This result reinforces the notion that transformational leadership has a stronger
influence on innovative work behavior when the mediator of motivation to learn is used
alone to predict the latter (Masood and Afsar, 2017). The use of motivation to learn as the
mediator strengthens the predictability of transformational leadership to explain innovative
work behavior from 0.336 (R2) to 0.432 (R2). From the tenets of transformational leadership,
it seems that leaders boost followers’ motivation to learn to enjoy and engage in
organizational creative efforts (Ma and Jiang, 2018). The results of this study are in line with
the results of research by Jyoti and Dev (2015) stating that transformational leadership has a
positive effect on motivation to learn.
Transformational leadership provides autonomy to employees to learn and creates a
conducive environment for individual learning. Al-Zu’bi et al. (2017) and Ayob and Zainal
(2011) also found that motivation to learn has a positive influence on employee creativity.
Motivation acts as a process of mobilizing one’s actions to fulfill a desired need or target’s
success. Differences in individual learning motivation will play an important role in
influencing employee creativity. When the employee’s cognitive abilities are high, these
employees have more resources used to process information. Aligned with the
assumptions of the interactionism perspective of creativity, this finding further
revealed the moderating effect of task complexity and innovation climate in
transformational leadership and innovative work behavior. Following the rationale of
the task characteristics model, employees feel a stronger identity with the work when task
seems complex and challenging.
When task complexity is high, the effect of motivation to learn on innovative work
behavior strengthens because employees perceive complex nature of the tasks as
challenging and inspiring (Dóci and Hofmans, 2015), and hence display greater motivation
to learn new knowledge, skills and abilities to perform creatively (Coelho et al., 2018).
According to the IPC, task complexity increases employees’ motivation to learn and inspires
them to become more involved and engaged (Afsar et al., 2014). When task complexity is
high, employees need a non-controlling leader, such as a transformational leader, to boost
EJIM their motivation to learn and make their jobs more interesting and enjoyable (Denti and
Hemlin, 2012). The interactive effect of task complexity and motivation to learn on
innovative work behavior is not significant. The relationship between motivation to learn
and innovative work behavior does not change when task complexity is used as a predictive
variable in the structured model.
We tested the moderating effects of innovation climate, and the results showed that high
innovation climate at the team level tends to escalate the positive relationship between
transformational leadership and innovative work behavior. Similarly, innovation climate
also impacts innovative work behavior when it is tied with transformational leadership
rather than when it is separated. This result is similar to the findings of Jaiswal and Dhar
(2015), Si and Wei (2012) and Peng and Rode (2010), in which support for innovation further
strengthened positive relationships between transformational leadership and innovative
work behavior. Wang et al. (2013) found that individuals perform better in terms of
creativity under transformational leaders when they perceive enough support for
innovation in terms of resource availability, motivation and recognition. Therefore, from the
IPC perspective, the findings ensured that creative behavior generates creative results, but
the final outcome should be considered as the interactions of individual-, unit- and
organizational-level contextual factors rather than a simple bi-polar outcome (Du et al., 2016;
Sarros et al., 2008).
Theoretical contributions
The findings of study contribute to the existing literature in the following ways. First,
despite the growing research on creative outcomes and innovation, few studies have focused
on innovative work behavior (Du et al., 2016; Masood and Afsar, 2017; Xie et al., 2016). The
findings of the study could help advance the knowledge of the interaction effects of
innovative work behavior from a multi-level perspective rather considering creative
outcomes alone through the exploration of the impact of transformational leadership on
employees’ innovative work behavior. While earlier research has justified using the
interactionist perspective to improve creative outcomes, the present study validates the
applicability of interactionist approach to increase employees’ innovative work behavior in
the organizational context, as it found that employees’ innovative work behavior is
influenced by transformational leadership and enhanced by employees’ motivation to learn,
as well as the task complexity of the job.
Second, the present study considers both transformational leadership and employees’
innovative work behavior as multi-dimensional behavioral phenomena and investigates the
impact of transformational leadership on creative processes, incorporating multi-level
contextual factors. The findings justified the relevance of multi-level analysis for
investigating employees’ behaviors from a holistic perspective, and we found that
employees’ innovative work behavior was the outcome of the interaction of individual-,
unit- and organizational-level factors (Ng, 2017). This study advances the existing
knowledge on individual innovation by adding new evidence to the understanding of
employees’ innovative work behavior, more specifically, on the dynamic interaction among
different factors in organizational contexts (Choi et al., 2016). Third, among different
leadership styles, research on the effectiveness of transformational leadership is still very
limited and inconclusive (Ma and Jiang, 2018). Top-down leadership styles, such as
paternalistic, benevolent and charismatic leadership, are more effective than value-based
leaderships, such as transformational leadership (Gumusluoglu et al., 2017).
The findings of this study add new empirical evidence on the effectiveness of
transformational leadership. Fourth, research in the organizational behavior and human
resource management domains has been accused of not sufficiently focusing on multi-level
analysis of the organizational behavioral phenomenon (Masood and Afsar, 2017).
Combining individual-, unit- and organizational-level variables, this multi-level study Transformational
assesses the applicability of the IPC to improve employees’ innovative work behavior in leadership
empirical settings. The findings of the study help managers to understand employees’
innovative work behavior from a holistic perspective (Amabile and Pratt, 2016).
Managerial implications
In addition to the theoretical contributions, the study offers practical implications for
managers, individuals and academics. The current research indicates that innovative work
behavior in the workplace is less inclined to emerge if the organization does not focus on
developing transformational leadership among managers. Findings demonstrate that
transformational leadership positively impacts employees’ innovative work behavior.
Therefore, managers could use the essence of transformational leadership to improve
employees’ innovative work behavior in the organizational context. Transformational
leaders on the foundation of optimism and enthusiasm, provide intellectual ingredients,
make themselves readily available to support their followers and encourage them to work
differently to discharge tasks. Thus, it is extremely important for managers to have a sound
understanding about the theoretical and practical relationships that exist between
transformational leadership and employee innovative work behavior. Managers should
provide autonomy, growth opportunities and skill variety in the workplace to motivate
employees intrinsically to learn new things at workplace, which will increase their
engagement in creative and innovative pursuits. Organizations can benefit from combining
interventions and practices that influence the work task design and the perception of
employees about how complex a task is. Providing inspirational motivation to employees to
try out challenging tasks and not being afraid of the outcomes of their ideas, innovative
work behaviors can be enhanced quite considerably.
Limitations and future research

