Abstract
This paper examines the mediating role of two emergent team states—collective regulatory focus (CRF) and team initiative—for transmitting the effects of transformational and transactional leadership and team members’ chronic-regulatory focus on team creative performance. We conducted two studies. An experimental team-level study of 54 teams (n = 157) and a survey study conducted among employees who work in teams (n = 141). Team-level analysis of study 1 reveals that CRF and team initiative mediate the effect of leadership and team members’ chronic regulatory focus on creative performance. In addition, collective promotion moderates the negative effects of collective prevention on both team initiative and creativity. Study 2 confirms the relationships between leadership styles, team CRF, and team initiative with employees at the individual level. Understanding the collective mechanisms that enable transformational leadership to foster team creativity contributes to the ability of organizations and managers to increase the creativity of team production by influencing team dynamics. This study expands our knowledge on leader–follower dynamics at the team level and on the ability of these dynamics to shape team creativity. It also expands our knowledge on the emergence of regulatory focus at the team-level and its potential antecedents.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Change history
12 June 2020
A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-020-09699-z
Notes
In order to ensure that the specific experimental session did not result in an additional level of nesting in the data, we tested null models to explore the extent to which the specific experimental session influenced variance in our core constructs. The results of these analyses revealed that the specific experimental session did not account for a statistically significant amount of variance in any of our constructs, demonstrating that the nested structure did not need to be accounted for in our analysis.
The scripts involved different languages, mottos, and messages across the transactional and transformational conditions. For example, in the transformational sessions, the manager presented his vision and aspirations about the expected outcomes from the interaction with the students, explained the importance and significance of the task with inspirational messages, and expressed his belief in the ability of the students to perform the task successfully. During the performance stage, the manager delivered transformational messages to the participants (e.g., “Each one of you will be able to express his/her personal abilities.”). In the transactional sessions, the manager showed a businesslike attitude, presented the interaction with the students as a “deal,” in which both sides had something to gain, explained the importance of performing the task according to the rules, and noted that he would supervise and monitor the students’ work to make sure they performed it correctly. During the performance stage, the manager delivered transactional messages to the participants (e.g., “Follow the rules, avoid deviation from the instructions, and keep on schedule.”).
No substantive differences in the parameter estimates emerged when testing the model outside of SEM using ordinary least squares regression. We decided to test our hypotheses using path analysis because it provides the best omnibus testing of our theorizing.
The latent correlation in the individual level CFA reported was .73. We chose an individual level CFA because our group level sample size resulted in a sample size-to-parameter ratio that did not allow for model convergence. One alternative is to conduct a group-level CFA using item parcels, resulting in a more optimal sample size-to-parameter ratio. The group-level CFA using item parcels (created using the distributed uniqueness technique) also resulted in a model that provided adequate fit to the data—χ2 (32) = 32.722 (n.s.), CFA = .997, RMSEA = .021, and SRMR = .059. The latent correlation in the group-level CFA was .74. In this model, merging initiative and promotion CRF resulted in significant misfit – χ2 (34) = 60.681 (p < .05), CFA = .906, RMSEA = .127, and SRMR = .070 - Δχ2 (Δ2) = 27.959 (p < .05).
To remedy any over-multicollinearity, we re-ran our models assessing the variance inflation factor (VIF) scores for each variable (in SPSS because VIF statistics are not available in MPlus). These scores indicate quantitatively the extent to which multicollinearity may be a concern. A typical rule of thumb is that scores over 10 as a general rule, or 5 as a conservative estimate, indicate that multicollinearity is a potential problem. VIF statistics for each of our parameters were all less than 2, suggesting that this was not a problem in our dataset.
The SRMR is slightly above the typical cutoff of .10 recommended by Hu and Bentler (1999). We note, however, that our fit indices are comparable to others published in top-tier management journals (e.g., Dierdorff, Surface, & Brown, 2010; Rich, LePine, & Crawford, 2010; Takeuchi, Bolino, & Lin, 2015; Wallace & Chen, 2006), and all of our other fit indices support good fit to the data.
The results of a supplemental analysis including dispersion in team chronic promotion focus as a predictor of promotion CRF (β = .09, SE = .14, p = .54) and dispersion in team chronic prevention as a predictor of prevention CRF (β = .14, SE = .13, p = .28) revealed no significant associations. Moreover, the results of all hypothesis tests held in this analysis.
The transformational leadership manipulation check is negatively associated with a prevention CRF (β = − .33, p < .01) and is marginally positively associated with a promotion CRF (β = .23, p < .10). All other substantive results hold.
