the influences of antecedents on employee …journal-archieves19.webs.com/984-996.pdf · the...
TRANSCRIPT
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 984
JUNE 2012
VOL 4, NO 2
THE INFLUENCES OF ANTECEDENTS ON EMPLOYEE CREATIVITY
AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE: A META-ANALYTIC REVIEW
Li-Yueh Lee*
Department of International Trade, Kun Shan University, Taiwan
No. 949, Da-Wan Rd., Yong-Kang District, Tainan City 71003, Taiwan
Emmelia Tan
International Business Department, Chinese Culture University, Taiwan 55, Hwa-Kang Road, Yang-Ming-Shan, Taipei 11114, Taiwan
*Corresponding Author: Li-Yueh Lee Department of International Trade, Kun Shan University, Taiwan
No. 949, Da-Wan Rd., Yong-Kang District, Tainan City 71003, Taiwan
Abstract The purpose of this study is to investigate what conditions can promote the creative performance of
employees in the workplace. Notwithstanding lack of previous empirical studies linking between
employee’s supervisor, psychological empowerment, innovative climate and organizational support to
employee creativity and performance, this study attempts to integrate the results of 57 related studies
that have examined in cross-level organizations from the year 1990-2011 by using the meta analytic
technique. Employee creativity and performance are good, when there are high quality relationships
between the employee and his/her supervisor. Likewise, psychological empowerment contributes
significantly to employee creativity and performance. Additionally, organizational support and
innovative climate moderate the effect of leader and psychological empowerment on employee
creativity and employee performance.
Keywords: creativity, work performance, leader member exchange, Psychological
empowerment, Innovative climate, and organizational support
1. Introduction
1.1. Research background
Creativity has become increasingly valued across a variety of tasks, jobs, and industries. In a dynamic work
environment, more and more managers are realizing that they need their employees to be actively involved
in their work and exhibit creative behaviors in order to remain competitive (Mumford et al., 2002).
Nowadays, understanding the dynamics of creativity in organizations is a high priority in organizational
behavior research (Zhou & Shalley, 2008).
According to Amabile (1998), individual creativity is classified by three components: expertise, creative-
thinking skills, and motivation. Managers can influence these components-for better and worse-through
workplace practices and conditions. Expertise and creative-thinking skills are more difficult and time
consuming to achieve than motivation. Intrinsic motivation stimulates high level of persistence and creative
effort in work contexts where creativity is clearly valued. While some theories of creativity suggest that
creative work is primarily sustained by intrinsic motivation (Amabile, 1998), emerging research evidence
suggests that extrinsic rewards can complement intrinsic motivation.
Several recent studies of leadership have examined the influence of leaders on employees’ creative
behaviors. Followers’ creativity achievement is likely to be mediated primarily by their degrees of
psychological involvement in creative processes (Carmeli & Schaubroeck, 2007). In linking to creativity,
theoretical have suggested that psychological empowerment, in turn, makes a critical contribution to
employee creativity by positively affecting an employee’s intrinsic motivation (Amabile et al., 1996;
Spreitzer, 1995). Psychological empowerment is conceptualized as an experienced psychological state or
set of cognitions (Zhang & Bartol, 2010). Therefore, this study aims to test the potential impact of person-
supervisor fit, supervisor support, LMX, and psychological empowerment to employee creativity and
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 985
JUNE 2012
VOL 4, NO 2
employee performance by using the systematic and quantitative meta-analytic review from cross-level
organizations. Simultaneously, the indirect effects of innovative climate and organizational support that
contribute significantly to employee creativity and performance in the workplace are evaluated accordingly.
1.2. Research objective
Based on the above research motivation, the objectives of this study are: (1) to investigate the antecedents
of employee creativity and employee performance; (2) to investigate the positive influence of person-
supervisor fit, supervisor support and LMX to psychological empowerment; and (3) to investigate the
influence of employee creativity on employee performance.
2. Literature review and hypotheses development
2.1. Employee creativity
Creativity is not only generated from the overall firm strategy and access to resources but more
fundamentally from the minds of the individual employees, alone or with others, carrying out the work of
the organization every day. Creativity is derived from an individual’s accumulated creative thinking skills
and expertise based on their formal educations and past experiences (Amabile, 1998; Gong et al., 2009;
Tierney et al., 1999). How necessary to which employees will produce creative-novel and useful-ideas
depends not only on their individual characteristics but also on the work environment that they believe
around them (Amabile et al., 1996).