Despite this study’s theoretical and practical significance, it also has underlying
limitations, which show avenues for further research in similar and different contexts.
The sample used in this study consisted of employees working in organizations within the
geographical boundaries of Pakistan and is relatively small which may limit
the generalizability and external validity of the findings. The present study used cross-
sectional data to investigate causal inferences (Henker et al., 2015). Future researchers are
urged to employ a longitudinal or experimental research design to overcome the
concern for causality relationships. The use of self-reported questionnaires might raise
concern because informants are more likely to provide socially desirable answers than
the most accurate responses. In our study, we developed the research model using prior
constructs developed in western contexts. As emphasized by Zhang and Bartol (2010), we
tested the model and found empirical support in an Asian context. Future studies in
similar/dissimilar contexts in other parts of the world will increase the generalizability of
these findings. Finally, while this study takes into account transformational leadership as
a facilitator of innovative work behavior, it could not take into account a wide
array of other leadership styles that can potentially enhance employee innovative work
behaviors. Past research has, for instance, identified empowering leadership, inclusive
leadership and authentic leadership as leadership styles that promote innovative
behaviors (Valsania et al., 2016; Zhang and Bartol, 2010). It is recommended that
future studies test how these leadership styles enhance innovative work behavior.
In addition, empowerment of followers has been highlighted as an essential ingredient to
increase innovative work behavior – future research may thus consider the role of
psychological empowerment.
EJIM References
Afsar, B. and Masood, M. (2018), “Transformational leadership, creative self-efficacy, trust in
supervisor, uncertainty avoidance, and innovative work behavior of nurses”, The Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 36-61.
Afsar, B., Badir, Y.F. and Bin Saeed, B. (2014), “Transformational leadership and innovative work
behavior”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 114 No. 8, pp. 1270-1300.
Afsar, B., Cheema, S. and Bin Saeed, B. (2018), “Do nurses display innovative work behavior when their
values match with hospitals’ values?”, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 21
No. 1, pp. 157-171.
Al-Zu’bi, M.A.A., Omar-Fauzee, M.S. and Kaur, A. (2017), “The relationship between creative thinking
and motivation to learn creative thinking among preschoolers in Jordan”, European Journal of
Education Studies, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 426-442.
Amabile, T.M. (1983), “The social psychology of creativity: a componential conceptualization”,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 357-376.
Amabile, T.M. and Pratt, M.G. (2016), “The dynamic componential model of creativity and innovation
in organizations: making progress, making meaning”, Research in Organizational Behavior,