Because these models are not nested, we followed the procedure recommended by Hooper, Coughlan, and Mullen (2008), Kline (2011), and Wang and Chan (2011), which suggests comparing the Akaike information criterion (AIC) and the Bayesian information criterion (BIC) (for similar examples of testing reverse causality using AIC and BIC, see Jin, Seo, & Shapiro, 2016; Matta, Scott, Colquitt, Koopman, & Passantino, 2017; Qu, Janssen, & Shi, 2015). The results of these comparisons revealed that the hypothesized model (AIC = 281.47, BIC = 311.74) had lower AIC and BIC than the reverse causal model (AIC = 286.41, BIC = 316.68), demonstrating that the hypothesized model provided superior fit to the data and is the model most likely to replicate (Kline, 2011). Finally, we also tested whether the two antecedents of CRF, leadership and chronic-regulatory focus, interact in their effect on CRF. We did not find any interaction effect between them.
References
Amabile, T. A., & Khaire, M. (2008). Creativity and the role of the leader. Harvard Business Review, 86, 100–109.
Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York: Springer-Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.2.357.
Amabile, T. M. (1998). How to kill creativity. Harvard Business Review, 76(5), 76–87.
Amabile, T. M. (2000). Stimulate creativity by fueling passion. In E. Locke (Ed.), Handbook of principles of organizational behavior (pp. 331–341). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Ashforth, B. E., Harrison, S. H., & Corley, K. G. (2008). Identification in organizations: An examination of four fundamental questions. Journal of Management, 34, 325–374. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308316059.
Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999). Re-examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the multifactor leadership. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 441–462. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317999166789.
Barczak, G., Lassk, F., & Mulki, J. (2010). Antecedents of team creativity: An examination of team emotional intelligence, team trust and collaborative culture. Creativity and Innovation Management, 19(4), 332–345. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2010.00574.x.
Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., Neubert, M. J., & Mount, M. K. (1998). Relating member ability and personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 377–391. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.3.377.
Barsade, S. G. (2002). The ripple effect: Emotional contagion and its influence on group behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 644–675. https://doi.org/10.2307/3094912.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8, 9–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/135943299398410.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1990). Transformational leadership development: Manual for the multifactor leadership questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership (2nd ed.). New York: Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410617095.
Beersma, B., Homan, A. C., Van Kleef, G. A., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2013). Outcome interdependence shapes the effects of prevention focus on team processes and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 121, 194–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.02.003.
Benjamin, L., & Flynn, F. J. (2006). Leadership style and regulatory mode: Value from fit? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100, 216–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.01.008.
Binnewies, C., Ohly, S., & Sonnentag, S. (2007). Taking initiative and communicating about ideas: What is important for the creative process and for idea creativity? European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 16, 432–455. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320701514728.
Boies, K., Fiset, J., & Gill, H. (2015). Communication and trust are key: Unlocking the relationship between leadership and team performance and creativity. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(6), 1080–1094. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.07.007.
Brodscholl, J. C., Kober, H., & Higgins, E. T. (2007). Strategies of self-regulation in goal attainment versus goal maintenance. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 628–648. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.380.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1998). On the self-regulation of behavior. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Cesario, J., Grant, H., & Higgins, E. T. (2004). Regulatory fit and persuasion: Transfer from "feeling right.". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 388–404. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.3.388.
Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 234–246. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.2.234.
Chen, G., Kanfer, DeShon, R., Mathieu, R. P., E, J., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2009). The motivating potential of teams: Test and extension of Chen and Kanfer’s (2006) cross-level model of motivation in teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 110, 45–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.06.006.
Cherulnik, P. D., Donley, K. A., Wiewel, T. S., & Miller, S. R. (2001a). Charisma is contagious: The effects of leader’s charisma on observers’ affect. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 2149–2159. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2001.tb00167.x.
Cherulnik, P. D., Donley, K. A., Wiewel, T. S., & Miller, S. R. (2001b). Charisma is contagious: The effects of leader’s charisma on observers’ affect. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 2149–2159. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2001.tb00167.x.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cole, D. A., Ciesla, J. A., & Steiger, J. H. (2007). The insidious effects of failing to include design-driven correlated residuals in latent-variable covariance structure analysis. Psychological Methods, 12, 381–398. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.12.4.381.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1998). Charismatic leadership in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Crowe, E., & Higgins, E. T. (1997). Regulatory focus and strategic inclinations: Promotion and prevention in decision-making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69, 117–132. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1996.2675.
DeChurch, L. A., & Mesmer-Magnus, J. R. (2010). The cognitive underpinnings of effective teamwork: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 32–53. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017328.
Delegach, M., Kark, R., Katz-Navon, T., & Van Dijk, D. (2017). A focus on commitment: The roles of transformational and transactional leadership and self-regulatory focus in fostering organizational and safety commitment. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 26, 724–740. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2017.1345884.
