MRR 09 2016 0213

Management Research Review
Creative and innovative leadership: Measurement development and validation

Ashkan Khalili,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Ashkan Khalili, "Creative and innovative leadership: Measurement development and validation", Management Research
Review, https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-09-2016-0213
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-09-2016-0213
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 08:00 14 September 2017 (PT)
Downloaded on: 14 September 2017, At: 08:00 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 23 times since 2017*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2017),"Relational impact of authentic and transactional leadership styles on employee creativity: The role of work-related
flow and climate for innovation", African Journal of Economic and Management Studies, Vol. 8 Iss 3 pp. 274-295 <a
href="https://doi.org/10.1108/AJEMS-07-2016-0098">https://doi.org/10.1108/AJEMS-07-2016-0098</a>
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:543713 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Creative and innovative leadership: Measurement development and validation
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this study is to develop and validate a theory-based measure
presenting the creative and innovative leadership behavior construct.
Design/methodology/approach – The theoretical dimensions of five leadership theories

(transformational leadership, change-oriented leadership, innovation champion, leader-
member exchange and authentic leadership) were synthesized. Employing a quantitative
approach, the population sample was comprised of 514 respondents who held management
and non-management positions. The validity and reliability of the instrument were evaluated.
Findings – The results indicated that the newly developed 24-item measure achieved an
acceptable level of reliability and validity in measuring the creative and innovative leadership
behavior construct. Eventually, the findings revealed positive and significant influence of
creative and innovative leadership behavior on creativity and innovative behavior at the
individual level in the workplace.
Practical implications – Organizations should invest in the creative and innovative
leadership behavior construct in their training and in the selection of leaders with the newly
developed 24-item measurement scale if their purpose is to nurture and enhance creativity
and innovation.
Originality/value – This study makes important theoretical contributions in different ways.
The newly developed instrument contributes to the relevant literature through the
development and validation of a theory-based measure. Also, this study expands knowledge
about resources in the workplace that nurture and enhance creativity and innovation at the
individual level.
Keywords Leadership behavior, Creativity, Innovation, Leadership development,
Measurement development
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
The today’s fast-changing business environment challenges organizations to become dynamic
and innovative in order to ensure their organizational survival. To gain sustainability and stay
competitive, organizations are required to focus on creativity and innovation. It is important
for organizations to be creative and innovative so that may gain efficiency and success
(Slåtten & Mehmetoglu 2015). In fact, creativity and innovation can be used as important
tools to fuel corporate growth (Baker et al., 2016).
In this regard, a growing body of research has acknowledged enablers which facilitate
and amplify creativity and innovation. To be more specific, previous studies have
documented many predictors to creativity and innovative behavior at the individual level, of
these leadership behavior appears to show one of the most influential constructs (Jyoti & Dev
2015; Nusair, Ababneh & Bae 2012; Shin & Zhou 2003). Therefore, identifying leadership
behavior towards creativity and innovation is an important effort from both theoretical and
practical point of views.
Justification for supporting the pivotal role of leadership behavior is that individuals to
show creativity and innovation often requiring actions that are other than normal work tasks,
therefore they frequently feeling fear and anxiety when trying to generate and implement a
new idea (Csikszentmihalyi 1996). In this instance, leadership behavior can play a vital role
because it assists to produce a risk tolerant environment in which staff feel confident to go
beyond the present situation and participate in the generation of novel and useful ideas
(Simmons & Sower 2012). The importance of leadership behavior in the implementation of
new thoughts (innovative behavior) is also very clear. For instance, leaders by providing
authority and delegation to subordinates and who have creative ideas in their mind are found
to be more successful in transitions of creative thought into innovation (De Jong & Den
Hartog 2007). However, despite an agreement of the substantial role of leaders in triggering
creativity and innovative behavior at the individual level, leadership behavior for creativity
and innovation is relatively less developed. Individuals’ creativity and innovative behavior
are two important elements for businesses success, but few empirical studies have addressed
this topic particularly the comprehensive leadership model as a predictor rather than a single
leadership model. Hence, the aim of this study is to develop and validate a theory-based
measure of creative and innovative leadership behaviors at the individual level.
This study addresses Yukl's (2009) research call that a comprehensive model of the
impact of leadership on creativity and innovative behavior is needed. Rosing, Frese and
Bausch (2011) noted that the complex nature of the innovation process leads to complex
events. These complex events are creativity (generation of new and fresh ideas) and
innovative behavior (implementation of new and fresh thoughts) as the first and second part
of innovation process, respectively (West 2002). The reason behind this complexity is due to
the fact that these two steps of the innovation process do not neatly proceed in a linear
fashion (Anderson, De Dreu & Nijstad 2004; King 1992; Van de Ven et al., 1999).
Researchers suggested that the only way to embrace this complexity is to develop a
comprehensive model of leaders’ influences on creativity and innovation (Mumford &
Licuanan 2004). Thus, this study addressed the identified research oversight by building a
complex and comprehensive leadership model. To do this, the researcher synthesised the
theoretical components of the five leadership theories: transformational leadership,
innovation champion, change-oriented leadership, leader-member exchange and authentic
leadership. Employing a theory-based approach led the researcher to develop and then
validate a measurement instrument to present the creative and innovative leadership behavior
construct.
2. Literature review and hypotheses development

Effective leadership is integral for the capability of an organization to be creative and
innovative. Scholars suggest that employees’ creativity and innovative behavior are shaped
by their interaction with others in the organization (Zhou & Shalley 2003). In this regard,
literature suggests that leaders can have a vital influence on the creativity and innovative
behavior of employees in different ways, for instance, by articulating vision (De Jong & Den
Hartog 2007), providing feedback (Amabile et al. 1996), explaining tasks and roles (Amabile
et al. 2004), and motivating and encouraging (Gupta & Singh 2013). In general leaders have
a powerful influence on followers’ work behaviors (Yukl 2010). Creative and innovative
behaviors are no exception. These behaviors while impacted by knowledge, skills and
capacities (Amabile 1983; Barron & Harrington 1981), are also discussed to be greatly
affected by inspirational leadership (Amabile 1988), which makes them of interest to
leadership researchers (Pelz & Andrews 1966; Scott & Bruce 1994). For example, Basadur
(2004, p. 103) noted that the most effective leaders assist individuals “to coordinate and
integrate their differing styles through a process of applied creativity that includes
continuously discovering and defining new problems, solving those problems and
implementing the new solutions”.
According to Mumford and Gustafson (1988), creativity refers to the generation of new
ideas, and innovation is the translation of these ideas into actions. Creativity and innovation
have come to be perceived as a major goal of many firms and a potentially powerful impact
on organizational performance (Drazin, Glynn & Kazanjian 1999). Creativity appears as an
important factor related to innovation (Amabile et al., 1996; Madjar & Walters 2008). For
example, Van de Ven (1986, p. 592) noted that the “foundation of innovative thoughts is
creativity”. Similarly, Amabile et al. (1996) suggested that every innovative behavior starts
with creative thoughts. However, according to Amabile (1996), there is no universal
acceptable definition for theses two constructs. In this study, creativity refers to behaviors
that produce novel and useful thoughts at the individual level. Innovative behavior refers to
behaviors that result in the implementation of creative ideas at the individual level. Creative
behavior plays a pivotal role as starting step of innovative behavior.
Over the years scholars have investigated the relationship between various leadership
theories and individual creativity and innovative behavior. According to Mumford and
Licuanan (2004), leadership contributes effectively to the generation and implementation of
new and fresh thoughts within the organization. Available research on the associations
between leadership behavior, creativity and innovation has considered transformational
leadership (Howell & Avolio 1993), change-oriented leadership (Yukl 1999), innovation
champion (Howell & Shea 2001), leader–member exchange (LMX) (Graen & Uhl-Bien 1995)
and authentic leadership (Avolio & Gardner 2005).
Leaders with transformational qualities are known as the principal driver of employees’
creativity and innovative behavior (Jyoti & Dev 2015). Transformational leadership is
hypothesized to stimulate idea generation (Kahai, Sosik & Avolio 2003; Shin & Zhou 2003).
According to Gumusluoglu and Ilsev (2009), this leadership style consists of creativity-
enhancing behaviors. A transformational leadership model can help managers to stimulate
followers to be more creative in solving problems (Howell & Avolio 1993; Kahai, Sosik &
Avolio 2003) and helps them to develop their full potential (De Jong & Den Hartog 2007).
Howell and Avolio (1993) mentioned that transformational leaders encourage creativity and
innovation by developing, intellectually motivating, and stimulating followers to boost their
efforts for a desired cooperative objective. Gumusluoglu and Ilsev (2009) investigated 163
staff in 43 Turkish entrepreneurial software development firms and found a significant
positive relationship between transformational leadership and creativity at the individual
level; they also found that transformational leadership has a significant influence on
innovation at the organizational level. Eisenbeiß and Boerner (2013) in a survey of R&D
employees working in high-tech medical engineering, electronics, semiconductor, software,
chemistry or biology industries, reported that German employees show more creativity under
transformational leadership. More recently, in a study of 1172 employees working in
different types of Iranian industries, Khalili (2016) documented that transformational leaders
positively and significantly influence employees’ creativity and innovation. Also, Jyoti and
Dev (2015) found a positive association between transformational leadership and employees’
creativity in a study of 202 employees working in two call centers in India.
Change-oriented leadership theory is considered similar to and compatible with
transformational leadership theory (Gil et al., 2005). Change-oriented leadership explains the
impact of people in managerial positions on organizational processes, analyses the contingent
elements of effective leadership, and emphasizes the significance of leadership processes (Gil
et al., 2005). Yukl (1999) claimed that transformational leadership overemphasizes dyadic
processes, overlooking the impact of the leader on the firm. In other words, unlike the aim of
transformational leadership theory, which focuses on the motivation and perceptions of

