One Style Fits All?

Integrating Achievement Motives in the Transformational

Leadership-Dependency-Creativity Linkage

Tobias Kollmann
Christoph Stckmann
Patrick Krell

ABSTRACT
Despite the importance of employees creativity as a means to foster innovation and
competitive advantages there is still a lack of knowledge about its antecedents.
Transformational leadership is an approach aiming at stimulating and encouraging
employees creativity. However, contradictory empirical findings indicate that the
relationship is more complex than a simple direct effect. This study adds to the understanding
of this linkage by analyzing mediating and moderating effects. Taking into account that the
effect of transformational leadership on creativity is circumvented by its dependency
enhancing effect, we integrate the mediating effect of dependency on the leader. Drawing on
interactionist approaches to creativity, we propose that the achievement motives are
important moderators in the leadership-dependency-creativity linkage.

Tobias Kollmann is a chaired professor for e-business and e-entrepreneurship at the University of
Duisburg-Essen, Germany. He graduated in 1995 from the University of Bonn, Germany, and
received his doctoral degree in 1997 from the University of Trier, Germany, with a thesis on the
acceptance of innovative telecommunication and multimedia systems. His research interests include e-
business, entrepreneurship, and, in particular, business venturing in TIMES industries.

Christoph Stckmann is an assistant professor (akademischer Rat) at the University of Duisburg-

Essen, Germany, where he is a member of the e-business and e-entrepreneurship research group. He
received his doctoral degree with a thesis on entrepreneurial management from the University of
Duisburg-Essen, Germany, in 2009. His research interests include creativity, innovation as well as
entrepreneurial management and leadership.

Patrick Krell is research assistant and Ph.D. candidate at the University of Duisburg-Essen,
Germany. He received his graduate degree from the University of Wuppertal, Germany at the
Schumpeter School of Business and Economics in 2008. Moreover, he holds a Master of Business
Administration degree from the University of Birmingham, UK. His research interests include e-
business, e-entrepreneurship, entrepreneurship and trends within the Internet.
INTRODUCTION
Previous research suggests that enhancing employees creative performance is a necessary
step for organizations to achieve competitive advantages (e.g., Amabile, 1988). In his theory
on individual creative action, Ford identifies a diverse range of factors influencing creativity
and innovation (1996). Therefore, it is not surprising that creativity and innovation have been
studied from different research perspectives such as organization, environment and strategy
given their apparent impact on organizational performance (Mumford, Scott, Gaddis, and
Strange, 2002).
A distinct stream of research focuses on the relationship between leadership styles and
employees creativity. For example, existing research has analysed the motivational impact on
creativity (e.g., Shin and Zhou, 2003) as well as the interrelations between leaders behaviour
(e.g., Redmond, Mumford, and Teach, 1993) such as providing regular feedback (e.g., Zhou
and George, 2001) or support (e.g., Tierney and Farmer, 2002) on creativity. Theoretical
findings argue that transformational leadership encourage employees creativity (Bass and
Bass, 2008). However, empirical research has found contradictory results concerning the
effects of transformational leadership on creativity (e.g., Shin and Zhou, 2003 vs. Basu and
Green, 1997). Those contradictory empirical results indicate that the relationship between
transformational leadership and individual creativity is more complex than a simple direct
link. In line with these results, we propose that transformational leadership increases
followers dependency on the leader (Kark, Shamir, and Chen, 2003) and the latter may
decrease followers individual creativity (Yukl, 1998), which could potentially explain an
overall negative effect on employees creative performance. Drawing on current literature, we
propose that the achievement motives hope of success and fear of failure may enhance our
understanding and may reduce overcoming negative effects as they are strongly associated
with the individuals self-efficacy (Lang and Fries, 2006) and thus with the individuals belief
in his or her ability to successfully perform tasks (Bandura, 1986). The belief in his or her
ability should affect the followers willingness and ability to proceed with work to make
decision without the leaders guidance (Kark, Shamir, and Chen, 2003), thus also affecting his
or her willingness and ability to engage in creative and innovative tasks (Lang and Fries,
2006, Liao, Liu, and Loi, 2010).
This paper proceeds as follows: Initially, we present our theoretical framework linking
transformational leadership and individual creativity. We further integrate dependency on the
leader as mediating effect and achievement motives as moderating variable in the
transformational leadership-dependency-creativity relationship and formulate our hypotheses.
This section ends with our conceptual model shown in Figure 1. Subsequently, we present our
methodology and the results of our empirical study. Afterwards, we discuss our results,
highlight theoretical contributions and practical implications. At the end, we present our
research limitations and potential future research directions.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND HYPOTHESES