Dierdorff, E. C., Surface, E. A., & Brown, K. G. (2010). Frame-of-reference training effectiveness: Effects of goal orientation and self-efficacy on affective, cognitive, skill-based, and transfer outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 1181–1191. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020856.
Dong, Y., Bartol, K. M., Zhang, Z. X., & Li, C. (2017). Enhancing employee creativity via individual skill development and team knowledge sharing: Influences of dual-focused transformational leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38, 439–458. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2134.
Eisenbeiss, S. A., Van Knippenberg, D., & Boerner, S. (2008). Transformational leadership and team innovation: Integrating team climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1438–1446. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012716.
Epitropaki, O., & Martin, R. (2005). From ideal to real: A longitudinal study of the role of implicit leadership theories on leader-member exchanges and employee outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 659–676. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.4.659.
Eyal, O., & Kark, R. (2004). How do transformational leaders transform organizations? A study of the relationship between leadership and entrepreneurship. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 3, 209–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700760490503715.
Faddegon, K., Scheepers, D., & Ellemers, N. (2008). If we have the will, there will be a way: Regulatory focus as a group identity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 880–895. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.483.
Fay, D., & Frese, M. (2001). The concept of personal initiative: An overview of validity studies. Human Performance, 14(1), 97–124. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327043HUP1401_06.
Florack, A., & Hartmann, J. (2007). Regulatory focus and investment decisions in small groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 626–632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2006.05.005.
Förster, J., Higgins, E. T., & Bianco, T. A. (2003). Speed/accuracy decisions in task performance: Built-in trade-off or separate strategic concerns? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 90, 148–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-5978(02)00509-5.
Frese, M., & Fay, D. (2001). Personal initiative: An active performance concept for work in the 21st century. Research in Organizational Behavior, 23, 133–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-3085(01)23005-6.
Frese, M., Fay, D., Hilburger, T., Leng, K., & Tag, A. (1997). The concept of personal initiative: Operationalization, reliability and validity in two German samples. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70, 139–161.
Friedman, R. S., & Förster, J. (2001). The effects of promotion and prevention cues on creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 1001–1013. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.6.1001.
Friedman, R. S., & Förster, J. (2005). Effects of motivational cues on perceptual asymmetry: Implications for creativity and analytical problem solving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 263–275. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.2.263.
Gino, F., Argote, L., Miron-Spektor, E., & Todorova. (2010). First, get your feet wet: The effects of learning from direct and indirect experience on team creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 111, 102–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.11.002.
Gong, Y., Huang, J. C., & Farh, J. L. (2009). Employee learning orientation, transformational leadership, and employee creativity: The mediating role of employee creative self-efficacy. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 765–778. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2009.43670890.
Gorman, C. A., Meriac, J. P., Overstreet, B. L., Apodbaca, S., McIntyre, A. L., Park, P., & Godbey, J. N. (2012). A meta-analysis of the regulatory focus nomological network: Work-related antecedents and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80, 160–172.
Graen, G. B., & 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. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5.
Hardin, C. D., & Higgins, E. T. (1996). Shared reality: How social verification makes the subjective objective. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition (Vol. 3) (pp. 28–84). New York: Guilford.
Harrison, D. A., & Klein, K. J. (2007). What's the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32, 1199–1228. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.26586096.
Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Rapson, R. L. (1994). Emotional Contagion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hatfield, E., Rapson, R. L., & Le, Y. L. (2009). Emotional contagion and empathy. In J. Decety & W. Ickes (Eds.), The social neuroscience of empathy (pp. 19–30). Boston, MA: MIT Press.
Henker, N., Sonnentag, S., & Unger, D. (2015). Transformational leadership and employee creativity: The mediating role of promotion focus and creative process engagement. Journal of Business and Psychology, 30, 235–247. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-014-9348-7.
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, 25, 172–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2013.783743.
Herrmann, D., & Felfe, J. (2014). Effects of leadership style, creativity technique and personal initiative on employee creativity. British Journal of Management, 25, 209–227. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2012.00849.x.
Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280–1300. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.12.1280.
Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 1–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60381-0.
Higgins, E. T., Shah, J., & Friedman, R. (1997). Emotional responses to goal attainment: Strength of regulatory focus as moderator. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 515–525. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.72.3.515.
Hofmann, D. A., & Jones, L. M. (2005). Leadership, collective personality, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 509–522. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.3.509.
Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6, 53–60.
Howell, J. M., & Shamir, B. (2005). The role of followers in the charismatic process: Relationships and their consequences. Academy of Management Review, 30, 96–112. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2005.15281435.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118.
Itzkin, A., Van Dijk, D., & Azar, O. H. (2016). At least I tried: The relationship between regulatory focus and regret following action vs. inaction. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1684. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01684.