followers, the goal of change-oriented leadership theory is on the processes of organization.
According to Gil et al. (2005), change-oriented leaders show behaviors like controlling
organizational climate, envisioning change, taking risks, and supporting innovative ways of
thinking.
Champions are people who forcefully chase thoughts and make significant contributions
by defeating obstacles and nurturing the thoughts (Day 1994; Howell et al., 2005). Howell
and Higgins (1990, p. 320) suggested that vital leadership characteristics and personalities
distinguish champion leaders from non-champion ones and defined champion leaders as
“informal leaders, inspiring others with their vision of an innovation potential. Champions act
as influence agents to promote their ideas”. Based on the theory of innovation diffusion, a
manager with the characteristics of an innovation champion acts as an “opinion leader” who
affects the distribution of innovation (Rogers 2003). The presence of a champion is one factor
that has been powerfully connected to the success of innovation (Howell & Higgins 1990;
Howell & Shea 2001). In this regard, Dulaimi, Nepal and Park (2005) and Kissi et al. (2010)
noted that the behaviors of an innovation champion promote innovation in the workplace.
Markham (1998, p. 502) mentioned that “the role of the champion is still vital and interesting
across different types of innovation projects”. Howell and Shea (2001) asserted that
champions of innovation can make a substantive contribution to innovation. Kissi et al. (2012)
found that innovation champion behavior in project managers was mainly responsible for the
success of the projects they investigated. Similarly, Kissi, John, Dainty and Tuuli (2013) in a
study of 112 project managers in a UK-based company found a positive relationship between
innovation champion behavior and project performance.
Graen and his colleagues introduced the leader–member exchange (LMX) theory (Graen
1976; Graen & Cashman 1975; Graen & Scandura 1987; Graen & Uhl-Bien 1995). LMX
concentrates on the quality of dyadic reciprocal actions between supervisors and subordinates
(Graen & Uhl-Bien 1995). According to this theory a continual social exchange takes place
between supervisors and employees (Schermuly et al., 2013). LMX has been described as the
single idea of the quality of leader–member connection along a continuum from not good to
good (Chen et al., 2007); hence, it is about a relational style of leadership (Graen & Uhl-Bien
1995). Research on LMX in organizations has indicated that if the quality of leader–member
exchange is high, staff have more time and information, better levels of emotional support
and high regard from their leaders (Sparrowe & Liden 1997). In return, subordinates show
behavioral changes through enhanced effort, deeper involvement, and positive attitudes
toward their work (DeConinck 2011). According to Yukl (2010), the quality of the
relationship between a leader and subordinate affects outcomes such as supervisor
satisfaction, follower satisfaction, commitment, turnover intentions and role clarity. Liden et
al. (2000, p. 409) noted that supervisors are the main interaction partners for subordinates,
and “the supervisor–subordinate relationship has a major impact on employees’ work
experiences”.
According to Cotgrove and Box (1970) and Pelz and Andrews (1966), a high-quality
relationship between a leader and follower is fundamental to innovative behavior. They
pointed out high-quality interactions are characterized by trust and reciprocal respect, and
because of that followers have greater autonomy and more latitude in decision-making.
Additionally, in such exchanges subordinates are not only granted greater independence and
freedom, increasing deeper obligation, but also have access to more and better information,
both of which encourage higher creativity (Khazanchi & Masterson 2010; Scott & Bruce
1994). According to Singh and Sakar (2012), employees must find encouragement and
support if they want to generate new ideas and implement them in the workplace. Tierney,
Farmer and Graen (1999) argued that high-quality relationships had a positive influence on
creativity in a study of R&D leaders and employees in a chemical firm. Similarly, Janssen
and van Yperen (2004) found a positive impact of high-quality relationships on employees’
innovative behavior. In a study of 312 leader-employee dyadic data from hotels in Taiwan,
Wang (2016) discovered a positive association between LMX and the creativity of employees.
Qu, Janssen and Shi (2017) in a survey of 193 leader-follower dyads working in two high-
tech organizations in China, reported that LMX positively relates to the creativity of
followers. Also, Peng et al. (2017) in a study of 67 leaders and 261 subordinates reported that
a high-quality interaction between leaders and subordinates is positively related to
employees’ creativity.
Walumbwa et al. (2008, p. 94) defined authentic leadership as “a pattern of leader
behavior that draws upon and promotes both positive psychological capacities and a positive
ethical climate, to foster greater self-awareness, an internalized moral perspective, balanced
processing of information, and relational transparency on the part of leaders working with
followers, fostering positive self-development”. Generally this type of leadership is the base
of any positive type of leadership (Ilies, Morgeson & Nahrgang 2005; May et al., 2003).
Authentic leaders practice self-awareness and use it to learn from themselves and to
encourage their employees (Neider & Schriesheim 2011). According to Luthans and Avolio
(2003), authentic leadership theory is based on self-awareness, positive psychological
capacities and high ethical standards.

When people in management positions use authentic leadership behaviors in an
organization, in this manner followers are inclined to show creativity and challenge the
routine ways of working, and are also more eager to persuade their managers and colleagues
to implement their creative ideas (Janssen & van Yperen 2004; Tu & Lu 2013). According to
Walumbwa et al. (2008), employees perceive authentic leaders as a credible source of
feedback because they do not censor followers’ creative thoughts. Avolio et al. (2004) stated
that followers of authentic leaders are more willing to discover new solutions for solving
problems and taking risks because they think their leaders like to see them carry out tasks and
assignments properly. Authentic leaders further their followers’ trust, respect and
identification (Avolio et al., 2004; Ilies, Morgeson & Nahrgang 2005) enabling them to
suggest new and fresh thoughts, to feel free to take risks, and to propose contradictory beliefs
without fear (Edmondson 1999; Walumbwa et al., 2010). As a result, subordinates tend to
generate more creative ideas when confronting both problems and opportunities (Rego et al.,
2014). Semedo, Coelho and Ribeiro (2016) found that authentic leadership positively impacts
employees’ creativity in a study of 543 employees from private and public organizations in
Cape Verde.
Considering the discussion of leadership theories (transformational leadership, change-
oriented leadership, innovation champion leadership, LMX, and authentic leadership) in this
section, the researcher chose them as the leadership theories in this paper for the purpose of
measurement development and validation for the Creative and Innovative Leadership
Behavior construct. Following this reasoning, it was hypothesized:
Hypothesis1. Creative and innovative leadership behavior is positively and
significantly related to creativity at the individual level.
Hypothesis2. Creative and innovative leadership behavior is positively and
significantly related to innovative behavior at the individual level.
3. Methods
3.1 Sample and procedures
Quantitative analysis was employed using the data obtained from individuals at both
management and non-management positions working in different industries (e.g.
professional, scientific and technical services, construction, information media and
telecommunications, retail trade, manufacturing, financial and insurance services, and health
care and social assistance) in Australia. To be more specific, data was gathered from
individuals across all eight states and territories (New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland,
South Australia, Western Australia, Tasmania, Australian Capital Territory, and Northern
Territory) in Australia.
A total of 1250 emails were distributed to Australian organizations. A total of 530 online
responses received, including 514 useable responses, yielding a response rate of 42 percent.
Fifty-six percent of the respondents were men. Of the respondents, 46% were in the age
group of 41-50, 30% in the age group of 31-40, 13% in the age group of 21-30, 10% in the
age group of 51-60, 0.6% in the age group of 18-20, and 0.4% in the age group of over 60
years old. For education, 63% had a bachelor degree, 21% had a TAFE qualification, 15%
had a postgraduate qualification, and 1% had high school or lower degree. Of the
respondents, 91% of respondents indicated they had full-time employment, 8% had part-time
employment, and 1% indicated they had casual employment. For position, 59% indicated
having management positions and 41% held non-management positions.
3.2 Controlling for Common Method Bias