Transformational leadership and its relation to creativity
Leadership has been an important topic in social science for many decades (e.g., Lowe,
Kroeck, and Sivasubramaniam, 1996). When the focus on leadership research shifted from
traditional models to a new genre of leadership theories, Burns (1978) developed a model of
two new types of leadership styles based on Webers (1947) seminal work on charismatic
leaders: The transactional leadership and the transformational leadership.
In the words of Bass (1990: p. 19) transactional leadership inspire, energize, and
intellectually stimulate [] employees and entails an exchange between leader and
follower. While the transactional leader motivates subordinates to perform as expected, the
transformational leader typically inspires followers to do more than originally expected.
Transformational leadership theories predict followers emotional attachment to the leader
and motivational arousal of followers as a consequence of the leaders behaviour (e.g., House,
1977). Transformational leaders motivate subordinates through heightening subordinates
awareness of the value of designated goals, raising subordinates motivational level in terms
of Maslows need hierarchy (Maslow, 1942) and including them to transcend self-interest in
favour of the organization (Singer and Singer, 2001). Transformational leadership occurs
when leaders broaden and elevate the interests of their employees, when they generate
awareness and acceptance of the purposes and mission of the group, and when they stir their
employees to look beyond their own self-interest for the good of the group (Bass, 1990: 20).
Furthermore, Yammarino, and Dubinsky (1994) argued that transformational leadership
theory explains the unique connection between leader and followers that accounts for
extraordinary performance and accomplishments for the larger group, unit, and organization.
Bass (1990, 1997) defines the transformational leader by the following four terms: charisma
(provides vision and sense of mission, instils pride, gains respect and trust), inspiration
(communicates high expectations, uses symbols to focus efforts, expresses important purposes
in simple ways), intellectual stimulation (promotes intelligence, rationality, and careful
problem solving) and individualized consideration (gives personal attention, treats each
employee individually, coaches, advises).
 As mentioned above, transformational leadership is also said to encourage employees
creativity (Bass and Bass, 2008). In line with this suggestion, empirical research shows that
employees are most creative when they were supervised in a supportive, non-controlling
fashion (Oldham and Cummings, 1996). Likewise, factors associated with transformational
leadership such as support (e.g., Tierney and Farmer, 2002) and feedback from leaders (e.g.,
Zhou and George, 2001) have an motivational impact and influence employees creativity
(e.g., Shin and Zhou, 2003). Moreover, Farmer, Tierney, and Kung-Mcintyre (2003) link
creativity to role identity theory and found that creative performance was high when a strong
creative role identity was paired with perceptions that the employing organization valued
creative work.
In line with these findings, the majority of studies found positive effects of transformational
leadership on creativity (e.g., Bass and Bass, 2008, Shin and Zhou, 2003, Garca-Morales,
Llorns-Montes, and Verd-Jover, 2008, Mumford, Scott, Gaddis, and Strange, 2002,
Gumusluoglu and Ilsev, 2007). However, Jaussi and Dionne (2003) found no relationship
between both concepts. What is more, Basu and Green (1997) analysed the leader-follower
relationship and discover that transformational leadership is negatively related to employees
creative behaviour. Those contradictory empirical results indicate that the relationship
between transformational leadership and individual creativity is more complex than a simple
direct link.