James, L. R. (1982). Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 219–229. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.67.2.219.
Jiang, Y., & Chen, C. C. (2018). Integrating knowledge activities for team innovation: Effects of transformational leadership. Journal of Management, 44, 1819–1847. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316628641.
Jin, S., Seo, M. G., & Shapiro, D. L. (2016). Do happy leaders lead better? Affective and attitudinal antecedents of transformational leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 27, 64–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.09.002.
Johnson, P. D., Smith, M. B., Wallace, J. C., Hill, A. D., & Baron, R. A. (2015). A review of multilevel regulatory focus in organizations. Journal of Management, 41, 1501–1529. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315575552.
Johnson, P. D., & Wallace, J. C. (2011). Increasing individual and team performance in an organizational setting through the situational adaptation of regulatory focus. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 63, 190–201. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025622.
Johnson, R. E., Chang, C.-H., Meyer, T., Lanaj, K., & Way, J. D. (2013). Approaching success or avoiding failure? Approach and avoidance motives in the work domain. European Journal of Personality, 27, 424–441. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1883.
Johnson, R. E., Chang, C. H., & Yang, L. Q. (2010). Commitment and motivation at work: The relevance of employee identity and regulatory focus. Academy of Management Review, 35, 226–245.
Johnson, R. E., King, D. D., Lin, S. H., Scott, B. A., Jackson Walker, E. M., & Wang, M. (2017). Regulatory focus trickle-down: How leader regulatory focus and behavior shape follower regulatory focus. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 140, 29–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2017.03.002.
Johnson, R. E., Lin, S.-H., Kark, R., Van Dijk, D., King, D. D., & Esformes, E. (2017). Consequences of regulatory fit for leader–follower relationship quality and commitment. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 90, 379–406. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12176.
Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 755–768.
Jung, D. I. (2001). Transformational and transactional leadership and their effects on creativity in groups. Creativity Research Journal, 13(2), 185–195. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326934CRJ1302_6.
Kameda, T., Takezawa, M., & Hastie, R. (2003). The logic of social sharing: An evolutionary game analysis of adaptive norm development. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 2–19 10.1207%2FS15327957PSPR0701_1.
Kanter, R. (1988). When a thousand flowers bloom: Structural, collective and social conditions for innovation in organizations. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 10, pp. 169–211). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Kark, R., Katz-Navon, T., & Delegach, M. (2015). The dual effects of leading for safety: The mediating role of employee regulatory focus. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 1332–1348. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038818.
Kark, R., & Medler-Liraz, H. (2007). Chapter 7 Leading with a smile: The influence of managers’ leadership behavior on the emotional experience of employees and customers. Functionality, intentionality and morality (research on emotion in organizations, volume 3). Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 177-198.
Kark, R., & Shamir, B. (2002). The dual effect of transformational leadership: Priming relational and collective selves and further effects on followers. In B. J. Avolio & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Transformational and charismatic leadership (pp. 67–91). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Kark, R., Shamir, B., & Chen, G. (2003). The two faces of transformational leadership: Dependence and empowerment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 243–255. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.246.
Kark, R., & Van Dijk, D. (2007). Motivation to lead motivation to follow: The role of self-regulatory focus in leadership processes. Academy of Management Review, 32, 500–528. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2007.24351846.
Kark, R., & Van Dijk, D. (2019). Keep your head in the clouds and your feet on the ground: A multi-focal review of leadership–followership self-regulatory focus. Academy of Management Annals, 13, 1–38. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2017.0134.
Kark, R., Van Dijk, D., & Vashdi, D. (2018). De-motivated to be creative: The role of the self-regulatory focus in leadership processes. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 67, 186–224. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12122.
Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
Kozlowski, S. W., & Bell, B. S. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. In I. B. Weiner, N. W. Schmitt, & S. Highhouse (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Vol. 12. Industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 412–469). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7, 77–124.
Lanaj, K., Chang, C. H., & Johnson, R. E. (2012). Regulatory focus and work-related outcomes: A review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 998–1034. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027723.
LeBreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. (2008). Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11, 815–852. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428106296642.
LePine, J. A., Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., & Hedlund, J. (1997). Effects of individual differences on the performance of hierarchical decision-making teams: Much more than g. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 803–811. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.5.803.
Levine, J. M., Higgins, E. T., & Choi, S. H. (2000). Development of strategic norms in groups. Organization Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82, 88–101. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2000.2889.
Li, C. R., Li, C. X., & Lin, C. J. (2018). How and when team regulatory focus influences team innovation and member creativity. Personnel Review, 47, 95–117. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-09-2016-0236.
