300 words

Vol. 23, No. 1/2015

„Management and Business Administration. Central Europe” Vol. 23, No. 1/2015: p. 69–78, ISSN 2084-3356; e-ISSN 2300-858X

DOI: 10.7206/mba.ce.2084-3356.134

Relationship Between Leadership Styles and Organizational Creativity

Katarzyna Bratnicka1

Primary submission: 19.02.14. Final acceptance: 14.08.14

Abstract

Purpose: Empirical research on entrepreneurship in organizations has brought disparate and often contradictory evidence related to the impact of leadership on creativity in organizations. The pur- pose of this paper is to explore and discuss the impact of different leadership styles on creativity, with the view to formulating an integrated conceptual model that links creative novelty and crea- tive practicality with leadership.

Methodology: The author applied the methodology of meta-theoretical review. In accordance with the principles of theoretical bricolage, a new conceptual model was built on the basis of the mul- tidimensional creativity theory and the leadership theory. In her analysis, the author took into account leadership styles that have already been subject to research; each of them was mapped in the two-dimensional space of organizational creativity.

Findings: In order to fully understand the reasons for differences in organizational creativity, the drivers of divergences in the space of creative novelty and creative practicality need to be clarified. Greater knowledge about the impact of leadership styles on the structure and configuration of organizational creativity is necessary. In this paper, the author provides a theoretical framework that illustrates manners in which leadership influences organizational creativity. The model clar- ifies the role that leadership plays in shaping a unique configuration of organizational creativity, and consequently in ensuring the necessary internal adaptation of an organization.

Originality: The value of this research lies in the situational interpretation of various leadership styles in the context of their impact on organizational creativity. The analysis goes beyond the conventional discussion about leadership and creativity, focused on establishing whether a given leadership style proves beneficial or not for organizational creativity. The paper identifies particu- lar effects that several key leadership styles have on organizational creativity; they are depicted in a new theoretical framework.

Keywords: organizational creativity, leadership styles, conceptual framework

JEL: D23, L26

1 University of Economics in Katowice Correspondence address: University of Economics in Katowice, 1 Maja 50 St., 40-287 Katowice, e-mail: [email protected].

Unauthenticated Download Date | 6/23/17 6:55 PM

DOI: 10.7206/mba.ce.2084-3356.134

70 MBA.CE

Vol. 23, No. 1/2015

Katarzyna Bratnicka

Introduction

The purpose of this paper is to organize and provide a synthesis of research findings pertaining to the impact of leadership style on creativity in organizations. A recent qualitative study carried out among 29 leaders resulted in identifying three key dimen- sions of leadership: “... origins and determinants of visions; forms of influence and manners in which leaders influence their supporters and associates; attributes that enable leaders to impact the situation” (Kozminski, 2013, p. 81). The discussion out- lined in this paper pertains to the second aspect. We shall focus in particular on multiple forms of leadership influence aimed at stimulating creativity in organizations.

Over the past 30 years, much effort has been made to analyse the differences and similarities of different leadership styles. Many studies were devoted to transactional and transformational leadership, or to charismatic leadership, and recently attention has been shifted to authentic, servant and responsible leadership (Carter and Greer, 2013). Research findings have expanded and improved our understanding of the impact that leadership style has on the results obtained by the members of an organization and by teams. In particular, we have extended our knowledge on how leadership can be conducive to or hinder creative behaviour. The aim of this paper is to establish in particular how different leadership styles affect creativity in organizations. Although classic leadership styles (e.g. task-oriented and people-oriented) remain fundamental concepts, this study focuses on leadership styles that are of interest to contemporary researchers.

The remaining part of the study is divided into three sections. The first outlines the results of academic research on the impact of leadership on creativity and builds up on the earlier review (Bratnicka, 2011). The second presents a conceptual framework cap- turing the current state of knowledge about interacting leadership styles, mediators and moderators. The entire system is based on the Cartesian system of two variables: crea- tive innovation and creative usability. The last part comprises an outline of potential further research directions.

Overview of key studies pertaining to the role of leadership in stimulating creativity

Puccio, Mance and Murdoch (2011) describe leadership as a factor that inspires changes, while creativity is understood as a process leading towards change. Involvement into creative thinking and stimulating other people’s creativity are the inalienable hallmarks

Unauthenticated Download Date | 6/23/17 6:55 PM

Vol. 23, No. 1/2015 DOI: 10.7206/mba.ce.2084-3356.134

MBA.CE 71Relationship Between Leadership Styles and Organizational Creativity

of leadership that leads to organizational transformation. Creative leaders stimulate the creativity of their subordinates, use their imagination in order to provide their staff with new directions of development and build an organizational culture that is con- ducive to creativity. Against this background, the issue of transformational leadership is revealed.