Integrating the mediating effect of dependency on the leader

As contradictory empirical results indicate, to only consider direct relationships between
transformational leadership and creativity may not be enough. Previous research already
examined the influence of mediators on transformational leadership. For example, Pillai,
Schriesheim, and Williams (1999) analysed fairness perceptions and trust as mediators
between transformational leadership and organizational citizenship behaviour. Likewise, Tsai,
Chen, and Cheng (2009) analysed the mediating link of employees positive moods in the
linkage of transformational leadership and employee work outcomes. Studies from Wang,
Law, Hackett, Wang, and Chen (2005) and Janssen and Yperen (2004) have shown that the
leader-member exchange mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and
task performance. Further research analysed the effects of the relationship quality of the
leader-member exchange and found indirect effects on employee creativity via self-efficacy
(Liao, Liu, and Loi, 2010).
 With respect to the present study, we propose that transformational leadership increases
followers dependency on the leader and the latter may decrease followers individual
creativity. Theories of charismatic leadership as reflected in the charismatic components of
transformational leadership propose that a follower may perceive his or her leader as
extraordinary and exceptional and therefore might become dependent on the leader for
guidance and inspiration (Yukl, 1998). Psychoanalytic theories imply that such leadership
styles result in increasing dependence on the leader (e.g., Kets de Vries, 1988). Conger and
Kanungo (1988: 216) claim that what is unique in charismatic leadership in contrast to other
leadership forms is the intensity of this identification and dependence. At first, Kark, Shamir,
and Chen (2003) found empirical support for the influence of transformational leadership on
dependency. While a positive evaluation and approval from the leader becomes important for
the follower, dependence on the leader may result in loss and distress for the follower
(Shamir, 1991); not only underlining dependency on the leader but also inability to get new
innovative ideas. Moreover, followers dependence on the leader results in limited abilities to
proceed independently at work and to make decisions without approval from the leader (Kark,
Shamir, and Chen, 2003) limiting his willingness and ability to individual creative outcomes.
Hence, we propose:

Hypothesis 1a: Transformational leadership has a positive effect on individual creativity.

Hypothesis 1b: Transformational leadership has a positive effect on dependency on the

leader.

Hypothesis 1c: Dependency on the leader has a negative effect on individual creativity.

Hypothesis 1d: Dependency on the leader mediates the relationship between

transformational leadership and individual creativity.

Integrating the moderating effects of achievement motives

With respect to the present study, Oldham and Cummings (1996) highlight that creative
outcomes are not solely based on appropriate style of leadership as they are dependent on
appropriate creativity characteristics as well. In this line, we propose that the achievement
motives hope of success and fear of failure moderate the transformational leadership-
dependency-creativity linkage. Hope of success and fear of failure are strongly associated
with the individuals self-efficacy (Lang and Fries, 2006) and thus with the individuals belief
in his or her ability to successfully perform tasks (Bandura, 1986), especially creative tasks
(Liao, Liu, and Loi, 2010).
In more detail, hope of success should help transformational leadership to unfold its
potential with respect to creativity as employees with high levels of hope of success are
strongly committed to demanding tasks, evaluate their accomplishments more positive and set
challenging goals (Lang and Fries, 2006). Accordingly, we propose:

Hypothesis 2a: Hope of success positively moderates the relationship between

transformational leadership and individual creativity.
Hypothesis 2b: Hope of success negatively moderates the relationship between
transformational leadership and dependency on the leader.
Hypothesis 2c: Hope of success positively moderates the relationship between
dependency on the leader and individual creativity.

Fear of failure is a self-evaluative framework that influences how an individual defines

failure in achievement situations (Heckhausen, 1991). Employees that are characterized by a
high level of fear of failure show inferior performance in complex situations (i.e. creative
tasks), rarely set challenging goals, put their outputs into question, which can suppress
individual creative actions (Lang and Fries, 2006). Accordingly, we propose:

Hypothesis 3a: Fear of failure negatively moderates the relationship between

transformational leadership and individual creativity.
Hypothesis 3b: Fear of failure positively moderates the relationship between
transformational leadership and dependency on the leader.
Hypothesis 3c: Fear of failure negatively moderates the relationship between dependency
on the leader and individual creativity.

To conclude, we assume that integrating dependency and achievement motives may enhance
our understanding of the transformational leadership-creativity linkage. Figure 1 summarizes
our research model:
 Transformational H1a (Direct effect) / H1d (Mediating effect) Individual
Leadership Creativity

Dependency
on the Leader

Hope of Success Fear of Failure

Figure1. Conceptual model and hypothesized relationships

METHODOLOGY

Sample

The sample were disseminated using a German social network platform for business

professionals named Xing. Users at related network groups were asked to answer the

questionnaire and to send it forward to further network participants. The sample consists of

271 employees (164 men and 107 women), with a mean age of 36.55 years (SD = 8.73),

ranging from 22 to 61. The professional experience ranged from 1 year to 40 years with a

mean experience of 13.95 years (SD = 8.87). All participants were employed at the time of

data collection.