Li, C. R., Lin, C. J., & Liu, J. (2018). The role of team regulatory focus and team learning in team radical and incremental creativity. Group & Organization Management, 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601118775196/.
Liberman, N., Idson, L. C., Camacho, C. J., & Higgins, T. E. (1999). Promotion and prevention choices between stability and change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1135–1145. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1135.
Liberman, N., Molden, D. C., Idson, L. C., & Higgins, E. T. (2001). Promotion and prevention focus on alternative hypotheses: Implications for attributional functions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.1.5.
Lindell, M. K., & Brandt, C. J. (1999). Assessing interrater agreement on the job relevance of a test: A comparison of the cvi, t, (rwg(j)), and r*(wg(j)) indexes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 640–647.
Lindell, M. K., Brandt, C. J., & Whitney, D. J. (1999). A revised index of interrater agreement for multi-item ratings of a single target. Applied Psychological Measurement, 23, 127–135.
Liu, J., Liu, X., & Zeng, X. (2011). Does transactional leadership count for team innovativeness? The moderating role of emotional labor and the mediating role of team efficacy. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 24(3), 282–298. https://doi.org/10.1108/09534811111132695.
Lockwood, P., Jordan, C. H., & Kunda, Z. (2002). Motivation by positive or negative role models: Regulatory focus determines who will best inspire us. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 854–864. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.4.854.
Ma, X., & Jiang, W. (2018). Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, and employee creativity in entrepreneurial firms. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 54(3), 302–324. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886318764346 journals.sagepub.com/home/jabs.
Mainemelis, C., Kark, R., & Epitropaki, O. (2015). Creative leadership: A multi-context conceptualization. The Academy of Management Annals, 9, 393–482. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2015.1024502.
Matta, F. K., Scott, B. A., Colquitt, J. A., Koopman, J., & Passantino, L. (2017). Is consistently unfair better than sporadically fair? An investigation of justice variability and stress. Academy of Management Journal, 60, 743–770. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2014.0455.
Meade, A. D., & Craig, S. B. (2012). Identifying careless responses in survey data. Psychological Methods, 17, 437–455. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028085.
Medler-Liraz, H., & Kark, R. (2012). It takes three to tango: Leadership and hostility in the service encounter. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(1), 81–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.11.007.
Miron, E., Erez, M., & Naveh, E. (2004). Do personal characteristics and cultural values that promote innovation, quality, and efficiency compete or complement each other? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 175–199. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.237.
Miron-Spektor, E., & Beenen, G. (2015). Motivating creativity: The effects of sequential and simultaneous learning and performance achievement goals on product novelty and usefulness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 127, 53–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2015.01.001.
Miron-Spektor, E., Erez, M., & Naveh, E. (2011). The effect of conformist and attentive-to-detail members on team innovation: Reconciling the innovation paradox. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 740–760. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.64870100.
Morgeson, F., & Hofmann, D. A. (1999). The structure and function of collective constructs: Implications for multilevel research and theory development. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 249–265. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1999.1893935.
Morgeson, F. P., DeRue, D. S., & Karam, E. P. (2010). Leadership in teams: A functional approach to understanding leadership structures and processes. Journal of Management, 36, 5–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309347376.
Mumford, M., & Gustafson, S. (1988). Creativity syndrome: Integration, application, and innovation. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 27–43. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.1.27.
Mumford, M. D., Medeiros, K. E., & Partlow, P. J. (2012). Creative thinking: Processes, strategies, and knowledge. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 46, 30–47. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.003.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2010). Mplus user's guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
Neubert, M. J., Kacmar, K. M., Carlson, D. S., Chonko, L. B., & Roberts, J. A. (2008). Regulatory focus as a mediator of the influence of initiating structure and servant leadership on employee behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1220–1233. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012695.
Owens, B. P., & Hekman, D. R. (2016). How does leader humility influence team performance? Exploring the mechanisms of contagion and collective promotion focus. Academy of Management Journal, 59, 1088–1111. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.0660.
Pennington, G. L., & Roese, N. J. (2003). Regulatory focus and temporal distance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 563–576. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1031(03)000581.
Qu, R., Janssen, O., & Shi, K. (2015). Transformational leadership and follower creativity: The mediating role of follower relational identification and the moderating role of leader creativity expectations. The Leadership Quarterly, 26, 286–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.12.004.
Rich, B. L., LePine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 617–635. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.51468988.
Rietzschel, E. F. (2011). Collective regulatory focus predicts specific aspects of team innovation. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14(3), 337–345. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430210392396.
Roberson, Q. M., & Williamson, I. O. (2012). Justice in self-managing teams: The role of social networks in the emergence of procedural justice climates. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 685–701. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.0491.
