WK11_OTWA

POSITIVE TEAM ATMOSPHERE MEDIATES THE IMPACT OF AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP ON SUBORDINATE CREATIVITY

HAO MENG, ZHI-CHAO CHENG, AND TIAN-CHAO GUO Beihang University

We analyzed how authentic leadership (AL) predicts subordinate creativity, taking into account the possible mediator of positive team atmosphere. Participants were 69 team leaders and 335 team members working in enterprises in China. Subordinates reported their perception of there being an atmosphere of team trust and psychological safety at work, in addition to the AL of their supervisors, whereas supervisors rated employee creativity. The main findings were as follows: (a) AL positively predicted employee creativity through the mediators of both atmosphere of team trust and psychological safety; and (b) atmosphere of team trust and psychological safety positively affected teams’ knowledge sharing and, in turn, creativity. Our results enrich understanding of the processes through which AL improves subordinates’ creativity. By promoting AL and a team atmosphere of trust and psychological safety, organizations may enhance employees’ creative performance.

Keywords: authentic leadership, team atmosphere, trust, psychological safety, knowledge sharing, creativity.

Authentic leadership (AL), which was developed based on the fields of sociology, leadership science, positive psychology, ethics, and positive organizational behavior, is a leadership style that is associated with positive psychological abilities and a positive ethical atmosphere. Luthans and Avolio (2003) defined AL as a process that combines the positive psychological ability of leaders with a high-functioning organizational context. AL is recognized as a genuine, transparent, and morally positive leadership style that can be used to

SOCIAL BEHAVIOR AND PERSONALITY, 2016, 44(3), 355–368 © Society for Personality Research http://dx.doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2016.44.3.355

355

Hao Meng, Zhi-Chao Cheng, and Tian-Chao Guo, School of Economics and Management, Beihang University. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to: Hao Meng, School of Economics and Management, Beihang University, No. 37 Xueyuan Road, Haidian District, Beijing City 100191, People’s Republic of China. Email: [email protected]

AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP AND SUBORDINATE CREATIVITY356

promote effectively a positive attitude (e.g., job satisfaction) and behaviors (e.g., creativity) in subordinates (George, 2003; Luthans & Avolio, 2003).

Employee creativity refers to the capability of the staff to generate novel and useful ideas (Amabile, 1988). In the era of the knowledge economy, employee creativity is a significant source of innovation in enterprises. It can not only enhance organizational effectiveness and survival but can also improve competitive organizational advantage (Amabile, 1988). Therefore, in today’s rapidly changing and highly competitive environment, an increasing number of researchers and managers are realizing the need to encourage innovative behaviors in their staff (Zhou & George, 2003). From an organizational environment perspective, studies of creativity, leadership, and leader behavior are needed to elucidate their influence on the creativity of subordinates; for example, some scholars have emphasized that leadership affects the organizational environment and has a decisive influence on the generation of employee creativity (Shalley & Gilson, 2004). Others have noted the importance of recognizing the effects of specific leadership behaviors and leadership characteristics (e.g., AL; George, 2003) on actions—and modes of actions—that support, promote, or restrict creativity (Gardner, Cogliser, Davis, & Dickens, 2011; Rego, Sousa, Marques, & Pina e Cunha, 2014; Shalley & Gilson, 2004).

Although the positive effect of AL on subordinates’ behavior and creativity has gained considerable theoretical support, it remains necessary to conduct further empirical studies to understand how this mechanism functions (Avolio & Mhatre, 2012; Gardner et al., 2011). Psychological capital, positive emotions, and hope have been used as mediating variables in past studies to reveal the process through which AL affects creativity (Rego et al., 2012, 2014); however, the possible mediator of a positive atmosphere at work has so far been ignored. A review of the relevant literature on employee creativity shows that the creation of an organizational atmosphere that allows employees to attempt new methods boldly without fear of punishment for failure is one of the important roles of leaders (Ekvall, 1996). Indeed, AL is recognized (George, 2003; Luthans & Avolio, 2003) as a genuine, transparent, and morally positive leadership style that is conducive to the creation of a good team atmosphere of trust and psychological safety, which, in turn, greatly facilitates staff willingness and creativity. Through the intervening mechanisms of trust and psychological security in a work context, AL and subordinate creativity are linked, and we hoped to contribute to a fuller explanation of this relationship. This study was a response to Avolio and Mhatre’s (2012) call for a wider range of intermediary mechanisms to be investigated in order to better understand how AL exerts a positive influence on subordinates’ output. Therefore, our first purpose was to expand the linear research network that is focused on AL, and our second purpose was to establish a model of

AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP AND SUBORDINATE CREATIVITY 357

positive atmosphere as a mediating variable in the relationship between AL and employee creativity.

