The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/0953-4814.htm

JOCM
29,5
Linking empowering
leadership and change-
oriented organizational
732 citizenship behavior
The role of thriving at work and
autonomy orientation
Mingze Li
School of Management, Huazhong University of Science and Technology,
Wuhan, China
Wenxing Liu and Yi Han
School of Business and Administration,
Zhongnan University of Economics and Law, Wuhan, China, and
Pengcheng Zhang
School of Management, Huazhong University of Science and Technology,
Wuhan, China

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to build a link between empowering leadership and change-
oriented organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) based on the theory of the socially embedded model
so as to explore why empowering leadership has an impact on change-oriented OCBs and for whom
this effect may be amplified or alleviated.
Design/methodology/approach – Using data collected from 203 employees and 80 supervisors in
one information technology company, the authors examined the mediating role of thriving at work and
the moderating role of autonomy between empowering leadership and change-oriented OCBs.
The authors used statistical methods such as hierarchical regression, bootstrapping test, and so on to
analyze the data.
Findings – The results indicated that empowering leadership was positively related to thriving
at work, and thus in turn influenced change-oriented OCBs. In addition, employees’ autonomy
orientation moderated those relationships such that when employees were had high
autonomy orientations, they thrived at work to a high degree and were more likely to perform
change-oriented OCBs.
Research limitations/implications – The authors collected the data of this study within a single
organization, and that may limit the observed viability and decrease external validity.
Practical implications – The findings suggest that leaders’ empowering behaviors are a critical
factor for simulating employees’ change-oriented OCBs. They also indicate that leaders are better off
empowering individuals with high autonomy orientations.
Originality/value – This study contributes to the literature by linking empowering leadership
and change-oriented OCBs. It clarifies how and why empowering leadership can stimulate employees’
change-oriented OCBs.
Keywords Empowering leadership, Autonomy, Change-oriented OCB, Thriving at work
Journal of Organizational Change
Management
Paper type Research paper
Vol. 29 No. 5, 2016
pp. 732-750
© Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0953-4814
The authors wish to thank The National Natural Science Foundation of China: No. 71502175;
DOI 10.1108/JOCM-02-2015-0032 No. 71172090; No. 71572066; and The national social science fund of China: No. 14BGL199.
Introduction Role of
With levels of complex environmental and operational uncertainty increasing, thriving
organizations adapting to these challenges need to identify internal problems and
implement the changed necessary to face them (Vigoda-Gadot and Beeri, 2011).
at work
Employees on the frontlines may be better able to identify and solve problems
(Morrison, 2011), as such, studies have indicated that employees’ change-oriented
organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) are important factors that drive 733
organizations to adopt changes and improve performance (Choi, 2007; Seppälä et al.,
2012). Change-oriented OCBs involve employees’ spontaneous participation in
organizational changes, including detecting and correcting errors in organizations
and making suggestions to improve work performance (Bettencourt, 2004; Choi, 2007).
In light of the practical importance of this type of behavior, managers are increasingly
realizing that they should provide contexts within which to encourage their employees
to participate in change-oriented OCBs.
Although a small number of studies have examined the impact of leaders on change-
oriented OCBs, these studies have mainly focussed on issues of leader-member
exchange (LMX) (e.g. Vigoda-Gadot and Beeri, 2011) and support from leaders
(Choi, 2007). More recently, scholars have begun examining the effect of broader
theories of leadership behavior on change-oriented OCBs, such as the transformational
leadership theory (e.g. López-Domínguez et al., 2013). Notably, little research has
focussed on empowering leadership, despite calls from OCB researchers that if scholars
were to focus greater efforts on leadership approaches, our understanding of the nature
of change-oriented OCBs would increase dramatically (Choi, 2007; López-Domínguez
et al., 2013). As empowering leadership involves sharing power with subordinates and
enhancing employees’ motivations and engagement in their work, fundamental
differences exist between empowering leadership and other leadership styles (Arnold
et al., 2000; Thomas and Velthouse, 1990). With the trend of increasing employee
autonomy to cope with uncertainty nowadays, understanding the relationship between
empowering leadership and change-oriented OCBs becomes critically important.
As such, this study aims to build and test a theory that addresses the linkage
between empowering leadership and change-oriented OCBs, including several
intervening variables. Because empowering leadership involves power sharing and
encourages self-management, behaviors that ignite employees’ passions and intrinsic
motivations (Zhang and Bartol, 2010), there are many indirect evidence to expect
empowering leadership having a positive influence on change-oriented OCBs (Martin
et al., 2013; Maynard et al., 2012). In addition, the mental state of employee stimulated
by empowering leader is in line with the conception of thriving at work (i.e. a mental
state in which individuals feel energized in their work and eager to learn) (Spreitzer
et al., 2005). Therefore, drawing from the theory of Spreitzer et al.’s (2005) socially
embedded model, we expect that thriving at work will play a critical mediating role
between empowering leadership and change-oriented OCBs. In addition, we expect
that, as people with different autonomy orientations react to empowering leadership
differently, employees with high autonomy orientations would be likely to experience a
greater influence from empowering leadership. Therefore, we will also consider the
moderating role of autonomy orientation in our research.
This study extends and contributes to the existing literature in several aspects.
First, we will propose a theoretical model that links empowering leadership and
change-oriented OCBs. Previous studies have paid limited attention to the challenging
aspects of OCBs (Ashworth, 2012; Choi, 2007; Datta, 2012) and scant of research has
JOCM examined leaders’ empowering effects on employees’ change-oriented OCBs. Second,
29,5 we will examine a new mediating variable (i.e. thriving at work). Previous studies that
have tried to open the “black box” between antecedents and change-oriented OCBs
have applied theories of LMX, organization commitment, and psychological
empowerment (Bettencourt, 2004; Choi, 2007). These studies have covered
mechanisms of the relationship state, cognitive change, and psychological
734 emergencies. In contrast, the present study attempts to apply Spreitzer et al.’s (2005)
socially embedded model of thriving at work, which is a novel theory emphasizing self-
adaption, to find another path to the promotion of change-oriented OCBs. Finally,
as empowering leadership emphases enhancing employees’ autonomy (Amundsen and
Martinsen, 2014; Arnold et al., 2000), in order to understand the empowering leadership
phenomenon comprehensively and provide appropriate guidance to organizational
practice, we intend to examine whether different effects exist among individuals with
different autonomy orientations.