Creativity is important to organizations because creative contributions can not only help organizations
become more efficient and more responsive to opportunities, but also help organizations adapt to change,
grow and compete in the global market. Researchers have mentioned that some level of creativity is needed
in almost any job (Shalley, Gilson, & Blum, 2000; Unsworth, 2001; Ford & Gioia, 2000). Specifically,
creativity influences innovation implementation. For example, when considering the tasks performed by
R&D professionals, employee creativity is desirable and necessary. Shalley and Gilson (2004) further
indicated that even for the jobs of cashiers or assembly line workers, an incremental change in how work
cans done efficiently is still dependent on employ creativity.
2.2. Employee performance
Employee work performance is multidimensional and critical for organizational success (Dyne, et al., 2002)
and effectiveness (Ohly & Frizt, 2010). Work performance is described as “synonymous with behavior it is
what people do that can be observed and measured in terms of each individual’s experience or level of
contribution” (Pulakos et al., 2000, p. 612). George and Jones (2008) further indicated that performance can
be viewed as an evaluation of the results of a person’s behavior which includes determining how well or
poorly a task has been completed.
Performance provides a comprehensive picture of subordinate workplace behavior (Kacmar, Collins, Harris
& Judge, 2009), therefore several researchers have carried out studies on job performance behaviors with
regard to supervisor rated task performance (Andrews, Kacmar, & Harris, 2009), organizational citizenship
behavior ( Andrew, et al., 2009; Borman & Motowidlo, 1997; Kacmar, et al., 2009), and contextual
performance (Borman & Motowidlo, 1997).
2.3. Person-supervisor fit, supervisor support and LMX
The match between characteristics of individuals and their work environments is commonly connected to as
person-environment fit (P-E fit). A last form of P-E fit that exists in the dyadic relationships between
individuals and their supervisors is likely to impact both employee motivation and organizational
effectiveness (Kristof-Brown, et al., 2005; Lee et al., 2010; Werbel & Johnson, 2001). The fundamental of
person-supervisor fit (P-S fit) is to create organizational values and individual employees’ perceptions of
working environment.
Supervisor characteristics may be an important factor influencing employees’ behaviors and attitudes (Van
Vianen, et al., 2010). If employees feel that their values fit with their leaders, this may make them feel
satisfied with their job and work environment (Wexley, Alexander, Greenawalt, & Couch, 1980). The
componential theory of creativity helps achieve as the theoretical basis for the claim that supervisor’s
support “exerts and influence on subordinates’ creativity through direct help with the project, the
development of subordinates expertise, and the enhancement of subordinate intrinsic motivation” (Amabile
et al., 2004, p.6).
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 986
JUNE 2012
VOL 4, NO 2
Moreover, theory and research have noted that an influential way to energize the workplace and increase
involvement in the job is through high-quality interpersonal relationships (Dutton, 2003). Relationships
between leader and subordinate have been examined in leader member exchange (LMX) literature (Liden et
al., 1997). And some studies have focused on relationship between leader-member exchange and creativity
(Elkins & Kelles, 2003; Tierney et al., 1999). Therefore, the effects of positive consequences from person-
supervisor fit, supervisor support and LMX on employee creativity are investigated in this study. Thus the
following hypothesis is proposed:
Hypothesis 1: The degree of person-supervisor fit, supervisor support and LMX has a
positive influence on employee creativity.
Empirical studies provide suggesting evidence that person-supervisor fit is an important determinant of
long-term consequences for employee work performance (Kristof-Brown, et al., 2005). It is mentioned that
P-S fit would explain significant variance in job performance. Hence, supervisors should work on
encouraging and supporting their employees as well as developing fostering relationships. Several studies
of supervisory encouragement suggested that the role of projects managers or direct supervisors, especially
in goal clarity, open interaction, and supervisor support of a team’s work has a great impact on employee
performance (Joo, 2011).
Furthermore, leader member exchange (LMX) is a key view of leadership that emphasizes the quality of
relationship between leader and subordinate. Such relationship derived from work and emotional exchanges
and the quality connections should, more or less, be related to employee performance. Previous research has
demonstrated that the LMX quality is positively related to support and creates a sense of commitment in
individuals, who tend reciprocate through higher levels of performance (Joo, 2011). Thus the following
hypothesis is proposed:
Hypothesis 2: The degree or person-supervisor fit, supervisor support and LMX have a positive influence in
employee performance.
