Industrial Management & Data Systems: Article Information

Industrial Management & Data Systems
Transformational leadership and innovative work behavior

Bilal Afsar Yuosre F. Badir Bilal Bin Saeed
Article information:
To cite this document:
Bilal Afsar Yuosre F. Badir Bilal Bin Saeed , (2014),"Transformational leadership and innovative work
behavior", Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 114 Iss 8 pp. 1270 - 1300
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-05-2014-0152
Downloaded on: 15 January 2015, At: 11:44 (PT)
Downloaded by University of Pennsylvania At 11:44 15 January 2015 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 174 other documents.

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 497 times since 2014*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Millissa F.Y. Cheung, Chi-Sum Wong, (2011),"Transformational leadership, leader support, and employee
creativity", Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 32 Iss 7 pp. 656-672 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437731111169988
Shelley D. Dionne, Francis J. Yammarino, Leanne E. Atwater, William D. Spangler, (2004),"Transformational
leadership and team performance", Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 17 Iss 2 pp.
177-193 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09534810410530601
Russell P. Guay, (2013),"The relationship between leader fit and transformational leadership", Journal of
Managerial Psychology, Vol. 28 Iss 1 pp. 55-73 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683941311298869
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 210680 []
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.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0263-5577.htm
IMDS
114,8
Transformational leadership and
innovative work behavior
Bilal Afsar and Yuosre F. Badir
School of Management, Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok, Thailand, and
1270
Bilal Bin Saeed
Received 18 May 2014 Dongling School of Economics and Management,
Revised 3 August 2014 University of Science and Technology, Beijing, China
Accepted 8 August 2014
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore the mediating role of psychological empowerment
and the moderating role of self-construal (independent and interdependent) on the relationship
between transformational leadership and employees’ innovative work behavior (IWB).
Design/methodology/approach – A total of 639 followers and 87 leaders filled out questionnaires
from cross-industry sample of five most innovative companies of China. Structural equation modeling
was used to analyze the relations.
Findings – Results revealed that psychological empowerment mediated the relationship between
transformational leadership and IWB. The research established that transformational leadership
positively influences IWB which includes idea generation as well as idea implementation. The results
also showed that the relationship between transformational leadership and IWB was stronger among
employees with a higher interdependent self-construal and a lower independent self-construal.
Originality/value – This study adds to IWB literature by empirically testing the moderating
role of self-construal and the mediating role of psychological empowerment on transformational
leadership-IWB link.
Keywords Transformational leadership, Self-construal, Psychological empowerment,
Innovative work behaviour
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
In today’s highly competitive and technologically advanced world, innovation plays
a critical role (Smith and Tushman, 2005). Innovation by employees is one of the
best ways to foster innovation and organizational success (Mytelka and Smith, 2002;
Van de Ven, 1986). To motivate employees to innovate in intense knowledge-based
work contexts, the role of managers as leaders has received attention of researchers
and practitioners. Thus researchers have found increasing interest in discovering ways
to persuade employees at individual levels to display creative behaviors through
transformational leadership (Piccolo and Colquitt, 2006; Podsakoff et al., 2003; Wang
et al., 2005). However, how transformational leaders affect innovative work behaviors
(IWBs) of employees has not been adequately researched (Gong et al., 2009; Jung et al.,
2003). While researchers have studied the relation between individual perceptions
of transformational leadership and employees’ creativity, which is first stage of
innovation (Hyypiä and Parjanen, 2013; Malloch, 2014), minimal attention has been
given to the effect of transformational leadership on employees’ IWB.
Industrial Management & Data A review of leadership-innovation literature reveals two issues. First, the lack of
Systems
Vol. 114 No. 8, 2014
systematic attention to the impact of transformational leadership on employee’s IWB
pp. 1270-1300 is especially surprising given that ideas are useless unless used (Levitt, 1963) and
r Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0263-5577
that employee’s innovation, particularly in knowledge-intensive contexts, is widely
DOI 10.1108/IMDS-05-2014-0152 recognized as being critical to the growth and competitiveness of organizations
(Fiol, 1996; Shipton et al., 2006). An individual’s perception of supervisors’ Transformational
transformational leadership is closely related to his/her desired outcomes (e.g. Braun leadership and
et al., 2013; Chun et al., 2009; Liu et al., 2011). Second, it is very critical to understand
follower’s psychological processes which translate leader behavior into follower IWB
action (Van Knippenberg et al., 2004). This study will help to understand the role of
follower psychological empowerment and self-concept and identity on the relationship
between transformational leadership and IWB. 1271
Employees’ IWB refers to the development and initiation of novel and useful
ideas and implementing these ideas into new and improved products, services or
ways of doing things (Baer, 2012; Kanter, 1988; van de Ven, 1986). This is in line with
previous research, which differentiated between idea generation phase and idea
implementation phase and combined these two phases in one construct named
innovation behavior (Baer, 2012; Baer and Frese, 2003; Scott and Bruce, 1998;
Somech and Drach-Zahavy, 2013).

Clearly, there is a need to understand the mechanisms and processes through which
transformational leaders influence creativity enhancement behavior of their
subordinates (Bass, 1999). Some researchers believe that prior research has not
investigated the impact of the influential processes of employee’s psychological
mechanisms and self-concepts on transformational leadership-creativity linkage
(Shalley et al., 2004; Shin and Zhou, 2003). One particularly promising psychological
mechanism which may mediate the relationship between transformational leadership
and creativity is psychological empowerment – an employee’s cognitive state
characterized by increased intrinsic task motivation, perceptions of competence and
self-determination to initiate and implement work behaviors (Deci et al., 1989).
Psychological empowerment is an individual’s perception of autonomy and power
that he/she can instigate novel and innovative positive changes (Ramamoorthy et al.,
2005). The possible mediation effect of PE in the relationship between transformational
leadership and IWB is based on the importance of PE in predicting employee creativity
(Zhang and Bartol, 2010). PE increases creative process engagement and intrinsic
motivation (Thomas and Velthouse, 1990; Zhang and Bartol, 2010). Since creativity
is an essential element of IWB, therefore we propose that PE is likely to impact
TL-IWB linkage.
Bass (1999) emphasized that since transformational leaders inspire and motivate
employees to display positive work behaviors, psychological empowerment which
is a motivational construct mediates the effects of transformational leadership
on employee’s work outcomes. Hennessey and Amabile (2010) further confirmed that
employee’s intrinsic motivational state created through psychological empowerment
by managers is pivotal for creative tasks and IWB. Many researchers used psychological
empowerment as a mediator to determine the impact of transformational leadership
on various employee attitudes such as organizational commitment (Avolio et al., 2004),
job satisfaction (Barroso Castro et al., 2008; Seibert et al., 2011), workplace aggression
(Hepworth and Towler, 2004) and motivation (Epitropaki and Martin, 2005; Maynard
et al., 2012). However, there is a paucity of research on the analysis of mediating
effects of psychological empowerment on the relationship between transformational
leadership and work outcome with respect to IWB. This research examines the effect of
empowerment on IWB through transformational leadership.
Similarly, another psychological mechanism which has been found to impact the
effect of transformational leadership on follower’s behavior is employee’s self-construal
in terms of independent or interdependent relationship to others (Gabriel et al., 2007).
IMDS Self-construal is defined in terms of personalized characteristics and the extent to
114,8 which individuals conceptualize themselves as separate and distinguished from
others (the independent self-construal) or connected to their social context (the
collective or interdependent self-construal). Transformational leadership motivates
followers to surpass their own personal values and self-interest for the sake of the
organization (Bass, 1985, p. 357; Jung, 2001).
1272 Self-construal factors provide a general direction for organizational development and
act as guidelines, while transformational leadership provides motivation to drive
organizations to achieve their goals and represent action plans. Just as guidelines and
action plans are important to understand functioning of an organization, similarly to
understand how employees behave at the workplace, we need to understand individual’s
self-concepts and motivational mechanisms through transformational leadership (Hardin
et al., 2004). An individual’s perceptions about identity and self-concept tailored by social
interactions and social structures profoundly affect his/her way of thinking, feeling and
behaving in organization (for overviews, see Haslam et al., 2003; Kihlstrom et al., 2003;
Leary and Tangney, 2003; Lord and Brown, 2004; Markus and Kitayama, 1991). Follower’s
self-construal may result in different behaviors and responses to leadership effectiveness
(Van Knippenberg et al., 2004). Therefore, it is very likely that the self-construal may
moderate the effect of transformational leadership on IWB.
Results linking employee’s self-construal in shaping attitudes and behavior toward
creativity have been more complex and inconclusive (Leary and Tangney, 2003, p. 471).
Lord et al. (1999) and Lord and Brown (2004) have proposed that transactional
leadership is more effective when follower independent self-construal is salient,
whereas transformational leadership should be more effective when follower collective
or interdependent self-construal is salient. Hogg and Martin (2003) proposed that
individualized consideration aspect of transformational leadership is less related to
organizational identification and leadership effectiveness with stronger interdependent
self-construal followers. An important question, however, is if and how independent
self-construal and interdependent self-construal may moderate the impact of
transformational leadership on IWB of followers.
Individuals with independent self-construal value separateness, uniqueness and
primacy of personal goals, abilities, and preferences, but nevertheless work effectively
in accomplishment of teams’ objectives. Likewise, independent self-construal values
personal success. Interdependent self-construal helps employees to socialize better
with others, to be flexible, and to gain support for their creative ideas.
Employee’s perception of connectedness or separateness, when combined with the
values and aspirations that transformational leaders provide, should enhance
creativity (Bechtoldt et al., 2012). Our study gives an insight in to the role of
individual’s self-construal on the relationship between transformational leadership
and individual’s innovativeness in organizations. The current study addresses the call
from Hogg and van Knippenberg (2003) and Denti and Hemlin (2012) to empirically
test the moderating role of follower’s self-construal on the relationship between
transformational leadership and follower’s IWB.
The current study has three intended contributions to the theory of leadership and
innovation. First, we examine the impact of transformational leadership on two
distinct facets of employee’s IWB, i.e. idea generation (employee creativity) and idea
implementation (commercialization of creative ideas). Although a lot has been done
on the relationship between transformational leadership and creativity, but a little is
known about its impact on generating new idea and then converting that idea in to a
reality simultaneously. Second, we investigate how employee’s psychological Transformational
empowerment mediates the effect of transformational leadership on IWB. Third, leadership and
we explore the moderating role of employee’s self-construal (i.e. independent and
interdependent self-construal), on the relationship between transformational IWB
leadership and IWB. We test the assumption that when employee’s interdependent
self-construal is high and independent self-construal is low, the relationship between
transformational leadership and IWB is likely to be stronger. 1273
Theoretical framework
IWB
IWB is recognition of problems and initiation and intentional introduction of new and
useful ideas, as well as set of behaviors needed to develop, launch and implement ideas
with an aim to enhance personal and/or business performance (De Jong and Den Hartog,
2007; Farr and Ford, 1990). IWB differs from employee creativity which focusses on the
discovery and generation of ideas (King and Anderson, 2002). Mumford and Gustafson
(1988) described creativity as the process of initiating novel, new and useful ideas, whereas
IWB encompasses set of activities aimed at recognition, development, modification,
adoption and implementation of ideas (Scott and Bruce, 1994; Van de Ven, 1986).
Unlike creativity, IWB has a clearer applied component and is expected to produce
some kind of innovative output and benefit. However, to delve into creativity literature
is relevant as it is a part of first phase of innovative behavior, where employees
recognize potential problems or performance gaps and initiate ideas in response to a
perceived need for innovation (West, 2002).
IWB has also been found broader than proactiveness constructs such as proactive
work behavior (Parker et al., 2006) and personal initiative (Frese et al., 1996), which
focus on individual’s inclination to implement ideas proactively, but are unable to
capture idea generation part of innovation process.
Transformational leadership
According to Burns (1978), transformational leaders inspire followers through
articulating an energizing vision and challenging goals and leaders and followers
make each other to advance to a higher level of morality and motivation. Bass (1985,
1991) extended the work of Burns (1978) by explaining the leader’s effect in creating
valuable and positive change in the followers and introduced four dimensions of
transformational leadership. Idealized influence is defined as the capability to act as
a role model whereby the leader becomes admired, respected and trusted. Intellectual
stimulation is the leader’s ability to arouse within followers to question decisions
and tackle challenging tasks. Individualized consideration is about giving personal
attention to follower’s differences and personal growth, and linking needs of followers
to the organizational mission through continuous coaching and feedback. Inspirational
motivation involves encouraging followers to believe in their ability to achieve exciting
vision by inspiring and motivating them.
Psychological empowerment
There are a number of ways in which an individual’s empowerment can be defined.
Academicians and industry experts have long been inspired with the idea of employee
empowerment (Shalley et al., 2004). Psychological empowerment has received
considerable attention in the field of organizational science (Conger and Kanungo,
1988; Thomas and Velthouse, 1990). Spreitzer (1995) developed a measurement of
IMDS psychological empowerment for the workplace. Depending up on the nature of
114,8 relationships to be studied, some researchers viewed empowerment from structural
and social perspective which focussed upon increasing individual decision-making
power, while others emphasized on the cognitive or psychological perspectives
of empowerment which are related to individual perceptions about power in the
organization and the psychological states (Liden et al., 2000). The current study
1274 focusses on employee’s cognitive or psychological perceptions of empowerment.
Thomas and Velthouse (1990) and Spreitzer (1995) described psychological empowerment
as a motivational construct having four cognitions: meaning, competence, impact and
self-determination. Meaning is the value an individual place on a work role based on
his/her ideals or standards (Thomas and Velthouse, 1990). Competence is the feelings
of self-efficacy or effort-performance expectancy which drive one to believe about
his/her capability to perform activities with skill (Bandura, 1989). Impact is the degree
to which an individual can influence organizational outcomes (Ashforth and Mael,