Shin and Zhou (2003) undertook research aimed at establishing links between the creativity of an individual employee and transformational leadership. It transpires that transformational leadership has a positive impact on the creativity of an indi- vidual, whereas conservation – individual value favouring correctness and harmony of human relations and of relations between a person and a group – reinforces this relationship. Intrinsic motivation plays a double role. It conciliates transformational leadership with individual creativity. Furthermore, it fulfils the same function with respect to the moderated relationship between transformational leadership, conserva- tion and individual creativity.

According to Gong, Huang and Farha (2009), the positive relationship between learn- ing orientation and creativity, and between transformational leadership and creativity, are mediated by the sense of self-efficacy. In addition, a positive impact of learning orientation on the creativity of an employee increases over time similarly to the positive impact of transformational leadership.

Effective leaders can supplement behaviour typical of transformational leadership with transactional leadership, which is a combination of exchange based on contingent rewards and of management by exception (Judge and Piccolo, 2004). Qu, Janssen and Shi (2010) took this into account in their research: they observed that management by exception adversely affects the creativity of employees. This relationship was strengthened by an intervening variable, namely identification with the leader. The interacting trio comprising transactional leadership, identification with the leader and a climate conducive to innovation has a significant impact on the creativity of an employee (Wang and Rode, 2010). In particular, from the point of view of employees who identify with the leader, the relationship between transformational leadership and creativity is stronger in a highly innovative climate.

Transformational leadership adversely affects creativity because of the subordinates’ dependence on the leader that it this style generates (Kollman, Stöckmann, Krell and Buchwald, 2011). Only the empowerment of subordinates reduces their dependence on the leader and transforms the dependence’s negative impact on creativity into a pos- itive one. Transformational leadership also regulates the impact of other organizational

Unauthenticated Download Date | 6/23/17 6:55 PM

DOI: 10.7206/mba.ce.2084-3356.134

72 MBA.CE

Vol. 23, No. 1/2015

Katarzyna Bratnicka

factors on creativity (Shin, Kim, Lee and Bian, 2012). Therefore, the relationship between the cognitive diversity of the team – the perceived differences in thinking styles, knowledge, skills, values and beliefs of individual members of the team – and the creativity of a given team member (as measured by self-assessment and evaluation by the direct supervisor) is controlled by creative self-efficacy.

A significant positive relationship has been observed between the supervisor’s focus on promotion and the creativity of employees (Wu, McMullen, Neubert and Yi, 2008). Mesdaghinia, Atwater and Keller (2010) point out as follows: (1) management by exception is negatively related to the effectiveness of creative tasks, (2) transformational leadership positively affects efficiency in the implementation of creative tasks, (3) a laissez-faire style adversely affects the effectiveness of creative tasks. High quality of leader – sub- ordinate relationships (LMX) has a positive impact on individual creativity (Akinlade, Liden and El-Akremi, 2011). Creative self-efficacy is the intervening variable in the observed dependence.

One cannot overestimate the role of trust in one’s superior as a source of personal creativity. It is inspired by both the superior’s fairness (treating subordinates with respect and dignity) and equitable sharing of information (with honesty, providing thorough explanations). Trust in one’s superior means that the subordinate believes that the superior’s actions will advance their interests, or at least that the superior will not act against them. Trust forms the basis for high quality exchange relationships between superiors and subordinates (high level of LMX). This translates into sharing informa- tion and knowledge (as one of the forms of creative behaviour) and, finally, into an enhanced creativity of the employee (Khazanchi and Masterson, 2011).

Wang and Cheng (2010) confirmed the positive impact of benevolent leadership on employees’ creativity. This relationship is reinforced by a high level of identification and autonomy at work, combined with performing a creative role (employees perceiv- ing their creativity a as a central part of “who they are”). In addition, low level of identification with a creative role and autonomy at work erases the discussed relation- ship. Research findings obtained by Zhang and Bartol (2010) lead to the conclusion that empowering leadership has a positive impact on psychological empowerment, whereas empowering leadership’s impact is impossible unless subordinates experience psychological empowerment.