Literature Review and Hypotheses

AL can be used to address the overall decrease in the morality of contemporary leadership and the advancing crisis of trust inside organizations (Avolio & Mhatre, 2012). First, AL is focused on the promotion of what is right rather than on paying attention to short-term profits without moral considerations; simultaneously, the genuine, transparent, and moral nature of authentic leaders can help to rebuild the trust of subordinates and colleagues (Avolio & Mhatre, 2012; George, 2003). Second, AL behavior can help to create a positive team atmosphere of trust and psychological safety, and subordinates’ perception of working in such an environment promotes the generation of creativity. Last, working in an atmosphere based on trust and security can promote knowledge sharing among team members, which can facilitate creativity (May, Gilson, & Harter, 2004).

Therefore, we examined how a team atmosphere of trust and psychological safety acts as an intermediary variable in the influence mechanism model of AL on subordinate creativity. The theoretical model underlying this study is presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Model of the mechanism of the influence of authentic leadership on subordinate creativity.

Authentic Leadership Initially proposed by Luthans and Avolio (2003), authentic leadership contains

four dimensions: (a) self-consciousness, which refers to the level of the leader’s cognition regarding his/her own individual characteristics of values, strengths and weaknesses, motivations, and other traits; (b) relational transparency, which refers to the leader openly exchanging information with others and expressing his/her true inner thoughts and feelings while openly soliciting different

Authentic leadership

Team atmosphere of trust

Team atmosphere of psychological safety

Employees’ creativity

Knowledge sharingH1

H4

H2

H3

H5

H6

H7

Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01.

AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP AND SUBORDINATE CREATIVITY358

suggestions and ideas (Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing, & Peterson, 2008); (c) internalized morality, which refers to the leader making decisions based on high ethical standards rather than exhibiting appeasing or self-serving behavior when under external pressure (Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Gardner, Avolio, Luthans, May, & Walumbwa, 2005; Walumbwa et al., 2008); and (d) balanced treatment, which refers to the leader fully soliciting different views and opinions before making a decision (Gardner et al., 2005; Walumbwa et al., 2008). In theoretical and empirical studies, researchers (Gardner et al., 2005; Rego et al., 2012) have demonstrated that the core elements of AL are included in these four dimensions.

Team Atmosphere of Trust Team atmosphere of trust, which was proposed by Costigan, Ilter, and

Berman (1998), refers to team members’ shared perception of two aspects: performance being in line with the characteristics of trust, and how issues of trust are addressed. Gardner et al. (2005) argued that AL behavior is conducive to creating a positive team atmosphere that is trusting and inclusive and in which ethics is valued. First, authentic leaders behave in a manner that is consistent with their own deeply held values and moral standards, and win subordinates’ trust and recognition by both encouraging employees to voice different opinions and establishing collaborative relationship networks (Luthans & Avolio, 2003), thereby becoming role models for subordinates (Ilies, Morgeson, & Nahrgang, 2005). Subordinates promote the formation of a consistent manner of action within the team and strengthen the sense of mutual trust among team members by learning the behavioral style of authentic leaders (Walumbwa et al., 2008). Second, through exposing their own true feelings, motivations, and values, authentic leaders promote both transparency in interpersonal relationships within the team and open communication to express team members’ true thoughts and feelings, thus helping enhance the degree of trust within the team (Avolio, Luthans, & Walumbwa, 2004). Therefore, we proposed the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 1: Authentic leadership will be positively associated with a team atmosphere of trust.