Scholars have discussed concerns about common method bias, a research problem that may
change findings (Podsakoff, MacKenzie & Podsakoff 2012). According to Dillman (2000),
researchers have to control common bias if they plan to maximize response rates and
minimize common biases in their study. Damaging effects of common method bias contain
threats to estimates of construct validity and reliability, and estimates of association between
constructs (Nunnally & Bernstein 1994).
This study chose several techniques suggested by Podsakoff, MacKenzie and Podsakoff
(2012) to control common method bias. By using clear and easily understood concise
language, the survey questionnaire was designed to minimize task difficulty for the
participants. A pre-test was employed before administration of the main survey to the main
group to check the clarity, readability, and language of all items. All items were labeled
instead of just utilizing end points, in order to minimize any possible confusion. The study’s
plain language statement describing the purpose of the study, how the information would be
utilized, and the benefits of the results for the organizations, were attached to all of the
invitation emails. A covering letter explained the scope of the study, and maximized the
participants’ motivation to participate by clarifying how valuable their contribution would be.
The study information statement also encouraged participants to answer the questionnaire
items as honestly as possible. The reliability of all of the measurement instruments appraised
during the pilot study phase and conducted to enhance the scales reliability and internal
consistency.
3.3 Measures
3.3.1 Creative and innovative leadership behavior
Can leadership for creativity and innovative behavior be developed? This question led the
researcher to think about the creation of a new comprehensive measure to present leadership
towards creativity and innovative behavior. This action gains importance since, as Yukl
(2009) suggested, a complex and comprehensive construct of leadership is required to
measure the influence of leadership on creative and innovative behaviors. Although
leadership behavior is principally treated as a global phenomenon (Bass 1997), a
comprehensive evaluation by House and Aditya (1997) disclosed that almost 98 per cent of
leadership behavior theories derive from the USA. Therefore, this paper aims to develop a
comprehensive theory-based measure for the leadership behavior variable, and validate the
measurement instrument in a different cultural context to ascertain the generalizability and
usefulness of the identified leadership behaviors. To do this, the theoretical dimensions of
five leadership theories (transformational leadership, leader–member exchange, innovation
champion, change-oriented leadership, and authentic leadership) are synthesized to develop
and validate a theory-based measure presenting the construct of Creative and Innovative
Leadership Behavior.
To develop a theory-based measure for the construct of Creative and Innovative
Leadership Behavior, the researcher assessed the underlying concepts, particularly those that
engage an understanding of leaders’ behaviors toward creativity and innovation. According
to Panuwatwanich (2008), previous definitions of leadership behavior are limited and broad,
and therefore do not provide an enough measure to precisely capture the meaning of the
construct. The Creative and Innovative Leadership Behavior construct is defined by the
researcher as the behaviors of leaders that foster and enhance followers’ creativity and
innovative behavior. Five leadership theories were chosen as a basis for the development of a
theory-based measure of Creative and Innovative Leadership Behavior: 1) three models of
transformational leadership (Bass & Avolio 1994; Kouzes & Posner 1995; Podsakoff et al.,
1990); 2) one model of authentic leadership (Avolio & Gardner 2005; Avolio et al., 2004;
Walumbwa et al., 2008); 3) one model of leader–member exchange (Graen & Uhl-Bien
1995); 4) one model of change-oriented leadership (Yukl, Gordon & Taber 2002); and 5) one
model of innovation champion (Howell, Shea & Higgins 2005).
------------------------------------
Insert Table 1 about here
----------------------------------
To begin the development of a theory-based measure, the theoretical dimensions of these
five leadership theories were synthesised (Table 1). The justification for this is that some
components that support these leadership theories are complementary and contain similar
concepts. This was put into practice by investigating key definitions, elements, and indicators
of all seven leadership models. Synthesising the theoretical components of the seven models
produced three components (Inspiring Creativity and Innovation, Encouraging Shared Vision,
and Providing Individual Support), which encapsulate leadership behaviors toward creativity
and innovation. To find these components the researcher considered transformational
leadership theory as the foundation for synthesising the theoretical components of the
leadership theories. This theory has received wide popularity and attention from researchers
(Lowe, Kroeck & Sivasubramaniam 1996), because of its qualitatively different approach to
motivating subordinates, compared with other leadership theories (Gardner & Avolio 1998;
Howell & Avolio 1993). Proponents of this approach have claimed that transformational
leaders show creative behaviors and serve as role models for innovative behavior (Bass 1985).
Of the seven leadership models, Bass and Avolios’ transformational leadership model has
been extensively utilized by researchers to examine the association between leadership
behaviour, creativity, and innovative behavior. It was chosen as the basis for the development
of a theory-based measure to represent the construct of Creative and Innovative Leadership
Behavior. Bass and Avolios’ (1994) transformational leadership measurement instrument
known as the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, has demonstrated a more positive and
significant influence on creativity and innovation than the instruments of other leadership
models (Boerner, Eisenbeiss & Griesser 2007; Eisenbeiß & Boerner 2013; Gumusluoglu &
Ilsev 2009; Herrmann & Felfe 2013; Michaelis, Stegmaier & Sonntag 2010; Pieterse et al.,
2010; Rank et al., 2009; Reuvers et al., 2008; Shin & Zhou 2003; Wang, Tsai & Tsai 2014).
Theoretically congruent factors were reasonably subsumed under pertinent divisions to
portray the components of the Creative and Innovative Leadership Behavior construct in a
conceptual manner. The developed components of this construct with their definitions are: 1)
Inspiring Creativity and Innovation: the behaviors of leaders which stimulate and support
employees’ creativity and innovative behavior; 2) Encouraging Shared Vision: the behaviors
of leaders which produce, communicate and encourage a shared vision; and 3) Providing
Individual Support: the quality of the relationships between leaders and their employees,
together with the extent to which the leaders provide support to their employees.
Each component includes pertinent measurement items adapted from the questionnaire
items published in Bass and Avolio (1994), Franklin (1975), Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995),
Howell et al. (2005), Kouzes and Posner (1995), Koys and DeCotiis (1991), Northouse
(2012), Podsakoff et al. (1990), Skipper and Bell (2006), Yukl et al. (2002), and Walumbwa
et al. (2008). The researcher developed the Creative and Innovative Leadership Behavior
measure with 24 items. Based on the results of measurement development and validation
(through EFA) of the construct of Creative and Innovative Leadership Behavior, the
researcher categorised the identified 24 items into three components and chose a name for
each.
The result of measurement development together with the relevant factor analysis tests
for the construct of Creative and Innovative Leadership Behavior helped the researcher
identify three components: Inspiring Creativity and Innovation, Encouraging Shared Vision,
and Providing Individual Support. Inspiring Creativity and Innovation was measured by eight
items (e.g., “In this company, leaders seek out and promote creative and innovative thoughts
in order to solve problems”). Encouraging Shared Vision was assessed by eight items (e.g.,
“In this company, leaders use the vision to give the life and work of the company a sense of
meaning and purpose”). Providing Individual Support was evaluated by eight items (e.g., “In
this company, leaders are easily approachable to talk to about work-related problems”). The
items of the Creative and Innovative Leadership Behavior measure (24 items) were tested on
a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree. All the items
were loaded on three factors, which accounted for 66.2 percent of the variance. The items
were averaged to form a scale with a reliability of 0.96.
3.3.2 Creativity
To measure creativity, the researcher employed a measurement instrument developed by
Zhou and George (2001), who reported it as achieving excellent reliability (α = 0.96). The
construct was tested by 13-items (e.g., “Here, an employee exhibits creativity on the job
when given the opportunity to”). The items of creativity construct were measured on a 5-
point Likert scale, ranging from (1) not at all characteristic to (5) very characteristic. The
items were averaged to form a scale with a reliability of 0.94.
3.3.3 Innovative behavior

Innovative behavior was measured using an existing scale developed by De Jong and Den
Hartog (2010), who reported it as achieving sufficient reliability (α > 0.70). This construct
was tested by 10-items (e.g., “An employee here contributes to the implementation of new
ideas”). The items were measured on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from (1) never to (5)
always. All the items were averaged to form a scale with a reliability of 0.94.
3.4 Analysis and results