Theory and hypotheses

Empowering leadership has been defined from two complementary perspectives
(Zhang and Bartol, 2010; Seibert et al., 2011). From the “power-sharing” perspective,
some scholars, focussing on power transfer, have defined empowering leadership as a
set of leadership behaviors that endow subordinates with power and responsibility
(e.g. Arnold et al., 2000). However, other scholars have approached the topic from the
perspective of “self-efficacy,” emphasizing psychological experiences. They define
empowering leadership as a leadership style that aims at removing employees’ feelings
of helplessness and raising their task-related intrinsic motivations (e.g. Ahearne et al.,
2005). In this paper, we will follow Zhang and Bartol’s (2010) way to integrate these two
perspectives and conceptualize empowering leadership as power being shared with
subordinates through a series of leadership behaviors, such as emphasizing job
meaning, providing decision-making autonomy, expressing confidence in employees’
work, and removing hindrances from employees’ jobs, thus improving employees’
work-related intrinsic motivations and removing feelings of helplessness.
The core difference between empowering leadership and other leadership styles is
that it removes employees’ feelings of helplessness by giving them full autonomy.
Although previous studies have investigated the impact of some leadership behaviors
on change-oriented OCBs, such as supportive leadership, contingent reward leadership,
and transformational leadership (Choi, 2007; Nesterkin, 2013; Babić et al., 2014), these
investigations have mainly emphasized leaders’ charisma or supportive behaviors that
“push” employees to engage in change behaviors. One must wonder how leaders can
provide contexts that enable employees to gain autonomy and initiative with regard to
change-oriented OCBs. Change-oriented OCBs involve identifying problems and
promoting organizational changes to settle the matters identified (Chiaburu et al., 2013).
In order to encourage this extra-role behavior, leaders should provide autonomy, while
also asking their employees to possess intrinsic motivation (Choi, 2007). Meeting these
requirements is naturally consistent with the philosophy of empowering leadership,
but scholars have proposed little theory research to link this leadership style and
change-oriented OCBs.
Previous studies have shown that empowering leadership can enhance employees’
psychological empowerment, creativity, and performance (Zhang and Bartol, 2010;
Lorinkova et al., 2013); promote information sharing and learning (Srivastava et al., 2006);
and increase job satisfaction and commitment (Huang et al., 2006; Spreitzer, 2008).
These positive outcomes may also encourage employees to “immerse” themselves in the Role of
organization and their own work. Such a decision usually means that the employees see thriving
their jobs as their own and, as such, feel more obligated to improve them (Lee et al., 2004;
William et al., 2014). Thus, they are more likely than other employees to exert change-
at work
oriented behaviors. Therefore, we believe that Spreitzer et al.’s (2005) socially embedded
model of thriving at work may be a good mechanism for bridging empowering
leadership and change-oriented OCBs. In addition, as empowering leadership aims to 735
give full play to employees’ autonomy, employees with different autonomy orientations
may exhibit different effects in the same empowerment context. Therefore, we aim to link
empowering leadership and change-oriented OCBs based on Spreitzer et al.’s (2005)
socially embedded model and examine the difference of employees with different levels of
autonomy orientation (Figure 1).

The relationship between empowering leadership and change-oriented OCBs

Change-oriented OCBs refer to the “constructive efforts by individuals to identify and
implement changes with respect to work methods, policies, and procedures to improve
the situations and performances” (Bettencourt, 2004; Choi, 2007). Regarding this
definition, a few points need to be explained. First, change-oriented OCBs are behaviors
that include identifying and implementing changes, such as voice, personal initiative,
and task revision (Frese et al., 1997; Van Dyne and LePine, 1998). The key word is
“change oriented,” which indicates that individuals are expected to change something
that already exists in the organization, such as team policies, team climates, or work
procedures. Second, change-oriented OCBs are extra-role behaviors, meaning that such
behaviors go beyond delineated role expectations (Morrison and Phelps, 1999). Voice
behavior, for example, is a behavior that is not included in the employees’ job
descriptions and goes beyond the role requirements in the organization. Individuals
conduct voice behaviors for personal needs or in the hope of building a better team.
Third, employees should conduct change-oriented OCBs on the premise of respecting
organizational rules and regulations. Fourth, the main goal of individuals engaging in
change-oriented OCBs is to improve organizational situations and task performance.
Conceptually, empowering leadership is highly relevant to change-oriented OCBs.
First, empowering leadership involves emphasizing the significance of the employees’
jobs and providing greater decision-making autonomy to the employees. Such power
may make employees feel that their efforts are valued and that their work is
challenging. For the most part, this motivational state can provoke individuals’
problem-coping and problem-solving styles, which, in turn, may promote change-
oriented OCBs (Scott and Bruce, 1994; Morrison and Phelps, 1999). Second, empowering
leadership expresses confidence in the employees’ capabilities, which helps boost
employee self-efficacy and self-esteem, thus stimulating the employees to engage in
more change-oriented OCBs. Leader recognition, on the one hand, promotes employees’
confidence in their abilities, which further stimulates them to believe that they are

Autonomy
Orientation

Empowering Change-Oriented
Figure 1.
Leadership Thriving at Work Research model
OCBs
JOCM capable of completing their assigned tasks. On the other hand, a leader’s confidence in
29,5 his employees’ capabilities motivates employees to build up their senses of mission and
responsibility, which, in turn, encourages them to seek improvements and enhance
their job performance by exerting their talents. Research has shown that employees’
self-efficacy and self-esteem are positively related to change-oriented OCBs (Lepine and
Van Dyne, 1998). In addition, empowering leadership removes some bureaucratic
736 constraints for employees, providing them with certain autonomy. This move boosts
employees’ work-related attitudes and job satisfaction, which, then, encourages them to
adopt change-oriented OCBs (Lepine and Van Dyne, 1998). Based on the above
analysis, we propose the following hypothesis:
H1. Empowering leadership is positively related to change-oriented OCBs.