1989); while self-determination is autonomy in initiation of work behaviors and making
decisions about work (Deci et al., 1989). These four cognitive dimensions comprise the
basic essence of psychological empowerment in the workplace (Houghton and Yoho, 2005).
Self-construal
The idea of self-construal was introduced by Markus and Kitayama in 1991 to
conceptualize the cultural differences between individualism and collectivism at the
individual level. Self-construal is individual level of cultural variability whereas
individualism/collectivism is national level of cultural difference (Li et al., 2013; Brewer
and Chen, 2007). Self-construal is defined by Markus and Kitayama (1991) as a
“constellation of perceptions, feelings, and actions concerning the extent in which
the self is defined independently of others or interdependently with others.” They
proposed that independent and interdependent self-construal are personality traits
which coexist in individuals and shape their behaviors.
Interdependent self-construal is focussed on flexible interpersonal relationships,
one’s sense of embeddedness and connectedness with others, primacy of organizational
and group goals over personal goals, maintenance of group harmony, and understanding
work role within group (Mael and Ashforth, 1995). Those with an interdependent
self-construal are concerned with enacting appropriate behaviors, fostering harmony
with others, expressing social similarities and fitting in with organizational goals. The
focus is on duties, obligations and harmonious social responsibilities (Cristina-Corina,
2012). The malleable nature of interdependent self-construal makes it highly responsive
to situational priming (Singelis, 1994).
Whereas, the independent self-construal is characterized by unique personal
attributes, preferences, traits and abilities which help to distinguish one from others
(Markus and Kitayama, 1991; Singelis, 1994). They value personal goals as more
important than organizational and group’s goals (Andersen and Chen, 2002). People
who emphasize their independent self-view themselves as autonomous and invariant
across social contexts (Kanagawa et al., 2001, p. 59). Their behavior stems from internal
feelings and thoughts of self-promotion and separateness from interpersonal
context. Independent self-construal focusses on development and expression of one’s
unique distinctive values, attributes and preferences (Markus and Kitayama, 1991;
Singelis, 1994).
Self-construal is not unidimensional and is represented as a set of categories, each of
which is distinct and dynamic (Showers and Zeigler-Hill, 2003; Stets and Burke, 2003),
and may vary across situations, group memberships, relationships and time (Hogg, Transformational
2003; Sedikides and Brewer, 2001). The two dimensions of self-construal can be leadership and
empirically categorized into two orthogonal dimensions (e.g. Gudykunst et al., 1996;
Singelis, 1994). Although, followers may have many distinct selves, only one of them IWB
tends to be salient or activated in any specific social context depending on role
relationships (Van Knippenberg et al., 2004).
Transformational leadership and IWB. There is paucity of research on the specific 1275
relationship between transformational leadership and IWB ( Janssen, 2004). A number
of reasons are proposed to support the assumption that transformational leadership
positively influences IWB. Burns (1978), Bass (1985) and Avolio and Bass (1995),
suggest that transformational leadership is imbued with inspirational motivation,
collective sense of mission, self-confidence, heightened awareness of goals, exciting
vision and aspiration. These aspects of transformational leadership arouse intellectual
stimulation, intrinsic motivation, support for innovation and employee creativity

(Eisenbeiss et al., 2008; Elkins and Keller, 2003; Gumusluoglu and Ilsev, 2009; Pieterse
et al., 2010; Sarros et al., 2008; Tipu et al., 2012); which closely match with antecedents
stimulating innovative behavior among employees.
Research shows that transformational leaders increase organizational innovation
(Gumusluoglu and Ilsev, 2009; Jung et al., 2003; Jung et al., 2008) and entrepreneurial
intentions of employees (Pieterse et al., 2010), due to high-performance expectations
from employees. According to Dvir et al. (2002), transformational leaders ensure
that individuals challenge the status quo and are stimulated intellectually by
transcending their own self-gain for a higher collective gain. Transformational leaders
develop energizing goals, vision and values; inspire followers to pursue entrepreneurial
intentions to influence their creative behaviors. In line with the social exchange
perspective (Blau, 1964, p. 566), leader’s individualized consideration encourages
employees to reciprocate with greater creativity and innovativeness. By giving
inspirational motivation to employees to transform existing systems and plan new
ways to address problems helps them to display behaviors focussed on crafting new
ways of doing things. Transformational leader with idealized influence exhibits
optimism and excitement about novel perspectives and this “championing role”
enhances organizational innovation through intellectual stimulation (Elkins and Keller,
2003). This heightened level of intellectual stimulation is likely to increase exploratory
thinking and IWB.
IWB requires employees to have a high need for achievement and low need for
conformance which is facilitated by transformational leaders. Transformational
leaders take risks to try new ways of working, change existing processes and systems
for long-term benefits, and help followers to think about exploiting opportunities
effectively (Pearce and Ensley, 2004). Sosik (1997) argued that transformational leaders
inspire employees to display creative endeavors and increase their problem-solving
and analytical abilities. Transformational leaders help followers to strive for more
difficult and challenging goals by changing follower’s propensity for creative
perspectives (Whittington et al., 2004). They provide personal as well as collective
value system, access to resources and information, effective communication, self-confidence
and inner direction. When followers’ individual needs and expectations are considered,
they tend to reciprocate by exploring new opportunities with a better focus on important
organizational issues and processes. Transformational leaders help to balance short-term
goals with opportunity exploitation and motivate employees to take risks associated with
trying out new processes.
IMDS They foster IWB by motivating employees to strive for collective goals (Basadur,
114,8 2004; Krause, 2004; Majumdar and Ray, 2011), and encourage individuals’ learning and
help them to socialize more to find support for their ideas’ implementation (Gong et al.,
2009; Kahai et al., 2003; Ramamoorthy et al., 2005). Thus, transformational leadership
influences employees’ idea promotion and idea implementation by encouraging
them to think out of the box solutions by providing intellectual stimulation, consoling
1276 strong social ties among co-workers, involving them more and more into their jobs and
organizations, catering to their intrinsic motivation and considering their needs for
development and recognition (Tierney and Farmer, 2002; Walumbwa and Lawler,
2003). Therefore, we hypothesize that:
H1. Transformational leadership is directly and positively related to employees’

IWB.
H1a. Transformational leadership is directly and positively related to idea generation.
H1b. Transformational leadership is directly and positively related to idea

implementation.
Transformational leadership and psychological empowerment. Garcia-Morales et al.

(2008) and Jung et al. (2003) indicate that transformational leadership has significant
and positive relations with both empowerment and innovation. Transformational
leaders often emphasize on cooperation, collective task accomplishment, learning by
sharing experiences, control and freedom in decision making, and delegating authority
to execute ideas which fosters employee’s participation in the idea generation
and implementation (Daft, 2001). Thus, transformational leadership builds a work
environment in which employees feel motivated, competent and self-managed to
experience internal empowerment (Özaralli, 2003). It focusses on small power distance
and needs and capabilities basis of individuals (Zohar and Tenne-Gazit, 2008).
Transformational leaders delegate authority, and encourage participative decision
making, making employees feel empowered to carry out tasks with high degree of
collective identity and cohesiveness (Jung and Sosik, 2002). They quite often change
organizational processes and systems to achieve exciting future; delegate authority to
employees to come forward and accept responsibility; and seek them to a higher
level of commitment by providing flexibility to make decisions about their work
contexts. By giving personal consideration to employees, and helping them toward
realization and evolution of their goals, transformational leaders are able to empower
them psychologically. In view of the preceding discussion, the following hypothesis
is proposed:
H2. Transformational leadership is positively related to employees’ psychological

empowerment.
Psychological empowerment and IWB

When employees are empowered in organizations, they exhibit creative behaviors
because they find worth in their work roles (Jung et al., 2003). Transformational leaders
create an environment without direct supervision or intervention, which is conducive
to IWB (Wat and Shaffer, 2005; Houghton and Yoho, 2005). Employees who are
psychologically empowered feel good about the tasks they are doing and perceive them
to be meaningful and challenging. Thus, psychologically empowered employee displays Transformational
creative behaviors by aligning personal goals with organizational goals ( Jha, 2014). leadership and
When employees feel that they have personal decision-making control, ability to
influence others, freedom, flexibility, meaning of the work, inspiration to achieve an IWB
envisioned attractive future, they tend to produce more creative endeavors to enhance
job performance (Kendall et al., 1999). Employees who feel empowered and find
meaning in their work, are more likely to be motivated intrinsically to have an impact 1277
on the organization, which in turn promotes IWB and task accomplishment (Berg and
Hallberg, 1999; Krishnan, 2009; Jung and Sosik, 2002; Laschinger et al., 2004).
Conger and Kanungo (1988) suggested that PE stimulates change, and IWBs are
change oriented by definition. Most generally, PE increases intrinsic task motivation,
individual flexibility and self-determination over job execution making individuals less
constrained about rule-bound aspects and allow them to contribute to innovative
behaviors (Ryan and Deci, 2000). Such an employee explores new cognitive pathways
and is playful with ideas (Amabile et al., 1996).
In view of the above discussion, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H3. Employee’s psychological empowerment is positively related to his/her IWB.
The mediating role of psychological empowerment