From sociological and behavioral perspectives, knowledge sharing is an individual’s voluntary exchange of information and experience with others (Boone, 1997). Effective knowledge sharing, which is based on mutual understanding of, respect for, and trust among team members, is facilitated by an atmosphere of mutual trust that can enhance employees’ psychological commitment to one another and reduce the fear of being taken advantage of by others (Chow & Chan, 2008). The stronger the atmosphere of trust within a team, as perceived by team members, the more active will be the communication and exchanges among members; therefore, the environment for the generation of

AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP AND SUBORDINATE CREATIVITY 359

knowledge-sharing behavior in individual interactions will be more favorable (van den Hooff & de Ridder, 2004). Therefore, we proposed the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 2: A team atmosphere of trust will be positively associated with knowledge sharing.

Team atmosphere affects individuals’ creativity, with Amabile (1988) having noted that colleagues’ support and trust in a working environment enables team members to be more confident in their abilities, and prompts employees to attempt different novel methods in their work. Bock, Zmud, Kim, and Lee (2005) further observed that mutual trust among team members provides support for, and assistance with, the work of other colleagues, which is conducive for members to attempt tasks outside of their formal responsibilities and to propose new viewpoints regarding issues from different perspectives, thereby helping to generate more creative solutions. In addition, Zhou and George (2003) noted that innovative behavior can be generated in communication among colleagues and that trust can enhance the openness of interactions, communication, and cooperation among team members, thereby helping to generate creativity. Therefore, we proposed the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 3: A team atmosphere of trust will be positively associated with individuals’ creativity.

Team Atmosphere of Psychological Safety Psychological security in the workplace relates to employees’ perception of

a team atmosphere that prompts self-expression without fear of the negative impacts on their self-image, status, or career (Kahn, 1990). In the context of a team with psychological security, the members believe that others will not assign blame or seek revenge when mistakes are made, feedback is provided, or suggestions are presented (Edmondson, 1999).

AL can effectively promote subordinates’ trust in, respect for, and identification with leaders through establishing transparent relationships, using inherently high ethical standards, and objectively analyzing relevant data before making decisions (Gardner et al., 2005). Together, these lessen subordinates’ worry about risk and increase their perception of psychological safety (Edmondson, 1999). Authentic leaders tend to express their true thoughts, opinions, and behave accordingly, which can affect subordinates’ attitudes and behavior via the role-model effect, thereby causing subordinates to act their true selves in interpersonal interactions and helping to improve the team’s overall level of honesty and integrity. This decreases team members’ perception of interpersonal risk and enhances their sense of psychological security (Luthans & Avolio, 2003). Therefore, we proposed the following hypothesis:

AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP AND SUBORDINATE CREATIVITY360

Hypothesis 4: Authentic leadership will be positively associated with a team atmosphere of psychological safety.

Tynan (2005) has argued that psychological security provides the necessary conditions for the occurrence of knowledge sharing. First, in a very psycho- logically safe atmosphere, employees do not need to fear that knowledge-sharing behavior will lead to plagiarism of their ideas and, thus, loss of their competitive edge or exposure of their weaknesses, and there is a willingness and capacity to learn and create knowledge by exchanging and sharing. Second, a very psy- chologically safe atmosphere means that team members have fewer concerns about interpersonal risks and take the initiative to support and help others, which facilitates the generation of knowledge-sharing behaviors among team members (Lin, 2007). Therefore, we proposed the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 5: A team atmosphere of psychological safety will be positively associated with knowledge sharing.

Edmondson (1999) concluded that team psychological safety is an important factor that affects individual creativity. First, when employees perceive themselves to be in a safe working environment, they are less concerned with interpersonal risks and devote all of their energy to work tasks; moreover, such an environment may encourage employees to participate voluntarily in innovation and exhibit other positive behaviors (Baer & Frese, 2003). Second, in a very psychologically safe environment, employees do not worry about being misunderstood, ridiculed, or subjected to other interpersonal risks; therefore, they are open and bold in presenting constructive opinions and acting creatively (Kark & Carmeli, 2009). Last, team members who perceive their workplace’s internal environment as being safe can promote active exchanges and discussions within the team, thus helping to generate inspiration and creativity (Tynan, 2005). Therefore, we proposed the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 6: A team atmosphere of psychological safety will be positively associated with individual creativity.