2.4. Psychological empowerment
Pieterse, van Knippenberg, Schippers, and Stam (2010, p. 613) indicated that “psychological empowerment
is a motivational construct originating in an employee’s perception of having choice in initiating and
regulating actions, having the ability to perform the job well (i.e., self-efficacy), being able to have an
impact on the environment, and the meaningfulness of the job.” Thomas and Velthouse (1990) defined
empowerment as an intrinsic motivation demonstrated in four cognitions reflecting an individual’s
orientation to his/her work role: meaning, competence, self-determination, and impact. Meaning is the part
of the job characteristics model which concerns a sense of individual’s work goal is important (Thomas &
Velthouse, 1990). Competence refers to self-efficacy specific to work or an individual’s belief in their
capacity to perform work activities with skill (Bandura, 1988; Gist, 1987; Spreitzers, 1995). Self-
determination is an individual’s perception of having choice in initiating and deciding on the work methods
used to carry out tasks (Deci et al., 1989; Spreitzer, 1995). Impact indicates “the degree to which an
individual’s behavior can influence the strategic, administrative, or operational outcome at work”
(Spreitzer, 1995, p.1443).
A key objective of psychological empowerment is to release the potential within employees to make a
positive change in their work roles, work units, or organization (Seibert et al., 2011). Empowerment is one
of the most important factors driving organizational effectiveness and individual task performance (Ahearne
et al., 2005), and it has the potential to positively influence outcomes that benefit both individual and
organizational outcome levels (Liden et al., 2000). This study defined psychological empowerment as the
process of putting employees in charge of an organization’s authority to make important decisions and to be
responsible to achieving their creativity and performance. Thus the following hypotheses are proposed:
Hypothesis 3: The degree of psychological empowerment has a positive influence on employee creativity.
Hypothesis 4: The degree of psychological empowerment has a positive influence on employee performance.
Spreitzer, Lam and Fritz (2008) concluded that a supportive, trusting relationship with one’s leader is an
important contextual antecedent of psychological empowerment. High Person-Supervisor fit perceptions
may ultimately lead to employees’ positive perceptions of empowerment based upon their individual
psychological response to their work environment (Kraimer et al., 1999; Van Vianen et al., 2010) and play
in shaping the work experience of followers (Liden et a.., 2010). Liu, Keller and Shih (2011) further
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 987
JUNE 2012
VOL 4, NO 2
indicated that contextual factors such as organizational culture and top level support can be viewed as an
influencing empowerment.
Two key social relationships at work are those with superiors and subordinate have been used to examine in
leader member exchange (LMX) literature (Liden, Sparrowe, & Wayne, 1997). With an LMX approach
leaders are expected to provide the support and resources to subset of their subordinates. Higher levels of
decision-making influence and responsibility provide meaning, feelings of self-efficacy, a sense of impact,
and perceptions of self-determination that are defined as being key ingredients of empowerment (Thomas &
Velthouse, 1990; Spreitzer, 1995). Thus the following hypothesis is proposed:
Hypothesis 5: The degree of person-supervisor fit, supervisor support and LMX has a positive influence on psychological empowerment.
“Creative efforts lay the groundwork for creative performance in at least three ways: creative effort reflects
the extent to which the individual seeks new information and ideas, whether they explore new approaches
regardless of their difficulty, and the levels of persistence in this information searching process” (Hirst et
al., 2009, p. 966). Empirical study defined a link between creative efforts to foster creative performance.
Creative responses may include thinking up new procedures or processes for carrying out tasks, or
identifying products or services to better meet customer needs (Zhou & Shalley, 2008). It may also take the
form of refinements of existing procedures or processes to enhance efficiency or to look for alternative
procedures or processes that are more effective. According to Amabile et al., 1996, when employees exhibit
creativity at work, they generate novel responses that are useful in dealing with tasks at hand. Zhang and
Bartol (2010) found that there was a curvilinear relationship between creative process engagement and
employee overall job performance. Therefore, this study proposed that there is a positive influence of
employee creativity to employee performance. Thus the following hypothesis is proposed:
Hypothesis 6: The degree of employee creativity has a positive influence on employee performance.
2.5. Innovative climate
The climate concept has been described as employees’ perceptions of their organizations. The dominant
approach conceptualizes climate as employees’ shared perceptions of organizational events, practices, and
procedures (Patterson et al., 2005). It is assumed to be primarily descriptive rather than affective or
evaluative. The main purpose of an organizational climate study is to recognize the variables which result in
an organization’s ability to organize its workforce in order to achieve business goals and enhance
performance (Abbey & Dickson, 1983; Baer & Frese, 2003).
Research has found that structures of organization that promote open, ongoing contact with others or
information seeking from multiple sources were relates to creativity (Shalley et al., 2004). Justice and
fairness climate have to be in innovative climate. Fair context is one where individuals can focus on their
work. Component of procedural justice for instance, being able to participate in decision making and it
found to be a key process in enhancing innovation (West & Anderson, 1996). One of the keys to remain
competitive advantage for organizations is to promote the continuously innovative atmosphere to set in
movement in its internal processes, procedures, and capabilities (Merrifield, 2000; Chen & Huang, 2007).