3.4.1 Pre-test and pilot study
To evaluate the content validity of the instruments, a pre-test was employed prior to the pilot
study. Ten respondents participated: eight managers and employees from the retail trade and
accommodation and food services industry sectors in Australia, and two academic experts
who were well versed in leadership and innovation. Minor modifications were considered
based on the comments that were received. A pilot study was carried out to establish the
reliability of the instrument. Forty-four respondents participated, comprising of managers (26
out of 44 respondents), and employees (18 out of 44 respondents) from different states and
territories in Australia. The reliability test ranged from 0.93 to 0.97.
3.4.2 Reliability test

To ensure that the measurement scales accurately and consistently captured the meaning of
the constructs, an analysis of scale reliability was conducted by estimating internal
consistency and item-total correlations. The results of Cronbach’s alpha for 514 responses
show that the measurement scales seem to consist of a set of homogeneous items for
measuring the meaning of the constructs. Cronbach’s alpha was ranged from 0.94 to 0.96.
The outcomes of item-total correlations presented that all of the items within the constructs
appear to measure the same concept, as the corrected item-total correlations were ranging
between 0.59 and 0.83.
3.4.3 Exploratory factor analysis (EFA)
To establish the suitability of the collected data for the three EFA models, factorability was
examined. The values of Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) for each construct ranged from 0.94 to
0.96, considerably above the minimum satisfactory level (>0.60) and therefore showing
sampling adequacy. The results of Bartlett’s test of sphericity for each construct were
significant (<0.05), showing there were sufficient associations between the items involved in
the analysis (Field 2009; Hair et al., 2010). This result definitely supports conducting EFA.
------------------------------------
----------------------------------
The scree test found three factors with 24 items accounting for 66.20 per cent of the total
variance for the Creative and Innovative Leadership Behavior construct (Table 2).
Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was computed and yielded a value of 0.96, showing that the
scale was reliable. Three factors extracted from the 24 creative and innovative leadership
behavior items are: Component 1: Inspiring Creativity and Innovation (8 items); Component
2: Encouraging Shared Vision (8 items); and Component 3: Providing Individual Support (8
items).
------------------------------------
----------------------------------
Since the Creativity and Innovative Behavior constructs have only one factor, the
criterion for extracting for these constructs were a priori. The outcomes indicated that the
predetermined single factor accounted for 60.80 percent (Creativity) and 66.70 percent
(Innovative Behavior). All loadings of the items for both constructs, as shown in Tables 3 and
4, were above the threshold level of 0.50, for the Creativity construct ranged from 0.64 to
0.84, and for the Innovative Behavior construct ranged from 0.77 to 0.87.
------------------------------------
----------------------------------
3.4.4 Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)

To estimate construct validity appropriately, CFA was used. The outcome of CFA model of
the creative and innovative leadership behavior construct had enough fit: Normed Chi-Square
(X2/df) = 3.33; Comparative-Fit Index (CFI) = 0.93; Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) = 0.92;
Incremental-Fit Index (IFI) = 0.93; and Root Mean-Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA)
= 0.06. All the factor loadings, ranging from 0.70 to 0.85, where equal to or larger than the
threshold level of 0.70 and were all significant at p-value < 0.001 level, supporting
convergent validity. As it is presented in Table 5 the squared multiple correlation (SMC)
values were greater than 0.50, indicating the reliability of the items. All the correlation
coefficients between each pair of factors, ranging from 0.71 to 0.82, were less than 0.85,
suggesting discriminant validity (see Table 5).

------------------------------------
----------------------------------
The outcome of CFA model of the creativity construct had enough fit: X2/df = 4.46;
RMSEA = 0.08; CFI = 0.94; TLI = 0.93; and IFI = 0.94. All the factor loadings, ranging from
0.71 to 0.83, where larger than the threshold level of 0.70 and were all significant at p-value
< 0.001 level, supporting convergent validity. As it is presented in Table 6 the SMC values
were greater than 0.50, indicating the reliability of the items (see Table 6).
------------------------------------
----------------------------------
The outcome of CFA model of the innovative behavior construct had enough fit: X2/df =
4.33; RMSEA = 0.08; CFI = 0.93; TLI = 0.92; and IFI = 0.91. All the factor loadings,
ranging from 0.72 to 0.85, where larger than the threshold level of 0.70 and were all
significant at p-value < 0.001 level, supporting convergent validity. As it is displayed in
Table 6 the SMC values were greater than 0.50, indicating the reliability of the items (see
Table 6).
The outcomes of the measurement model examination of three constructs indicated that
the model presenting an acceptable level of fit (X2/df = 2.11; RMSEA = 0.04; CFI = 0.90;
TLI = 0.90; and IFI = 0.90). All the items had significant loadings greater than 0.70 (p <
0.001) on their respective constructs. In terms of reliability, all items had the SMC values
greater than the suggested level of 0.50. In addition, all of the correlation coefficients
between each pair of the constructs were less than recommended level of 0.85, suggesting an
appropriate discriminant validity (Kline 2010).
3.4.5 Hypothesis testing
To evaluate the relationship between creative and innovative leadership behavior and
creativity and to test the first hypothesis suggested in this paper, a path model was developed.
The path of the direct association between creative and innovative leadership behavior and
creativity fitted the data well, and all the indices achieved satisfactory goodness of fit (GOF)
statistics. The fit indices of the model are: X2/DF = 3.07, CFI = 0.92, TLI = 0.92, IFI = 0.94,
and RMSEA = 0.06. Based on the result, creative and innovative leadership behavior
positively and significantly influences creativity (β = 0.82, p < 0.001). The result presents full
support for H1.
To examine the association between creative and innovative leadership behavior and
innovative behavior and to answer the second hypothesis suggested in this paper, a second
path model was developed. The path of the direct relationship between creative and
innovative leadership behavior and innovative behavior fitted the data well and all the indices
achieved satisfactory level of goodness of fit (GOF) statistics. The fit indices of the model
are: X2/DF = 2.85, CFI = 0.93, TLI = 0.91, IFI = 0.93, and RMSEA = 0.06. Based on the
finding, creative and innovative leadership behavior positively and significantly influences
innovative behavior (β = 0.87, p < 0.001). The result presents full support for H2.
4. Discussion
As explained in previous sections, the purpose of this research was to develop and validate a
theory-based measure of creative and innovative leadership behavior. To accomplish the
objective, a sample was employed from a field setting. The field study was conducted in
Australia utilizing a sample of both leaders and non-leaders. Since the study covered all eight
states and territories in Australia (New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, Western
Australia, South Australia, Tasmania, Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory),
such effort enhances the generalizability of the results in the context of developed countries
like Australia.
4.1 Theoretical contributions

One way for organizations to ensure their business survival is to capitalize on individual
creativity and innovative behavior. This study aimed to contribute to leadership, creativity
and innovation literature at the individual level. In addition, the newly developed
measurement scale contributes to the relevant literature through the development of a theory-
based measure that captures leaders’ behaviors to foster and enhance individual creativity and
innovation. This study provides insights into the behaviors that enable leaders to motivate
generation and implementation of new thoughts. Given the results of the developed
hypotheses, leaders attempting to nurture and enhance individual creativity and innovative
behavior could try through using three identified components (Inspiring Creativity and
Innovation, Encouraging Shared Vision, and Providing Individual Support) of the creative
and innovative leadership behavior construct.
Drawing on the comprehensive literature review, the twenty-four items under three
components (see Table 7) were gathered to represent creative and innovative leadership
behaviors. Besides indicating acceptable internal consistency and item-total correlation of the
measurement scale, the psychometric properties of the developed instrument were approved
through strict procedure inclusive of EFA and CFA. Based upon the findings, it is expected
that the newly theory-based developed leadership instrument which displays high reliability
and validity, will assist researchers to evaluate leadership behaviors toward individual
creativity and innovative behavior.
------------------------------------
----------------------------------
A theory-based development and validation of various concepts, such as conflict
management (De Dreu et al., 2001), organizational citizenship behavior (Van Dyne & Ang
1994), culture (Straub et al., 2002) and so forth has always attracted the attention of
researchers, and leadership is no exception (Langlois et al., 2014; Panuwatwanich 2008; Van
Dierendonck & Nuijten 2011; Walumbwa et al., 2008). A number of studies focus on the
development and validation of a theory-based measure for the leadership construct.
For instance, research conducted by Walumbwa et al. (2008) aimed to develop and
validate a theory-based measure of authentic leadership. This is a remarkable effort, but the
scope of their study is different form what the researcher aimed to develop and validate in
this study. Their aim was to present a new measure by combining the theoretical components
of authentic leadership, while the purpose of this study was to develop and validate a
comprehensive measurement instrument by synthesizing the theoretical dimensions of
different leadership theories in order to present the construct of creative and innovative
leadership behavior.
Van Dierendonck and Nuijten (2011) developed and validated an instrument of the
servant–leadership construct with eight dimensions (“standing back”, “forgiveness”,
“courage”, “accountability”, “humility”, “empowerment”, “authenticity” and “stewardship”)
and 30 items. They selected seven various survey instruments: servant leadership, a one-
dimensional scale (Ehrhart 2004), servant leadership scale (Liden et al., 2008),
transformational leadership (Rafferty & Griffin 2004), leader–member exchange (Scandura
& Graen 1984), ethical leadership (Brown, Trevino & Harrison 2005), punishment behavior
(Podsakoff et al., 1984), and charismatic leadership (Damen, van Knippenberg & van
Knippenberg 2008). The developed measurement instrument was validated by 1571 people of
various occupational backgrounds in the UK and Netherlands.