Knowledge Sharing and Individual Creativity The positive impact of knowledge sharing on individual creativity has been

confirmed in some studies. First, knowledge sharing among team members can supplement individuals’ existing knowledge, and promote innovation abilities and performance through the absorption of new knowledge (Lee & Hong, 2014; van den Hooff & de Ridder, 2004; Yeh, Yeh, & Chen, 2012). Second, the knowledge-sharing behavior of team members can enhance their recognition by colleagues and, thus, increase individual employees’ sense of self-efficacy. Notably, employees with high self-efficacy are more courageous in attempting new methods and techniques (Martinez, 2015). Therefore, we proposed the following hypothesis:

AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP AND SUBORDINATE CREATIVITY 361

Hypothesis 7: Knowledge sharing will be positively associated with individual creativity.

Method

Participants Leaders and employees of various departments of enterprises in Beijing, Hebei,

and Shandong, China, were included in a field survey. We considered each of the departments of the enterprises to be a team. Leader–subordinate pairwise data collection was utilized to minimize homologous bias. Team members completed anonymous measures of AL, team atmosphere of trust, team atmosphere of psychological safety, and knowledge sharing, whereas leaders completed measures of team members’ creativity. First, we asked the human resources department of each enterprise to provide lists of leaders and employees in each department. Then, the respective coded survey forms were issued to the leaders and team members of the department, and collected on-site after completion.

We issued 75 leadership survey forms and 387 subordinate survey forms. After excluding invalid forms that were not able to be paired, that is, only leadership or subordinate survey forms, 69 valid leadership survey forms (valid rate of return = 92%) and 335 valid subordinate survey forms (valid rate of return = 92%) were included in the data analyses. In the leadership sample, males the accounted for 84.8%, females 15.2%; 91.1% had a master’s degree or above, remaining 8.9% had a university degree, the average age was 39.9 years (SD = 6.67), the average working years as the team leader was 5.81 years (SD = 1.93). In the subordinate sample, males accounted for 78.7%, females 21.3%; 81.8% had a bachelor’s degree or above, 18.2% had a college degree; the average age was 28.6 years, (SD = 4.67), and the average period of time spent as a member of the team was 19.1 months (SD = 6.91).

Measures We used the official Chinese versions of the scales described below, for which

the validity and reliability have been established. Responses are made on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree).

Authentic leadership. AL was measured using the 16-item scale developed by Walumbwa et al. (2008), which contains dimensions of balanced treatment (three items, e.g., “My immediate leader solicits viewpoints that are different from his/her own.”), internalized morality (four items, e.g., “My immediate leader makes decisions based on his/her core values.”), relational transparency (five items, e.g., “My immediate leader will admit to having made a mistake.”), and self-consciousness (five items, e.g., “My immediate leader is able to improve his/her interactions with others by soliciting feedback.”). The Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient in this study was .817.

AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP AND SUBORDINATE CREATIVITY362

Team atmosphere of trust. We measured team atmosphere of trust with three items developed with reference to the trust scale developed by Costigan et al. (1998). An example item is “When faced with difficulties at work, I believe I can get help from my colleagues.” The Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient in this study was .900.

Team atmosphere of psychological safety. We measured team atmosphere of psychological safety with six items developed with reference to the scale developed by May et al. (2004). An example item is “In my team, I can express my true feelings about work.” The Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient in this study was .897.

Knowledge sharing. We measured knowledge sharing scale with five items developed with reference to the scale developed by van den Hooff and de Ridder (2004). An example item is “I will take the initiative to share with other colleagues the methods and experience that enhance work efficiency.” The Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient in this study was .841.

Creativity. To measure subordinate creativity, we used the four-item scale developed by Zhou and George (2003) in the Chinese context. An example item is “This employee proposed a new and practical idea to improve performance.” The Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient in this study was .867.

Control variables. We controlled for age, gender, tenure in the team, and level of education because these variables may influence the relationship between leadership style and work-related outcome variables (Walumbwa & Lawler, 2003).

Data Analysis Structural equation modeling was used to test the theoretical models and

hypotheses. AMOS version 21 was used to perform confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on the measurement models to test their validity and reliability, and then to test the theoretical models and hypotheses (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988).

Results

Measurement Model Evaluation The validity and reliability of the measurement models were tested via CFA.