Through formulating an innovative climate, employees are encouraged to think freely and communicate
their opinions and ideas openly, employees, thus, are more willing to interact with others for sharing
knowledge and creating thoughts (Edmondson, 1999; Jaw & Liu, 2003; Norrgren & Schaller, 1999). Chen
and Huang (2007, p.106) claimed that “an innovative climate will increase the social interaction among
organizational members.” Specifically, when innovative ideas occur to individuals, cooperation between
individuals becomes extremely important for developing and implementing these ideas (Jaw & Liu, 2003;
Sveiby & Simons, 2002). Such effective collaboration leads to competitive advantages of the firm (Gibson,
2001; Spender & Grant, 1996). Thus the following hypotheses are proposed:
Hypothesis 7a: The characteristics of innovative climate contribute significantly on employee creativity.
Hypothesis 7b: The characteristics of innovative climate contribute significantly on employee performance.
2.6. Organizational support
The concept of perceived organizational support (POS) originally introduced by Eisenberger et al. (1986) to
explain how the development of employee commitment to an organization can link to job performance
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 988
JUNE 2012
VOL 4, NO 2
(Erdogan & Enders, 2007; Witt & Carlson, 2006) and reduce turnover (Loi et al., 2006). Eisenberger et al.
(1986, p. 501) suggested that “employees develop global beliefs concerning the extent to which the
organization values their contributions and cares about their well-being”. The general forms of perceived
favorable treatment received from organization (i.e., fairness, supervisor support, organizational rewards
and job conditions) should increase POS (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002).
Employee with high perceived support would be predicted loyalty and also be associated with
expectancies. Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002) in their meta-analysis found that POS positively related to
performance and expectancies such as opportunities for greater recognition, pay and promotion. And
employees may attempt to be creative when they perceive that creativity is valued and supported by an
organization (Scott & Bruce, 1994). This conditions make the potential risk associated with creativity is
minimized and perception of creative ideas being effective should be high (Madjar, 2008). Thus the
following hypotheses are proposed:
Hypothesis 8a: The characteristics of organizational support contribute significantly to employee creativity.
Hypothesis 8b: The characteristics of organizational support contribute significantly to employee performance.
3. Methodology
3.1. The research model and construct measurement
The conceptual framework in figure 1 describes the relationships between employee creativity and employee performance with its antecedents based on the literature review.
<Insert Figure 1 about here>
3.2. Procedure
This meta-analysis searched the acquired empirical studies in different scientific database in order to
identify the studies relevant to the research. This performed an extensive electronic and manual search
using the keywords of person-supervisor fit, supervisor support, leader member exchange, psychological
empowerment, innovative climate and organizational support to identify published articles, conference
papers, working papers and doctoral dissertations from sources as aforementioned in table 1.
<Insert Table 1 about here>
4. Analysis
All identified studies were examined and then determined the following relevant variables: authors, year,
journal, total sample size, the statistic measurement of each variable, and effect sizes. Two alternatives were
used for inclusion: (1) Correlational studies have to present the correlation coefficient (r) or the
standardized regression (beta) coefficient. Peterson and Brown (2005) investigated the empirical
relationship between simple correlation coefficients and standardized regression slopes as the effect-size
metric from published articles in behavioral journals. The result indicate that under certain conditions, using
knowledge of corresponding beta coefficients to input missing correlations (effect sizes) generally produces
relatively accurate population effect-size estimates; (2) Studies have to present the related statistic (t-test, p-
value) for the relationship between related variables. These statistics could be converted to effect size (r)
and Fisher Z effect using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (CMA) Software. Then comparing and combining
effect sizes and significance levels. In addition, this paper also incorporated those studies that provided only
the standardized regression (beta) coefficients using the formula suggested by Peterson and Brown (2005)
to estimate the correlations from the beta coefficients. The formula used is r = 0.98β + 0.05γ, where λ is a
variable that equals 1 when β is non-negative and 0 when β is negative.
There is also homogeneity analysis which tests whether the assumption that all of the effect sizes are
estimating the same population mean is a reasonable assumption. Homogeneity of the effect size
distribution was tested by the Q statistic proposed by Cochran and defined (Hedges, 1981; Hedges & Olkin,
1985) as,
2
)( TTwQ ii
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 989
JUNE 2012
VOL 4, NO 2
where iw is the weighting factor for the ith study assuming a fixed-effects model, and
is defined as the usual estimate of a mean effect size consists of weighting every effect estimate,
,by its inverse variance, . Under the null hypothesis, the Q statistic is distributed as an asymptotic chi-
square with degree of freedom calculated by k - 1 where k is the total number of effect sizes. The null
hypothesis of the Q statistic is that the effect sizes are homogeneous. If Q values higher than critical point
for a given significance level (α) enable us to reject the null hypothesis and conclude there is statistically
significant between-study variation.