Vol. 36, pp. 157-183.
Anning-Dorson, T. (2017), “How much and when to innovate: the nexus of environmental pressures,
innovation and service firm performance”, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 20
No. 4, pp. 599-619.
Auernhammer, J. and Hall, H. (2014), “Organizational culture in knowledge creation, creativity and
innovation: towards the Freiraum model”, Journal of Information Science, Vol. 40 No. 2,
pp. 154-166.
Ayob, A. and Zainal, S.R.M. (2011), “The role of psychological empowerment on employees creativity:
the development of conceptual framework”, Journal of International Conference on Economics,
Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 118-122.
Bakker, A.B. and Demerouti, E. (2007), “The job demands-resources model: state of the art”, Journal of
Managerial Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 309-328.
Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B. (1997), Full Range Leadership Development: Manual for the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire, Mind Garden, Palo Alto, CA.
Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1994), “Transformational leadership and organizational culture”,
The International Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 17 Nos 3–4, pp. 541-554.
Bednall, T.C., Rafferty, A.E., Shipton, H., Sanders, K., Jackson and C.J. (2018), “Innovative behaviour:
how much transformational leadership do you need?”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 29
No. 4, pp. 796-816, doi: 10.1111/1467-8551.12275.
Birdi, K., Allan, C. and Warr, P. (1997), “Correlates and perceived outcomes of 4 types of employee
development activity”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 82 No. 6, pp. 845-857.
Bligh, M.C., Pearce, C.L. and Kohles, J.C. (2006), “The importance of self-and shared leadership in team
based knowledge work: a meso-level model of leadership dynamics”, Journal of Managerial
Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 296-318.
Braun, S., Peus, C., Weisweiler, S. and Frey, D. (2013), “Transformational leadership, job satisfaction,
and team performance: a multilevel mediation model of trust”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 24
No. 1, pp. 270-283.
Bunderson, J.S., Van Der Vegt, G.S., Cantimur, Y. and Rink, F. (2016), “Different views of hierarchy and
why they matter: hierarchy as inequality or as cascading influence”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 59 No. 4, pp. 1265-1289.
Chae, H. and Choi, J.N. (2018), “Contextualizing the effects of job complexity on creativity and task
performance: extending job design theory with social and contextual contingencies”, Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 91 No. 2, pp. 316-339.
Chen, A.S.Y. and Hou, Y.H. (2016), “The effects of ethical leadership, voice behavior and climates for Transformational
innovation on creativity: a moderated mediation examination”, The Leadership Quarterly, leadership
Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 1-13.
Chen, G. and Bliese, P.D. (2002), “The role of different levels of leadership in predicting self-and
collective efficacy: evidence for discontinuity”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 3,
pp. 549-556.
Chen, G., Farh, J.L., Campbell-Bush, E.M., Wu, Z. and Wu, X. (2013), “Teams as innovative systems:
multilevel motivational antecedents of innovation in R&D teams”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 98 No. 6, pp. 1018-1032.
Choi, S.B., Kim, K., Ullah, S.E. and Kang, S.W. (2016), “How transformational leadership facilitates
innovative behavior of Korean workers: examining mediating and moderating processes”,
Personnel Review, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 459-479.
Coelho, F.J., Lages, C.R. and Sousa, C.M. (2018), “Personality and the creativity of frontline service
employees: linear and curvilinear effects”, The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, Vol. 29 No. 17, pp. 2580-2607.
Cohen, J. (1988), Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed., Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
Colquitt, J.A., LePine, J.A. and Noe, R.A. (2000), “Toward an integrative theory of training motivation: a
meta-analytic path analysis of 20 years of research”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85 No. 5,
pp. 678-693.
Cummings, A. and Oldham, G.R. (1997), “Enhancing creativity: managing work contexts for the high
potential employee”, California Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 22-38.
De Jong, J. and Den Hartog, D. (2010), “Measuring innovative work behaviour”, Creativity and
Innovation Management, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 23-36.
De Jong, J.P.J. and Den Hartog, D.N. (2007), “How leaders influence employees’ innovative behaviour”,
European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 41-64.
Denti, L. and Hemlin, S. (2012), “Leadership and innovation in organizations: a systematic review of
factors that mediate or moderate the relationship”, International Journal of Innovation
Dóci, E. and Hofmans, J. (2015), “Task complexity and transformational leadership: the mediating role
of leaders’ state core self-evaluations”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 436-447.
Dong, Y., Bartol, K.M., Zhang, Z.X. and Li, C. (2017), “Enhancing employee creativity via individual