The ratio of the chi-squared value to the number of degrees of freedom (2/df) was 1.657, where values under 2 are considered to be acceptable. The goodness- of-fit index (GFI), adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI), comparative fit indicator (comparative fit index, CFI), and nonstandard fitting (Tucker–Lewis index, TLI) indicators were all greater than the desired minimum of .9. The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) was within the upper limit of

AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP AND SUBORDINATE CREATIVITY 363

acceptability of .05. Table 1 shows that the average variance extracted (AVE) of each variable was much greater than .5, indicating that the measurement model had good convergent validity. Last, the discriminant validity of the variables was assessed by comparing the square root of the variable’s AVE and the covariance between the variables (Hatcher, 1994).

Table 2 shows that Cronbach’s  coefficients and composite reliabilities (CR) were greater than, or equal to, .7, indicating that the measurement model had very good reliability. The square roots of the AVE of each variable, that is, the numbers on the diagonal in Table 2, were much greater than the covariance among the study variables.

Table 1. Cronbach’s  Coefficients, Composite Reliabilities, and Average Variance Extracted for Each Study Variable

Variable M SD Cronbach’s  CR AVE

Authentic leadership 2.812 1.103 .817 .716 .610 Team atmosphere of trust 2.836 0.796 .900 .905 .872 Team atmosphere of psychological safety 2.771 0.847 .897 .898 .883 Knowledge sharing 3.127 1.055 .841 .838 .830 Creativity 2.864 0.872 .867 .836 .877

Note. CR = composite reliability; AVE = average variance extracted.

Table 2. Covariance Among Latent Variables

Variable 1 2 3 4 5

1. Authentic leadership .781 2. Team atmosphere of trust .387 .872 3. Team atmosphere of psychological safety .748 .369 .883 4. Knowledge sharing .369 .561 .456 .830 5. Creativity .539 .558 .540 .514 .877

Note. Values on the diagonal are the square root of the average variance extracted.

Structural Model Analysis AMOS version 21.0 was used to test the structural models, and the overall fit

indicators of the models are listed in Table 3. All of the fit indicators met the requirements. The fit indices were all within their respective desirable levels: 2/df < 3; GFI, AGFI, CFI, and TLI > 0.9; and RMSEA < .08.

The testing results for all of the hypotheses are shown in Figure 2. The path coefficients in Figure 2 show support for our first three hypotheses, indicating that AL affected knowledge sharing and creativity through the intermediary role of team atmosphere of trust.

AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP AND SUBORDINATE CREATIVITY364

Table 3. Fit Indicators of the Structural Models

Validity Value Acceptable at

2 150.925 – df 80 – 2/df 1.887 < 3 GFI 0.945 > .90 AGFI 0.917 > .90 CFI 0.976 > .90 TLI 0.968 > .90 RMSEA 0.052 < .08

Note. 2 = chi square, df = degrees of freedom, GFI = goodness-of-fit index, AGFI = adjusted goodness-of-fit index, CFI = comparative fit index, TLI = Tucker-Lewis index, RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation.

Figure 2. Hypotheses testing results.

H4–H6 were also supported, indicating that AL affected knowledge sharing and creativity through the intermediary role of team atmosphere of psychological safety. Finally, H7 was supported, indicating that knowledge sharing had a positive effect on creativity. Therefore, all hypotheses proposed in this study were supported.

AL explained 47% of the variance in team atmosphere of trust and 58% of the variance in team atmosphere of psychological safety. In addition, 46% of the variance in knowledge sharing and 45% of the variance in creativity were explained by their respective antecedent variables.

Discussion

In this study, empirical data were used to validate the mode of action of AL on subordinate creativity via the two intermediary variables of team atmosphere of trust and team atmosphere of psychological safety. The seven hypotheses proposed in this study were supported, which enriches the existing literature

Authentic leadership

Team atmosphere of trust

Team atmosphere of psychological safety

Employees’ creativity

Knowledge sharing.41***

.46***

.34**

.42**

.21**

.41**

.26**

Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01.

AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP AND SUBORDINATE CREATIVITY 365

on AL and employee creativity. First, the results demonstrated that AL can effectively promote subordinate creativity, which is consistent with previous studies on the relationship between AL and creativity via other mediating variables (Costigan et al., 1998). In this study, we also indirectly confirmed that AL helps to create a positive within-team atmosphere (Bock et al., 2005; van den Hooff & de Ridder, 2004) and introduced team atmosphere of trust and team atmosphere of psychological safety into the relationship between AL and creativity, thereby highlighting the intermediary role of a positive team atmosphere. This intermediary has not been addressed in previous studies; thus, our finding constitutes an important developmental step for related theories.