The mediating role of thriving at work

Thriving at work refers to a mental state of “vitality” and “learning” that one
experiences during his or her work (Spreitzer et al., 2005). Vitality refers to a vital
emotional state in which one feels energized and presents an enthusiasm for work (Nix
et al., 1999). Learning represents one’s acquisition of knowledge and the application of
skills to build confidence and capability (Carver, 1998). Vitality and learning are two
indispensable dimensions of thriving at work. If one only pays attention to learning and
capability, yet displays a lack of zest and vitality for work, he is likely to feel exhausted
during his work. On the other hand, if one possesses zeal for the work, yet
lacks chances for learning and growth, he might be marching on the spot and suffering
stagnation. As emphasized in previous psychological research (e.g. Spreitzer et al.,
2005), the two dimensions of thriving (i.e. learning and vitality) signify two essential
types of psychological experiences during one’s growing process, namely the cognitive
and affective processes. Ryff (1989) pointed out that, when individuals grow, they
expand themselves in aspects of both reinforced recognition and affection. It is
worth stressing that thriving is a dynamic process rather than a static state of a certain
situation; it reflects the continuous state of individuals’ development and
change processes. Hence, when employees are thriving at work, they have
dynamic psychological experiences, instead of being a thriving or non-thriving
psychological patient.
Thriving at work is a procedural psychological experience and subject to the impact
of the external environment. Based on the self-determination theory, Spreitzer et al.
(2005) proposed a socially embedded model for thriving at work. They consider that
thriving at work includes the following three major antecedent factors: first, a
situational feature, which refers to the environment that employees face during work
and the ways they complete their work, including decision making, information
sharing, and the degree of mutual trust and respect between man and man during
interpersonal communication; second, work resources, which mainly refer to
knowledge as well as informational, affective, and interpersonal support that
employees gain from work that have proven to be effective in regard to reducing
obstacles and stresses that employees encounter while working; and third, motivational
behavior, which means that individuals complete their work with clear aims. This
reflects employees’ attitudes and behaviors in regard to processing tasks, including
their degree of attention to tasks and their interpersonal connections to others. A sound
working environment, rich work resources, and strong motivational behaviors are
effective factors for employees to thrive at work.
 Empowering leadership, in essence, has an impact on employees’ work contexts Role of
and is able to both provide them with necessary working resources and stimulate thriving
their motivational behaviors (Harris et al., 2014). Therefore, this leadership style
promotes employees’ abilities to thrive at work. First, empowering leadership
at work
encourages employees to take part in decision making and eliminates certain
institutional restrictions, which allows them to have relatively high decision-making
power and autonomy and enables them to make timely decisions and actions. 737
Second, this type of empowering context promotes employees’ active participation in
organizational work with effective resource support, it can improve their working
vitality and learning motivations. In addition, as empowering leadership emphasizes
the significance of working and expresses trust for employees’ working capabilities,
it increases their engagement with their jobs as well as the mutual trust between
leaders and employees. This, in turn, boosts employees’ thriving at work because,
when employees recognize the significance of their work, they increase their attention
to their tasks and involvement in their work (Orvis et al., 2009). Also, the mutual trust
between leaders and employees is not only a method of emotional support, but also a
method of resource support and, therefore, can promote employees’ working
motivation and vitality.
Thriving at work has a profound influence on employees’ organizational citizen
behaviors, especially change-oriented OCBs. For example, in this state, employees are
able to acquire knowledge and build confidence. This knowledge accumulation, as a
result of self-learning, increases the employees’ abilities and opportunities to notice
organizational problems and improve the current situation of their organizations
(Magni and Maruping, 2013). Furthermore, the employees have high work engagement
and intrinsic motivation and are willing to solve organizational problems and change
the status quo to improve team performance (Zhang and Bartol, 2010). Therefore, this
state not only equips employees with the willingness to better the status quo of an
organization, but it also increases their chances and abilities to perfect the organization
and, thus, promote their change-oriented OCBs. Based on the above analysis,
we propose the following hypothesis:
H2. The positive relationship between empowering leadership and change-oriented
OCBs is mediated by employees’ thriving at work.

The moderating role of autonomy orientation

Autonomy orientation, as a stable personality trait of an individual, refers to one’s
tendency toward volitional involvement in action during a behavior process (Olesen
et al., 2010). Individuals with high autonomy orientation normally present the following
behaviors. First, they actively search for opportunities for self-determination and
choice. Second, they change the existing situation in order to reduce external
constraints. Third, they organize their actions in accordance with their goals and
interests instead of considering internal controls and restrictions. Fourth, they present
a tendency toward initiative learning, which helps them to become more efficient in
their learning. Fifth, they tend to seek tasks and activities that are both interesting and
challenging, while, sixth, taking great responsibility for their actions and behaviors
(Liu et al., 2011). Past research has indicated that an individual’s autonomy orientation
can help to facilitate his or her positive motivational behaviors, such as psychological
involvement, self-governance, and persistence in goals (Deci and Ryan, 1985;
Gagné, 2003). On the whole, autonomy-orientated individuals tend to have high levels
JOCM of self-control, self-leading consciousness, and willpower, and are more likely to attain
29,5 self-governance through hard work, such as initiative learning and autonomy-seeking.
For employees with a different autonomy orientation, empowering leadership
leads to different forms of thriving at work. Specifically, highly autonomy-orientated
employees tend to have high self-leadership abilities. Since the aim of empowering
leadership is to stimulate the employees’ self-governing abilities, employees with high
738 autonomy orientations are more likely to realize self-governance. In addition,
employees’ self-governance enables them to face challenges with responsibility,
determine their motivational directions and objectives on the basis of their own
situations, and ensure that their steps and strategies are forward-thinking (Ogden
et al., 2006; Wallace et al., 2011). This self-controlling and self-decision-making
organizational mode greatly evokes autonomy-orientated employees’ enthusiasm and
vitality, incentivizing them to learn and work hard (Stewart et al., 2011) and, thus, to
advance in their thriving at work. On the contrary, employees with low autonomy
orientations display a tendency to lack self-governance. Therefore, empowering
leadership has difficulty in motivating the self-governance of these employees,
making the ability to thrive at work hard. Based on the above analysis, we propose
the following hypothesis:
H3. Autonomy orientation moderates the relationship between empowering
leadership and thriving at work. Specifically, when the autonomy orientation
is high, the positive relationship between the two is strengthened.
In combination with the above analysis and the three hypotheses, we further deduce
that autonomy orientation moderates the indirect effect of empowering leadership on
change-orientated OCBs though thriving at work. In other words, when employees’
autonomy orientation is high, the influence of empowering leadership on change-
orientated OCBs becomes more positive:
H4. Thriving at work mediates the interactive effects of empowering leadership and
autonomy orientation on change-orientated OCBs. Specifically, when an
employee’s autonomy orientation is high, the influence of empowering
leadership on change-orientated OCBs will be high due to the employee’s
thriving at work.