5. Results
The findings of this study prove all of the hypotheses. It shows all from 57 previous studies prove for the
influences of antecedents (including person-supervisor fit, supervisor support, leader member exchange,
psychological empowerment, innovative climate and organizational support) on employee creativity and
employee performance. Table 2 presents the results from integration of effect sizes of the variable. Reminds
as stated in Lipsey and Wilson (2001) for analyzing the magnitude of effect sizes (r < 0.10 as small; r =
0.25 as medium, and r > 0.40 as large effect size).
<Insert Table 2 about here>
Hypothesis 1 proposes that the degree of person-supervisor fit, supervisor support and LMX has a
positive influence on employee creativity. The results show coefficient correlation of these two variables is
0.383, which means these two variables have medium effect size. Hypothesis 2 proposes the degree of P-S
fit, supervisor support and LMX has a positive influence in employee performance. The results show
coefficient correlation of these two variables is 0.267, which means these two variables have medium effect
size. Hypothesis 3 proposes the degree of psychological empowerment has a positive influence on
employee creativity. The results show coefficient correlation of these two variables is 0.345, which means
these two variables have medium effect size. Hypothesis 4 proposes the degree of psychological
empowerment has a positive influence on employee performance. The results show coefficient correlation
of these two variables is 0.337, which means these two variables have medium effect size. Hypothesis 5
proposes the degree of P-S fit, supervisor support and LMX has a positive influence on psychological
empowerment. The results show coefficient correlation of these two variables is 0.486, which means these
two variables have large effect size. Hypothesis 6 proposes the degree of employee creativity has a high
positive influence on employee performance. The results show coefficient correlation of these two variables
is 0.413, which means these two variables have large effect size.
Hypothesis 7a proposes the characteristics of innovative climate contribute significantly on employee
creativity. The results show coefficient correlation of these two variables is 0.472, which means these two
variables have large effect size. Hypothesis 7b proposes the characteristics of innovative climate contribute
significantly on employee performance. The results show coefficient correlation of these two variables is
0.224, which means these two variables have small medium effect size. Hypothesis 8a proposes the
characteristics of organizational support contribute significantly to employee creativity. The results show
coefficient correlation of these two variables is 0.523, which means these two variables have large effect
size. Hypothesis 8b proposes the characteristics of organizational support contribute significantly to
employee performance. The results show coefficient correlation of these two variables is 0.359, which
means these two variables have medium effect size.
6. Conclusion
The study has integrated the quantitative research that exists in the workplace that should be of interest to
leaders within a framework of how leaders can manage their human resources to enhance employee
creativity and performance. The practical implications for day-to-day management of creative people
should be highlighted. First, across the empirical studies reviewed, individuals need to feel they are working
in supportive work environment. Second, leaders should communicate and support the goal or role
requirements of being creative in the workplace to employee and encourage them through the behaviors
leaders engage in creative ways. Third, organizational support and innovative climate develop employee’s
creativity in a collective endeavor and involves collaboration and interactions with others and help to
achieve his/her better performance at work.
To extend the findings of this study, there are some recommendations for future investigations. Future
research might examine leader in upper level from supervisor contribute significantly on employee
creativity and performance. Future research should examine whether the mediating of psychological
empowerment have significant influences between supervisor to employee creativity and performance. In
wiT
T
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 990
JUNE 2012
VOL 4, NO 2
addition, future research should examine the moderating variables of organizational support and innovative
climate have significant influences between leader and psychological empowerment to employee creativity
and employee performance.
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 991
JUNE 2012
VOL 4, NO 2
References
Abbey, A. & Dickson, J.W. (1994). R&D work climate and innovation in semiconductors. Academy of
Management Journal, 26, 362-368.
Ahearne, M., Mathieu, J., & Rapp, A. (2005). To empower or not to empower your sales force? An empirical examination of the influence of leadership empowerment behavior on customer satisfaction and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 945-955.
Amabile, T.M. (1998). How to kill creativity. Harvard Business Review, 76(5), 77-87.
Andrews, M.C., Kacmar, K.M., & Harris, K.J. (2009). Got political skill? The impact of justice on the importance of political skill for job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1427-1437.
Amabile, T.M., Conti R., Coon H., Lazenby J., & Herron M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. The Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1154-1184.