Second, we found that team atmosphere of trust mediates the relationships among AL, knowledge sharing, and creativity. The high ethical standards exhibited by authentic leaders and the transparent relationships established within the team all help to promote subordinates’ trust in their leaders and in other colleagues, thus creating a team atmosphere that is characterized by a high degree of trust. Perceptions of mutual trust and trustworthiness prompt team members to take the initiative to communicate and exchange and share knowledge and information, and this active knowledge-sharing behavior among members can enhance the team’s knowledge content, thus contributing to improved creativity (Boone, 1997).

Last, AL can influence knowledge sharing and creativity through the mediator of team atmosphere of psychological safety. Authentic leaders actively seek different perspectives and express their true thoughts and ideas, which encourages similar behavior in subordinates, thus creating an open atmosphere of communication. Likewise, team members’ trust in authentic leaders can create a strong sense of psychological safety, which helps to strengthen cooperation and knowledge-sharing behaviors among team members, thus allowing internal knowledge to be integrated within the team. This type of environment is conducive to inspiring members to use innovative methods to solve problems and overcome difficulties (Baer & Frese, 2003). Therefore, our findings contribute to a better understanding of the mechanism of AL in employee creativity and provide a theoretical reference for future studies.

Our empirical results in this study have strong practical significance. First, we found that AL is positively correlated with employee creativity in a Chinese context, which means that managers in Chinese enterprises should intensively cultivate AL behavior in management activities in order that managers can serve as role models for their employees and promote creative contributions by their employees. Second, managers should learn and understand the behavioral characteristics of authentic leaders and, when interacting with subordinates, act according to AL standards in order to enhance the degree of subordinates’ trust in both leaders and other team members. Working in an environment that is

AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP AND SUBORDINATE CREATIVITY366

based on trust prompts employees to exhibit positive attitudes and behaviors, which is conducive to generating knowledge-sharing behavior and enhancing employee creativity. Last, leaders should be aware of the impacts of AL on team atmosphere of psychological safety, and of team atmosphere of psychological safety on creativity. In their daily work, team leaders should adopt the AL style and strive to create an atmosphere of high psychological security to ensure that team members are unafraid of interpersonal risks, willing to share knowledge and information actively, and prepared to express their true thoughts and views, thereby enhancing their creativity.

This study has certain limitations. First, our use of cross-sectional data means that the design cannot be used to explain fully the causal relationships among the variables in the theoretical models. Future researchers should conduct longitudinal studies and carry out a more in-depth analysis of the intrinsic relationships among the variables. Second, although some adjustments were made to the design of the survey and data analysis, it was impossible to avoid homologous bias completely. In the future, field experiments may be used to address this issue. Last, this was only a preliminary exploratory investigation. Further comprehensive theoretical research and case studies should be conducted to identify other intermediary variables, and these variables should then be incorporated into the relational model of AL and employee creativity to enrich understanding of the model.

References

Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 10, pp. 123–167). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411–423. http://doi.org/c76

Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 315–338. http://doi.org/fb322d

Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2004). Authentic leadership: Theory-building for veritable sustained performance. Gallup Leadership Institute, University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

Avolio, B. J., & Mhatre, K. H. (2012). Advances in theory and research on authentic leadership. In K. S. Cameron & G. Spreitzer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of positive organizational scholarship (pp. 773–783). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Baer, M., & Frese, M. (2003). Innovation is not enough: Climates for initiative and psychological safety, process innovations and firm performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 45–68.

Bock, G.-W., Zmud, R. W., Kim, Y.-G., & Lee, J.-N. (2005). Behavioral intention formation in knowledge sharing: Examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological forces, and organizational climate. MIS Quarterly, 29, 87–111.