Research methods
Sample and procedure
The participants were full-time employees from an information technology company in
the city of Shenzhen in the Guangdong Province in China. This company has more than
1,500 employees. Via e-mail, telephone, and instant message, we explained the purpose
of our study to the company managers. After receiving their consent, we sent them
the study questionnaires and promised the confidentiality of any results. The results of
the study were returned via e-mail. However, we conducted structural interviews with
four managers from the marketing department, human resource management
department, and technical department in order to enhance the validity of our research.
Later, one of the coauthors of this paper visited the company and distributed the
survey during regular hours in order to gain additional participants. The participants
were instructed to put their completed questionnaires into the provided envelopes and
seal them. We collected data from two sources in three stages. In the initial stage,
the employees were asked to complete the scales of empowering leadership and autonomy
orientation. One month later, the employees completed the scale of thriving at work. Role of
Three weeks later, the supervisors evaluated their employees’ change-oriented OCBs. thriving
During the initial stage, we distributed questionnaires to 350 employees and
received 312 questionnaires (an 86.7 percent response rate). After excluding four
at work
unqualified questionnaires, we obtained 308 completed and usable questionnaires.
In the second stage, we distributed questionnaires to 308 employees who completely
finished the questionnaires in the first stage. We received 253 questionnaires (an 739
82.1 percent response rate). After excluding nine of the unqualified questionnaires, we
obtained 244 completed and usable questionnaires. In the third stage, we distributed
244 questionnaires to 80 supervisors who were leaders of the 244 employees in the
second stage. We received 221 questionnaires (a 90.6 percent response rate).
After excluding 18 unqualified questionnaires, we obtained 203 completed and usable
questionnaires (an effective response rate of 83.2 percent). These 203 participants
comprised the final sample. Of them, 53.2 percent were male and 46.8 percent were
female. The average age was 29.81 years old, while the average experience time was
6.3 years. The average job tenure was 4.83 years. As to educational background, most
of the respondents had undergraduate or higher degrees (65 percent had
undergraduate degrees).

Measures
Empowering leadership. We used the 12-items scale which developed by Ahearne et al.
(2005) to measure empowering leadership. The scale consists of four dimensions:
enhancing the meaningfulness of work; providing autonomy from bureaucratic
constraints; expressing confidence in high performance; fostering participation in
decision making (α’ ¼ 0.826, 0.709, 0.750, 0.907, respectively, overall α ¼ 0.835).
A sample item was “My manager helps me understand how my job fits into the bigger
picture,” and each item was rated from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
Thriving at work. We assessed thriving at work by using the ten-item scale
developed by Porath et al. (2012). The measurement consists of ten items that designed
to reflect two dimensions: five items for assessing learning and five items for assessing
vitality. Example items were: “I continue to learn more as time goes by” and “I have
energy and spirit” Each item was rated from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree)
(α’ ¼ 0.953, 0.934, respectively, overall α ¼ 0.950).
Autonomy orientation. We used the General Causality Orientations Scale developed
by Deci and Ryan (1985) to measure employees’ autonomy orientation. Respondents
were asked to read 12 hypothetical scenarios and then assess the reacting likelihood.
For example, respondents read a scenario, such as “You are a plant supervisor and
have been charged with the task of allotting coffee breaks to three workers who cannot
all break at once.” Then, they were asked to answer how they would react by choosing
one of the three options: “Telling the three workers the situation and having them work
with you on the schedule?” (impersonal); “Simply assigning times that each can break
to avoid any problems” (controlled); and “Find out from someone in authority what to
do or do what was done in the past” (autonomous). At last, we rated employee’s
autonomy scores (1-5) from their responds across the 12 scenarios (α ¼ 0.49).
Change-oriented OCB. Three items adapted from Choi’s (2007) change-oriented
OCBs measurement were used to assess the frequency of employees’ change-oriented
OCBs. The scale was rated by their supervisors. The items were rated from 1 to 5
(1 ¼ very few, 2 ¼ a few, 3 ¼ more or less, 4 ¼ much, 5 ¼ very much) and the items were
JOCM “How often during the past year has (name of the subordinate) suggested changes to
29,5 unproductive working methods in your work unit to co-workers,” “[…] and suggested
work improvement ideas regarding your work unit to you” and “[…] changed the way
she/he works to improve her/his efficiency” (α ¼ 0.922).
Control variables. According to the previous studies, we controlled of employees’
demographic characteristics such as gender, age, experience time, tenure, education
740 level of the staff, and job type in the study. In addition, the gender was treated as a
dummy variable (men ¼ “0”; “1” ¼ women); education was rated by high school and
below, college, and undergraduates, master and above.

Research analysis
Descriptive statistics and correlations
Table I presents the means, standard deviation, correlations, and Cronbach’s α for all
variables. Empowering leadership was significantly and positively correlated with
change-oriented OCBs (r ¼ 0.18, p o 0.05) and thriving at work (r ¼ 0.31, p o 0.01).
Thriving at work was significantly and positively related to change-oriented OCBs
(r ¼ 0.33, p o 0.01). Autonomy orientation was not significantly correlated with
empowering leadership (r ¼ −0.08, p W 0.10), thriving at work (r ¼ 0.03, p W 0.10) and
change-oriented OCBs (r ¼ 0.11, p W 0.10).