Sacramento, C. A., Fay, D., & West, M. A. (2013). Workplace duties or opportunities? Challenge stressors, regulatory focus, and creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 121, 141–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.01.008.
Sarros, J. C., Cooper, B. K., & Santora, J. C. (2008). Building a climate for innovation through transformational leadership and organizational culture. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 15, 145–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051808324100.
Sassenberg, K., & Hamstra, M. R. W. (2017). The intrapersonal and interpersonal dynamics of self-regulation in the leadership process. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 55, 193–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aesp.2016.08.001.
Sassenberg, K., & Woltin, K. (2008). Group-based self-regulation: The effects of regulatory focus. European Review of Social Psychology, 19, 126–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463280802201894.
Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schneider, B., & Reichers, A. E. (1983). On the etiology of climates. Personnel Psychology, 36, 19–39.
Shalley, C. E., & Gilson, L. L. (2004). What leaders need to know: A review of social and contextual factors that can foster or hinder creativity. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 33–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.12.004.
Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organizational Science, 4, 577–594.
Shamir, B., Zakay, E., Breinin, E., & Popper, M. (1998). Correlates of charismatic leader behavior in military units: Subordinates’ attitudes, unit characteristics and superiors’ appraisals of leader performance. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 387–409. https://doi.org/10.2307/257080.
Shin, S. J., & Zhou, J. (2003). Transformational leadership, conservation, and creativity: Evidence from Korea. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 703–714. https://doi.org/10.5465/30040662.
Shin, S. J., & Zhou, J. (2007). When is educational specialization heterogeneity related to creativity in research and development teams? Transformational leadership as a moderator. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1709–1721. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1709.
Shin, Y., Kim, M., Choi, J. N., & Lee, S. H. (2016). Does team culture matter? Roles of team culture and collective regulatory focus in team task and creative performance. Group & Organization Management, 41, 232–265. https://doi.org/10.1177/2F1059601115584998.
Somech, A., & Drach-Zahavy, A. (2013). Translating team creativity to innovation implementation: The role of team composition and climate for innovation. Journal of Management, 39, 684–708. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310394187.
Stam, D., Lord, R. G., Van Knippenberg, D., & Wisse, B. (2014). An image of who we might become: Vision communication, possible selves, and vision pursuit. Organization Science, 25, 1172–1194. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2013.0891.
Stone-Romero, E. F., & Rosopa, P. J. (2008). The relative validity of inferences about mediation as a function of research design characteristics. Organizational Research Methods, 11, 326–352. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428107300342.
Stone-Romero, E. F., & Rosopa, P. J. (2011). Experimental tests of mediation: Prospects, problems, and some solutions. Organizational Research Methods, 14, 631–646. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428110372673.
Takeuchi, R., Bolino, M. C., & Lin, C. C. (2015). Too many motives? The interactive effects of multiple motives on organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 1239–1248. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000001.
Tindale, R. S., & Kameda, T. (2000). “Social sharedness” as a unifying theme for information processing in groups. Group Process & Intergroup Relations, 3, 123–140.
Van de Ven, A. H. (1986). Central problems in the management of innovation. Management Science, 32, 590–607. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.32.5.590.
Van Dijk, D., Seger-Guttmann, T., & Heller, D. (2013). Life threatening event reduces subjective well-being through activating avoidance motivation: A longitudinal study. Emotion, 13, 216–225. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029973.
van Stekelenburg, J., & Klandermans, P. G. (2004). Regulatory focus meten met behulp van spreekwoorden. In D. H. J. Wigboldus, E. S. Kluwer, & B. Doosje (Eds.), Jaarboek Sociale Psychologie 2003 (pp. 345–357). Delft: Eburon.
Wallace, C., & Chen, G. (2006). A multilevel integration of personality, climate, self-regulation, and performance. Personnel Psychology, 59, 529–557. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00046.x.
Wang, M., & Chan, D. (2011). Mixture latent Markov modeling: Identifying and predicting unobserved heterogeneity in longitudinal qualitative status change. Organizational Research Methods, 14, 411–431. https://doi.org/10.1177/2F1094428109357107.
Wang, X. H., Kim, T. Y., & Lee, D. R. (2016). Cognitive diversity and team creativity: Effects of team intrinsic motivation and transformational leadership. Journal of Business Research, 69, 3231–3239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.02.026.
Yaffe, T., & Kark, R. (2011). Leading by example: The case of leader OCB. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 806–826. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022464.
Yammarino, F. J., Spangler, W. D., & Dubinsky, A. J. (1998). Transformational and contingent reward leadership: Individual, dyad, and group levels of analysis. Leadership Quarterly, 9, 27–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(98)90041-8.