skill development and team knowledge sharing: influences of dual‐focused transformational
leadership”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 439-458.
Du, Y., Kim, P.H. and Aldrich, H.E. (2016), “Hybrid strategies, dysfunctional competition, and new
venture performance in transition economies”, Management and Organization Review, Vol. 12
No. 3, pp. 469-501.
Farr, J.L., Hofmann, D.A. and Ringenbach, K.L. (1993), “Goal orientation and action control theory:
implications for industrial and organizational psychology”, International Review of Industrial
and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 193-232.
Frink, D.D. and Ferris, G.R. (1998), “Accountability, impression management, and goal setting in the
performance evaluation process”, Human Relations, Vol. 51 No. 10, pp. 1259-1283.
Golden, J.H. III and Shriner, M. (2017), “Examining relationships between transformational leadership
and employee creative performance: the moderator effects of organizational culture”,
The Journal of Creative Behavior, available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.216
Gong, Y., Huang, J.-C. and Farh, J.-L. (2009), “Employee learning orientation, transformational
leadership, and employee creativity: the mediating role of employee creative self-efficacy”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 52 No. 4, pp. 765-778.
EJIM Gorman, C.A., Meriac, J.P., Overstreet, B.L., Apodaca, S., McIntyre, A.L., Park, P. and Godbey, J.N.
(2012), “A meta-analysis of the regulatory focus nomological network: work-related antecedents
and consequences”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 80 No. 1, pp. 160-172.
Gumusluoglu, L., Karakitapoğlu-Aygün, Z. and Scandura, T.A. (2017), “A multilevel examination of
benevolent leadership and innovative behavior in R&D contexts: a social identity approach”,
Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 479-493.
Hair, J., Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L. and Kuppelwieser, V.G. (2014), “Partial least squares structural
equation modeling (PLS-SEM): an emerging tool in business research”, European Business
Review, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 106-121.
Henker, N., Sonnentag, S. and Unger, D. (2015), “Transformational leadership and employee creativity:
the mediating role of promotion focus and creative process engagement”, Journal of Business
and Psychology, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 235-247.
Hogan, S.J. and Coote, L.V. (2014), “Organizational culture, innovation, and performance: a test of
Schein’s model”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 67 No. 8, pp. 1609-1621.
Hughes, D.J., Lee, A., Tian, A.W., Newman, A. and Legood, A. (2018), “Leadership, creativity, and
innovation: a critical review and practical recommendations”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 29
No. 5, pp. 549-569, doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.03.001.
Jaiswal, N.K. and Dhar, R.L. (2015), “Transformational leadership, innovation climate, creative self-
efficacy and employee creativity: a multilevel study”, International Journal of Hospitality
Janssen, O. (2000), “Job demands, perceptions of effort‐reward fairness and innovative
work behaviour”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 73 No. 3,
pp. 287-302.
Janssen, O., Van de Vliert, E. and West, M. (2004), “The bright and dark sides of individual and group
innovation: a special issue introduction”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25 No. 2,
pp. 129-145.
Jeng, S.P. (2018), “Enhancing the creativity of frontline employees: the effects of job complexity and
customer orientation”, The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 29 No. 1,
pp. 387-408.
Jiang, W. and Gu, Q. (2016), “How abusive supervision and abusive supervisory climate influence
salesperson creativity and sales team effectiveness in China”, Management Decision, Vol. 54
No. 2, pp. 455-475.
Johannessen, J.A., Olsen, B. and Lumpkin, G.T. (2001), “Innovation as newness: what is new, how new,
and new to whom?”, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 20-31.
Jyoti, J. and Dev, M. (2015), “The impact of transformational leadership on employee creativity: the role
of learning orientation”, Journal of Asia Business Studies, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 78-98.
Kark, R., Van Dijk, D. and Vashdi, D.R. (2018), “Motivated or demotivated to be creative: the role
of self‐regulatory focus in transformational and transactional leadership processes”,
Applied Psychology, Vol. 67 No. 1, pp. 186-224.
Khaola, P. and Coldwell, D. (2019), “Explaining how leadership and justice influence employee
innovative behaviours”, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 193-212.
Koseoglu, G., Liu, Y. and Shalley, C.E. (2017), “Working with creative leaders: exploring the
relationship between supervisors’ and subordinates’ creativity”, The Leadership Quarterly,
Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 798-811.
Kozlowski, S.W. and Hattrup, K. (1992), “A disagreement about within-group agreement: disentangling
issues of consistency versus consensus”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 77 No. 2,
pp. 161-176.
Lantz, A. (2011), “Teamwork on the line can pay off down the line”, Journal of Workplace Learning,
Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 75-96.