Boone, P. F. (1997). Managing intra-corporate knowledge sharing. Delft, The Netherlands: Eburon. Chow, W. S., & Chan, L. S. (2008). Social network, social trust and shared goals in organizational

knowledge sharing. Information & Management, 45, 458–465. http://doi.org/bjm4dn

AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP AND SUBORDINATE CREATIVITY 367

Costigan, R. D., Ilter, S. S., & Berman, J. J. (1998) A multi-dimensional study of trust in organizations. Journal of Managerial Issues, 10, 303–317.

Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safely and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 350–383. http://doi.org/b9rmv3

Ekvall, G. (1996). Organizational climate for creativity and innovation. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5, 105–123. http://doi.org/djwqdm

Gardner, W. L., Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., May, D. R., & Walumbwa, F. (2005). “Can you see the real me?” A self-based model of authentic leader and follower development. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 343–372. http://doi.org/c7vgs5

Gardner, W. L., Cogliser, C. C., Davis, K., & Dickens, M. (2011). Authentic leadership: A review of the literature and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 1120–1145. http://doi.org/ dp7m42

George, B. (2003). Authentic leadership: Rediscovering the secrets of creating lasting value. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Hatcher, L. (1994). A step-by-step approach to using the SAS system for factor analysis and structural equation modeling. Cary, NC: SAS.

Ilies, R., Morgeson, F. P., & Nahrgang, J. D. (2005). Authentic leadership and eudaemonic well-being: Understanding leader–follower outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 373–394. http://doi.org/fsw7wr

Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692–724. http://doi.org/cbfz7t

Kark, R., & Carmeli, A. (2009). Alive and creating: The mediating role of vitality and aliveness in the relationship between psychological safety and creative work involvement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 785–804. http://doi.org/b3f3mq

Lee, H. S., & Hong, S. A. (2014). Factors affecting hospital employees’ knowledge sharing intention and behavior, and innovation. Osong Public Health and Research Perspectives, 5, 148–155. http://doi.org/8qk

Lin, H.-F. (2007). Effects of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation on employee knowledge sharing intentions. Journal of Information Science, 33, 135–149. http://doi.org/cns

Luthans, F., & Avolio, B. J. (2003). Authentic leadership: A positive development approach. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline (pp. 241–261). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Martinez, M. G. (2015). Solver engagement in knowledge sharing in crowdsourcing communities: Exploring the link to creativity. Research Policy, 44, 1419–1430. http://doi.org/8qm

May, D., Gilson, R., & Harter, L. (2004). The psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77, 11–37. http://doi.org/dgtmkx

Rego, A., Sousa, F., Marques, C., & Pina e Cunha, M. (2012). Authentic leadership promoting employees’ psychological capital and creativity. Journal of Business Research, 65, 429–437. http://doi.org/d6q3dk

Rego, A., Sousa, F., Marques, C., & Pina e Cunha, M. (2014). Hope and positive affect mediating the authentic leadership and creativity relationship. Journal of Business Research, 67, 200–210. http://doi.org/tvk

Shalley, C. E., & 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, 15, 33–53. http://doi.org/ drd7pw

Tynan, R. (2005). The effects of threat sensitivity and face giving on dyadic psychological safety and upward communication. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35, 223–247. http://doi.org/ csgnth

AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP AND SUBORDINATE CREATIVITY368

van den Hooff, B., & de Ridder, J. A. (2004). Knowledge sharing in context: The influence of organizational commitment, communication climate and CMC use on knowledge sharing. Journal of Knowledge Management, 8, 117–130. http://doi.org/dmcv5w

Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Wernsing, T. S., & Peterson, S. J. (2008). Authentic leadership: Development and validation of a theory-based measure. Journal of Management, 34, 89–126. http://doi.org/fq8cqt

Walumbwa, F. O., & Lawler, J. J. (2003). Building effective organizations: Transformational leadership, collectivist orientation, work-related attitudes and withdrawal behaviours in three emerging economies. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14, 1083–1101. http://doi.org/c6f845

Yeh, Y.-C., Yeh, Y.-L., & Chen, Y.-H. (2012). From knowledge sharing to knowledge creation: A blended knowledge-management model for improving university students’ creativity. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 7, 245–257. http://doi.org/8qn

Zhou, J., & George, J. M. (2003). Awakening employee creativity: The role of leader emotional intelligence. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 545–568. http://doi.org/dhxqv4

Copyright of Social Behavior & Personality: an international journal is the property of Society for Personality Research and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.