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.
Bandura, A. (1988). Organizational applications of social cognitive theory. Australian Journal of Management, 13, 275-302.
Borman, W. C. & Motowidlo, S.J. (1997). Task performance and contaxtual performance: the meaning for personnel selection research. Human Performance, 10(2), 99-109.
Carmeli, A., & Schaubroeck J. (2007). The influence of leaders and other referents’ normative expectations on individual involvement in creative work. Leadership Quarterly, 18, 35-48.
Chen, C.J. & Huang, J.W. (2007). How organizational climate and structure affect knowledge management—The social interaction perspective. International Journal of Information Management, 27 (2), 104–118.
Deci, E.L., & Ryan R.M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268.
Dutton, J.E. (2003). Energize your workplace: how to build and sustain high-quality relationships at work. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA.
Dyne, L.V., Jehn, K.A. & Commings, A. (2002). Differential impacts of strains on two forms of work: Individual employee sales and creativity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 57-74.
Erdogan, B., & Enders, J. (2007). Support from the top: Supervisors' perceived organizational support as a moderator of leader-member exchange to satisfaction and performance relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 321-330.
Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I.L., & Rhoades, L. (2002). Perceived supervisor support: contributions to perceived organizational support and employee retention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 565-573.
Elkins, T.K., & Keller, R.T. (2003). Leadership in research and development organizations: A literature review and conceptual framework. Leadership Quarterly, 14(4/5), 587-606.
Erdogan, B., & Enders, J. (2007). Support from the top: Supervisors' perceived organizational support as a moderator of leader-member exchange to satisfaction and performance relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 321-330.
Gist, M.E. (1987). Self-efficacy: Implications for organizational behavior and human resource management. Academy of Management Review, 12, 472-485.
Gong, Y., Huang J-C., & Farh, J.L. (2009). Employee learning orientation, transformational leadership, and employee creativity: The mediating role of employee creative self-efficacy. Academy of Management Journal, 52(4), 765-778.
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 992
JUNE 2012
VOL 4, NO 2
Hirst, G., van Dick, R., & van Knippenberg, D. (2009). A social identity perspective on leadership and employee creativity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 963–982.
Joo (Brian), B-K. (2011). Leader–member exchange quality and in-role job performance: The moderating role of learning organization culture. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 19(1), 25-34.
Kacmar, K. M., Collins, B. J., Harris, K. J., & Judge, T. A. (2009). Core self-evaluations and job performance: The role of the perceived work environment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1572-1580.
Kraimer, M.L., Seibert, S.E., & Liden, R.C. (1999). Psychological empowerment as a multidimensional construct: a test of construct validity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59(1), 127-142.
Kristof-Brown, A.L., Zimmerman, R., Johnson, E.C. (2005). Consequences of individuals’ fit at work: A meta-analysis of person–job, person–organization, person–group, and person–supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58, 281-342.
Liden, R.C., Sparrowe, R.T., & Wayne, S.J. (1997). Leader-member exchange theory: The past and potential for the future. In G. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol.15, pp.47-119). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Liden, R.C. & Wayne S.J. (2000). An examination of the mediating role of psychological the relations between the job, interpersonal relationships, and work outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3), 407-416.
Liu, Y., Keller, R. T. and Shih, H.A. (2011). The impact of team-member exchange, differentiation, team commitment, and knowledge sharing on R&D project team performance. R&D Management, 41(3), 274-287.
Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Madjar, N. (2008), Emotional and informational support from different sources and employee creativity.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81, 83-100.
Merrifield, D. B. (2000). Changing nature of competitive advantage. Research Technology Management, 43(1),
41-45.
Mumford, M.D., Scott, G.M., Gaddis, B., & Strange, J.M. (2002). Leading creative people: Orchestrating expertise and relationships. Leadership Quarterly, 13(6), 705-750.
Ohly, S. & Fritz, C. (2010). Work characteristics, challenge appraisal, creativity, and proactive behavior: A multi-level study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 543-565.
Patterson, M.G., West M.A., Shackleton V.J., Dawson J.F., Lawthom R., Maitlis S., RobinsonD.L., & Wallace A.M. (2005). Validating the organizational climate measure: Links to managerial practices, productivity and innovation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 379-408.
Peterson, R. A., & Brown, S. P. (2005). On the use of beta coefficients in meta-analysis. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 90(1), 175-181.
Pieterse, A.N., van Knippenberg, D., Schippers, M., & Stam, D. (2010). Transformational and transactional leadership and innovative behavior: The moderating role of psychological empowerment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(4), 609–623.