Discriminant validities
In order to ensure the discriminative validity of empowering leadership, thriving at
work, autonomy orientation, and change-oriented OCBs, we conducted confirmatory
factor analysis for different models. The proposed four-factor model showed a
satisfying fit ( χ2(183) ¼ 455.8, p o 0.01; CFI ¼ 0.90; TLI ¼ 0.89; RMSEA ¼ 0.09);
whereas, all the three-factor models, two-factor models, and one factor model did not
fit well (Bentler and Bonett, 1980; Cheung and Rensvold, 2002). Additionally, all the
factor loadings of the four-factor model were significant, demonstrating that the
distinctiveness of the four constructs were supported.

Tests of hypotheses
We performed hierarchical multiple regression analysis by using Spss 21.0 software to
test our H1 and H1. First, we entered all the control variables, and then entered the
independent variable (empowering leadership). Finally, we added mediate variable
(thriving at work) into the model. Table II presents all of the regression results.
H1 proposed that empowering leadership is positively related to change-oriented
OCBs. As shown in Table II, empowering leadership was positively associated with
change-oriented OCBs, and the coefficient was significant ( β ¼ 0.151, F ¼ 2.323,
p o 0.05, model 6). Entering empowering leadership account for 2.2 percent increase
of R2 statistic, indicating a significant improvement for the model. Thus our H1 was
supported.
H2 proposed that thriving at work mediates the relationship between
empowering leadership and change-oriented OCB. As shown in Table II,
empowering leadership was positively related to thriving at work and change-
oriented OCBs ( β ¼ 0.290, p o 0.001, model 2; β ¼ 0.151, p o 0.05, model 6),
and thriving at work was positively related to change-oriented OCBs ( β ¼ 0.309,
p o 0.001, model 7). However, after entering thriving at work the relationship
between empowering leadership and change-oriented OCBs became non-significant
Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Gender 0.47 0.50

2. Age 29.81 5.18 −0.20**
3. Education level 2.75 0.66 −0.06 −0.18**
4. Tenure 4.83 5.21 −0.10 0.73** −0.19**
5. Experience 6.30 5.26 −0.18** 0.87** −0.15* 0.86**
6. Empowering leadership 2.56 0.46 0.01 −0.13 −0.10 0.01 −0.03 (0.835)
7. Thriving at work 2.23 0.71 −0.06 0.12 −0.04 0.23** 0.24** 0.31** (0.950)
8. Change-oriented OCBs 2.37 0.93 0.01 0.01 −0.08 0.14* 0.09 0.18* 0.33** (0.922)
9. Autonomy orientation 2.88 0.82 0.09 −0.03 −0.08 −0.01 0.01 −0.08 0.03 0.11 (0.949)
Notes: n ¼ 203. Gender is coded “0” ¼ male, “1” ¼ female. Cronbach’s α appears along the diagonal in the brackets. *p o0.05; **p o0.01 (two-tailed)

correlations
Means, standard
deviations, and
thriving
Role of

Table I.
741
at work
 29,5

742
JOCM

Table II.
Results of
hierarchical
regression analyses
Thriving at work Chang-orientation OCBs
M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9 M10 M11

Control variables
Gender −0.044 −0.037 −0.041 −0.045 −0.001 0.003 0.013 0.013 −0.007 −0.011 0.006
Age −0.363* −0.233 −0.222 −0.242 −0.282 −0.214 −0.169 −0.147 −0.189 −0.211 −0.134
Education level −0.021 −0.012 −0.007 −0.014 −0.071 −0.066 −0.064 −0.062 −0.055 −0.063 −0.062
Tenure 0.065 0.041 0.048 0.047 0.207 0.195 0.187 0.183 0.211 0.210 0.189
Experience 0.485* 0.403* 0.387* 0.400* 0.144 0.102 −0.006 −0.015 0.065 0.078 −0.022
Independent variable
Empowering leadership 0.290*** 0.295*** 0.314*** 0.151* 0.067 0.163* 0.184* 0.107
Moderator
Autonomy orientation 0.049 0.061 0.115 0.128 0.100
Interaction
Empowering leadership × autonomy
orientation 0.134* 0.147* 0.140
Mediator
Thriving at work 0.309*** 0.289*** 0.281***
Controlled interaction
Thriving at work × autonomy −0.076
orientation
R2 0.089 0.169 0.171 0.188 0.045 0.067 0.132 0.136 0.079 0.100 0.162
ΔR2 0.080 0.002 0.017 0.022 0.087 0.069 0.013 0.021 0.062
F 3.820** 6.594*** 5.718*** 5.597*** 1.847 2.323* 4.952*** 4.369*** 2.390* 2.687** 3.688***
Notes: n ¼ 203. *p o 0.05; **p o0.01; ***p o0.001 (two-tailed)
( β ¼ 0.067, ns, model 8). Additionally, we conducted the Sobel indirect effect test. Role of
The result indicated that there was a significant indirect effect of empowering thriving
leadership on change-oriented OCBs through thriving at work (Z ¼ 3.087, p o 0.01).
Thus H2 was confirmed as well.
at work
To examine H3, we adopted hierarchical multiple regression analysis and entered
moderate variables and all of the interaction terms in the model. The result is
presented in Table III. The interaction between empowering leadership and 743
autonomy orientation was positively related to change-oriented OCBs ( β ¼ 0.134,
p o 0.05, model 4). In order to demonstrate the nature of the moderate effects, we
followed Aiken and West’s (1991) way to plot the interaction in the condition of one
standard deviation above and below the mean of autonomy orientation. As shown in
Figure 2, the interaction pattern consists with our hypothesis, demonstrating
that when autonomy orientation was high ( β ¼ 0.32, p o 0.01), the relationship
between empowering leadership and thriving at work was much more positively
at the condition when autonomy orientation was low ( β ¼ 0.12, ns). Thus, H3 was
supported.