Change-oriented attitude is key to stimulating creativity by the leader – such is the main conclusion of the study conducted by Hemlin and Olson (2011). An important comple- ment to change-oriented attitude is leadership behaviour typical of the integrative style.

Unauthenticated Download Date | 6/23/17 6:55 PM

Vol. 23, No. 1/2015 DOI: 10.7206/mba.ce.2084-3356.134

MBA.CE 73Relationship Between Leadership Styles and Organizational Creativity

After having analysed the empirical data of one hundred forty-two ICT employees and two hundred and sixty direct sale employees, it has been established that there is a positive relationship between management style and the creativity of subordinates (Nieckarz, 2009).

An integrated model aggregating identification with the leader and social climate conducive to creativity has recently been constructed (Yoshida, Hirst, Sendjaya, Cooper, Bingyi and Xu, 2011). It has been established that team creativity increases if the leader acts in favour of the team’s interests (servant leadership) and helps his/her subordinates develop. Subordinates’ social identification with the leader intermediates in this relation- ship. The role of mediation is strengthened in a climate that is conducive to creativity and innovation.

Sijborn, Janssen and VanYperen (2011) observed that proficiency-oriented leaders are more prone to adopt their subordinates’ ideas than efficiency-oriented leaders. Mac- Mahon and Ford (2011) have developed and operationalized the concept of heuristic transfer in leadership, that is the transfer by the leader of experience-based mental tools used to identify, explore and solve problems – general practice-based principles that subordinates can use when they perform tasks assigned to them. Leadership heuristic transfer is positively related to employee creativity. These researchers have also found that the superior’s focus on promotion positively affects employee creativity, and that this positive impact takes place via developmental feedback.

Finally, Houghton and DiLiello (2010) have noticed that perceived organizational support for creativity has a positive impact on individual creativity and that this relationship is supported by participation in the professional development of management staff. Choi, Anderson and Veillette (2009) have proven the inhibiting impact of aversive leadership, based on coercion, intimidation and punishment.

Leadership and creativity in organizations – a comprehensive approach

Various empirical studies presented in this paper have been summarized in Table 1, which highlights the distinguishing features of leadership relevant to employee crea- tivity, as well as intervening variables that regulate the relationship between leadership and creativity. Structural representation includes only those items whose important role has been confirmed in previous empirical studies. For reasons of simplicity, it has been assumed that effectiveness in the implementation of creative tasks is synonymous

Unauthenticated Download Date | 6/23/17 6:55 PM

DOI: 10.7206/mba.ce.2084-3356.134

74 MBA.CE

Vol. 23, No. 1/2015

Katarzyna Bratnicka

with an employee’s creativity. Although it does not have a dynamic character (feedback between the analysed variables has not been taken into account), it reflects the com- plexity of the leadership – creativity relationship.

Table 1. Leadership and employee creativity: style, mediators and moderators

Leadership styles Intervening variables Control variables

Transformative leadership Transactional leadership Management by exception Leader’s focus on promotion Laissez-faire Structure initiation Benevolent leadership Quality of exchange between supervisors and subordinates Empowering leadership Integrative leadership Change-oriented attitude Servant leadership Leader’s motivation to achieve (proficiency versus efficiency) Leader’s heuristic transfer Organizational support

Intrinsic motivation Sense of self-efficacy Dependence on the leader Developmental feedback Employee’s focus on promotion Organizational distance between leaders and their subordinates Sense of creative self-efficacy Involvement in the creative process Sharing information Empowerment of subordinates Social identification with the leader

Personal conservation (protection) Social identification with the leader Identification with the team Employees’ focus on prevention Innovative climate Empowerment of subordinates Autonomy of work Distance of authority Identification with the creative organizational role Communication style used by subordinates in contacts with the leader Improving mature leadership Improving youth leadership Creative abilities of subordinates Close supervision Encouraging creativity by the leader

Source: own study.