Pieterse, A. N., van Knippenberg, D., Schippers, M. & Stam, D. (2010). Transformational and transactional
leadership and innovative behavior: The moderating role of psychological empowerment. Journal of
Organization Behavior, 31(4), 609-623.
Pulakos, E.D., Arad, S., Donovan, M.A., & Plamondon, K.E. (2000). Adaptability in the workplace: Development of a taxonomy of adaptive performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(4), 612-624.
Rhoades L., & Eisenberger R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychological, 87(4), 698-714.
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 993
JUNE 2012
VOL 4, NO 2
Shalley, C. E., Gilson, L. L., & Blum, T. C. (2000). Matching creativity requirements and the work environment: Effects on satisfaction and intentions to leave. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 215-223.
Spreitzer, G.M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and
validation. Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38, No.5, 1442-1465.
Spreitzer, G.M. Lam, C.F. & Fritz, C. (2008). Engagement and human thriving: complementary perspectives
on energy and connections to work. In Bakker and Leiter (Eds.). Work Engagement: Recent developments
in theory and research. UK: Routledge.
Tierney, P., Farmer, S. M., & Graen, G. B. (1999). An examination of leadership and employee creativity: The relevance of traits and relationships. Personnel Psychology, 52, 591-620.
Thomas, K.W., & Velthouse, B.A. (1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment: An “interpretive” model of intrinsic task motivation. Academy of Management Review, 15(4), 666-681.
Unsworth, L. (2001). Teaching multiliteracies across the curriculum: Changing contexts of text and image in classroom practice. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Van Vianen, A.E.M., Shen, C.T., & Chuang, A. (2011). Person–organization and person–supervisor fits: Employee commitments in a Chinese context. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32, 906-926.
Werbel, J.D. & Johnson, D. (2001). The use of person–group fit for employment selection: A missing link in person–environment fit. Human Resource Management, 40, 227-240.
Wexley,K.N., Alexander, R.A., Greenawalt, J.P. & Couch, M.A. (1980). Attitudinal congruence and similarity as related to interpersonal evaluations in manager-subordinate dyads. Academy of Management Journal, 23, 320-330.
Witt, L. A., & Carlson, D. (2006). The work-family interface and job performance: Moderating effects of
conscientiousness and perceived organizational support. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11,
343-357.
Zhang X., & 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, 53(1), 107-128.
Zhou, Jing, & Shalley, C.E. (2008). Handbook of organizational creativity, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Taylor & Francis Group.
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 994
JUNE 2012
VOL 4, NO 2
Annexure
Figure 1. Conceptual framework
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 995
JUNE 2012
VOL 4, NO 2
Table 1. Studies alphabetically by source and codes for hypotheses testsa,b
Ahearne, et al., 2005(SPV,PE,EP)2 Gong, Y., et
al.,2009(SPV,EC,EP)1 Randall, et al.,1999(EP,OS)5
Amabile, et al.,2004(SPV,EC)6 Gregory, et al.,2010(PE,EP)24 Raub S., & Robert
C.,2010(PE,EP)14
Anderson, N.R., & West,
M.A.,1998(EP,IC)5
Gumusluoglu, L. et
al.,2009(SPV,PE,EC,IC)10
Scott, S.G., & Bruce,
R.A.,1994(EC,IC)1
Aryee, S., & Chen,
Z.X.,2006(SPV,PE,EP)10 Hon, A.H.Y.,2010(SPV,EC)9
Seibert, et
al.,2011(SPV,PE,EC,EP,OS)2
Avolio, et al.,2004(PE,EP)5 Hosseini, et al.,2003(EP,IC)19 Shin, S.J., & Zhou,
J.,2003(SPV,EC)1
Bordin, et al.,2007(SPV,PE)18 Huang, M.et al.,2005(SPV,EP)8 Spreitzer,
G.M.,1995(PE,EC,EP,IC)1
Cakir S.G., & Guneri,
O.Y.,2011(EP,OS)20
Joo (Brian), B-
K.,2011(SPV,PE,EP)11 Spreitzer, G.M.,1996(EP,OS)1