Level of autonomy orientation Indirect effect SE Est./SE

Condition indirect effects assuming normal distribution

−1 SD 0.05 0.03 1.87
Mean 0.09 0.03 3.17**
+1 SD 0.13 0.04 3.04**
Condition indirect effects with bootstrap method (bootstrap ¼ 2,000) Table III.
−1 SD 0.05 0.03 1.65 Indirect effects
Mean 0.09 0.03 2.66** test of different
+1 SD 0.13 0.05 2.77** conditions
Notes: n ¼ 203. **p o0.01 (two-tailed) (bootstrap ¼ 2,000)

2.5
Thriving at Work

Figure 2.
The moderating
1.5 Low Autonomy effect of autonomy
orientation
orientation on the
High Autonomy relationship between
orientation empowering
1 leadership and
Low Empowering High Empowering thriving at work
leadership leadership
JOCM H4 predicted the mediated moderation effect that thriving at work mediates
29,5 the interactive effects of empowering leadership and autonomy orientation on
change-oriented OCBs. As shown in Table II, the term of empowering
leadership × autonomy orientation interaction was significantly related to change-
oriented OCBs ( β ¼ 0.147, p o 0.05, model 10), while this interaction was no longer
positively related to change-oriented OCBs ( β ¼ 0.140, ns, model 11) after we added
744 thriving at work into the model. Additionally, thriving at work was still positively
related to change-oriented OCBs ( β ¼ 0.281, p o 0.01). We plotted the interaction
effect of empowering leadership and autonomy orientation on change-oriented
OCBs. As shown in Figure 3, empowering leadership was more positively related to
change-oriented OCBs when autonomy orientation was high ( β ¼ 0.24, p o 0.05), but
the slop effect was not significant when autonomy orientation was low ( β ¼ −0.04,
ns). These results initially supported H4.
To test the mediated moderation effect further, we followed Edwards and Lambert’s
(2007) way, using Mplus 6.11 software, to perform path analysis and ran the full model
in low (mean−1 SD), normal (mean), and high (mean+1 SD) moderating context. We did
bootstrapping 2,000 samples to compute bias-corrected confidence intervals. The
results were presented in Table III. As shown in Table III, the indirect effect of
empowering leadership on change-oriented OCBs became significant only when
autonomy orientation was high ( βind ¼ 0.13, p o 0.01), indicating that the autonomy
orientation moderated the indirect effect of empowering leadership on change-oriented
OCBs. Therefore, H3 and H4 were all further supported.

Discussion
Drawing on Spreitzer et al.’s (2005) socially embedded model, this research investigated
whether and how empowering leadership could fuel employees’ psychological
experiences of thriving at work, which, in turn increase their change-oriented OCBs.
The study also found that, for employees with high autonomy orientation, the positive
effect stimulated by empowering leadership was more distinct. From the results of the
time-lagged data analysis, several insights with both theoretical and managerial
implications were evident.

3
Change-oriented OCBs

2.5

Figure 3.
The moderating Low Autonomy
effect of autonomy 1.5 orientation
orientation on the
High Autonomy
relationship between orientation
empowering
leadership and 1
change-oriented OCBs Low Empowering High Empowering
leadership leadership
Theoretical implications Role of
The present study contributes to the literature on leadership and OCBs in three thriving
ways. First, the study builds a link between the literature on empowering leadership
and change-oriented OCBs, responding to calls for more of an understanding
at work
of the guidance effects of empowering leadership on employees’ organizational
behaviors (Li et al., in press). Our findings underscore the critical roles of leaders in
regard to encouraging employees’ change-oriented behaviors. The results 745
have confirmed the early viewpoint that leaders’ support can promote employees’
change-oriented OCBs (Choi, 2007; Chiaburu et al., 2013). Notably, in regard
to empowering leadership, which has received little attention in the literature of
change-oriented OCBs, the present study is the first study to reveal why this
important leadership style can play such an important role in encouraging
employees’ change-oriented OCBs.
Second, we advance the literature by introducing the socially embedded model of
thriving at work, which is a new theory compared to those theories used in prior,
related research. Previous work has focussed on leadership and change-oriented
OCBs and has proven that the exchange relation quality between leader and
employee (LMX) as well as organization commitment and psychological
empowerment can serve as mediators between them (Bettencourt, 2004; Choi,
2007). The present study proposed another psychological mechanism, namely
thriving at work. Different from the aforementioned psychological empowerment,
which also focusses on the psychological state, thriving at work emphasizes
employees’ work-embedded state, including recognition (learning) and affective
(vitality) experience. Psychological empowerment focusses on the psychological
control of work (Maynard et al., 2012). This research advances the understanding of
the psychological mechanism by providing a complementary perspective to
previous research.
Third, the study found a key factor that moderates leaders’ empowering effects
on change-oriented OCBs. This moderation differs from the moderating effects
studied in prior research in the empowerment literature. Focussing on the different
dispositions of employees, previous studies have examined the moderating role of
culture (power distance), employee readiness of empowerment attribution style,
felt accountability, and interaction relationships, such as LMX (Humborstad et al.,
2008; Ahearne et al., 2005; Wallace et al., 2011; Harris et al., 2009). These boundary
conditions have rarely included employees’ different orientations. However, the
current study indicates that employees with different levels of autonomy orientation
can embrace different empowering effects when thriving at work, which can, in turn,
influence change-oriented OCBs. This finding provides a new understanding of
empowerment practices.

Managerial implications
These findings also suggest some managerial implications. First, as empowering
leadership is a critical leadership style for promoting employees’ change-oriented
OCBs, in order to enhance this empowered behavior, leaders are advised to adopt
a series of empowering behaviors, such as emphasizing the meaning of the work,
giving employees with autonomy the freedom to make their own decisions and
endowing them with the right to participate in the decision-making process.
Furthermore, organizations can provide supervisors with certain training to help them
JOCM learn how to empower employees effectively. Second, these results indicate that
29,5 thriving at work is an important psychological state for promoting change-oriented
OCBs. Since this psychological experience encompasses two critical dimensions,
namely affection (vitality) and recognition (learning), leaders or organizations
can provide suitable settings or climates in which to maintain employees’ learning
passion and work vitality. For example, organizations can provide a learning
746 orientation climate to encourage employees to learn and provide more concern in
regard to employees’ needs. Finally, the findings also suggest a moderated mediation
effect in that employees with high levels of autonomy orientation embrace the
empowering effects more sensitively and, thus, exert more change-oriented OCBs. This
means that managers who want their employees to exhibit certain behaviors need to
understand their subordinates deeply in order to ensure the expected outcomes. For
example, leaders who want to encourage employees’ change-oriented OCBs through
empowerment need to first identify whether the receiver has high levels of autonomy
orientation.