In light of such moves, the researcher strongly believed that leadership towards creative
and innovative behaviors can be developed. The newly developed theory-based measure
presenting the construct of creative and innovative leadership behavior in this paper, together
with the scholarly studies discussed above, are valuable and unique contributions to the field
of leadership, from both theoretical and practical perspectives.
4.2 Practical implications

In addition, this study has practical implications for firms interested in creative and
innovative leadership behavior development. Given extensive concerns about the importance
of creativity and innovation for organizations (Rosenbusch et al., 2011) together with the
pivotal role of leadership in fostering and enhancing creativity and innovation (Simmons &
Sower 2012; Kissi et al., 2012; Davila et al., 2006) the newly developed measurement
instrument suggests leaders (i.e. CEOs and human resource managers) a reliable and valid
measurment instrument for testing the level of creative and innovative leadership behavior in
organizations.
Also, the newly developed measure suggests the vital leadership behaviors that training
should concentrate on to create creative and innovative eadership behaviors. Therefore, the
newly theory-based measure of creative and innovative leadership behavior is expected to
assist managers in nurturing and supporting creativity and innovative behavior at the
individual level.
4.3 Limitations and future research directions

Although the development of the creative and innovative leadership behavior construct has
several directions for future research, likewise every research has limitations as well. For
instance, the researcher did not consider differentiating the creative and innovative leadership
behavior construct from transformational leadership, leader-member exchange, innovation
champion, authentic leadership, and change-oriented leadership. In the meantime, despite the
fact that the result is encouraging, it should be stressed that additional research is
indispensable to further evaluate validity and reliability of the identified leadership behaviors
for creativity and innovation.
Moreover, the researcher did not evaluate the influence of the newly developed leadership
construct with outcome variables, such as creativity and innovative at other levels. It would
be interesting for future research to assess whether the creative and innovative leadership
behavior construct has an influence on creativity and innovation at the group level or the
organizational level.
Also, future research may consider theoretically uniting creative and innovative
leadership behavior with other linked leadership theories like transformational leadership,
leader-member exchange, innovation champion, authentic leadership, and change-oriented
leadership by examining the possible intervening roles of these leadership theories in the
association between the creative and innovative leadership behavior construct and
individual/group/organizational outcomes.
References
Amabile, TM 1983, 'The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization',
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 45, pp. 357–76.
Amabile, TM 1988, 'A model of creativity and innovation in organizations', in BM Shaw &
LL Cummings (eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, vol. 10, pp. 123-67.
Amabile, TM 1996, Creativity in context, Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
Amabile, TM, Conti, R, Coon, H, Lazenby, J & Herron, M 1996, 'Assessing the work
environment for creativity', Academy of Management Journal, vol. 39, no. 5, pp.
1154-84.
Amabile, TM, Schatzel, E, Moneta, G & Kramer, S 2004, ‘Leader behaviors and the work
environment for creativity: perceived leader support’, The Leadership Quarterly, vol.
15, no. 1, pp. 5–32.
Anderson, NR, De Dreu, CKW & Nijstad, BA 2004, 'The routinization of innovation
research: A constructively critical review of the state-of-the-science', Journal of
Organizational Behavior, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 147–73.
Avolio, BJ & Gardner, WL 2005, 'Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of
positive forms of leadership', The Leadership Quarterly, vol. 16, pp. 315-38.
Avolio, BJ, Gardner, WL, Walumbwa, FO, Luthans, F & May, DR 2004, 'Unlocking the
mask: A look at the process by which authentic leaders impact follower attitudes and
behaviors.', The Leadership Quarterly, vol. 15, pp. 801-23.
Baker, WE, Grinstein, A & Harmancioglu, N 2016, 'Whose Innovation Performance Benefits
More from External Networks: Entrepreneurial or Conservative Firms?', Journal of
Product Innovation Management, vol. 33, pp. 104-20.
Barron, F & Harrington, DM 1981, 'Creativity, intelligence, and personality', Annual Review
of Psychology, vol. 32, pp. 439-76.
Basadur, M 2004, 'Leading others to think innovatively together: creative leadership',
Leadership Quarterly, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 103-21.
Bass, BM 1985, Leadership and performance beyond expectations, The Free Press, New
York.
Bass, BM 1997, 'Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend
organizational and national boundaries?', American Psychologist, vol. 52, pp. 130-9.
Bass, BM & Avolio, BJ 1994, Improving Organizational Effectiveness through
Transformational Leadership, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.
Boerner, S, Eisenbeiss, SA & Griesser, D 2007, 'Follower Behavior and Organizational
Performance: The Impact of Transformational Leaders', Journal of Leadership and
Organizational Studies, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 15-26.
Brown, ME, Trevino, LK & Harrison, DA 2005, 'Ethical leadership: A social learning
perspective for construct development and testing', Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, vol. 97, pp. 117–34.
Cotgrove, S & Box, S 1970, Science, industry, and society: Studies in the sociology of
science, George Allen & Unwin, London.
Csikszentmihalyi, M 1996, Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention,
HarperCollins, New York, NY.
Damen, F, van Knippenberg, B & van Knippenberg, D 2008, 'Affective match: Leader
emotional displays, follower positive affect, and follower performance', Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, vol. 38, pp. 868–902.
Davila, T, Epstein, M & Shelton, R 2006, Making Innovation Work: How to Manage It,
Measure It And Profit From It, Wharton School Publishing, COI Insight.
Day, DL 1994, 'Raising radicals: different processes for championing innovative corporate
ventures', Organization Science, vol. 5, no. 148-172.
DeConinck, J 2011, 'The effects of leader–member exchange and organizational
identification on performance and turnover among salespeople', Journal of Personal
Selling and Sales Management, vol. 31, pp. 21–34.
De Dreu, CKW, Evers, A, Beersma, B, Kluwer, ES & Nauta, A 2001, 'A theory-based
measure of conflict management strategies in the workplace', Journal of
Organizational Behavior, vol. 22, pp. 645–68.
De Jong, J & Den Hartog, D 2010, 'Measuring Innovative Work Behaviour', Creativity and
Innovation Management, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 23-36.
De Jong, JPJ & Den Hartog, DN 2007, 'How leaders influence employees' innovative
behaviour', European Journal of Innovation Management, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 41-64.
Dillman, DA 2000, Mail and internet surveys: the tailored design method, John Wiley, New
York, NY.
Drazin, R, Glynn, MA & Kazanjian, RK 1999, 'Multilevel theorizing about creativity in
organizations: a sense making perspective', Academy of management review, vol. 24,
pp. 286–329.
Dulaimi, MF, Nepal, MP & Park, M 2005, 'A hierarchical structural model of assessing
innovation and project performance', Construction Management & Economics, vol.
23, no. 6, pp. 565-77.
Edmondson, AC 1999, 'Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams',
Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 4, pp. 350-83.
Ehrhart, MG 2004, 'Leadership and procedural justice climate as antecedents of unit-level
organizational citizenship behavior', Personnel Psychology, vol. 57, pp. 61-95.
Eisenbeiß, SA & Boerner, S 2013, 'A Double-edged Sword: Transformational Leadership and
Individual Creativity', British Journal of Management, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 54-68.
Field, A 2009, Discovering statistics: using SPSS, 3rd edn, Sage Publication, Los Angeles.
Franklin, JL 1975, 'Down the organization: influence processes across levels of hierarchy',
Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 20, pp. 153–64.
Gardner, WL & Avolio, BA 1998, 'The charismatic relationship: A dramaturgical
perspective', Academy of management review, vol. 23, pp. 32-58.
Gil, F, Rico, R, Alcover, CM & Barrasa, A 2005, 'Change-oriented leadership, satisfaction
and performance in work groups: Effects of team climate and group potency', Journal
of Managerial Psychology, vol. 20, no. 3/4, pp. 312-28.
Graen, G 1976, 'Role-making processes within complex organizations', in M Dunnette & R
McNally (eds), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, Chicago, IL,
pp. 1201–45.
Graen, G & Cashman, J 1975, 'A role-making model of leadership in formal organizations: a
development approach', in J Hunt & L Larson (eds), Leadership frontiers, Kent State
University, Kent, OH, pp. 143–65.
Graen, G & Scandura, T 1987, 'Towards a psychology of dyadic organizing', in LL
Cummings & BM Staw (eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, JAI Press,
Greenwich, CT, vol. 9, pp. 175-208.
Graen, GB & Uhl-Bien, M 1995, 'Relationship-Based Approach to Leadership: Development
of Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Theory of Leadership over 25 Years: Applying
a Multi-Level Multi-Domain Perspective', The Leadership Quarterly, vol. 6, no. 2, pp.
219-47.
Gumusluoglu, L & Ilsev, A 2009, 'Transformational leadership, creativity, and organizational
innovation', Journal of Business Research, vol. 62, pp. 461-73.
Gupta, V & Singh, S 2013, ‘How leaders impact employee creativity: a study of Indian R&D
laboratories’, Management Research Review, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 66–88.
Hair, JF, Black, WC, Babin, BJ, Anderson, RE & Tatham, RL 2010, Multivariate data
analysis, 7th edition, Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Herrmann, D & Felfe, J 2013, 'Moderators of the relationship between leadership style and
employee creativity: the role of task novelty and personal initiative', Creativity
Research Journal, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 172-81.
House, RJ & Aditya, RN 1997, 'The social scientific study of leadership: quo vadis?', Journal
of Management, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 409-73.
Howell, JM & Avolio, BJ 1993, 'Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, locus
of control and support for innovation: Key predictors of consolidated-business-unit