Carmeli, A.et al.,2007(SPV,PE,EC)6 Jung, D.I., et al.,2003(EP,IC)6 Spreitzer, et al.,1999(PE,EC)5
Chen, C-J, & Huang, J-
W.,2007(EC,IC)13 Keller, R.T.,2007(EC,EP)23 Tierney, P.,1999(EC,IC)7
Chiang, C-F., & Hsieh, T-
S.,2012(EP,OS)9 Kraimer, et al.,1999(SPV,PE)15 Tierney, P.et al.,2004(SPV,PE,EC)4
Cooke, W.N., & Meyer
D.G.,2008(EP,IC)25
Kristof-Brown, et
al.,2005(SPV,EP)3 Van Vianen, et al.,2011(SPV,PE)5
Dawley, et al.,2008(SPV,EP,OS)16 Liden, R.C. et
al.,2000(SPV,PE,EP)2 Van Scooter, Jet al.,2000(EC,EP)2
De Dreu, C.K. & West
M.A.,2001(EC,IC)2 Luthans, et al.,2008(EP,IC)5 Vilela, et al.,2008(SPV,EP)22
Eisenberger, et al.,2002(EC,OS)2 Mathieu, et
al.,2006(SPV,PE,EC)1 Wei, F., et al.,2010(SPV,PE,EC)17
Erdogan, B.,& Bauer,
T.N.,2009(PE,EC)2
Ng, Thomas W.H.et
al.,2009(EC,EP)7
Yoon, J., & Lim, J-
C.,1999(EP,OS)14
Ergeneli, et al.,2007(SPV,PE)10 Oldham, G. R.et
al.,1996(SPV,EC,EP)1
Yun Lin, C.,et
al.,2012(SPV,EC,OS)12
Farmer, S.M., et al.,2003(PE,EC,OS)1 Patterson, et al.,2005(EC,IC)7 Zhang, X., &
B.K.M.,2010,study1(PE,EC,EP)2
Francis C.A.,2011(SPV,EP,OS)11 Pieterse, et al.,2010(SPV,PE,EC)7 Zhang, X., & B.
K.M.,2010,study2(SPV,PE,EC)1
Gilson, L.L., & Shalley
C.E.,2004(EC,IC)4
Rafferty, A.E.et
al.,2006(PE,EP)21
Zhou, J., & George, J.
M.,2001(EC,OS)2 aCodes in parentheses: SPV=Person-Supervisor Fit, Supervisor Support, & Leader Member Exchange; PE=Psychological Empowerment;
EC=Employee Creativity; EP=Employee Performance; IC=Innovative Climate; OS=Organizational Support. journals are footnoted in alphabetical order: (1)Academy of Management Journal, (2)Journal of Applied Psychology, (3)Personnel
Psychology, (4)Journal of Management, (5)Journal of Organizational Behavior, (6)Leadership Quarterly, (7)Journal of Organizational
Change Management,(8)International Journal of Manpower, (9)International Journal of Hospitality Management, (10)Journal of Business
Research, (11)Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, (12)European Journal of Innovation Management,(13)International Journal
of Information Management, (14)Human Relations, (15)Educational and Psychological Measurement, (16)Leadership & Organization Development Journal,(17)Frontiers of Business Researches in China, (18)Management Research News, (19)Public Organization Review,
(20)International Journal of Psychology,(21)Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, (22)Industrial Marketing
Management, (23)The Business Review, (24)Journal of Business & Psychology,(25)unpublished research study.
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 996
JUNE 2012
VOL 4, NO 2
Tabel 2. Meta-analysis of the antecedents on employee creativity and employee performance
Hy
p Variables k Total
Effect Size & 95% Confidence
Interval Heterogeneity
Independent Dependent
Studi
es n r LCI UCI
p-
value
Chi-
square Q-value
I-
squared
Antecedents
1
Person-
Supervisor Fit
Employee
Creativity 12 3320 0.383 0.352 0.413 0.000 19.675 107.902 90.732
2
Person-
Supervisor Fit
Employee
Performance 9 2951 0.267 0.233 0.300 0.000 15.507 19.429 58.825
3
Psychological
Empowerment
Employee
Creativity 11 4868 0.345 0.319 0.369 0.000 18.307 128.913 92.243
4
Psychological
Empowerment
Employee
Performance 12 13252 0.337 0.321 0.352 0.000 19.675 83.489 86.825
5
Person-
Supervisor Fit
Psychological
Empowerment 11 9727 0.486 0.471 0.501 0.000 18.307 190.681 94.756
6
Employee
Creativity
Employee
Performance 6 1588 0.413 0.371 0.453 0.000 11.070 124.051 95.969
Organizational-level factors
7a
Innovative
Climate
Employee
Creativity 7 7836 0.472 0.455 0.489 0.000 12.591 44.517 86.522
7b
Innovative
Climate
Employee
Performance 6 2195 0.224 0.183 0.263 0.000 11.070 63.468 92.122
8a
Organizational
Support
Employee
Creativity 4 1191 0.523 0.481 0.563 0.000 7.814 49.573 93.948
8b
Organizational
Support
Employee
Performance 8 25347 0.359 0.348 0.369 0.000 14.067 123.459 94.330