Bass (1999) emphasized psychological empowerment as a probable enhancer of
transformational leadership effects and found that transformational leadership acts
through empowerment to influence individual’s work outcome. Psychological
empowerment explains the relationships between transformational leadership and
employee job-related behaviors by providing comprehensive motivational mechanism
(Walsh et al., 2014; Joo and Lim, 2013; Krishnan, 2012; Dust et al., 2014).
Employees inspired by transformational leaders feel psychologically empowered
because they understand the organization’s expectations from them and are better
equipped to match their skills and behaviors to these demands, performance outcomes
and expectations. They have a higher sense of mastery, and self-efficacy over their
tasks and work environments. Providing employees with greater autonomy and
decision-making control results in employees who are more likely to reciprocate
with higher levels of creative process engagement (Volmer et al., 2012; Zhang and
Bartol, 2010).
Transformational leaders encourage knowledge diffusion (Harborne and Johne,
2003), assign challenging tasks (De Jong and Den Hartog, 2007), arouse intellectual
stimulation (Jung et al., 2003), all of which are related positively to creativity and IWB.
This style of leadership prepares employees to take more responsibility and enhances
beliefs about their capabilities to perform activities and accomplish tasks with novelty
and creativity (Garcia-Morales et al., 2008; Hughes et al., 1999). Such leaders pay
close attention to their employees’ sense of accomplishment which is expected to
enhance employees’ innovativeness. The results of Dvir et al., (2002), Zhou (1998), Chen
and Aryee (2007), Parker and Axtell (2001) and Tierney and Farmer (2004) showed that
employees exhibited creativity and innovativeness when they worked in high-task
autonomy working environment with frequent consultation, self-direction and control,
and delegation. Based on the above arguments, we hypothesize that:
H4. Psychological empowerment mediates the relationship between transformational

leadership and employees’ IWB.
IMDS The moderating role of self-construal between transformational leadership and IWB.
114,8 In a meta-analysis by Oyserman and Lee (2008), it was found that self-construal
dimensions varied from culture to culture; individuals in Asian cultures prefer group
goals over their individual goals whereas American and Western cultures exhibited
more independent self-construal by counting on their own personal attributes, abilities
and traits. Individuals within a given culture do vary along these two dimensions in
1278 developing social ties within organizations and community (Sharkey and Singelis,
1995). Thus, a highly independent self-maintains personal distinctiveness from
others, is individualistic, tries to accomplish tasks independently and expects his/her
work role to be explicit in organizational processes (Brewer and Chen, 2007). On the
other hand, a highly interdependent employee looks for strong social ties by
embedding in groups, works well in teams, regards group memberships as more
self-defining, prefers team and organizational goals over his/her personal goals and
accomplishments (Neff et al., 2008).

Most commonly an individual’s self-construal corresponds to the values of their
society. People in collectivist cultures tend to be higher in interdependent self-construal;
people in individualist cultures tend to be higher in independent self-construal (Markus
and Kitayama, 2003). But self-construal is different than culture or collectivism, because
it refers to the degree to which the individual, rather than the group, views the self
(Markus and Kitayama, 1991).
Self-construal has been proposed to be a moderator of leadership processes
(van Knippenberg and Hogg, 2003). A number of studies support this argument for the
moderating role of self-construal on leadership effectiveness in shaping positive
attitudes and behaviors (De Cremer and Van Vugt, 2002; Hains et al., 1997; Lord and Brown,
2004; Platow and van Knippenberg, 2001). Hogg and van Knippenberg (2003) argue
that personalized leadership is more effective for subordinates who value independent
self-construal and self-identities. On the other hand, those followers who value social
identity, self-definition in collective terms and interdependent self-construal show positive
behaviors under more depersonalized leadership (Voyer and McIntosh, 2013).
Lord and Brown (2004) and Martin and Epitropaki (2001) have proposed that
transformational leadership, with its appeal to the collective self, should be more
effective when follower collective self is salient. Transformational leaders make
employees more confident and strengthen their creative self-concepts (Henker et al.,
2014). Lu et al. (2001) suggested that highly independent self-employees are high on
self-esteem; high self-esteem employees trust their own judgment, do not feel guilty
when others oppose their ideas, and voice discontent quite rigorously. On the contrary,
sense of obligation, relatedness to others, seeking support from other group members,
strong social ties and group loyalty are core attribute of interdependent self-individual.
Utz (2004) found that interdependent self-construal individuals showed higher levels of
cooperation, social interaction and concern for group’s outcomes. As people with high
interdependent self-construal tend to develop support through better communication
to their problem-solving ideas and understand the organizational need for continuous
innovation because of primacy of organizational goals (Oyserman et al., 2002), so it is
more likely that they display higher levels of IWB.
Strong interdependent self-construal engages in behaviors that ask for support and
self-esteem (Baker and McNulty, 2013). Brockner et al. (2005) suggested that employees
high in interdependent social construal reacted strongly to procedural fairness
which in turn positively influences extra-role behavior. Independent self-construal
individuals interact less frequently with other members of the organization which hinders
idea implementation because one has to build consensus to carry out novel ideas. Transformational
Brewer (1991) suggested that employees in Asian cultures with perceptions of personal leadership and
distinctiveness are less entrepreneurial as they prefer their own goals and aspirations, do
not initiate new and novel ideas too often, and are reluctant to bring any change in the IWB
organization as it requires seeking social support. Thus, employee high in independent
construal is likely to weaken the effect of transformational leadership on IWB.
Employees with higher interdependent self-prefer social identity, and group 1279
harmony. Transformational leadership essentially stimulates intellectual abilities of
employees by aligning personal values with organizational values, and may serve as
a basis for highly interdependent employees to think creatively. Highly interdependent
individuals due to high level of trust and strong social networks and person-group fit
will easily persuade co-workers to support their ideas and implement them, as
compared to those who are highly independent. Because of collective goal setting, they
better understand organizational expectations and initiate ideas which are aligned
with organization’s aspirations and are close to group preferences. Thus, other
members of group comprehend such ideas easily and are ready to implement them
with full motivation and dedication. Employees with lower independent self do not
regard personal distinctiveness as important, and are embedded in to groups. They
value group goals to achieve personal identity. As a result of personal consideration,
and inspirational motivation provided by transformational leaders, such employees
will more likely articulate challenging future for organization and engender IWBs.
Based on the above arguments, it is hypothesized that:
H5a. Interdependent self-construal moderates the relationship between transformational

leadership and IWB such that transformational leadership engenders IWB for
employees with higher level of interdependent self-construal.
H5b. Independent self-construal moderates the relation between transformational

leadership and IWB such that transformational leadership engenders IWB for
employees with lower level of independent self-construal (Figure 1).
Self-Construal
Interdependent Self-Construal
Independent Self-Construal
Transformational Leadership Innovative Work Behavior
Psychological Empowerment
Figure 1.
Overview of the
relationships of the
study variables
Notes: Direct effect Moderating effect
IMDS Research method
114,8 Participants and procedures
The sample of our study was drawn from employees and their leaders by using a
cross-sectional survey. The respondents were from five most innovative companies of
China according to Forbes 2013 ranking. We collected data from multiple industries for
better and deeper understanding of the relationship structure among transformational
1280 leadership, psychological empowerment, self-construal and IWB. The reasons to
select these industries are: first, employees in these industries work in a tumultuous
environment and the leaders face intense competitive pressure due to frequent entries
and exits of firms (Afuah, 2003); second, all the selected organizations experienced
some sort of organizational changes, restructuring and transformation which provided
us an opportunity to test ideally the relationship among the studied constructs;
third, the selected firms are the top rated organizations in the market in terms of
innovation (Table I).

The anonymity and confidentiality of this survey was ensured to employees.
We started by fixing appointments with top-level managers of these organizations.
A request was made to managers of participating organizations to announce the
purpose of the survey to their employees which is related to a delicate subject, i.e.
leadership. Following the procedures of Brislin (1980), a back translation approach was
adopted. Two bilingual researchers, who were familiar with conducting research in
China on human resource management, were hired to conduct the back translation.
The original questionnaire was first translated from English into the Chinese by one
researcher and then translated back into English by another independent researcher,
to check for discrepancies in meaning. Consequently, several items were modified to
reflect local context and for better clarity, incorporating the feedback from the
respondents. To determine the internal consistency of our constructs we used factor
analysis and Cronbach’s a to test unidimensionality and inter-item reliability.
We conducted a pilot study in order to verify to what extent the questionnaire satisfied
the requirements and constraints. We discussed the pilot questionnaire with four
professors, one top-level manager in each company and two subordinates suggested by
top-level managers. Next, we tested the questionnaire among nine managers and
36 employees, respectively, asking each of them to provide us with comments
and suggestions for improvements.
Our respondents were subordinates and their direct supervisors mainly from
Marketing, Administration and HR, Operations and Customer Care and IT departments
of these companies. Respondents varied in hierarchical position and level of experience.
The study included employees and their direct leaders. Questionnaires were provided
to employees who agreed to participate. Employees completed a questionnaire on
their perceptions of psychological empowerment, leader behaviors and self-construal.
Company name Industry Headquarters
Baidu Computer services Beijing

Henan Shuanghui Investment Food processing Luohe, Henan
Tencent Holdings Computer services Shenzhen, Guangdong
Kweichow Moutai Beverages Renhuai, Guizhou
Table I. China Oilfield Services Oil services and equipment Langfang, HEB
Top five innovative
companies of China Source: Forbes 2013 world’s most innovative companies
Leaders provided ratings for each of their subordinates’ IWB. Rather than sending our Transformational
questionnaire to all employees, we drew a stratified sample to ensure equal (or at least leadership and
comparable) representation of the five companies.
We employed five research assistants, one for each company. Almost IWB
100 questionnaires were distributed among subordinates of Marketing, and
Administration and HR departments in each company and were collected three weeks
later. We requested IT department heads to provide us e-mail listing of employees and 1281
leaders from IT, and Operations and Customer Care departments. E-mails were sent
to a random sample of 550 employees and their leaders. The questionnaires included
company and employee identification codes so that data collected from the leaders and
employees could be matched and grouped for analysis. Of the 1,100 surveys distributed
to subordinates, 749 surveys were returned, for a response rate of 68 percent. Of those 749
surveys, matching supervisory surveys (a supervisor rated a subordinate who had also
turned in a survey) were returned for 639 individuals.