performance', Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 78, no. 891-902.
Howell, JM & Higgins, CA 1990, 'Champions of Technological Innovation', Administrative
Science Quarterly, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 317-41.
Howell, JM & Shea, CM 2001, 'Individual differences, environmental scanning, innovation
framing, and champion behavior: key predictors of project performance', Journal of
Product Innovation Management, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 15–27.
Howell, JM, Shea, CM & Higgins, CA 2005, 'Champions of product innovations: defining,
developing, and validating a measure of champion behavior', Journal of Business
Venturing, vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 641–61.
Ilies, R, Morgeson, FP & Nahrgang, JD 2005, 'Authentic leadership and eudaemonic well-
being: Understanding leader-follower outcomes', The Leadership Quarterly, vol. 16,
no. 3, pp. 373–94.
Janssen, O & van Yperen, NW 2004, 'Employees’ goal orientations, the quality of leader-
member exchange, and the role of job performance and job satisfaction', Academy of
Management Journal, vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 368-84.
Jyoti, J & Dev, M 2015, 'The impact of transformational leadership on employee creativity:
the role of learning orientation', Journal of Asia Business Studies, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 78
- 98.
Kahai, SS, Sosik, JJ & Avolio, BJ 2003, 'Effects of leadership style, anonymity, and rewards
on creativity-relevant processes and outcomes in an electronic meeting system
context', The Leadership Quarterly, vol. 14, pp. 499–524.
Khazanchi, S & Masterson, SS 2010, 'Who and what is fair matters: A multi-foci social
exchange model of creativity', Journal of Organizational Behavior, vol. 32, no. 1, pp.
86–106.
Khalili, A 2016, 'Linking transformational leadership, creativity, innovation, and innovation-
supportive climate', Management Decision, vol. 54, no. 9, pp. 2277-2293.
King, N 1992, 'Modelling the innovation process: An empirical comparison of approaches',
Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, vol. 65, no. 2, pp. 89-100.
Kissi, J, Dainty, A & Tuuli, M 2013, 'Examining the role of transformational leadership of
portfolio managers in project performance', International Journal of Project
Management, vol. 31, pp. 485–97.
Kissi, J, Dainty, ARJ & Liu, A 2012, 'Examining middle managers' influence on innovation
in construction professional services firms: a tale of three innovations', Construction
Innovation: Information, Process, Management, vol. 12, pp. 11-28.
Kissi, J, Payne, R, Luke, S, Dainty, ARJ & Liu, A 2010, 'How do client influence innovations
in construction professional services firms?', paper presented to Proceedings of the
West Africa Built Environment Research (WABER) Conference, Accra, Ghana, 27–
28 July 2010.
Kline, RB 2010, Principles and practice of structural equation modelling: methodology in
social sciences, Guilford Press, New York.
Kouzes, JM & Posner, BZ 1995, The Leadership Challenge: How to Keep Getting
Extraordinary Things Done in Organizations, 2nd edn, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Koys, DJ & DeCotiis, TA 1991, 'Inductive measures of psychological climate', Human
Relations, vol. 44, pp. 265–85.
Langlois, L, Lapointe, C, Valois, P & Leeuw, Ad 2014, 'Development and validity of the
Ethical Leadership Questionnaire', Journal of Educational Administration, vol. 52,
pp. 310–31.
Liden, R, Wayne, S & Sparrowe, R 2000, 'An examination of the mediating role of
psychological empowerment on the relations between the job, interpersonal