Leithwood, K. and Jantzi, D. (2006), “Transformational school leadership for large-scale reform: effects Transformational
on students, teachers, and their classroom practices”, School Effectiveness and School leadership
Improvement, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 201-227.
Ma, X. and Jiang, W. (2018), “Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, and employee
creativity in entrepreneurial firms”, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 54 No. 3,
pp. 302-324, doi: 10.1177/0021886318764346.
Mahmood, M., Uddin, M.A. and Fan, L. (2019), “The influence of transformational leadership on
employees’ creative process engagement: a multi-level analysis”, Management Decision,
Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 741-764.
Maloni, M.J., Scherrer, C.R., Campbell, S.M. and Boyd, E. (2016), “Attracting students to the field of
logistics, Part 1”, Transportation Journal, Vol. 55 No. 4, pp. 420-442.
Marshall, J.C. (1987), “Examination of a learning style topology”, Research in Higher Education, Vol. 26
No. 4, pp. 417-429.
Martín-de Castro, G., Delgado-Verde, M., Navas-López, J.E. and Cruz-González, J. (2013), “The
moderating role of innovation culture in the relationship between knowledge assets and product
innovation”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 80 No. 2, pp. 351-363.
Martins, E.C. and Terblanche, F. (2003), “Building organisational culture that stimulates creativity and
innovation”, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 64-74.
Masood, M. and Afsar, B. (2017), “Transformational leadership and innovative work behavior among
nursing staff”, Nursing Inquiry, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 1-14.
Maynard, D.C. and Hakel, M.D. (1997), “Effects of objective and subjective task complexity on
performance”, Human Performance, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 303-330.
Muenjohn, N. and Armstrong, A. (2008), “Evaluating the structural validity of the multifactor
leadership questionnaire (MLQ), capturing the leadership factors of transformational-
transactional leadership”, Contemporary Management Research, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 3-14.
Müller, E., Pintor, S. and Wegge, J. (2018), “Shared leadership effectiveness: perceived task complexity
as moderator”, Team Performance Management: An International Journal, Vol. 24 Nos 5–6,
pp. 298-315.
Ng, T.W. (2017), “Transformational leadership and performance outcomes: analyses of multiple
mediation pathways”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 385-417.
Noe, R.A. and Schmitt, N. (1986), “The influence of trainee attitudes on training effectiveness: test of a
model”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 497-523.
Omri, W. (2015), “Innovative behavior and venture performance of SMEs: the moderating effect of
environmental dynamism”, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 18 No. 2,
pp. 195-217.
Ostroff, C., Kinicki, A.J. and Tamkins, M.M. (2003), “Organizational climate and culture”, in Borman, W.C.,
Ilgen, D.R. and Klimoski, R.J. (Eds), Comprehensive Handbook of Psychology: Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 12, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 365-402.
Parzefall, M.R., Seeck, H. and Leppänen, A. (2008), “Employee innovativeness in organizations: a
review of the antecedents”, Finnish Journal of Business Economics, Vol. 2 No. 8, pp. 165-182.
Payne, S.C., Youngcourt, S.S. and Beaubien, J.M. (2007), “A meta-analytic examination of the goal
orientation nomological net”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 1, pp. 128-137.
Pearce, C.L. (2004), “The future of leadership: combining vertical and shared leadership to transform
knowledge work”, Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 47-57.
Peng, W. and Rode, J.C. (2010), “Transformational leadership and follower creativity: the moderating
effects of identification with leaders and organizational climate”, Human Relations, Vol. 63 No. 8,
pp. 105-128.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B. and Bommer, W.H. (1996), “Transformational leader behaviors and
substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment, trust, and
organizational citizenship behaviors”, Journal of Management, Vol. 22 No. 2 No. 5, pp. 259-298.
EJIM Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2012), “Sources of method bias in social science
research and recommendations on how to control it”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 63,
pp. 539-569.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 4, pp. 879-903.
Poutanen, P., Soliman, W. and Ståhle, P. (2016), “The complexity of innovation: an assessment and
review of the complexity perspective”, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 19
No. 2, pp. 189-213.
Qu, R., Janssen, O. and Shi, K. (2015), “Transformational leadership and follower creativity: the
mediating role of follower relational identification and the moderating role of leader creativity
expectations”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 286-299.
Rank, J., Pace, V.L. and Frese, M. (2004), “Three avenues for future research on creativity, innovation,
and initiative”, Applied Psychology, Vol. 53 No. 4, pp. 518-528.
Resick, C.J., Murase, T., Randall, K.R. and DeChurch, L.A. (2014), “Information elaboration and team
performance: examining the psychological origins and environmental contingencies”,