Limitations and future research

The present study has some limitations that need to be addressed. First, our study
only examined empowering leadership effects on change-oriented OCBs at the
individual level. However, evidence suggests that empowering leadership can also
be aggregated at the team level (Chen et al., 2007). In addition, the cross-level effect
may exist simultaneously and different levels may influence each other. Multilevel
and cross-level analyses should be used in future studies in order to examine the
relationship between empowering leadership and change-oriented OCBs
comprehensively. Second, the relationship in our theoretical model followed the
hypothesized causal order. Since other potential factors may affect employees’ thriving at
work and change-oriented OCBs during the process, it limits our evidence to determine
the causality. Experimental research is needed in order to confirm this relationship.
In addition, the data for this study were collected from a single organization, which may
limit the observed viability and decrease the external validity of the study, although
doing so may provide an advantage in regard to controlling for potential organization
difference. Finally, culture differences, such as organizational and national cultures, may
also be important factors that promote or impede the empowering effect on change-
oriented OCBs. Future studies can pay attention to across organizations and national
cultures in order to examine the difference between different countries so as to
understand the empowering effect more clearly.

References
Ahearne, M., Mathieu, J. and 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, Vol. 90 No. 5,
pp. 945-955.
Aiken, L.S. and West, S.G. (1991), Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions,
Sage Press, Newbury Park.
Amundsen, S. and Martinsen, Ø.L. (2014), “Empowering leadership: construct clarification,
conceptualization, and validation of a new scale”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 3,
pp. 487-511.
Arnold, J.A., Arad, S., Rhoades, J.A. and Drasgow, F. (2000), “The empowering leadership Role of
questionnaire: the construction and validation of a new scale for measuring leader
behaviors”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 249-269.
thriving
at work
Ashworth, C.J. (2012), “Marketing and organisational development in e-SMEs: understanding
survival and sustainability in growth-oriented and comfort-zone pure-play enterprises in
the fashion retail industry”, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal,
Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 165-201. 747
Babić, M.V., Savović, S.D. and Domanović, M.V. (2014), “Transformational leadership and post-
acquisition performance in transitional economies”, Journal of Organizational Change
Management, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 856-876.
Bentler, P.M. and Bonett, D.G. (1980), “Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of
covariance structures”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 88 No. 3, pp. 588-605.
Bettencourt, L.A. (2004), “Change-oriented organizational citizenship behaviors: the direct and
moderating influence of goal orientation”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 80 No. 3,
pp. 165-180.
Carver, C.S. (1998), “Resilience and thriving: issues, models, and linkages”, Journal of Social
Issues, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 245-266.
Chen, G., Kirkman, B.L., Kanfer, R., Allen, D. and Rosen, B. (2007), “A multilevel study of
leadership, empowerment, and performance in teams”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 92 No. 2, pp. 331-346.
Cheung, G.W. and Rensvold, R.B. (2002), “Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for
testing measurement invariance”, Structural Equation Modeling, Vol. 9 No. 2,
pp. 233-255.
Chiaburu, D.S., Lorinkova, N.M. and Van Dyne, L. (2013), “Employees’ social context and change-
oriented citizenship: a meta-analysis of leader, coworker, and organizational influences”,
Group & Organization Management, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 291-333.
Choi, J.N. (2007), “Change-oriented organizational citizenship behavior: effects of work
environment characteristics and intervening psychological processes”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 467-484.
Datta, P. (2012), “An applied organizational rewards distribution system”, Management Decision,
Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 479-501.
Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (1985), “The general causality orientations scale: self-determination in
personality”, Journal of Research in Personality, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 109-134.
Edwards, J.R. and Lambert, L.S. (2007), “Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: a general
analytical framework using moderated path analysis”, Psychological Methods, Vol. 12 No. 1,
pp. 1-19.
Frese, M., Fay, D., Hilburger, T., Leng, K. and Tag, A. (1997), “The concept of personal initiative:
operationalization, reliability and validity in two German samples”, Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 70 No. 2, pp. 139-161.
Gagné, M. (2003), “The role of autonomy support and autonomy orientation in prosocial behavior
engagement”, Motivation and Emotion, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 199-223.
Harris, K.J., Wheeler, A.R. and Kacmar, K.M. (2009), “Leader-member exchange and
empowerment: direct and interactive effects on job satisfaction, turnover intentions, and
performance”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 371-382.
Harris, T.B., Li, N., Boswell, W.R., Zhang, X.A. and Xie, Z. (2014), “Getting what’s new from
newcomers: empowering leadership, creativity, and adjustment in the socialization
context”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 97 No. 3, pp. 567-604.
JOCM Huang, X., Shi, K., Zhang, Z. and Cheung, Y.L. (2006), “The impact of participative leadership
behavior on psychological empowerment and organizational commitment in Chinese state-
29,5 owned enterprises: the moderating role of organizational tenure”, Asia Pacific Journal of
Management, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 345-367.
Humborstad, S.I.W., Humborstad, B., Whitfield, R. and Perry, C. (2008), “Implementation of
empowerment in Chinese high power-distance organizations”, The International Journal of
748 Human Resource Management, Vol. 19 No. 7, pp. 1349-1364.
Lee, T.W., Mitchell, T.R., Sablynski, C.J., Burton, J.P. and Holtom, B.C. (2004), “The effects
of job embeddedness on organizational citizenship, job performance, volitional absences,
and voluntary turnover”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 47 No. 5, pp. 711-722.
LePine, J.A. and Van Dyne, L. (1998), “Predicting voice behavior in work groups”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 83 No. 6, pp. 853-662.
Li, N, Chiaburu, D.S. and Kirkman, B.L. (in press), “Cross-level influences of empowering
leadership on citizenship behavior organizational support climate as a double-edged
sword”, Journal of Management, doi: 0149206314546193.
Liu, D., Zhang, S., Wang, L. and Lee, T.W. (2011), “The effects of autonomy and empowerment on
employee turnover: test of a multilevel model in teams”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 96 No. 6, pp. 1305-1316.