Yukl, G. (1998). Leadership in organizations (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Zaccaro, S. J., Rittman, A. L., & Marks, M. A. (2001). Team leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 12(4), 451–483. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(01)00093-5.
Zhang, A. Y., Tsui, A. S., & Wang, D. X. (2011). Leadership behaviors and group creativity in Chinese organizations: The role of group processes. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 851–862. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.07.007.
Zhang, X., & Bartol, K. M. (2010). Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: The influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process engagement. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 107–128.
Zhu, W., Avolio, B. J., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2009). Moderating role of follower characteristics with transformational leadership and follower work engagement. Group & Organization Management, 34, 590–619. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601116638774.
Funding
This research was supported by The Israel Science Foundation (Grant No. 254/70.(0
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendices
Appendix 1
Transformational leadership condition script
The team manager waits for the subjects while standing. As the participants enter the room, he welcomes each of them with a smile and a handshake. He is enthusiast and confident. He asks everyone for his/her name, and tells them to sit wherever they like.
When all the participants have arrived and are settled, the manager begins.
(During the experiment, the manager must pay attention to nonverbal language, maintain eye contact, show positive and enthusiastic facial expressions, display calmness, avoid a monotonous tone of voice, and exude confidence).
“Hello everyone, my name is [name], and I am the manager of a small consultant firm [name] that is working the university on this project. I am very happy that you have come to participate in this research group and to contribute to this project. Before we begin, I would like to tell you what this project is all about.”
“This project has been created from the belief that it is necessary and possible to change the admission process to institutions of higher education, as part of a general vision of developing academic excellence in this country. A few months ago, the university decided to conduct research to test alternatives to or additional tests for the psychometric exam. As you all know, this exam is the main screening tool in the process of admission to institutions of higher learning in this country. In recent years, there have been many calls to cancel or replace it with other selection tools, and in the past, there were even attempts to cancel it. I am sure that in your personal experience you also had difficulty coping with the psychometric examination.”
“My vision is to develop a new and unique method for discovering the potential of each admissions candidate, which will lead to the prosperity and success of higher education students in Israel.”
[At this stage, a poster with a vision statement will be presented to the participants, and it will remain visible until the end of the experiment.]
“There are different ways to measure the abilities of university candidates, and our goal is to develop a different and special method for discovering the unique potential of each candidate, which will lead to the prosperity and success of higher education students in the country.”
“Today, there is an understanding that it takes more than good grades to succeed in the job market. Therefore, in this project, we will explore additional tools that will examine important aspects that are not currently reflected in the psychometric exam—the main screening tool for universities today. In the next hour, you will perform a task based on the tools that we are currently considering to replace or supplement the existing psychometric test. The task that you will perform has great importance in helping us understand what will draw the right people to the right places.”
“So let’s start. Your first assignment will be a creative one. The mission is to create an innovative prototype for a decorative product for home or office. The product must be original, that is, as unique as possible, and useful, that is, aesthetic and similar to an existing entity (e.g., object, animal, plant). For example, you can make a small elephant. A set of handmade items is at your disposal. Let’s begin. You have 20 minutes to work on the task.”
[At this stage, the manager will place the package of handmade products in front of the team.]
“So let’s start all together. In order to use our time in the most effective way, you will have to build the product together, and all of you have to do it simultaneously. For example, each of you can specialize in building one specific part of the work. In this way, each and every one of you will be able to express his personal abilities, and I am sure that everyone will be able to contribute his part. Try to trust each other in the task, and try your best. I believe that each and every one of you can make the most out of yourself.”
(At the end of 13 min) “We’re getting close to the end here, so make these last few minutes count. Guys, if you put in a little extra effort, you will succeed. I know you can do it.”
(At the end of 18 min) “Let’s try to wrap it up. Thank you!”
Transactional leadership condition script
The team manager waits for the participants sitting behind a desk, and when each of the participants enters, he receives him with a handshake. He does not express any emotional facial expressions, but nevertheless shows confidence. He asks everyone for his/her name, and instructs them to sit and wait patiently for all the participants to arrive.
When all the participants have arrived and are settled, the manager begins.
(During the experiment, the manager must pay attention to nonverbal language, give periodic direct eye contact, remain businesslike with emotionless facial expressions, use a rather monotonous tone of voice, and keep a fixed position in his chair.)
“Hello everyone, my name is [name], and I am the manager of a small consultant firm [name] that is working with the university on this project. I’m glad we’re starting on time. Before we begin, I would like to tell you what this project is all about.”