The demographics of respondents suggested that 67 percent of them were male,
19 percent were employed in Baidu, 21 percent in Henan Shuanghui Investment,
15 percent in Tencent Holdings, 26 percent in Kweichow Moutai and 19 percent in
China Oilfield Services. We distributed questionnaires to the leaders of each company
to rate the frequency of their subordinates’ IWB. Totally, 20 supervisors were selected
from each company. Out of 120 leaders, 87 participated, with a response rate of
79 percent, thus usable matched data consisted of six subordinates’ ratings per
supervisor, on average. The average span of control of each supervisor was
approximately seven to eight. The average age of respondents was 36.3 years with a
standard deviation of 6.24. The average tenure with the organization was 4.67 years
with a standard deviation of 3.55 years. By using dyadic approach (leaders and their
subordinates), different sources of data collection reduced potential for common
method variance bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003).
Measurement
Transformational leadership. A 20 items scale was taken from Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire Form 5X to measure transformational leadership, including idealized
behaviors, idealized attributes, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and
individualized consideration (Bass and Avolio, 1997). We converted these scales into
one higher-order factor which is consistent with recent empirical (Avolio et al., 2004;
Bono and Judge, 2003) and theoretical developments (Bass, 1999) of transformational
leadership. The employees were asked to rate the frequency with which their direct
leaders displayed different behaviors, on a five-point Likert type scale ranging from
1 (not at all) to 5 (frequently, if not always). Sample item: “My leader talks
optimistically about the future.” The fit indexes for four first-order factors plus one
second-order factor fell within an acceptable range (l2[50] ¼ 217.8; po0.05; CFI ¼ 0.97;
GFI ¼ 0.96; SRMR ¼ 0.06; RMSEA ¼ 0.08), supporting the notion that the dimensions
are distinct, but also collectively represent an overall construct.
Psychological empowerment. The 12-item Empowerment at Work Scale, developed
by Spreitzer (1995), using the four cognitive aspects of empowerment (meaning,
competence, self-determination and impact) was used in this study. Employees were
asked to rate the extent to which they believe they are empowered in their jobs on
a seven-point scale (1-strongly disagree to 7-strongly agree). Sample item: “I have
considerable opportunity for independence and freedom in how I do my job.” The fit
indexes for four first-order factors plus one second-order factor fell within an
IMDS acceptable range (l2(50) ¼ 193.6; po0.05; CFI ¼ 0.96; GFI ¼ 0.94; SRMR ¼ 0.05;
114,8 RMSEA ¼ 0.08), suggesting that the dimensions reflected the overall construct.
Self-construal. The 16-item scale measuring interdependent self-construal and
independent self-construal was adopted from the studies by Gudykunst and Lee (2003).
Respondents rated their preferences anchored on a seven-point scale ranging from
1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Eight items were used to measure
1282 respondents’ level of interdependent self-construal (e.g. “I will sacrifice my self-interest
for the benefit of my group”; a ¼ 0.83). Eight items were used to measure the respondent’s
level of independent self-construal (e.g. “I enjoy being unique and different from
others”; a ¼ 0.81).
IWB. The ten-item scale measuring IWB was adopted from the studies by De Jong
and Den Hartog (2010). The leaders were asked to rate the frequency with which
their subordinates displayed different behaviors (e.g. “This employee pays attention to
issues that are no part of his daily work.”) on five-point scale ranging from 1 (“never”)
to 5 (“always”).
Control variables. Based on previous research, we controlled for several relevant
demographic factors to better estimate the effect sizes of the hypothesized variables.
In all our analyses, we included age, job tenure, gender, firm type and educational
level as control variables. Job tenure, as years in the current job, has been found to be
negatively related to innovative behavior (Shalley and Gilson, 2004; Pieterse et al.,
2010). Prior studies have demonstrated that level of education (Amabile and Conti,
1999), industry type and gender (Ang et al., 2003), time spent with leader (Wang and
Cheng, 2010) are potential predictors of IWB. We find that age is not related to
innovative behavior. This is also in line with previous findings ( Janssen, 2005).
Data analysis and results

Common method variance
Because all measurement scales were self-reported, we conducted two tests to examine
the extent of method variance in the study. First, a Harmon one-factor test was
conducted (Podsakoff and Organ, 1986). We specified a model using the five core
variables of interest which indicated that common method effects did not contaminate
the results of the current study. These results were confirmed by performing Widaman
(1985) procedures to test for common method variance (Williams et al., 1989). In this
approach a multifactor measurement model is tested, a model with a single method
factor is tested, a measurement model with an additional method factor is tested, and
a null model is examined. The results showed that method factor did not improve
model fit and accounted for only a small portion (13 percent) of the total variance,
which is less than method variance (25 percent) observed by Williams et al. (1989).
The results of these tests suggest that common method variance is not a pervasive
problem in this study.
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)

Because all measurement scales were self-reported, we took extra steps to examine the
influence of common method bias in the study. To ensure that there was sufficient
discriminant validity among constructs, we conducted CFA with transformational
leadership, self-construal, psychological empowerment and IWB. We then evaluated
model fit according to various fit indicators, including the w2 goodness-of-fit test,
non-normed fit index (NNFI) comparative fit index (CFI), and root mean square error of
approximation (RMSEA). Hu and Bentler (1999) suggest that a value close to 0.95 is
reflective of good fit for NNFI and CFI, and RMSEA values close to 0.06 indicate Transformational
reasonable model fit. In testing model for confirmatory factor analysis, all factor leadership and
loadings except three items measuring transformational leadership were significant
( po0.001). The test result of adaptability was w2 ¼ 3078.19, df ¼ 953, w2/df ¼ 3.23, IWB
RMSEA ¼ 0.072, NFI (normed t index) ¼ 0.74, NNFI ¼ 0.82 and CFI ¼ 0.79, which was
below the model adaptability standard suggested by Hair et al. (2006) (w2/dfo3,
RMSEA ¼ 0.08, NFI ¼ 0.90, NNFI ¼ 0.90, CFI ¼ 0.90: higher value indicates better t). 1283
These values show that the model is not a good fit and needs to be amended.
We specified a model using the four core variables of interest and removed items
with factor loading o0.5 (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988) and cross-loadings of transformational
leadership, self-construal, psychological empowerment and IWB. Only one item of
independent self-construal namely “I feel comfortable using someone’s first name soon
after I meet them, even when they are much older than I am” was removed. The results
for the revised testing model were w2 ¼ 2,792.37, w2/df ¼ 2.48, NNFI ¼ 0.93, CFI ¼ 0.95
and RMSEA ¼ 0.083, indicating that the new model achieved an acceptable standard.
Next, the traditional test of change in w2 ( James et al., 1982) was performed which
showed that constraining the factor correlations among transformational leadership,
self-construal, psychological empowerment and IWB significantly weakened model fit
(w2/Ddf ranged from 82.57/1 to 310.53/1).
Descriptive analyses
Conceivable alternative models with fewer factors were also tested, but the results
did not generate improved fit statistics. We compared the hypothesized model with
alternative models to analyze whether the proposed model fits the data the best, but the
results did not generate improved fit statistics for conceivable alternative models.
Then, a nested model test was conducted, which compared three alternative models to
our hypothesized model. The expected two-level measurement model had six latent
factors (i.e. transformational leadership, psychological empowerment, independent
self-construal, interdependent self-construal, idea generation and idea implementation)
and provided an acceptable fit to the data w2 ¼ 3,052.19, df ¼ 953, CFI ¼ 0.94,
TLI ¼ 0.94, po0.01, RMSEA ¼ 0.073.
Table II presents means, standard deviations and correlations among the study
variables. As expected, transformational leadership is significantly correlated with
Mean Cronbach’s
n ¼ 726 (SD) a Correlations
1. Transformational
leadership 4.27 (0.97) 0.831 1
2. Idea generation 4.21 (0.74) 0.725 0.475* 1
3. Idea
implementation 4.12 (0.57) 0.774 0.577* 0.459* 1
4. Psychological
empowerment 4.04 (0.58) 0.783 0.429* 0.519* 0.479 1
5. Interdependent
self-construal 3.16 (0.45) 0.718 0.352* 0.399 0.204* 0.317 1
6. Independent
self-construal 3.01 (0.52) 0.735 0.351* 0.191* 0.18* 0.41 0.31 1
Table II.
Note: *p-valueo0.01 Descriptive analyses
IMDS idea generation (r ¼ 0.475, po0.01), idea implementation (r ¼ 0.577, po0.01) and
114,8 psychological empowerment (r ¼ 0.429, po0.01). Psychological empowerment is
also significantly correlated with idea generation (r ¼ 0.519, po0.01) but it is not
significantly correlated with idea implementation. Interdependent self-construal
is also positively correlated with transformational leadership (r ¼ 0.352, po0.01) and
idea implementation (r ¼ 0.204, po0.01) but employee’s collective self-construal did
1284 not correlate significantly with idea generation. Finally, independent self-construal is
negatively correlated with transformational leadership (r ¼ 0.351, po0.01), idea
implementation (r ¼ 0.18, po0.01) and idea generation (r ¼ 0.191, po0.01).
The structural model

Simultaneous maximum-likelihood-estimation procedures were utilized in order
to examine the hypothesized relationships among transformational leadership,
self-construal, psychological empowerment and IWB. We represented each latent

construct with a single index that is equal to the average score on the construct scale.
The structural equation model combines aspects of multiple regression and factor
analysis to estimate a series of interrelated relationships among variables
simultaneously (Hair et al., 2006). Table III shows the results for fit indices of direct,
full mediation and partial mediation models. The difference (Dw2) between the
Direct Effects Model and Full Mediation Model w2 is 254.57 (2,093.18 1,838.31).
Psychological empowerment full mediating role is confirmed if its introduction in the
regression equation results in disappearance of the regression coefficient between
transformational leadership and IWB. Similarly, the partial mediation of psychological
empowerment is confirmed when the coefficient between predictor variable
(transformational leadership) and outcome variable (IWB) remains significant but is
reduced. The indices, GFI, CFI, NNFI and RMSEA indicated that the Full Mediation
Model is better adaptable than the Direct Effects Model; the difference Dw2) of w2 is
254.87 (2,093.18 1,838.31). The adaptability indices of the Partial Mediation Model
were w2/df ¼ 1.80, GFI ¼ 0.906, CFI ¼ 0.927, NNFI ¼ 0.958 and RMSEA ¼ 0.048 which
demonstrated that partial mediation is more adaptable than full mediation showing
that the Partial Mediation Model was a suitable model; the difference (Dw2) of w2 is
132.10 (1,838.311,706.21).
Table IV presents the results of the coefficients, t-values and goodness-of-fit
statistics. The w2 statistic was significant; however, w2/df was less than the cut-off
point of 2 (w2 ¼ 1,706.83, df ¼ 943, w2/df ¼ 1.81o2). Other fit indices, including GFI (0.906),
NNFI (0.958), RMSEA (0.048, 90 percent CI ¼ 0.053-0.074), indicate that the proposed
model is a reasonable explanation of observed covariance among the study constructs.
w2/df GFI CFI NNFI RMSEA

Model w2 (o2) Dw2 (40.9) (40.9) (40.9) (o0.08)
Direct Effects Model 2,093.18 (df ¼ 948) 2.20 – 0.782 0.838 0.891 0.071
Full Mediation
Model 1,838.31** (df ¼ 946) 1.94 254.87 0.856 0.895 0.917 0.063
Partial Mediation
Model 1,706.21** (df ¼ 943) 1.80 132.10 0.906 0.927 0.958 0.048
Table III.
2
Results for fit indices of Notes: Dw present differences between model and the following model. Fit indices criteria refers to
structural models Hair et al. (2006); **p-valueo0.001
Coefficient t-value
Transformational
leadership and
Dependent variable: psychological empowerment IWB
R2 0.43
Transformational leadership 0.57 5.38*
Dependent variable: idea generation
R2 0.73 1285
Psychological empowerment 0.51 5.95*
Dependent variable: idea implementation
R2 0.77
Psychological empowerment 0.59 5.02*
Goodness-of-fit statistics
w2 ( p-value) 1,839.63
df 954
GFI 0.97 Table IV.
NNFI 0.95 Structural equation
RMSR 0.043 models of
RMSEA 0.064 transformational
(90% CI) (0.053-0.074) leadership, psychological
empowerment and
Note: *po0.05 innovative work behavior
In addition, the model achieved a satisfactory level of goodness of fit in predicting

the variance of transformational leadership (57 percent) and IWB (41 percent). As
expected, transformational leadership and psychological empowerment are two powerful
predictors of idea generation (the coefficients were 0.68 and 0.51, respectively) as well as
idea implementation (the coefficients were 0.72 and 0.59, respectively). The effect of
transformational leadership on IWB was significant (b ¼ 0.41, po0.001), supporting H1.
The effect of transformational leadership on idea generation and idea implementation
were also significant (b ¼ 0.34, po0.001 and b ¼ 0.29, po0.001), supporting H1a and
H1b. The increased R2 value (0.30, from 0.43 to 0.73) for idea generation and 0.34 in case of
idea implementation, resulting from adding psychological empowerment in the equation is
significantly large, indicating that PE is a mediating variable in linking transformational
leadership with idea generation and idea implementation (Baron and Kenny, 1986).
According to Table V, transformational leadership featured significant path
coefficient (TL-IWB: 0.26, po0.05) on idea generation. Similarly, positive and
significant relationships existed between transformational leadership and psychological
Standardized path coefficients (t-value)