Measures

All measures used in this study are based on applied and validated scales.

Transformational leadership

To measure transformational leadership, we applied the revised and extended German

version (Felfe and Goihl, 2002) of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ 5x Short)

(Bass and Avolio, 1995). Despite some critiques, the MLQ is a generally accepted instrument

in leadership research (Tejada, Scandura, and Pillai, 2001). In addition to the original items
which are idealized influence (attributed and behavior), inspirational motivation,

individualized consideration and intellectual stimulation suggested by Bass (1985) the

German revised and extended version encompasses additional items explicitly capturing

charisma. The final transformational leadership scale consists of 24 items. All variables are

measured on 7-point Likert-scales (1=fully disagree, 7=fully agree).

Individual creativity

Amabile (1983, 1988) developed what is likely the most well-known model of employees

creativity. As the theory of this research draws on this model, we measure individual

creativity with a modified version of the well-known instrument developed by Zhou and

George (2001) which is based on Amabiles work. Contrary to Zhou and George, we do not

rely on supervisor ratings; in fact, we asked the individual employees to rate their own

creativity. The 13 items were measured on 7-point Likert-scales (1=fully disagree, 7=fully

agree).

Dependency on the leader

The measure of dependence on the leader is based on the instrument developed by Kark,

Shamir, and Chen (2003). Within this instrument, 10 items addressing individual dependence

on the leader as well as aspects of dependency on the team level. In the context of our study,

we adopt 8 items addressing individual dependence on the leader and slightly change these.

The 8 items were measured on 7-point Likert-scales (1=fully disagree, 7=fully agree).

Achievement motives

The Achievement Motives Scale (AMS; Gjesme and Nygard, 1970) is a well-established

scale to assess hope of success and fear of failure (Heckhausen, 1991). This study applies a

revised German short-version of the AMS that has provided an adequate fit to the
theoretically intended two-factor model in several studies (Lang and Fries, 2006). The 10

items were measured on 7-point Likert-scales (1=fully disagree, 7=fully agree).

Methods and data analysis

In this study, we apply a non-parametric approach to structural equation modeling (SEM),

namely partial least squares (PLS) SEM (Chin, 1998), utilizing the software SmartPLS 2.0

(Ringle, Wende, and Will, 2005). While there are many reasons to favor one SEM technique

over the other, we applied PLS since it is particularly well suited to our at least to some extent

exploratory, theory-building research involving new constructs, measures and relationships

and since it suits particularly well when testing for interaction effects (Mitchell, Mitchell, and

Smith, 2008).

RESULTS

Descriptive statistics and evaluation of measurement model

Before analyzing the hypothesized relationships, the reliability and validity of the

measurement model has to be ensured. Even after decades of research on transformational

leadership, little consensus exists in literature about the exact components comprising

transformational leadership (for reviews see Avolio, Bass, and Jung, 1999; Lowe, Kroeck, and

Sivasubramaniam, 1996; Felfe, 2006). Against this background, we conducted a factor

analysis (principal axis with promax rotation method), which showed that the construct has a

one-dimensional structure (only two items from different theoretical components loaded

higher on a second factor and were removed). After eliminating those two items of the

transformational leadership scale and one item of the dependency scale which had a low

correlation with the respective other items, the measurement model shows satisfactory

reliability and validity. Table 1 summarizes means, standard deviations, Cronbachs alpha

values, composite reliability, and AVE, and correlations among all study variables. All

Cronbachs alpha values exceed the acceptable limit of .7, set by earlier researchers (e.g.,
 Nunnally, 1978). Additionally, all composite reliabilities (threshold .7) and values for average

variance extracted (AVE) (threshold .5) are around or exceed the threshold values set forth by

prior studies (Chin, 1998). Finally, all factor loadings exceed the recommended level of .5

(Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, and Tatham, 2006), verifying the posited links among

indicators and constructs, and thus show convergent validity. For evidence of discriminant

validity, we initially applied principal axis factoring (PAF) with promax rotation method. The

PAF combined all items of the exogenous and endogenous multi-item latent variables and

reveals the factor number as well as structure derived from theory, and arranges the posited

links among indicators and constructs, indicating convergent and discriminant validity.