relationships, and work outcomes', Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 85, pp. 407–
16.
Liden, RC, Wayne, SJ, Zhao, H & Henderson, D 2008, 'Servant leadership: Development of
a multidimensional measure and multi-level assessment', The Leadership Quarterly,
vol. 19, pp. 161–77.
Lowe, KB, Kroeck, KG & Sivasubramaniam, N 1996, 'Effectiveness correlates of
transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ
literature', The Leadership Quarterly, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 385-415.
Luthans, F & Avolio, BJ 2003, ‘Authentic leadership development’, in KS Cameron, JE
Dutton & RE Quinn (eds), Positive organizational scholarship, Berrett-Koehler, San
Francisco, CA, pp. 241–258.
Madjar, N & Walters, OR 2008, 'Customers as contributors and reliable evaluators of
creativity in the service industry', Journal of Organizational Behavior, vol. 29, pp.
949-66.
Markham, KM 1998, 'A longitudinal examination of how champions influence others to
support their projects', Journal of Product Innovation Management Decision, vol. 15,
pp. 490–504.
May, DR, Chan, AYL, Hodges, TD & Avolio, BJ 2003, 'Developing the moral component of
authentic leadership', Organizational Dynamics, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 247-60.
Michaelis, B, Stegmaier, R & Sonntag, K 2010, 'Shedding light on followers' innovation
implementation behavior: The role of transformational leadership, commitment to
change, and climate for initiative', Journal of Managerial Psychology, vol. 25, no. 4,
pp. 408 - 29.
Mumford, MD & Gustafson, SB 1988, 'Creativity syndrome: integration, application, and
innovation', Psychological Bulletin, vol. 103, no. 1, pp. 27–43.
Mumford, MD & Licuanan, B 2004, 'Leading for innovation: Conclusions, issues, and
directions', The Leadership Quarterly, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 163–71.
Neider, L & Schriesheim, C 2011, 'The Authentic Leadership Inventory (ALI): development
and empirical tests', The Leadership Quarterly, vol. 22, pp. 1146–64.
Northouse, P 2012, Leadership: Theory and Practice, Sage Publications, London.
Nunnally, JC & Bernstein, IH 1994, Psychometric theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Nusair, N, Ababneh, R & Bae, YK 2012, 'The impact of transformational leadership style on
innovation as perceived by public employees in Jordan', International Journal of
Commerce and Management, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 182 - 201.
Panuwatwanich, K 2008, 'Modelling the Innovation Diffusion Process in Australian
Architectural and Engineering Design Organisations', Griffith University.
Pelz, DC & Andrews, F 1966, Scientists in Organization, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Peng, J, Chen, Y, Xia, Y & Ran, Y 2017, 'Workplace loneliness, leader-member exchange
and creativity: The cross-level moderating role of leader compassion', Personality and
Individual Differences, vol. 104, pp. 510–5.
Pieterse, AN, Knippenberg, DV, Schippers, M & Stam, D 2010, 'Transformational and
transactional leadership and innovative behaviour: the moderating role of
psychological empowerment.', Journal of Organisational Behaviour, vol. 31, pp.
609–23.
Podsakoff, PM, MacKenzie, SB, Moorman, RH & Fetter, R 1990, 'Transformational leader
behaviors and their effects on followers' trust in leader, satisfaction, and
organizational citizenship behaviors', The Leadership Quarterly, vol. 1, no. 2, pp.
107-42.
Podsakoff, PM, MacKenzie, SB & Podsakoff, N 2012, ‘Sources of method bias in social
science research and recommendations on how to control it’, Annual Review of
Psychology, vol. 63, no. 1, pp. 539–569.
Podsakoff, PM, Todor, WD, Grover, RA & Huber, VL 1984, 'Situational moderators of
leader reward and punishment behaviors: Fact or fiction?', Organizational Behavior
and Human Performance, vol. 34, pp. 21–63.
Qu, R, Janssen, O & Shi, K 2017, 'Leader–member exchange and follower creativity: the
moderating roles of leader and follower expectations for creativity', The International
Journal of Human Resource Management, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 603-626.
Rafferty, AE & Griffin, MA 2004, 'Dimensions of transformational leadership: Conceptual
and empirical extensions', The Leadership Quarterly, vol. 15, pp. 329–54.
Rank, J, Nelson, NE, Allen, TD & Xu, X 2009, 'Leadership predictors of innovation and task
performance: subordinates’ self-esteem and self-presentation as moderators', Journal
of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, vol. 82, no. 3, pp. 465–89.
Rego, A, Sousa, F, Marques, C & Cunha, MPe 2014, 'Hope and positive affect mediating the
authentic leadership and creativity relationship', Journal of Business Research, vol.
67, pp. 200-10.
Reuvers, M, van Engen, ML, Vinkenburg, CJ & Wilson-Evered, E 2008, 'Transformational
Leadership and Innovative Work Behaviour: Exploring the Relevance of Gender
Differences', Creativity and Innovation Management, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 227-43.
Rogers, EM 2003, Diffusion of Innovations, 5th edn, Free Press, New York.
Rosenbusch, N, Brinckmann, J & Bausch, A 2011, 'Is innovation always beneficial? A meta-
analysis of the relationship between innovation and performance in SMEs', Journal of
Business Venturing, vol. 26, pp. 441–57.
Rosing, K, Frese, M & Bausch, A 2011, 'Explaining the heterogeneity of the leadership-
innovation relationship: Ambidextrous leadership', The Leadership Quarterly, vol. 22,
pp. 956–74.
Scandura, T & Graen, GB 1984, 'Moderating effects of initial leader-member exchange status
on the effects of a leadership intervention', Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 69,
pp. 428–36.
Schermuly, C, Meyer, B & Dämmer, L 2013, 'Leader–member exchange and innovative
behavior', Journal of Personnel Psychology, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 132–42.
Scott, SG & Bruce, RA 1994, 'Determinants of Innovative Behavior: A Path Model of
Individual Innovation in the Workplace', Academy of Management Journal, vol. 37,
no. 580-607.
Semedo, ASD, Coelho, AFM & Ribeiro, NMP 2016, 'Effects of authentic leadership,
affective commitment and job resourcefulness on employees’ creativity and
individual performance', Leadership & Organization Development Journal, vol. 37,
no. 8, pp. 1038-55.
Shin, AJ & Zhou, J 2003, 'Transformational leadership, conservation and creativity: Evidence
from Korea', Academy of Management Journal, vol. 46, pp. 703–14.
Simmons, AL & Sower, VE 2012, 'Leadership sagacity and its relationship with individual
creative performance and innovation', European Journal of Innovation Management,
vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 298 - 309.
Skipper, CO & Bell, LC 2006, 'Assessment with 360Åã evaluations of leadership behavior in
construction project managers', Journal of Management in Engineering, vol. 22, pp.
75–80.
Slåtten, T & Mehmetoglu, M 2015, 'The Effects of Transformational Leadership and
Perceived Creativity on Innovation Behavior in the Hospitality Industry', Journal of
Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 195-219.
Sparrowe, R & Liden, R 1997, 'Process and structure in leader–member exchange', The
Academy of Management Review, vol. 22, pp. 522–52.
Straub, D, Loch, K, Evaristo, R, Karahanna, E & Srite, M 2002, 'Toward a Theory-Based
Measurement of Culture', Journal of Global Information Management, vol. 10, no. 1,
pp. 13-23.
Tierney, P, Farmer, SM & Graen, GB 1999, 'An examination of leadership and employee
creativity: The relevance of traits and relationships', Personnel Psychology, vol. 52,
no. 3, pp. 591-620.
Tu, Y & Lu, X 2013, 'How ethical leadership influences employees’ innovative work
behavior: a perspective of intrinsic motivation', Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 116,
pp. 441–55.
Van de Ven, A 1986, 'Central problems in the management of innovation', Management
Science, vol. 32, pp. 590-607.
Van de Ven, AH, Polley, D, Garud, R & Venkataraman, S 1999, The innovation journey,
Oxford University Press, New York.
Van Dierendonck, D & Nuijten, I 2011, 'The servant-leadership survey (SLS): development
and validation of a multidimensional measure', Journal of Business and Psychology,
vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 249–67.
Van Dyne, L & Ang, S 1994, 'Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Construct Redefinition,
Measurement, and Validation', Academy of Management Journal, vol. 41, pp. 692–
703.
Walumbwa, FO, Avolio, BJ, Gardner, W, Wernsing, T & Peterson, S 2008, 'Authentic
leadership: Development and validation of a theory-based measure', Journal of
Management, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 89-126.
Walumbwa, FO, Wang, P, Wang, H, Schaubroeck, J & Avolio, BJ 2010, 'Psychological
processes linking authentic leadership to follower behaviors', The Leadership
Quarterly, vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 901–14.
Wang, C-J 2016, 'Does leader-member exchange enhance performance in the hospitality
industry?: The mediating roles of task motivation and creativity', International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 969-87.
Wang, C-J, Tsai, H-T & Tsai, M-T 2014, 'Linking transformational leadership and employee
creativity in the hospitality industry: The influences of creative role identity, creative
self-efficacy, and job complexity', Tourism Management, vol. 40, pp. 79-89.
West, MA 2002, 'Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model of creativity
and innovation implementation in work groups', Applied Psychology: An
International Review, vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 355-87.
Yukl, G 1999, 'An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic
leadership theories', The Leadership Quarterly, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 285–305.
---- 2009, 'Leading organizational learning: Reflections on theory and research', The
Leadership Quarterly, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 49–53.
---- 2010, Leadership in organizations, 7th edn, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle Rive, NJ.
Yukl, G, Gordon, A & Taber, T 2002, 'A Hierarchical Taxonomy of Leadership Behavior:
Integrating a Half Century of Behavior Research', Journal of Leadership &
Organizational Studies, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 15-32.
Zhou, J & George, JM 2001, 'When Job Dissatisfaction Leads to Creativity: Encouraging the
Expression of Voice', Academy of Management Journal, vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 682-96.
Zhou, J & Shalley, CE 2003, ‘Research on employee creativity: a critical review and proposal
for future research directions’, in JJ Martocchio & GR Ferris (eds), Research in
personnel and human resource management, Elsevier, Oxford, UK.
Table 1
Theoretical components of the construct of creative and innovative leadership behavior
Theoretical Components TL1 TL2 TL3 CO-L4 IC5 LMX6 AL7
Transformational Leadership1
a) Providing an appropriate model a✓ a✓ a✓ a✓ a✓
b) Intellectual stimulation b✓ b✓ b✓ b✓ d✓
c) Identify and articulate a vision c✓ c✓ d✓
d) High performance expectations d✓

e) Providing individualised support e✓ d✓ a✓ d✓
f) Fostering the acceptance of group goals f✓ e✓ c✓ d✓
Transformational Leadership2
a) Idealised influence a✓ a✓ a✓ a✓
b) Intellectual stimulation b✓ b✓ b✓ d✓
c) Inspirational motivation c✓ d✓
d) Individual consideration d✓ a✓ d✓
3
Transformational Leadership
a) Challenge the process a✓ a✓ a✓
b) Encourage the heart b✓ b✓ d✓
c) Model the way c✓ c✓ b✓
d) Inspire a shared vision d✓
e) Enable others to act e✓ c✓ d✓
4
Change-Oriented Leadership
a) Envisioning change a✓ a✓
b) Encouraging innovative thinking b✓ d✓
c) Taking risks for change c✓ b✓
d) External monitoring d✓
5
Innovation Champion
a) Expresses enthusiasm and confidence a✓
b) Persists under adversity b✓
c) Gets the right people involved c✓ d✓
6
Leader–member Exchange
a) Leader–member exchange a✓ d✓
7
Authentic Leadership
a) Leader self-awareness a✓
b) Relational transparency b✓
c) Internalised moral perspective c✓
d) Balanced processing d✓
Source: Author
1: transformational leadership by Podsakoff et al. (1990); 2: transformational leadership by
Bass and Avolio (1994); 3: transformational leadership by Kouzes and Posner (1995); 4:
change-oriented leadership by Yukl et al. (2002); 5: innovation champion by Howell et al.
(2005); 6: leader–member exchange by Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995); 7: authentic leadership
by Walumbwa et al. (2008).
Table 2
Rotated factor loadings of the creative and innovative leadership behavior (CILB) construct
Rotated
Items Component
1 2 3
CILB 1 0.79 0.17 0.22
CILB 2 0.79 0.23 0.21
CILB 3 0.66 0.33 0.24
CILB 4 0.66 0.32 0.26