Direct Effects Model Full Mediation Model Partial Mediation Model
TL-IG 0.26 (2.38*) 0.25 (2.43**)

TL-II 0.22 (2.24**) 0.19 (2.26*)
TL-PE 0.36 (3.37*) 0.27 (3.98**)
PE-IG 0.47 (3.52***) 0.39 (3.93***)
PE-II 0.37 (3.18**) 0.31 (3.42**)
Notes: TL, transformational leadership; PE, psychological empowerment; IG, idea generation; II, idea Table V.
implementation. *p-valueo0.05; **p-valueo0.01; ***p-valueo0.001 Path of structural model
IMDS empowerment (TL-PE: 0.36, po0.001), and psychological empowerment and idea
114,8 generation (PE-IG: 0.47, po0.001) as well as psychological empowerment and
idea implementation (PE-II: 0.37, po0.01). The study found that psychological
empowerment was a partial mediator between transformational leadership and IWB.
In addition, transformational leadership positively influenced idea generation (b ¼ 0.25,
po0.01) and idea implementation (b ¼ 0.19, po0.05).
1286 When indirect effect of psychological empowerment was included in the equation,
the positive impacts of transformational leadership on idea generation
0.105(0.27 0.39), and idea implementation 0.083(0.27 0.31), reduced than the
direct impacts (0.105o0.25), and (0.083o0.19), respectively. The study thus validated
H4, that psychological empowerment was the partial mediation variable between
transformational leadership and IWB. In addition, Sobel (1988) test was performed
to test the significance of the mediation. The reduced effect size of transformational
leadership (b ¼ 0.49; po0.001 coupled with the significance of psychological

empowerment (b ¼ 0.41; po0.001) implies that psychological empowerment
partially mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and IWB.
Thus psychological empowerment explained an additional 13 percent of the variance
in IWB, when compared to the effect of transformational leadership alone (Table VI).
Moderating effects of self-construal
To test H5a and H5b, we flowed Aiken and West (1991) procedure by entering the main
effect of transformational leadership as well as the interaction effects (transformational
leadership interdependent self-construal) on IWB. If the interaction paths are significant,
moderator hypotheses are supported. A significant b coefficient for each interaction term
(transformational leadership interdependent self-construal, transformational
leadership independent self-construal) or values of the incremental F-statistic indicate
that the moderator variable (interdependent self-construal and independent self-construal)
acts as a moderator. We first entered control variables and then the main effects of
transformational leadership, interdependent self-construal and independent self-construal
were entered along with the control variables. In last step, the interaction effects of
interdependent self-construal and independent self-construal with transformational
leadership were entered along with the control variables and the direct effects of
interdependent self-construal, independent self-construal and transformational leadership.
When the control variables were entered, organizational tenure and time spent with
the leader were related positively and significantly to IWB (t ¼ 3.58, po0.01; t ¼ 2.47,
po0.001). Next, Step 2 provided a significant increase in variance explained over
Step 1 (DR2 ¼ 0.16; DF ¼ 8.5, po0.001). Interdependent self-construal was positively
and significantly related to IWB (t ¼ 4.26, po0.001) and independent self-construal
was related negatively and significantly to IWB (t ¼ 2.14, po0.01). H5a and H5b
would exist if the interaction terms accounted for a significant incremental variance in
explaining IWB either individually, manifested by beta values, or collectively, revealed
Sobel test TL- TL- PE- TL-IWB; mediator

statistic PE IWB IWB controlled
Table VI. Innovative work

The mediating effect of behavior 3.58*** 0.37 0.54 0.41 0.49
psychological
empowerment Note: ***po0.001
by the values of the incremental F-statistic. Step 3 provided a significant increase in Transformational
variance explained over Step 2 (DR2 ¼ 0.19; DF ¼ 11.7, po0.001). leadership and
The two-way interaction hypotheses (H4 and H5) were tested by observing
the incremental variance explained by Step 3 over Step 2. As shown in Table V and VII, IWB
the addition of the interactions between transformational leadership, interdependent
self-construal and independent self-construal explained 11 percent more variance for
IWB in Step 3 over Step 2. More specifically, we found that the interaction between 1287
independent self-construal and transformational leadership was related negatively
and significantly to IWB (t ¼ 5.68; po0.001). Hence, H5a was supported (Figure 2).
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

Variables b t-value b t-value b t-value
Controls
Age 0.134 1.74 0.092 1.56 0.092 1.62
Tenure 0.274 3.58** 0.224 3.27** 0.227 3.34**
Time with leader 0.195 2.47*** 0.189 2.41*** 0.189 2.43***
Firm type 0.068 5.72 0.061 4.97 0.059 4.99
Education level 0.18 2.11 0.15 2.31 0.16 2.28
Main effects
Transformational leadership 0.247 7.85** 0.238 6.21**
Interdependent self construal 0.159 4.26*** 0.137 4.11***
Independent self construal 0.121 2.14** 0.119 2.07**
Interactions
TL ISC 0.213 3.26**
TL INSC 0.143 5.68***
R2 0.23 0.39 0.58
F 11.37*** 13.5*** 14.9*** Table VII.
DR2 0.16 0.19 Hierarchical moderated
DF 8.5*** 11.7*** regression analysis
(dependent
Notes: **po0.01; ***po0.001 variable ¼ IWB)
3
Idea generation
2.5 Low independent

self-construal
2
High independent
1.5 self-construal
1.5 2 2.5 3
Transformational Ieadership
3
implementation
2.5
High independent
Idea
self-construal
2
Low independent Figure 2.
1.5 self-construal
Moderating effects of
1.5 2 2.5 3 independent self-construal
Transformational Ieadership
IMDS Discussion
114,8 The current study adds the moderating role of employee’s self-construal to the
previous empirical research on transformational leadership-IWB linkage. The purpose
was to examine the relationship between transformational leadership and IWB
by focussing on psychological empowerment and self-construal (interdependent
self-construal and independent self-construal). This study suggests three important
1288 conclusions. First, as shown in previous studies (e.g. Jung et al., 2003; Majumdar and
Ray, 2011; Reuvers et al., 2008), we found a positive link between transformational
leadership and IWB. Transformational leadership positively influences idea generation
and employee’s creativity on one hand and idea implementation on the other. However,
the positive effect of transformational leadership on idea generation is stronger
than idea implementation. The path coefficient of 0.23 between transformational
leadership and IWB is slightly less than path coefficients found in previous studies
which were mostly carried in western contexts. This may be due to the individual and
cultural differences, as employees in Asian context are more collectivists and prefer to
work on goals set by the organization and the group instead of pursuing personal
goals which inhibit out of the box solutions.
Second, employees’ psychological empowerment perceptions mediated the
relationship between transformational leadership exhibited by leaders and IWB
displayed by employees ( Jung et al., 2003). Our results suggest that an employee displays
innovativeness in his/her behavior due to differences in the feeling of empowerment,
respect, autonomy, meaning, self–determination and competence while working with
their leaders. Our findings confirm prior research (Avolio et al., 2004; Janssen and
Van Yperen, 2004; Pieterse et al., 2010) that psychologically empowered employees
reciprocate with higher levels of organizational creativity and IWB (Figure 3).
However, the influence of psychological empowerment on employee’s idea
generation abilities is much stronger than his/her idea implementation abilities.
This may be due to the fact that giving new and novel ideas encompasses more
meaning, autonomy and self-determination to employees than convincing and
implementing those ideas. Lastly, we found that employee’s definition of self-construal
moderated the effect of transformational leadership on showing willingness to
3
Idea generation
High
2.5 interdependent
self-construal
2 Low
interdependent
1.5 self-construal
1.5 2 2.5 3
Transformational Leadership
3
implementation
Low
2.5 interdependent
Idea
self-construal
Figure 3. 2
High
Moderating effects of interdependent
interdependent 1.5
self-construal
self-construal 1.5 2 2.5 3
Transformational Leadership
innovate. The results provided evidence that the relation between transformational Transformational
leadership and IWB was stronger among employees with a higher interdependent leadership and
self-construal (H5a), whereas the relation between transformational leadership and
IWB was weaker among employees with a higher independent self-construal (H5b). IWB
Theoretical implications
Our findings help to understand deeper the drivers of IWB among employees 1289
through focus on empowered followers and the relationship they have with
supervisors. Transformational leadership fosters employee’s creativity as well as his/
her ability to convince others to implement novel ideas. Transformational leaders give
autonomy and freedom to employees by placing emphasis on the meaning and worth
of work roles. They stimulate intellectual abilities of employees and inspire them
to create opportunities to significantly impact their work roles, which leads to higher
levels of IWB.
Self-construal which has been found to impact the relation between transformational
leadership and employee’s innovativeness is an additional contribution of this study.
Our study collected leadership and IWB ratings from multiple industries and different
departments within the same firm, increasing better understanding of the relationships
among the studied constructs and reducing the potential effects of common methods
and single source bias. Moreover, prior studies that have examined the impact of
transformational leadership on employees’ IWB have not tested for moderating effect of
interdependent self-construal and independent self-construal. Self-construal has been
found to moderate the impact of transformational leadership on innovativeness. The
findings suggest that when a high-interdependent employee is inspired and motivated
by a transformational leader, his/her preference to embed in to groups to promote the
collective identity of the organization and primacy of organizational goals helps him/her
to think and act creatively. IWB requires employees to find support for their ideas among
co-workers, socialize in teams, understand group dynamics and intertwine with others.
IWB is not only about generating solutions for problems and creating useful novel ideas
but it’s about incarnating ideas into realities and making them part of the organizational
processes. Implementing ideas need support from teams, groups and organizations.
On the contrary, employees with strong independent self-construal (preference for
personal goals) weaken the relation between transformational leadership and IWB as
they are unable to gather support for the idea implementation.
Practical implications
There are several practical implications that can be derived from our findings. It is
practically important for leaders to understand what fosters IWB among employees.
Those employees who have high interdependent self-construal display more IWB
under the influence of transformational leader as compared to the employees who
prefer personal identities and goals over their organizational identities and goals.
Therefore, leaders should try to initiate socialization and training programs to bring
closer their subordinates. This can be applied to the recruitment strategy by selecting
those employees who prefer group goals and aspirations over individual goals and
aspirations. Continuous innovation is critical for leaders and as innovation brings
change in organization and employees who are socially interwoven care and help each
other to accept the change. Those who are socially distant are difficult to convince for a
change because they prefer status quo. By creating a greater sense of empowerment,
transformational leaders could have a more positive effect on levels of IWB of their
IMDS subordinates. To promote feelings of psychological empowerment, managers should
114,8 articulate a vision to innovate continuously to inspire employees, recognize their
efforts and give autonomy in job-related activities, clarify goals through collaboration
and clearly specify tasks, responsibilities, and rewards, understand their needs
and demands, build trust and confidence among employees to try out new ideas.
To conclude, our findings suggest that not only the motivational issue of “what do you
1290 want” is important for employee IWB, but that the self-identity issue of “who you are”
also plays an important role in stimulating employees’ IWB.
Limitations and recommendations