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 124 No. 2, pp. 165-176.
Rhee, J., Park, T. and Lee, D.H. (2010), “Drivers of innovativeness and performance for innovative SMEs
in South Korea: mediation of learning orientation”, Technovation, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 65-75.
Rosing, K., Frese, M. and Bausch, A. (2011), “Explaining the heterogeneity of the leadership-innovation
relationship: ambidextrous leadership”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 956-974.
Saeed, B.B., Afsar, B., Cheema, S. and Javed, F. (2019), “Leader-member exchange and innovative work
behavior: the role of creative process engagement, core self-evaluation, and domain knowledge”,
European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 105-124.
Sarros, J.C., Cooper, B.K. and Santora, J.C. (2008), “Building a climate for innovation through
transformational leadership and organizational culture”, Journal of Leadership & Organizational
Studies, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 145-158.
Sarros, J.C., Cooper, B.K. and Santora, J.C. (2011), “Leadership vision, organizational culture, and
support for innovation in not-for-profit and for-profit organizations”, Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 291-309.
Sattayaraksa, T. and Boon-itt, S. (2018), “The roles of CEO transformational leadership and
organizational factors on product innovation performance”, European Journal of Innovation
Savelsbergh, C., Gevers, J.M., van der Heijden, B.I. and Poell, R.F. (2012), “Team role stress:
relationships with team learning and performance in project teams”, Group & Organization
Scott, S.G. and Bruce, R.A. (1994), “Determinants of innovative behavior: a path model of individual
innovation in the workplace”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 580-607.
Shalley, C.E. and Gilson, L.L. (2004), “What leaders need to know: a review of social and contextual
factors that can foster or hinder creativity”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 33-53.
Shanker, R., Bhanugopan, R., van der Heijden, B.I.J.M. and Farrell, M. (2017), “Organizational climate
for innovation and organizational performance: the mediating effect of innovative work
behavior”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 100, pp. 67-77.
Shin, S.J., Yuan, F. and Zhou, J. (2017), “When perceived innovation job requirement increases employee
innovative behavior: a sensemaking perspective”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 38
No. 1, pp. 68-86.
Si, S. and Wei, F. (2012), “Transformational and transactional leaderships, empowerment climate, and
innovation performance: a multilevel analysis in the Chinese context”, European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 299-320.
Sobel, M.E. (1982), “Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models”, Transformational
Sociological Methodology, Vol. 13, pp. 290-312. leadership
Somech, A. and Khalaili, A. (2014), “Team boundary activity: its mediating role in the relationship
between structural conditions and team innovation”, Group & Organization Management,
Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 274-299.
Sönmez, B. and Yıldırım, A. (2019), “The mediating role of autonomy in the effect of pro-innovation
climate and supervisor supportiveness on innovative behavior of nurses”, European Journal of
Innovation Management, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 41-58.
Speier, C., Vessey, I. and Valacich, J.S. (2003), “The effects of interruptions, task complexity, and
information presentation on computer‐supported decision‐making performance”, Decision
Sciences, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 771-797.
Stock, R.M., Six, B. and Zacharias, N.A. (2013), “Linking multiple layers of innovation-oriented
corporate culture, product program innovativeness, and business performance: a contingency
approach”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 283-299.
Suifan, T.S., Abdallah, A.B. and Al Janini, M. (2018), “The impact of transformational leadership on
employees’ creativity: the mediating role of perceived organizational support”, Management