“This project is based on a mission assigned to our university [name] to improve admission processes and screening tools to institutions of higher learning in the country, and the university must not fail in this endeavor. A few months ago, the university decided to conduct research to test alternatives to or additional tests for the psychometric exam. As you all know, this exam is the main screening tool used in the admission process to institutions of higher education. In recent years, there have been many calls to cancel or replace it with other selection tools, and in the past, there were even attempts to cancel it. In the psychometric exam, there are certain deviations that need to be addressed in order to avoid problems in the process of admission to institutions of higher education.”
“My goal is to find a precise, valid, and reliable measure of potential candidates’ ability to avoid the mistakes that are being made today in admitting students to universities in our country.”
[At this stage, a poster with the project goal will be presented to the participants, and it will remain visible until the end of the experiment.]
“There are effective ways to measure the abilities of university candidates, and our goal is to find a precise, valid, and reliable measure of the ability of potential candidates, which will prevent the mistakes that are being made in the admission of students to universities in our country.”
“Today, there is an understanding that it takes more than good grades to succeed in the job market. Therefore, in this project, we will explore additional tools that will examine important aspects that are not reflected in the psychometric exam—the main screening tool for universities today. In the next hour, you will perform a task that is a part of the tools that we are currently considering to replace or supplement the existing psychometric test. The deal is that you will perform the task the best you can, and we will rely on data that will lead to future decision-making regarding the process of admission to institutions of higher education. In the next hour, you will perform a task as part of the tools that we are currently considering using to replace or supplement the existing psychometric test. You need to do the tasks accurately without making mistakes. If you are not focused enough, it can hurt your job performance, and you may fail. As much as possible, I will keep from interfering with the tasks you receive unless there are errors or irregularities that you make.”
“So let’s start. Your first assignment will be a creative one. The mission is to create an innovative prototype for a decorative product for home or office. The product must be original, that is, as unique as possible, and useful, that is, aesthetic and similar to an existing entity (e.g., object, animal, plant). For example, you can make a small elephant. A set of handmade items is available at your disposal. Let’s begin. You have 20 minutes to work on the task.”
[At this stage, the manager will place the package of handmade products in front of the team.]
“So let’s start all together in order to use the time in the most effective way. You have to build the product together, and all of you have to do it simultaneously. For example, everyone can specialize in building one specific part of the work. If you do not meet these standards, you may fail. If you do not do the job well enough, I will have to intervene. Each and every one of you must perform the task cooperatively and with minimal mistakes, so it is important to use caution and precision.”
(At the end of 13 min) “We’re getting close to the end here, so make these last few minutes count. Guys, remember that it’s important not to make mistakes. I remind you to be careful and to finish on time.”
(At the end of 18 min) “Let’s try to wrap it up. Thank you.”
Appendix 2
Collective regulatory focus (adapted from: Lockwood et al., 2002)
-
1.
My team is focused on preventing negative events.
-
2.
My team is anxious that we will fall short of our responsibilities and obligations.
-
3.
My team imagines how we will achieve our hopes and aspirations.
-
4.
My team is focused on the success we hope to achieve.
-
5.
We imagine ourselves experiencing bad things that we fear might happen to us.
-
6.
My team thinks about how we can prevent failures.
-
7.
My team is more oriented toward preventing losses than toward achieving gains.
-
8.
We see ourselves as ones who are primarily striving to reach our ideals.
-
9.
We see ourselves as ones who are primarily striving to do what we “ought” to do.
-
10.
My team is focused on achieving positive outcomes.
-
11.
We imagine ourselves experiencing good things that we hope will happen to us.
-
12.
Overall, my team is more oriented toward achieving success than preventing failure.
Team initiative (adapted from Miron et al., 2004; based on Frese et al., 1997)
-
1.
My team is determined to fulfill our ideas
-
2.
My team initiates ways to actualize new ideas
-
3.
My team is known as a fanatical devotee
-
4.
My team is able to take an idea and turn it in to a project
Short MLQ for manipulation check (adapted from Bass & Avolio, 1990).
The manager of my team…
-
1.
Articulates compelling vision of the future
-
2.
Talks about his most important values and beliefs
-
3.
Seeks differing perspectives when solving problems
-
4.
Emphasizes the importance of having collective sense of mission
-
5.
Treats employees as individuals rather than just member of a group
-
6.
Displays a sense of power and confidence
-
7.
Keeps track of all mistakes
-
8.
Concentrates my full attention on dealing with mistakes and failures
-
9.
Fails to interfere until problems become serious
-
10.
Waits for things to go wrong before taking action
-
11.
Makes clear what one can expect to receive when performance goals are achieved
-
12.
Discusses in specific terms who is responsible for achieving performance targets
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Van Dijk, D., Kark, R., Matta, F. et al. Collective aspirations: collective regulatory focus as a mediator between transformational and transactional leadership and team creativity. J Bus Psychol 36, 633–658 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-020-09692-6
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-020-09692-6