The current study in not without limitations. First, we were unable to establish
causality due to the cross-sectional nature of data. We could not examine whether
empowered employee causes more innovativeness in his/her behavior or willingness to
innovate results in more psychological empowerment. Second, we relied on a questionnaire

study and convenience samples. Although convenience samples were used and data was
collected from China, the emergence of similar results across studies helps reduce concerns
of limited generalizability and future research is needed to replicate results across western
cultures (e.g. America, Western Europe), work contexts, and study designs. Third,
cross-sectional, self-report method of collecting data might result in common method bias.
We encourage researchers to continue this line of research by exploring other potential
mediator variables on the effects of transformational leadership on IWB and by
conducting longitudinal studies to explore the causal relationships implied in this study.
It would also be beneficial to focus on the impact of transformational leadership on
team-level behaviors and their impact on IWB, in particular the interaction of individuals
with each other and the interaction of individuals as a team because most of the
innovations take place in teams (Hülsheger et al., 2009).
Fourth, the present study relied on supervisory judgments for measuring IWB.
Although it is presumed that supervisory judgments are good measures of IWB, there
is always the potential for bias in perceptual processes. Therefore, future research
might address this issue by including both supervisor and peer ratings in their
studies. This study analyzed the moderating role of self-construal on the relation
between transformational leadership and IWB. However, transformational leadership
affects other job behaviors such as job satisfaction (Walumbwa et al., 2005), turnover
intentions (Walumbwa and Lawler, 2003), organization commitment (Avolio et al., 2004)
and job performance (Walumbwa et al., 2008). Future research may continue to examine
whether self-construal moderates the effects of transformational leadership on these
outcome variables.
In sum, this is the first study to examine the moderating effects of interdependent
self-construal and independent self-construal on the relationship between transformational
leadership and IWB in multiple industries and at multiple organizational levels.
References
Afuah, A. (2003), “Redefining firm boundaries in the face of the internet: are firms really
shrinking?”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 34-53.
Aiken, L.S. and West, S.G. (1991), Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions,
Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA, pp. 49-55.
Amabile, T.M. and Conti, R. (1999), “Changes in the work environment for creativity during
downsizing”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 42 No. 6, pp. 630-640.
Amabile, T.M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J. and Herron, M. (1996), “Assessing the Transformational
work environment for creativity”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 5,
pp. 1154-1184. leadership and
Andersen, S.M. and Chen, S. (2002), “The relational self: an interpersonal social-cognitive theory”, IWB
Psychological Review, Vol. 109 No. 4, pp. 619-645.
Ang, S., Van Dyne, L. and Begley, T.M. (2003), “The employment relationships of foreign workers
versus local employees: a field study of organizational justice, job satisfaction, 1291
performance, and OCB”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 561-583.
Ashforth, B.E. and Mael, F. (1989), “Social identity theory and the organization”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 20-39.
Avolio, B.J. and Bass, B.M. (1995), “Individual consideration viewed at multiple levels of analysis:
a multi-level framework for examining the diffusion of transformational leadership”,
The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 199-218.
Avolio, B.J., Zhu, W., Koh, W. and Bhatia, P. (2004), “Transformational leadership and
organizational commitment: mediating role of psychological empowerment and moderating
role of structural distance”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25 No. 8, pp. 951-968.
Baer, M. (2012), “Putting creativity to work: the implementation of creative ideas in organizations”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 55 No. 5, pp. 1102-1119.
Baer, M. and Frese, M. (2003), “Innovation is not enough: climates for initiative and psychological
safety, process innovations, and firm performance”, Journal of Organizational Behavior,
Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 45-68.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1988), “On the evaluation of structural equation models”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 74-94.
Baker, L.R. and McNulty, J.K. (2013), “When low self-esteem encourages behaviors that risk
rejection to increase interdependence: the role of relational self-construal”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 104 No. 6, pp. 995-1018.
Bandura, A. (1989), “Human agency in social cognitive theory”, American Psychologist, Vol. 44
No. 9, pp. 1175-1184.
Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator – mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1173-1182.
Barroso Castro, C., Villegas Perinan, M.M. and Casillas Bueno, J.C. (2008), “Transformational
leadership and followers’ attitudes: the mediating role of psychological empowerment”,
The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 19 No. 10, pp. 1842-1863.
Basadur, M. (2004), “Leading others to think innovatively together: creative leadership”,
Bass, B.M. (1985), Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations, Free Press, New York, NY,
pp. 350-413.
Bass, B.M. (1991), “From transactional to transformational leadership: learning to share the
vision”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 19-31.
Bass, B.M. (1999), “Two decades of research and development in transformational
leadership”, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 8 No. 1,
pp. 9-32.
Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1997), Full Range of Leadership: Manual for the Multi-Factor
Leadership Questionnaire, Mind Garden, Palto Alto, CA.
Bechtoldt, M.N., Choi, H.S. and Nijstad, B.A. (2012), “Individuals in mind, mates by heart:
individualistic self-construal and collective value orientation as predictors of group
creativity”, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 838-844.
IMDS Berg, A. and Hallberg, I.R. (1999), “Effects of systematic clinical supervision on psychiatric
nurses’ sense of coherence, creativity, work-related strain, job satisfaction and view of the
114,8 effects from clinical supervision: a pre-post test design”, Journal of Psychiatric and Mental
Health Nursing, Vol. 6 No. 5, pp. 371-381.
Blau, P.M. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, Transaction Publishers, Jossey-Bass,
New York, NY.
1292 Bono, J.E. and Judge, T.A. (2003), “Self-concordance at work: toward understanding the
motivational effects of transformational leaders”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 46 No. 5, pp. 554-571.
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.
Brewer, M.B. (1991), “The social self: on being the same and different at the same time”,
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 475-482.