López-Domínguez, M., Enache, M., Sallan, J.M. and Simo, P. (2013), “Transformational leadership
as an antecedent of change-oriented organizational citizenship behavior”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 66 No. 10, pp. 2147-2152.
Lorinkova, N.M., Pearsall, M.J. and Sims, H.P. (2013), “Examining the differential longitudinal
performance of directive versus empowering leadership in teams”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 56 No. 2, pp. 573-596.
Magni, M. and Maruping, L.M. (2013), “Sink or swim: empowering leadership and overload
in teams’ ability to deal with the unexpected”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 52 No. 5,
pp. 715-739.
Martin, S.L., Liao, H. and Campbell, E.M. (2013), “Directive versus empowering leadership: a field
experiment comparing impacts on task proficiency and proactivity”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 56 No. 5, pp. 1372-1395.
Maynard, M.T., Gilson, L.L. and Mathieu, J.E. (2012), “Empowerment – fad or fab? A multilevel
review of the past two decades of research”, Journal of Management, Vol. 38 No. 4,
pp. 1231-1281.
Morrison, E.W. (2011), “Employee voice behavior: integration and directions for future research”,
The Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 373-412.
Morrison, E.W. and Phelps, C.C. (1999), “Taking charge at work: extrarole efforts to initiate
workplace change”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 403-419.
Nesterkin, D.A. (2013), “Organizational change and psychological reactance”, Journal of
Organizational Change Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 573-594.
Nix, G., Ryan, R.M., Manly, J.B. and Deci, E.L. (1999), “Revitalization through self-regulation: the
effects of autonomous and controlled motivation on happiness and vitality”, Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 266-284.
Ogden, S., Glaister, K.W. and Marginson, D. (2006), “Empowerment and accountability: evidence
from the UK privatized water industry”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 43 No. 3,
pp. 521-555.
Olesen, M.H., Thomsen, D.K., Schnieber, A. and Tønnesvang, J. (2010), “Distinguishing general
causality orientations from personality traits”, Personality and Individual Differences,
Vol. 48 No. 5, pp. 538-543.
Orvis, K.A., Fisher, S.L. and Wasserman, M.E. (2009), “Power to the people: using learner control Role of
to improve trainee reactions and learning in web-based instructional environments”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 94 No. 4, pp. 960-976.
thriving
Porath, C., Spreitzer, G., Gibson, C. and Garnett, F.G. (2012), “Thriving at work: toward its
at work
measurement, construct validation, and theoretical refinement”, Journal of Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 250-275.
Ryff, C.D. (1989), “Happiness is everything, or is it – explorations on the meaning of 749
psychological well-being”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 57 No. 6,
pp. 1069-1081.
Scott, S.G. and Bruce, R.A. (1994), “Determinants of innovative behavior: a path model of
individual innovation in the workplace”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 37 No. 3,
pp. 580-607.
Seibert, S.E., Wang, G. and Courtright, S.H. (2011), “Antecedents and consequences of
psychological and team empowerment in organizations: a meta-analytic review”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 96 No. 5, pp. 981-1003.
Seppälä, T., Lipponen, J., Bardi, A. and Pirttilä-Backman, A.M. (2012), “Change-oriented
organizational citizenship behaviour: an interactive product of openness to change values,
work unit identification, and sense of power”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, Vol. 85 No. 1, pp. 136-155.
Spreitzer, G.M. (2008), “Taking stock: a review of more than twenty years of research on
empowerment at work”, in Barling, J. and Cooper, C.L. (Eds), Handbook of Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 26, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 54-72.
Spreitzer, G., Sutcliffe, K., Dutton, J., Sonenshein, S. and Grant, A.M. (2005), “A socially embedded
model of thriving at work”, Organization Science, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 537-549.
Srivastava, A., Bartol, K.M. and Locke, E.A. (2006), “Empowering leadership in management
teams: effects on knowledge sharing, efficacy, and performance”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 49 No. 6, pp. 1239-1251.
Stewart, G.L., Courtright, S.H. and Manz, C.C. (2011), “Self-leadership: a multilevel review”,
Journal of Management, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 185-222.
Thomas, K.W. and Velthouse, B.A. (1990), “Cognitive elements of empowerment: an ‘interpretive’
model of intrinsic task motivation”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 15 No. 4,
pp. 666-681.
Van Dyne, L. and LePine, J.A. (1998), “Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: evidence
of construct and predictive validity”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 41 No. 1,
pp. 108-119.
Vigoda-Gadot, E. and Beeri, I. (2011), “Change-oriented organizational citizenship behavior in
public administration: the power of leadership and the cost of organizational politics”,
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 573-596.
Wallace, J.C., Johnson, P.D., Mathe, K. and Paul, J. (2011), “Structural and psychological
empowerment climates, performance, and the moderating role of shared felt
accountability: a managerial perspective”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 96 No. 4,
pp. 840-850.
William, L.T., Burch, T.C. and Mitchell, T.R. (2014), “The story of why we stay: a review of job
embeddedness”, Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior,
Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 199-216.
Zhang, X.M. and Bartol, K.M. (2010), “Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity:
the influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process
engagement”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 107-128.
JOCM About the authors
29,5 Mingze Li is a PhD Student of Human Resource Management at the School of Management in
Huazhong University of Science & Technology. His research centers upon leadership behavior,
creativity and deviant behavior. His research focusses on how leaders’ behaviors can develop
employees’ working initiate and efficiency.
Wenxing Liu is an Assistant Professor at the School of Business Administration in Zhongnan
University of Economics and Law. His research focusses on leadership and employee behaviors.
750 His research aims at how to guide employees work effective in organizational practice. Wenxing Liu
is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected]
Yi Han is a Professor at the School of Business Administration in Zhongnan University of
Economics and Law. His research focusses on leadership behaviors and voice, and on how to
create a better climate for organizational performance.
Pengcheng Zhang is an Associate Professor at the School of Management in Huazhong
University of Science & Technology. His research centers upon leadership behavior, creativity
and deviant behavior. His research focusses on how leaders’ behaviors can develop employees
and teams’ creativity.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.