The main driving force for an employee comprises sixteen elements: (1) transformational leadership, (2) transactional leadership, (3) management by exception, (4) leader’s focus on promotion, (5) laissez-faire style, (6) structure initiation, (7) benevolent leadership, (8) the quality of exchange between superiors and subordinates, (9) empowering leadership, (10) integrative style, (11) change-oriented attitude, (12) servant leadership, (13) leader’s motivation to achieve, (14) leader heuristic transfer, (15) organizational support (16) unfavourable leadership. Furthermore, empirical studies indicate the existence of a number of intervening variables. At least eleven of them play a crucial role in the proc- ess, namely: (1) intrinsic motivation, (2) sense of self-efficacy, (3) dependence on the leader, (4) developmental feedback, (5) employee’s focus on promotion, (6) organizational

Unauthenticated Download Date | 6/23/17 6:55 PM

Vol. 23, No. 1/2015 DOI: 10.7206/mba.ce.2084-3356.134

MBA.CE 75Relationship Between Leadership Styles and Organizational Creativity

distance between the leader and his/her subordinates, (7) sense of creative self-efficacy, (8) involvement in the creative process, (9) empowerment of subordinates, (10) social identification with the leader, (11) sharing of information. We must not forget about fourteen factors that limit the impact of leadership on creativity (control variables), such as: (1) individual conservation (protection), (2) identification with the team, (3) employee’s focus on prevention, (4) innovative climate, (5) autonomy at work, (6) dis- tance of authority, (7) identification with the creative organizational role, (8) commu- nication style used by subordinates in relation to the leader, (9) improving mature leadership, (10) improving youth leadership, (11) creative talent of subordinates, (12) close supervision, (13) encouraging creativity by the leader, (14) social identification with the leader. Furthermore, the empowerment of subordinates and identification with the leader appear in this context in a double capacity – both as intervening vari- ables and control variables. Together they create an organizational configuration of thirty-seven elements. Although the list is not exhaustive and further studies are likely to reveal new indicators, the large range of variables evidences the complexity of inter- relations between leadership and individual creativity in organizations. In this situation, a frame structure is necessary for organizing the research findings on the impact of leadership on creativity in organizations.

Managerial leadership and organizational creativity – a conceptual framework

The starting point for constructing a support structure explaining the relationship between leadership and creativity consists in assuming that organizational creativity is two-dimensional. Organizational creativity is thus understood as the generation of new and useful ideas (Bratnicka, 2013). In other words, it is a formative construct con- sisting of two complementary dimensions: creative innovations and creative usability.

These two dimensions of organizational creativity become reference points for each leadership style, as illustrated in Figure 1. For reasons of simplicity, the figure includes only the most important leadership styles. The relationships outlined indicate the existence of links between different leadership styles and configurations of organiza- tional creativity. These relationships have been inferred from empirical evidence, which remains extremely limited. Although we begin to understand how leadership style can affect different dimensions of organizational creativity, further research in this area is necessary.

Unauthenticated Download Date | 6/23/17 6:55 PM

DOI: 10.7206/mba.ce.2084-3356.134

76 MBA.CE

Vol. 23, No. 1/2015

Katarzyna Bratnicka

Figure 1. Leadership and organisational creativity

Source: own study.

Conclusion

Studies conducted thus far have been purely theoretical. Relationships between lead- ership styles and organizational creativity should be subject to empirical tests. At the same time, it is worth noting that different dimensions of leadership styles may overlap. It would therefore be advisable to reflect on a broader metacategory (Yukl, 2012), which would include all components of leadership that has an impact on creativity. In this context, it seems reasonable to introduce a new construct, namely creative leadership (Bratnicka and Laska, 2014). Thus far, all studies have focused solely on the individual and team level. No analysis has been conducted with respect to the entire organization, which would means referring to strategic leadership (Carter and Greer, 2013).

References

Akinlade, D., Liden, R.C. and El-Akremi, A. (2011). Leader­member­exchange and creativity: The role of creative self-efficacy and power distance. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Academy of Management, San Antonio.

Bratnicka, K. (2011). Rola przywództwa w stymulowaniu twórczości w organizacjach. Organizacja i Kierowanie, 4: 129–140.

Integrative leadership

Quality of exchange (TMX)

Transformative leadership

Transactional leadership

HighCreative usability

Laissez-faire Management by exception

Low

C re

at iv

e in

no va

ti on

H ig

h

Empowering leadership

Servant leadership

Lo w

Unauthenticated Download Date | 6/23/17 6:55 PM

Vol. 23, No. 1/2015 DOI: 10.7206/mba.ce.2084-3356.134

MBA.CE 77Relationship Between Leadership Styles and Organizational Creativity

Bratnicka, K. and Laska, K. (2014). Twórcze przywództwo: Konceptualizacja konstruktu (paper pre- pared on Letnia Szkoła Zarządzania).

Bratnicka, K. (2013). Understanding the organizational creativity through the lens of a dynamic capability framework. In: Managing to make a difference. Liverpool: British Academy of Man- agement.