Brewer, M.B. and Chen, Y.R. (2007), “Where (who) are collectives in collectivism? Toward conceptual
clarification of individualism and collectivism”, Psychological Review, Vol. 114 No. 1, pp. 133-151.
Brislin, R.W. (1980), “Translation and content analysis of oral and written material”, Handbook of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 349-444.
Brockner, J., De Cremer, D., van den Bos, K. and Chen, Y.R. (2005), “The influence of
interdependent self-construal on procedural fairness effects”, Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, Vol. 96 No. 2, pp. 155-167.
Burns, J.M. (1978), Leadership, Harper and Row, New York, NY, pp. 67-79.
Chen, Z.X. and Aryee, S. (2007), “Delegation and employee work outcomes: an examination of the
cultural context of mediating processes in china”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 226-238.
Conger, J.A. and Kanungo, R.N. (1988), “The empowerment process: integrating theory and
practice”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 471-482.
Cristina-Corina, B. (2012), “Independent-interdependent self-construal’s and values’ appreciation
in competitive and cooperative conditions”, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences,
Vol. 47 pp. 1632-1637.
Daft, R.L. (2001), The Leadership Experience, Harcourt College Publishers, Fort Worth, TX.
Deci, E.L., Connell, J.P. and Ryan, R.M. (1989), “Self-determination in a work organization”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 74 No. 4, pp. 580-590.
De Cremer, D. and Van Vugt, M. (2002), “Intergroup and intra-group aspects of leadership in
social dilemmas: a relational model of cooperation”, Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 126-136.
De Jong, J. and Den Hartog, D. (2010), “Measuring innovative work behavior”, Creativity and
Innovation Management, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 23-36.
De Jong, J.P. and Den Hartog, D.N. (2007), “How leaders influence employees’ innovative
behavior”, 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
Management, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 37-57.
Dust, S.B., Resick, C.J. and Mawritz, M.B. (2014), “Transformational leadership, psychological
empowerment, and the moderating role of mechanistic – organic contexts”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 413-433.
Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B.J. and Shamir, B. (2002), “Impact of transformational leadership on
follower development and performance: a field experiment”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 735-744.
Eisenbeiss, S.A., van Knippenberg, D. and Boerner, S. (2008), “Transformational leadership and Transformational
team innovation: integrating team climate principles”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 93 No. 6, pp. 1438-1446. leadership and
Elkins, T. and Keller, R.T. (2003), “Leadership in research and development organizations: a IWB
literature review and conceptual framework”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 14 No. 4,
pp. 587-606.
Epitropaki, O. and Martin, R. (2005), “The moderating role of individual differences in the relation 1293
between transformational/transactional leadership perceptions and organizational
identification”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 569-589.
Farr, F. and Ford, C. (1990), “Individual innovation”, in West, M.A. and Farr, J.L. (Eds), Innovation and
Creativity at Work: Psychological and Organizational Strategies, Wiley, Chichester, pp. 63-80.
Fiol, C.M. (1996), “Squeezing harder doesn’t always work: continuing the search for consistency
in innovation research”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 1012-1021.
Frese, M., Kring, W., Soose, A. and Zempel, J. (1996), “Personal initiative at work: differences
between East and West Germany”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 1,
pp. 37-63.
Gabriel, S., Renaud, J.M. and Tippin, B. (2007), “When I think of you, I feel more confident about
me: the relational self and self-confidence”, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
Vol. 43 No. 5, pp. 772-779.
Garcia-Morales, V.J., Matias-Reche, F. and Hurtado-Torres, N. (2008), “Influence of transformational
leadership on organizational innovation and performance depending on the level of
organizational learning in the pharmaceutical sector”, Journal of Organizational Change
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.
Gudykunst, W.B., Matsumoto, Y., Ting-Toomey, S.T.E.L.L.A., Nishida, T., Kim, K. and Heyman,
S. (1996), “The influence of cultural individualism-collectivism, self construals, and
individual values on communication styles across cultures”, Human Communication
Research, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 510-543.
Gudykunst, W.B. and Lee, C.M. (2003), “Assessing the validity of self construal scales”, Human
Communication Research, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 253-274.
Gumusluoglu, L. and Ilsev, A. (2009), “Transformational leadership, creativity, and
organizational innovation”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 62 No. 4, pp. 461-473.
Hains, S.C., Hogg, M.A. and Duck, J.M. (1997), “Self-categorization and leadership: effects of
group prototypicality and leader stereotypicality”, Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, Vol. 23 No. 10, pp. 1087-1100.
Hair, J.F. Jr, Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R.L. (2006), Multivariate Data
Analysis, 6th ed., Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Harborne, P. and Johne, A. (2003), “Creating a project climate for successful product innovation”,
European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 118-132.
Hardin, E.E., Leong, F.T. and Bhagwat, A.A. (2004), “Factor structure of the self-construal scale
revisited implications for the multidimensionality of self-construal”, Journal of Cross-
Cultural Psychology, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 327-345.
Haslam, S.A., van Knippenberg, D., Platow, M. and Ellemers, N. (2003), Social Identity at Work:
Developing Theory for Organizational Practice, Psychology Press, New York, NY, pp. 139-154.
Henker, N., Sonnentag, S. and Unger, D. (2014), “Transformational leadership and employee
creativity: the mediating role of promotion focus and creative process engagement”,
Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 1-13.
IMDS Hennessey, B.A. and Amabile, T.M. (2010), “Creativity”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 61
pp. 569-598.
114,8
Hepworth, W. and Towler, A. (2004), “The effects of individual differences and charismatic
leadership on workplace aggression”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 9
No. 2, pp. 176-185.
Hogg, M.A. and van Knippenberg, D. (2003), “Social identity and leadership processes in groups”,
1294 in Zanna, M.P. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 35, Elsevier
Academic Press, San Diego, CA, pp. 1-52.
Hogg, M.A. (2003), “Social identity”, in Leary, M.R. and Tangney, J.P. (Eds), Handbook of Self and
Identity, Guilford, New York, NY, pp. 462-479.
Hogg, M.A. and Martin, R. (2003), Social Identity Analysis of Leader-Member Relations:
Reconciling Self-Categorization and Leader-Member Exchange Theories of Leadership,
Psychology Press, New York, NY, pp. 139-154.
Houghton, J.D. and Yoho, S.K. (2005), “Toward a contingency model of leadership and
psychological empowerment: when should self-leadership be encouraged?”, Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 65-83.
Hu, L.T. and Bentler, P.M. (1999), “Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives”, Structural Equation Modeling: A
Multidisciplinary Journal, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1-55.
Hughes, R.L., Ginnett, R.C. and Curphy, G.J. (1999), Leadership: Enhancing the Lessons of
Experience, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Hülsheger, U.R., Anderson, N. and Salgado, J.F. (2009), “Team-level predictors of innovation
at work: a comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 94 No. 5, pp. 1128-1145.
Hyypiä, M. and Parjanen, S. (2013), “Boosting creativity with transformational leadership in
fuzzy front end innovation processes”, Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge
and Management, Vol. 8 pp. 21-41.
James, L.R., Mulaik, S.A. and Brett, J.M. (1982), Causal Analysis: Assumptions, Models, and Data,
Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA, pp. 345-367.
Janssen, O. (2004), “How fairness perceptions make innovative behavior more or less stressful”,
Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 201-215.
Janssen, O. (2005), “The joint impact of perceived influence and supervisor supportiveness on
employee innovative behavior”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,
Vol. 78 No. 4, pp. 573-579.
Jha, S. (2014), “Transformational leadership and psychological empowerment: determinants
of organizational citizenship behavior”, South Asian Journal of Global Business Research,
Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 18-35.
Joo, B.K.B. and Lim, T. (2013), “Transformational leadership and career satisfaction: the
mediating role of psychological empowerment”, Journal of Leadership & Organizational
Studies, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 316-326.
Jung, D.D., Wu, A. and Chow, C.W. (2008), “Towards understanding the direct and indirect effects
of CEOs’ transformational leadership on firm innovation”, The Leadership Quarterly,
Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 582-594.
Jung, D.I. (2001), “Transformational and transactional leadership and their effects on creativity
in groups”, Creativity Research Journal, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 185-195.
Jung, D.I. and Sosik, J.J. (2002), “Transformational leadership in work groups the role of
empowerment, cohesiveness, and collective-efficacy on perceived group performance”,
Small Group Research, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 313-336.
Jung, D.I., Chow, C. and Wu, A. (2003), “The role of transformational leadership in enhancing Transformational
organizational innovation: hypotheses and some preliminary findings”, The Leadership
Quarterly, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 525-544. leadership and
Kahai, S.S., Sosik, J.J. and Avolio, B.J. (2003), “Effects of leadership style, anonymity, and rewards IWB
on creativity-relevant processes and outcomes in an electronic meeting system context”,
Kanagawa, C., Cross, S.E. and Markus, H.R. (2001), “‘Who am I?’ The cultural psychology of the 1295
conceptual self”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 90-103.
Kendall, P.C., Chu, B., Gifford, A., Hayes, C. and Nauta, M. (1999), “Breathing life into a manual:
flexibility and creativity with manual-based treatments”, Cognitive and Behavioral
Practice, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 177-198.
Kanter, R.M. (1988), “Three tiers for innovation research”, Communication Research, Vol. 15
No. 5, pp. 509-523.
Kihlstrom, J., Beer, J. and Klein, S. (2003), “Self and identity as memory”, in Leary, M. and
Tangney, J. (Eds), Handbook of Self and Identity, Guilford Press, New York, NY, pp. 68-90.
King, N. and Anderson, N. (2002), Managing Innovation and Change: A Critical Guide for
Organizations, Thomson, London, pp. 277-299.
Krause, D.E. (2004), “Influence-based leadership as a determinant of the inclination to innovate
and of innovation-related behaviors: an empirical investigation”, The Leadership
Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 79-102.
Krishnan, V.R. (2012), “Transformational leadership and personal outcomes: empowerment as
mediator”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 550-563.
Laschinger, H.K.S., Finegan, J.E., Shamian, J. and Wilk, P. (2004), “A longitudinal analysis of the
impact of workplace empowerment on work satisfaction”, Journal of Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 527-545.
Leary, M.R. and Tangney, J.P. (2003), Handbook of Self and Identity, 7 The Guilford Press,
New York, NY, pp. 470-473.
Li, H., Rau, P.L.P., Zhao, X. and Salvendy, G. (2013), “On relationship between self-construal
and individual behavior in video-mediated multicultural group decision making”,
in Rau, P.L.P. (Ed.), Cross-Cultural Design. Cultural Differences in Everyday Life, Springer,
Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 247-256.
Liu, J., Liu, X. and Zeng, X. (2011), “Does transactional leadership count for team innovativeness?:
The moderating role of emotional labor and the mediating role of team efficacy”, Journal of
Organizational Change Management, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 282-298.
Levitt, T. (1963), “Creativity is not enough”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 72-83.
Liden, R.C., Wayne, S.J. and Sparrowe, R.T. (2000), “An examination of the mediating role of
psychological empowerment on the relations between the job, interpersonal relationships,
and work outcomes”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85 No. 3, pp. 407-416.
Lord, R.G. and Brown, D.J. (2004), Leadership Processes and Follower Identity, Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Lord, R.G., Brown, D.J. and Freiberg, S.J. (1999), “Understanding the dynamics of leadership: the
role of follower self-concepts in the leader/follower relationship”, Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 78 No. 3, pp. 167-203.
Lu, L., Gilmour, R., Kao, S.F., Weng, T.H., Hu, C.H., Chern, J.G. and Shih, J.B. (2001), “Two ways to
achieve happiness: when the East meets the West”, Personality and Individual Differences,
Vol. 30 No. 7, pp. 1161-1174.
Mael, F. and Ashforth, B.E. (1995), “Loyal from day one: biodata, organizational identification,
and turnover among newcomers”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 309-333.
IMDS Majumdar, B. and Ray, A. (2011), “Transformational leadership and innovative work behavior”,
Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 140-148.
114,8
Malloch, K. (2014), “Beyond transformational leadership to greater engagement: inspiring
innovation in complex organizations”, Nurse Leader, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 60-63.
Markus, H.R. and Kitayama, S. (1991), “Culture and the self: implications for cognition, emotion,
and motivation”, Psychological Review, Vol. 98 No. 2, pp. 224-253.
1296 Markus, H.R. and Kitayama, S. (2003), “Culture, self, and the reality of the social”, Psychological
Inquiry, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 277-283.
Martin, R. and Epitropaki, O. (2001), “Role of organizational identification on implicit leadership
theories (ILTs), transformational leadership and work attitudes”, Group Processes and
Intergroup Relations, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 247-262.
Maynard, M.T., Gilson, L.L. and Mathieu, J.E. (2012), “Empowerment – fad or fab? A multilevel
review of the past two decades of research”, Journal of Management, Vol. 38 No. 4,
pp. 1231-1281.
Mumford, M.D. and Gustafson, S.B. (1988), “Creativity syndrome: integration, application, and
innovation”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 1, pp. 27-43.
Mytelka, L.K. and Smith, K. (2002), “Policy learning and innovation theory: an interactive and
co-evolving process”, Research Policy, Vol. 31 No. 8, pp. 1467-1479.
Neff, K.D., Pisitsungkagarn, K. and Hsieh, Y.P. (2008), “Self-compassion and self-construal in the
United States, Thailand, and Taiwan”, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 39 No. 3,
pp. 267-285.
Oyserman, D. and Lee, S.W. (2008), “Does culture influence what and how we think? Effects of
priming individualism and collectivism”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 134 No. 2, pp. 311-342.
Oyserman, D., Coon, H.M. and Kemmelmeier, M. (2002), “Rethinking individualism and
collectivism: evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses”, Psychological
Bulletin, Vol. 128 No. 1, pp. 3-72.
Özaralli, N. (2003), “Effects of transformational leadership on empowerment and team
effectiveness”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 335-344.
Parker, S.K. and Axtell, C.M. (2001), “Seeing another viewpoint: antecedents and outcomes
of employee perspective taking”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 6,
pp. 1085-1100.
Parker, S.K., Williams, H.M. and Turner, N. (2006), “Modeling the antecedents of proactive
behavior at work”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 91 No. 3, pp. 636-647.
Pearce, C.L. and Ensley, M.D. (2004), “A reciprocal and longitudinal investigation of the
innovation process: the central role of shared vision in product and process innovation
teams (PPITs)”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 259-278.
Piccolo, R.F. and Colquitt, J.A. (2006), “Transformational leadership and job behaviors: the
mediating role of core job characteristics”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 49 No. 2,
pp. 327-340.
Pieterse, A.N., Van Knippenberg, D., Schippers, M. and Stam, D. (2010), “Transformational and
transactional leadership and innovative behavior: the moderating role of psychological
empowerment”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 609-623.
Platow, M.J. and van Knippenberg, D. (2001), “A social identity analysis of leadership endorsement:
the effects of leader in-group proto-typicality and distributive intergroup fairness”,
Podsakoff, P.M. and Organ, D.W. (1986), “Self-reports in organizational research: problems and
prospects”, Journal of Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 531-544.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in Transformational
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal
of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903. leadership and
Ramamoorthy, N., Flood, P.C., Slattery, T. and Sardessai, R. (2005), “Determinants of innovative IWB
work behavior: development and test of an integrated model”, Creativity and Innovation
Reuvers, M., Van Engen, M.L., Vinkenburg, C.J. and Wilson-Evered, E. (2008), “Transformational 1297
leadership and innovative work behavior: exploring the relevance of gender differences”,
Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 227-244.
Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2000), “Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being”, American Psychologist, Vol. 55 No. 1,
pp. 68-78.
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 and