Research Review, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 113-132.
Sujan, H., Weitz, B.A. and Kumar, N. (1994), “Learning orientation, working smart, and effective
selling”, The Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 39-52.
Sung, S.Y., Antefelt, A. and Choi, J.N. (2017), “Dual effects of job complexity on proactive and
responsive creativity: moderating role of employee ambiguity tolerance”, Group & Organization
Truijen, K.J.P., Sleegers, P.J.C., Meelissen, M.R. and Nieuwenhuis, A.F.M. (2013), “What makes teacher
teams in a vocational education context effective? A qualitative study of managers’ view on
team working”, Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 58-73.
Tse, H.H., To, M.L. and Chiu, W.C. (2018), “When and why does transformational leadership influence
employee creativity? The roles of personal control and creative personality”, Human Resource
Uhl-Bien, M. and Arena, M. (2018), “Leadership for organizational adaptability: a theoretical synthesis
and integrative framework”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 89-104.
Urbach, T., Fay, D. and Goral, A. (2010), “Extending the job design perspective on individual
innovation: exploring the effect of group reflexivity”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Uusi-Kakkuri, P., Brandt, T. and Kultalahti, S. (2016), “Transformational leadership in leading young
innovators – a subordinate’s perspective”, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 19
No. 4, pp. 547-567.
Valsania, S.E., Moriano, J.A. and Molero, F. (2016), “Authentic leadership and intrapreneurial behavior:
cross-level analysis of the mediator effect of organizational identification and empowerment”,
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 131-152.
VandeWalle, D. (1997), “Development and validation of a work domain goal orientation instrument”,
Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 57 No. 6, pp. 995-1015.
VandeWalle, D. and Cummings, L.L. (1997), “A test of the influence of goal orientation on the feedback-
seeking process”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 82 No. 3, pp. 390-403.
Vessey, W.B., Barrett, J.D., Mumford, M.D., Johnson, G. and Litwiller, B. (2014), “Leadership of
highly creative people in highly creative fields: a historiometric study of scientific leaders”,
The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 672-691.
Wang, C., Rodan, S., Fruin, M. and Xu, X. (2014), “Knowledge networks, collaboration networks, and
exploratory innovation”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 484-514.
EJIM Wang, P., Rode, J.C., Shi, K., Luo, Z. and Chen, W. (2013), “A workgroup climate perspective on the
relationships among transformational leadership, workgroup diversity, and employee
creativity”, Group & Organization Management, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 334-360.
Wang, S. and Noe, R.A. (2010), “Knowledge sharing: a review and directions for future research”,
Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 115-131.
Wang, X.H., Fang, Y., Qureshi, I. and Janssen, O. (2015), “Understanding employee innovative behavior:
integrating the social network and leader–member exchange perspectives”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 403-420.
Weisberg, R.W. (1999), “Creativity and knowledge: a challenge to theories”, in Sternberg, R.J. (Eds),
Handbook of Creativity, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, pp. 226-250.
West, M.A. (2002), “Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: an integrative model of creativity and
innovation implementation in work groups”, Applied Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 3, pp. 355-387.
Widmann, A. and Mulder, R.H. (2018), “Team learning behaviours and innovative work behaviour in
work teams”, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 501-520.
Willis, S., Clarke, S. and O’connor, E. (2017), “Contextualizing leadership: transformational leadership
and management‐by‐exception‐active in safety‐critical contexts”, Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 3, pp. 281-305.
Wojtczuk-Turek, A. and Turek, D. (2015), “Innovative behaviour in the workplace: the role of HR
flexibility, individual flexibility and psychological capital: the case of Poland”, European Journal
of Innovation Management, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 397-419.
Woodman, R.W., Sawyer, J.E. and Griffin, R.W. (1993), “Toward a theory of organizational creativity”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 293-321.
Xie, B., Xia, M., Xin, X. and Zhou, W. (2016), “Linking calling to work engagement and subjective career
success: the perspective of career construction theory”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 94,
pp. 70-78.
Yeoh, K.K. and Mahmood, R. (2013), “The relationship between pro-innovation organizational climate,
leader-member exchange and innovative work behavior: a study among the knowledge workers
of the knowledge intensive business services in Malaysia”, Business Management Dynamics,
Vol. 2 No. 8, pp. 15-30.
Yu, C., Yu, T.F. and Yu, C.C. (2013), “Knowledge sharing, organizational climate, and innovative
behavior: a cross-level analysis of effects”, Social Behavior and Personality: An International
Journal, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 143-156.
Yu, M.C., Zheng, X.T., Wang, G.G., Dai, Y. and Yan, B. (2018), “When does motivation to learn reduce
innovative behavior? An examination of mediated-moderation model”, Baltic Journal of
Yuan, L., Zhang, L. and Tu, Y. (2018), “When a leader is seen as too humble: a curvilinear mediation
model linking leader humility to employee creative process engagement”, Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 468-481.
Yukl, G. (2009), “Leading organizational learning: reflections on theory and research”, The Leadership
Quarterly, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 49-53.
Zhang, X. and Bartol, K.M. (2010), “The influence of creative process engagement on employee
creative performance and overall job performance: a curvilinear assessment”, Journal of Applied
Zhang, X. and Kwan, H.K. (2018), “Empowering leadership and team creativity: the roles of team learning
behavior, team creative efficacy, and team task complexity”, Creative Leadership, Routledge,
New York, NY, pp. 95-121.
Zuraik, A. and Kelly, L. (2019), “The role of CEO transformational leadership and innovation
climate in exploration and exploitation”, European Journal of Innovation Management,
Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 84-104.
Further reading Transformational
Klein, H.J., Noe, R.A. and Wang, C. (2006), “Motivation to learn and course outcomes: the impact of leadership
delivery mode, learning goal orientation, and perceived barriers and enablers”, Personnel
Shalley, C.E., Gilson, L.L. and Blum, T.C. (2009), “Interactive effects of growth need strength, work
context, and job complexity on self-reported creative performance”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 489-505.
Somech, A. and Drach-Zahavy, A. (2007), “Schools as team-based organizations: a structure-process-
outcomes approach”, Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 305-319.
About the authors