Additionally, we examined bivariate correlations between factors. No inter-factor correlation

is above the critical level of .7 (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2007). Multicollinearity was also

tested using a VIF-index. A typical threshold value for the VIF-index is 10, and in this study

the value for each independent variable is below 1.7, suggesting that multicolinearity is not an

issue in this study. At the same time, we verified that for each latent variable, the average

variance extracted by its measure is larger than its shared variance with any other latent

variable (Fornell and Larcker, 1981), which underlines discriminant validity.

Table 1. Means, standard deviations, Cronbachs alphas, composite reliabilities, and correlations among the
constructs
Construct Mean SD Cronbachs Composite AVE 1. 2. 3. 4.
alpha reliability
1. Dependency 2.50 1.23 .90 .92 .62 -/-
2. Fear of Failure 3.19 1.3 .88 .91 .72 .26*** -/-
3. Transformational 4.27 1.53 .98 .98 .68 .50*** .03 -/-
leadership
4. Hope of Success 6.10 .71 .88 .91 .68 -.27*** -.22*** -.10 -/-
5. Individual 5.67 .93 .96 .96 .65 -.32*** -.31*** -.02 .49***
creativity
***p < .001 **p < .01 *p < .05 p < .1 (two-sided test)
Evaluation of structural models and testing of hypotheses

We present our analysis hierarchically by calculating two different models. In the mediated

model, the independent variables account for 13 percent of the variance in individual

creativity and 26 percent of the variance in dependency on the leader. The direct effect of

transformational leadership on individual creativity has a significant positive value (.20; p <

.001), supporting hypothesis 1a. Supporting hypotheses 1b and 1c, transformational

leadership positively affects (.51; p < .001) dependency, while the latter negatively influences

(-.42; p < .001) individual creativity, underlining the importance of acknowledging that the

effect of transformational leadership on creativity is circumvented by its dependency

enhancing effect. In line with this suggestion, the total effect of transformational leadership on

individual creativity is negative, but not significant (-.02; n.s.). A significant Sobel test result

(p < .001) underlines the assumption of a mediation effect and gives support to hypothesis 1d.

The second model adds the moderating effects of hope of success and fear of failure to the

mediation model. The three direct effects change only slightly. However, the detailed analysis

of the moderating effects helps to get the most valuable insights from the research. Against

hypotheses 2a and 3a, neither hope of success (-.04; n.s.) nor failure of failure (-.09; n.s.)

significantly affects the relationship between transformational leadership and individual

creativity. However, both moderators are of great importance with respect to the problematic

indirect negative effect of transformational leadership on creativity via the mediator

dependency. Supporting hypotheses 2b and 2c, hope of success (-.13; p < .01) negatively

moderates the linkage of transformational leadership and dependency as well as positively the

relationship between the latter and creativity (.30; p < .001). In line with hypothesis 3b, fear

of failure positively affects the relationship between transformational leadership and

dependency (.15; p < .01) and, in contrast to hypothesis 3c, positively affects the linkage of

dependency and creativity (.11; p < .1). In this model, the independent variables account for
38 percent of the variance in individual creativity and 38 percent of the variance in

dependency on the leader.

Table 2. Path coefficients from partial least squares analysis

Hypothesis Path from To Mediation Moderated
Model Mediation Model
Path Path
Coefficient Coefficient
H1a Transformational Individual -.20*** -.12***
leadership creativity
H1b Transformational Dependency -.51*** -.48***
leadership
H1c Dependency Individual -.42*** -.16***
creativity
Hope of success Dependency -.14***
Hope of success Individual -.37***
creativity
Fear of failure Dependency -.22***
Fear of failure Individual -.15***
creativity
H2a Transformational Individual -.04***
leadership X creativity
Hope of success
H2b Transformational Dependency -.13***
leadership X
Hope of success
H2c Dependency X Individual -.30***
Hope of success creativity
H3a Transformational Individual -.09***
leadership X creativity
Fear of failure
H3b Transformational Dependency -.15***
leadership X
Fear of failure
H3c Dependency X Individual -.11**
Fear of failure creativity
R2 .26 -.38***
Dependency
R2 .13 -.38***
Individual
creativity
***p < .001 **p < .01 *p < .05 p < .1 (one-sided test)