CILB 5 0.62 0.38 0.18
CILB 6 0.62 0.33 0.24
CILB 7 0.74 0.20 0.30
CILB 8 0.73 0.21 0.34
CILB 9 0.37 0.62 0.34
CILB 10 0.32 0.68 0.31
CILB 11 0.33 0.71 0.34
CILB 12 0.30 0.64 0.39
CILB 13 0.21 0.69 0.34
CILB 14 0.25 0.72 0.34
CILB 15 0.24 0.74 0.28
CILB 16 0.33 0.67 0.31
CILB 17 0.31 0.37 0.58
CILB 18 0.29 0.31 0.72
CILB 19 0.26 0.27 0.72
CILB 20 0.25 0.26 0.76
CILB 21 0.22 0.30 0.74
CILB 22 0.27 0.32 0.68
CILB 23 0.28 0.38 0.63
CILB 24 0.31 0.38 0.59
Source: Author
Note: Cumulative variance explained = 66.20%; Cronbach’s alpha coefficient = 0.96.
Table 3
Rotated factor loadings of the creativity (C) construct
Items Rotated Items Rotated
Component Component
C1 0.78 C8 0.76
C2 0.79 C9 0.75
C3 0.64 C 10 0.79
C4 0.75 C 11 0.81
C5 0.75 C 12 0.84
C6 0.77 C 13 0.84
C7 0.80
Source: Author
Table 4
Rotated factor loadings of the innovative behavior (IB) construct
Items Rotated Items Rotated
Component Component
EIB 1 0.83 EIB 6 0.79
EIB 2 0.84 EIB 7 0.81
EIB 3 0.77 EIB 8 0.84
EIB 4 0.80 EIB 9 0.78

EIB 5 0.80 EIB 10 0.87
Source: Author
Table 5
Squared multiple correlation (SMC) and CFA model of the creative and innovative
leadership behavior (CILB) construct
Factor Correlation
Component Items SMC Loadings Coefficients
CILB 1 0.62 0.79
1st Component CILB 2 0.63 0.72 1st Component (Inspiring Creativity and
CILB 3 0.57 0.72 Innovation) ↔ 2nd Component (Encouraging

Inspiring Creativity CILB 4 0.57 0.70 Shared Vision): 0.74
and Innovation CILB 5 0.51 0.78
CILB 6 0.51 0.72 1st Component (Inspiring Creativity and
CILB 7 0.63 0.77 Innovation) ↔ 3rd Component (Providing
CILB 8 0.66 0.77 Individual Support): 0.71
CILB 9 0.63 0.73
CILB 10 0.66 0.77 2nd Component (Encouraging Shared Vision) ↔ 3rd
2nd Component CILB 11 0.72 0.85 Component (Providing Individual Support): 0.82
CILB 12 0.63 0.81
Encouraging Shared CILB 13 0.58 0.72
Vision CILB 14 0.65 0.76
CILB 15 0.60 0.72
CILB 16 0.60 0.72
CILB 17 0.56 0.73
rd
3 Component CILB 18 0.66 0.81
CILB 19 0.58 0.70
Providing CILB 20 0.62 0.74
Individual Support CILB 21 0.62 0.75
CILB 22 0.61 0.78
CILB 23 0.62 0.76
CILB 24 0.58 0.71
Source: Author
Table 6
Squared multiple correlation (SMC) and CFA model of the creativity (C) and innovative
behavior (IB) constructs
Creativity Innovative
Behavior
Items SMC Factor Items SMC Factor
Loadings Loadings
C1 0.52 0.73 IB 1 0.61 0.73

C2 0.53 0.72 IB 2 0.63 0.72
C3 0.57 0.72 IB 3 0.56 0.72
C4 0.58 0.71 IB 4 0.57 0.73
C5 0.54 0.74 IB 5 0.52 0.78
C6 0.52 0.72 IB 6 0.53 0.72
C7 0.59 0.77 IB 7 0.63 0.76
C8 0.61 0.76 IB 8 0.67 0.85
C9 0.63 0.73 IB 9 0.62 0.84
C 10 0.60 0.75 IB 10 0.66 0.78
C 11 0.56 0.83
C 12 0.54 0.81
C 13 0.61 0.72
Source: Author
Table 7
The newly developed and validated theory-based survey questionnaire for the creative and
innovative leadership behavior construct
Component Survey Questionnaire Items*
In this organization, leaders search continuously for opportunities to make change or improve
st
1 Component the organization.
In this organization, leaders encourage employees to develop their own ideas.
Inspiring Creativity In this organization, leaders seek out and promote creative and innovative thoughts in order
and Innovation to solve problems.
In this organization, leaders persist in the face of adversity.
In this organization, leaders have strong beliefs about personal values, character and
integrity.
In this organization, leaders like employees to attempt new approaches of doing their tasks.
In this organization, leaders display their appreciation for creativity through providing public
and meaningful recognition.
In this organization, leaders listen closely to the ideas of those who disagree with them.
In this organization, leaders create and express an exciting vision of the future.
In this organization, leaders inspire employees with plans for the future.
2nd Component In this organization, leaders make the vision clearly understood by giving examples, telling
stories, and using figures of speech and metaphors.
Encouraging Shared In this organization, leaders have visions/dreams of what can be.
Vision In this organization, leaders have a clear image of the future.
In this organization, leaders express enthusiasm for their vision.
In this organization, leaders are models of what they want others to do.
In this organization, leaders use the vision to give the life and work of the company a sense
of meaning and purpose.
In this organization, leaders understand employees’ job problems and needs.
In this organization, leaders are easy and approachable to talk to about work-related
rd
3 Component problems.
In this organization, leaders provide advice and coaching.
Providing Individual In this organization, leaders recognize employees’ potential and contributions.
Support In this organization, leaders provide encouragement and support when there is a difficult and
stressful task.
In this organization, leaders use power to assist employees to solve problems.
In this organization, leaders let members learn from mistakes without fear of reprisal.
In this organization, leaders support creativity including risk-taking into new areas or areas
where the member has little or no prior experience.
Source: Author
*All 24 items were measured on a 5-point likert scale, ranging from (1) strongly disagree to
(5) strongly agree.
Dr. Ashkan Khalili is a post-doctoral fellow in the Faculty of Management at University of
Tehran, Tehran, Iran. He received his PhD in Management from RMIT University,
Melbourne, Australia. His research interests concern leadership and followership in
organisation.

MRR 09 2016 0213

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MRR 09 2016 0213

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MRR 09 2016 0213

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Management Research Review

Creative and innovative leadership: Measurement development and validation

Downloaded on: 14 September 2017, At: 08:00 (PT)

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

Design/methodology/approach – The theoretical dimensions of five leadership theories

2. Literature review and hypotheses development

transformational leadership theory, which focuses on the motivation and perceptions of

capacities and high ethical standards.

3.2 Controlling for Common Method Bias

3.3.3 Innovative behavior

3.4 Analysis and results

3.4.2 Reliability test

3.4.4 Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)

suggesting discriminant validity (see Table 5).

4.1 Theoretical contributions

various occupational backgrounds in the UK and Netherlands.

4.2 Practical implications

4.3 Limitations and future research directions

of control and support for innovation: Key predictors of consolidated-business-unit

psychological empowerment on the relations between the job, interpersonal

d) High performance expectations d✓

CILB 4 0.66 0.32 0.26

EIB 4 0.80 EIB 9 0.78

CILB 3 0.57 0.72 Innovation) ↔ 2nd Component (Encouraging

C1 0.52 0.73 IB 1 0.61 0.73

Component Survey Questionnaire Items*

You might also like