Organizational Studies, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 145-158.
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.
Scott, S.G. and Bruce, R.A. (1998), “Following the leader in R and D: the joint effect of subordinate
problem-solving style and leader-member relations on innovative behavior”, IEEE
Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 3-10.
Sedikides, C. and Brewer, M.B. (Eds.) (2001), Individual Self, Relational Self, Collective Self,
Psychology Press.
Seibert, S.E., Wang, G. and Courtright, S.H. (2011), “Antecedents and consequences of
psychological and team empowerment in organizations: a meta-analytic review”, Journal
of Applied Psychology, Vol. 96 No. 5, pp. 981-1003.
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.
Shalley, C.E., Zhou, J. and Oldham, G.R. (2004), “The effects of personal and contextual
characteristics on creativity: where should we go from here?”, Journal of Management,
Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 933-958.
Sharkey, W.F. and Singelis, T.M. (1995), “Embarrassability and self-construal: a theoretical
integration”, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 919-926.
Shin, S.J. and Zhou, J. (2003), “Transformational leadership, conservation, and creativity:
evidence from Korea”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 46 No. 6, pp. 703-714.
Shipton, H., West, M.A., Dawson, J., Birdi, K. and Patterson, M. (2006), “Human resource
management as a predictor of innovation”, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 16
No. 1, pp. 3-27.
Showers, C.J. and Zeigler-Hill, V. (2003), “Organization of self-knowledge: features, functions, and
flexibility”, Handbook of Self and Identity, Guilford Press, New York, NY, pp. 47-67.
Singelis, T.M. (1994), “The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals”,
Smith, W.K. and Tushman, M.L. (2005), “Managing strategic contradictions: a top management
model for managing innovation streams”, Organization Science, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 522-536.
Sobel, M.E. (1988), “Direct and indirect effects in linear structural equation models”, in Long, J.S.
(Ed.), Common Problems/Proper Solutions: Avoiding Error in Quantitative Research, Sage,
Beverly Hills, CA, pp. 46-64.
IMDS Somech, A. and Drach-Zahavy, A. (2013), “Translating team creativity to innovation
implementation the role of team composition and climate for innovation”, Journal of
114,8 Management, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 684-708.
Sosik, J.J. (1997), “Effects of transformational leadership and anonymity on idea generation
in computer-mediated groups”, Group and Organization Management, Vol. 22 No. 4,
pp. 460-487.
1298 Spreitzer, G.M. (1995), “Psychological empowerment in the workplace: dimensions, measurement,
and validation”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 1442-1465.
Stets, J.E. and Burke, P.J. (2003), “A sociological approach to self and identity”, Handbook of Self
and Identity, Guilford Press, New York, NY, pp. 128-152.
Thomas, K.W. and Velthouse, B.A. (1990), “Cognitive elements of empowerment: an ‘interpretive’
model of intrinsic task motivation”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 15 No. 4,
pp. 666-681.
Tierney, P. and Farmer, S.M. (2002), “Creative self-efficacy: its potential antecedents and
relationship to creative performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 45 No. 6,
pp. 1137-1148.
Tierney, P. and Farmer, S.M. (2004), “The Pygmalion process and employee creativity”, Journal of
Tipu, S.A.A., Ryan, J.C. and Fantazy, K.A. (2012), “Transformational leadership in Pakistan:
an examination of the relationship of transformational leadership to organizational culture
and innovation propensity”, Journal of Management & Organization, Vol. 18 No. 4,
pp. 461-480.
Utz, S. (2004), “Self-construal and cooperation: is the interdependent self more cooperative than
the independent self?”, Self and Identity, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 177-190.
Van de Ven, A.H. (1986), “Central problems in the management of innovation”, Management
Science, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 590-607.
van Knippenberg, D. and Hogg, M.A. (2003), “A social identity model of leadership effectiveness
in organizations”, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25 pp. 245-297.
Van Knippenberg, D., Van Knippenberg, B., De Cremer, D. and Hogg, M.A. (2004), “Leadership,
self, and identity: a review and research agenda”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 6,
pp. 825-856.
Volmer, J., Spurk, D. and Niessen, C. (2012), “Leader-member exchange (LMX), job autonomy, and
creative work involvement”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 456-465.
Voyer, B.G. and McIntosh, B. (2013), “The psychological consequences of power on self-perception:
implications for leadership”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 34 No. 7,
pp. 639-660.
Walsh, M., Dupré, K. and Arnold, K.A. (2014), “Processes through which transformational
leaders affect employee psychological health”, Zeitschrift fuer Personalforschung (German
Journal of Research in Human Resource Management), Vol. 28 Nos 1-2, pp. 162-172.
Walumbwa, F.O. and Lawler, J.J. (2003), “Building effective organizations: transformational
leadership, collectivist orientation, work-related attitudes and withdrawal behaviors
in three emerging economies”, International Journal of Human Resource Management,
Vol. 14 No. 7, pp. 1083-1101.
Walumbwa, F.O., Avolio, B.J. and Zhu, W. (2008), “How transformational leadership weaves its
influence on individual job performance: the role of identification and efficacy beliefs”,
Personnel Psychology, Vol. 61 No. 4, pp. 793-825.
Walumbwa, F.O., Orwa, B., Wang, P. and Lawler, J.J. (2005), “Transformational leadership,
organizational commitment, and job satisfaction: a comparative study of Kenyan and US
financial firms”, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 235-256.
Wang, A.C. and Cheng, B.S. (2010), “When does benevolent leadership lead to creativity? The Transformational
moderating role of creative role identity and job autonomy”, Journal of Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 106-121. leadership and
Wang, H., Law, K.S., Hackett, R.D., Wang, D. and Chen, Z.X. (2005), “Leader-member exchange as IWB
a mediator of the relationship between transformational leadership and followers’
performance and organizational citizenship behavior”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 420-432.
1299
Wat, D. and Shaffer, M.A. (2005), “Equity and relationship quality influences on organizational
citizenship behaviors: the mediating role of trust in the supervisor and empowerment”,
Personnel Review, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 406-422.
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.
Whittington, J.L., Goodwin, V.L. and Murray, B. (2004), “Transformational leadership, goal
difficulty, and job design: Independent and interactive effects on employee outcomes”, The
Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 593-606.
Widaman, K.F. (1985), “Hierarchically nested covariance structure models for multitrait-
multimethod data”, Applied Psychological Measurement, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 1-26.
Williams, L.J., Cote, J.A. and Buckley, M.R. (1989), “Lack of method variance in self-reported
affect and perceptions at work: reality or artifact?”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 74
No. 3, pp. 462-468.
Zhang, X. and Bartol, K.M. (2010), “Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: the
influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process
engagement”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 107-128.
Zhou, J. (1998), “Feedback valence, feedback style, task autonomy, and achievement orientation:
interactive effects on creative performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 83 No. 3,
pp. 261-276.
Zohar, D. and Tenne-Gazit, O. (2008), “Transformational leadership and group interaction as
climate antecedents: a social network analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 93
No. 4, pp. 744-757.
Further reading
Basu, R. and Green, S.G. (1997), “Leader-member exchange and transformational leadership:
an empirical examination of innovative behaviors in leader-member dyads”, Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 477-499.
Chen, M.Y.C., Lin, C.Y.Y., Lin, H.E. and McDonough, E.F. III (2012), “Does transformational
leadership facilitate technological innovation? The moderating roles of innovative
culture and incentive compensation”, Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Vol. 29 No. 2,
pp. 239-264.
Cross, S E., Erin, E.H. and Berna, G.S. (2011), “The what, how, why, and where of self-construal”,
Personality and Social Psychology Review, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 142-179.
Fiske, A.P. (2002), “Using individualism and collectivism to compare cultures – a critique of the
validity and measurement of the constructs: comment on Oyserman et al. (2002)”,
Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 128 No. 1, pp. 78-88.
Fry, L.W. (2003), “Toward a theory of spiritual leadership”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 14
No. 6, pp. 693-727.
Jordan, C.H., Spencer, S.J., Zanna, M.P., Hoshino-Browne, E. and Correll, J. (2003), “Secure and
defensive high self-esteem”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 85 No. 5,
pp. 969-978.
IMDS Keller, R.T. (2006), “Transformational leadership, initiating structure, and substitutes for
leadership: a longitudinal study of research and development project team performance”,
114,8 Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 91 No. 1, pp. 202-210.
Lord, R.G. and Hall, R. (2003), “Identity, leadership categorization, and leadership schema”,
Leadership and Power: Identity Processes in Groups and Organizations, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 64-75.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Moorman, R.H. and Fetter, R. (1990), “Transformational leader
1300 behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational
citizenship behaviors”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 107-142.
Shamir, B., House, R. and Arthur, M.B. (1993), “The motivational effects of charismatic
leadership: a self-concept based theory”, Organization Science, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 577-594.
Waldman, D.A. and Atwater, L.E. (1994), “The nature of effective leadership and championing
processes at different levels in a RandD hierarchy”, The Journal of High Technology
Management Research, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 233-245.
Zhou, J. and Shalley, C.E. (2003), “Research on employee creativity: a critical review and
directions for future research”, Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management,
Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 165-217.
About the authors

Bilal Afsar is a PhD Student in the School of Management at the Asian Institute of Technology,
Bangkok, Thailand. He served as a Lecturer in the Department of Management Sciences at the
Hazara University, Pakistan for five years. He also served as a Marketing Manager in one of
the leading hotels and provided consultancy services to the local hotels in Pakistan. He has
published nine articles in various reputed journals of management in area of high-performance
work systems and human resource management. His research interests include managerial
psychology, employee commitments, organizational citizenship behavior, union participation,
psychological contract and employee relations. Bilal Afsar is the corresponding author and can
be contacted at: afsarbilal@yahoo.com
Dr Yuosre F. Badir is an Assistant Professor in the School of Management at the Asian
Institute of Technology, Bangkok, Thailand. His research interests include technology and
innovation management and managerial psychology.
Bilal Bin Saeed is a PhD Student in the Dongling School of Economics and Management,
China. His research interests include employee commitment, organization citizenship behavior
and workplace emotions.
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Industrial Management & Data Systems: Article Information

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Industrial Management & Data Systems: Article Information

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

Industrial Management & Data Systems: Article Information

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Industrial Management & Data Systems

Transformational leadership and innovative work behavior

References: this document contains references to 174 other documents.

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

Somech and Drach-Zahavy, 2013).

to which an individual can influence organizational outcomes (Ashforth and Mael,

stimulation, intrinsic motivation, support for innovation and employee creativity

H1. Transformational leadership is directly and positively related to employees’

H1a. Transformational leadership is directly and positively related to idea generation.

H1b. Transformational leadership is directly and positively related to idea

Transformational leadership and psychological empowerment. Garcia-Morales et al.

H2. Transformational leadership is positively related to employees’ psychological

Psychological empowerment and IWB

H3. Employee’s psychological empowerment is positively related to his/her IWB.

The mediating role of psychological empowerment

H4. Psychological empowerment mediates the relationship between transformational

accomplishments (Neff et al., 2008).

H5a. Interdependent self-construal moderates the relationship between transformational

H5b. Independent self-construal moderates the relation between transformational

Transformational Leadership Innovative Work Behavior

innovation (Table I).

Company name Industry Headquarters

Baidu Computer services Beijing

turned in a survey) were returned for 639 individuals.

Data analysis and results

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)

The structural model

self-construal, psychological empowerment and IWB. We represented each latent

w2/df GFI CFI NNFI RMSEA

In addition, the model achieved a satisfactory level of goodness of fit in predicting

Standardized path coefficients (t-value)

TL-IG 0.26 (2.38*) 0.25 (2.43**)

leadership (b ¼ 0.49; po0.001 coupled with the significance of psychological

Sobel test TL- TL- PE- TL-IWB; mediator

Table VI. Innovative work

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

2.5 Low independent

Limitations and recommendations

innovate results in more psychological empowerment. Second, we relied on a questionnaire

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 475-482.

transformational leadership and organizational culture”, Journal of Leadership and

About the authors

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

You might also like