DISCUSSION

The present study aims to further explain the relationship between transformational

leadership and individual creativity. Based on theoretical reasoning, we argued that

transformational leadership leads to an increase in followers dependency on the leader and

that the latter may lead to a decrease in followers individual creativity, circumventing a

positive effect of transformational leadership on individual creativity. Empirical results

underline this assumption as the direct effect of transformational leadership is positive when

the mediating effect of dependency is partialled out. As hypothesized, our data reveal

significant relationships between transformational leadership and dependency as well as

between individual creativity. We integrated achievement motives such as hope of success

and fear of failure in the equation in order to countervail the increase of dependency caused

by transformational leadership and it negative effects on creativity. In addition, both

achievement motives turned out to do not have a significant moderating effect on

transformational leadership and creativity. Moreover, hope of success has a negative

significant moderating effect on dependency, which decrease dependency and a significant

positive effect on creativity, which enhance creativity. Furthermore, fear of failure has a

positive effect on dependency, thus increase dependency and a positive effect on creativity,

which enhances creativity. Therefore, on the one hand, hope of success counteract the

negative effects of dependency and has a positive effect on creativity and on the other hand,

fear of failure has a negative effect on dependency, but a positive effect on creativity. In line

with this, the positive and negative effects of fear of failure has no total positive nor negative

effect, because both moderating effects can compensate each other.

IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH AND PRACTICE

This study provide some interesting findings for researchers and practitioners. The

empirical results show that a positive effect of transformational leadership on creativity is

reduced through dependency on the leader. This finding contributes to the ongoing discussion

of leadership styles. We offered an explanation for the nontrivial relationship between

transformational leadership and individual creativity by integrating dependency and by

revealing the moderating effect of hope of success and fear of failure. The results of the
present study are generally consistent with existing interactionist approaches to creativity

(Amabile, 1987; Woodman and Schoenfeldt, 1989; Oldham and Cummings, 1996) suggesting

that the managerial practice should consider both contextual factors such as leadership styles

and personal factors such as achievement motives to increase creativity in organizations. In

sum, when transformational leaders aim to increase individual creativity, they also should

consider dependency on the leader as well as hope of success and fear of failure.

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

Several limitations that illuminate meaningful directions for future research deserve a deeper

discussion. Our cross-sectional data do not permit causal inferences about the longitudinal

interplay between the variables applied in this study. A longitudinal design, where the

transformational leadership style, hope of success, fear of failure, dependency and creativity

are measured at different points in time could give additional insights. On the one hand, Zhou

and George (2001) argue that to analyse employees creativity it is better to ask supervisors to

rate the level of creativity of each employee to avoid a self-serving bias, but on the other

hand, it could also be that a supervisor do not like one employee and therefore rate his level of

creativity bad, thats why we decided to let every employee rate the creativity by himself.

Anyhow, objective measures like number of new products developed could have been

adopted, but this could have been very difficult, because every department within a company

has different opportunities to show creative performances. Despite its widely accepted

importance, it has to be acknowledged that creativity is only the first step toward

organizational innovation. Although employees creativity may not always lead to the

successful implementation of creative ideas at the organizational level, it often provides the

starting point for such innovation (Zhou and George, 2001). Against this background and

consistent with the creativity literature (e.g., Amabile, 1988), the present study focused on

creativity at the individual level, instead of focusing on organizational innovation, or the

implementation of employees creative ideas at the organizational level. Nevertheless,

addressing the implementation of employees creative ideas or organizational innovation,

respectively in future studies may further develop our understanding of fostering and

impeding factors in the interface of leadership and innovation.

REFERENCES

Amabile, T. M. (1983). The Social Psychology of Creativity. New York, Springer.

Amabile, T. M. (1987). The motivation and creativity: Effects of motivational orientation on

creative writers, Journal of personality and social psychology, 48: 393-399.

Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In B. M.

Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.). Research in organizational behavior, 10, 123-167.
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Avolio, B. J., Bass B. M., and Jung, D. I. (1999). Re-examining the components of
transformal and transactional leadership using the multifactor leadership questionnaire,
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 441-462.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership performance beyond expectation. New York: Academic

Press.

Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the

vision, Organizational Dynamics, 19-31.