Dr Bilal Afsar received the PhD Degree in Leadership and Innovation Management from the School of
Management at Asian Institute of Technology, Thailand. He has published in renowned journals and
his research interests include leadership, organizational psychology and human resource management.
Dr Bilal Afsar is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: afsarbilalait@gmail.com
Dr Waheed Ali Umrani, works as Assistant Professor, Department of Business Administration,
Sukkur IBA University, Sindh, Pakistan. Dr Umrani has more than 10 years teaching experience.
He has been training professionals on teaching through case method, case development, quantitative
analysis through SPSS and PLS–SEM in Malaysia, UAE and Pakistan. His areas of research
are organizational behavior, leadership and human resource management.
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

Ejim 12 2018 0257

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Ejim 12 2018 0257

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

European Journal of Innovation Management

Transformational leadership and innovative work behavior: The role of motivation

Downloaded on: 21 June 2019, At: 06:35 (PT)

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

MUHAMMAD FAISAL JAMAL BIN

Transformational leadership Transformational

transformational leadership influence on employees’ innovative work behavior. While many

Literature review and hypotheses development

visionary initiatives, functional expertise, individualized mentoring, supportive culture and

Motivation to learn as a mediating factor of innovative work behavior

Moderating role of task complexity

Innovation climate as a moderating variable

Innovative work behavior

having a collective sense of mission

How often this employee makes important 0.733

(Noe and Schmitt, 1986) emphasized in the job

For controlling the effect of method bias, procedural remedies as recommended by

Model χ2/df CFI NFI TLI RMSEA

Five-factor model 2.218 0.942 0.926 0.938 0.052 Table II.

which is statistically significant.

S.No. Variables Mean (SD) 1 2 3 4 5

1. Transformational leadership 3.23 (0.49) 1

0.503** 0.073, p = 0.128

0.436** 0.174, p = 0.231 Team level

0.228*** Individual level

Direct relations Path coefficient (β) R2 t-value p-value

Transformational leadership→Innovative work behavior 0.553 0.336 9.483 0.000

TL→IWB (c) 0.553 0.057 0.336 11.836 z ¼ 4.274 p o0.001

Intercept 0.48 1.071

complexity and motivation to learn on innovative work behavior was insignificant

innovation climate in determining the strength of the relationship, from a multi-level

Limitations and future research

in organizations: making progress, making meaning”, Research in Organizational Behavior,

performance: examining the psychological origins and environmental contingencies”,

employees’ creativity: the mediating role of perceived organizational support”, Management

About the authors

You might also like