Carter, S.M. and Greer, C.R. (2013). Strategic leadership: Values, styles, and organizational perform- ance. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 20: 375–393, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/15 48051812471724.

Choi, J.N., Anderson, T.A. and Veillette, A. (2009). Contextual inhibitors of employee creativity in organizations. The insulating role of creative ability. Group & Organization Management, 34: 330–357.

Gong, Y., Huang, J.C. and Farh, J.L. (2009). Employee learning orientation, transformational leader- ship and employee creativity: The mediating role of employee creative self-efficacy. Academy of Management Journal, 52: 765–778, http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2009.43670890.

Judge, T.A. and Piccolo, R.F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta – ana- lytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89: 755–768, http://dx.doi. org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.755.

Hemlin, S. and Olson, L. (2011). Creativity – stimulating leadership: A critical incident study of leaders influence on creativity in research groups. Creativity and Innovation Management, 20: 49–58, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2010.00585.x.

Houghton, J.D. and Di Liello, T.C. (2010). Leadership development: The key to unlocking individual creativity in organizations. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 31: 230–245, http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437731011039343.

Khazanchi, S. and Masterson, S.S. (2011). Who and what is fair matters: A multi-foci social exchange model of creativity. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 32: 86–106, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ job.682.

Kollmann, T., Stöckmann, C., Krell, P. and Buchwald, S. (2011). Integrating dependency and empow­ erment into the transformational leadership­creativity relationship. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Academy of Management, San Francisco.

Koźmiński, A.K. (2013). Ograniczone przywództwo. Studium empiryczne. Warszawa: Poltext. McMahon, S.R. and Ford, C.M. (2011). Heuristic transfer in the relationship between leadership and

employee creativity. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Academy of Management, San Antonio.

Mesdaghinia, S., Atwater, L.E. and Keller, R.T. (2010). How leadership style affects performance of distant followers in creative and non­creative tasks? Paper presented at the annual conference of the Academy of Management, Montreal.

Nieckarz, Z. (2009). Styl zarządzania a twórcze zachowania pracowników. In: S. Popek, R.E. Ber- nacka, C.W. Domański, B. Gawda, D. Turska and A.M. Zawadzka (eds.), Psychologia twórczości. Nowe horyzonty. Lublin: UMCS.

Puccio, G.J., Mance, M. and Murdock, M.C. (2011). Creative leadership. Skills that drive change. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Qu, R., Janssen, O. and Shi, K. (2010). Transformational leadership and follower creativity: The mediating role of follower identification. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Academy of Management, Montreal.

Shin, S.J., Kim. T-J., Lee, J-Y. and Bian, L. (2012). Cognitive team diversity and individual team member creativity: A cross level interaction. Academy of Management Journal, 55: 197–212.

Unauthenticated Download Date | 6/23/17 6:55 PM

DOI: 10.7206/mba.ce.2084-3356.134

78 MBA.CE

Vol. 23, No. 1/2015

Katarzyna Bratnicka

Shin, S.J. and Zhou, J. (2003). Transformational leadership: Conservation, and creativity: Evidence from Korea. Academy of Management Journal, 46: 703–714.

Sijborn, R.B.L., Janssen, O. and Van Yperen, N.W. (2011). Leaders’ achievement goals and employee creativity: How to get new ideas into the mind. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Academy of Management, San Antonio.

Wang, A.C. and Cheng, B-S. (2010). When does benevolent leadership lead to creativity? The mod- erating role of creative role identity and job autonomy. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31: 106–121, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.634.

Wang, P. and Rode, J.C. (2010). Transformational leadership and follower creativity: The moderating effects of identification with leader and organizational climate. Human Relations, 63: 1105–1128.

Wu, C., McMullen, J.S., Nubert, M.J. and Yi, X. (2008). The influence of leader regulatory focus on employee creativity. Journal of Business Venturing, 23: 587–602, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.jbusvent.2007.09.005.

Yoshida, D., Hirst, G., Sendjaya, S., Cooper, B., Bingyi, Y. and Xu, C. (2011). A common recipe for crea­ tivity and innovation: Servant leadership, social identity, and team climate. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Academy of Management, San Antonio.

Yukl, G. (2012). Leadership in organizations. Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall. Zhang, X. and Bartol, K.M. (2010). Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: The

influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation and creative process engage- ment. Academy of Management Journal, 53: 107–128, http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2010.48037118.

Unauthenticated Download Date | 6/23/17 6:55 PM