Bass, B. M. (1997). Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend

organizational and national boundaries?, American Psychologist, 52 (2), 130-139.

Bass, B. M., and Avolio, B. J. (1995). MLQ Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Technical
report. Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden.

Bass, B. M., and Bass, R. (2008). The Bass Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and
Managerial Applications (4th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.

Basu, R., and Green, S. G. (1997). Leader-member exchange and transformational

leadership: An empirical examination of innovative behaviors in leader-member dyads,
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27 (5), 477-499.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.

Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. In
G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern Methods for Business Research, 295-336. Mahwah, New
Jersey: Laurence Erlbaum Associates.

Conger J. A., and Kanungo, R. N. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory and
practice, The Academy of Management Review, 13 (3), 471-482.

Farmer, S., Tierney, P., and Kung-Mcintyre, K. (2003). Employee creativity in Taiwan: An
application of role identity theory, Academy of Management Journal, 46 (5), 618-630.

Felfe, J. (2006). Validierung einer deutschen Version des Multifactor Leadership

Questionnaire (MLQ Form 5 X Short), Zeitschrift fr Arbeits- und
Organisationspsychologie, 50 (2), 61-78.

Felfe, J., and Goihl (2002). Deutsche berarbeitete und ergnzte Version des "Multifactor
Leadership Questinnaire" (MLQ). In A. Glckner-Rist (Ed.), ZUMA Informationssysteme.
Elektronisches Handbuch sozialwissenschaftlicher Erhebungsinstrumente Version 5.00,
Frankfurt/Main.

Ford, C. M. (1996). A theory of individual creative action in multiple social domains,

Academy of Management Review, 21 (4), 1112-1142.

Fornell, C., and Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with
unobservable variables and measurement error, Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (1), 39
50.

Garca-Morales, V. J., Llorns-Montes, F. J., and Verd-Jover, A. J. (2008). The effects of

transformational leadership on organizational performance through knowledge and
innovation, British Journal of Management, 19, 299-319.

Gjesme, T., and Nygard, R. (1970). Achievement-related motives: Theoretical considerations

and construction of a measuring instrument, unpublished manuscript, University of Oslo.

Gumusluoglu, L., and Ilsev, A. (2007). Transformational leadership, creativity, and

organizational innovation, Journal of Business Research, 62 (4), 461-473.

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., and Tatham, R.L. (2006). Multivariate
data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Heckhausen, H. (1991) Motivation and action. New York: Springer-Verlag.

House, R. J. 1977. A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. Hunt & L. Larson

(Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge, 189-207. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University
Press.

Janssen, O., and Yperen van, N. W. (2004). Employees goal orientations, the quality of
leader member exchange, and the outcomes of job performance and job satisfaction,
Academy of Management Journal, 47 (3), 368-384.
Jaussi, K. S., and Dionne, S. D. (2003). Leading for creativity: The role of unconventional
leader behavior, The leadership quarterly, 14, 475-498.

Kark, R., Shamir, B., and Chen, G. (2003). The two faces of transformational leadership:
Empowerment and dependency, Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (2), 246-255.

Kets de Vries, M. F. (1988). Origins of charisma: Ties that bind the leader and the led. In J.
A. Conger & R. N. Kanungo (Eds.), Charismatic leadership, 237-252. San-Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.

Lang, J., and Fries, S. (2006). A revised 10-item version of the achievement motives scale:
Psychometric properties in German-speaking samples, European Journal of Psychological
Assessment, 22, 216-224.

Liao, H., Liu, D., and Loi, R. (2010). Looking at both sides of the social exchange coin: A
social cognitive perspective on the joint effects of relationship quality and differentiation on
creativity, Academy of Management Journal, 53 (5), 1090-1109.

Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., and Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness of correlates of

transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature,
The Leadership Quarterly, 7 (3), 385-425.

Maslow, A. (1942). A theory of human motivation, Psychological Review, 50, 370-396.

McClelland, D. C., Atkinson, J. W., Clark, R. A., and Lowell, L. (1953). The achievement
motive. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Mitchell, R. K., Mitchell, J. R., and Smith, J. B. (2008). Inside opportunity formation:
Enterprise failure, cognition, and the creation of opportunities, Strategic Entrepreneurship
Journal, 2, 225242.

Mumford, M. D., Scott, G. M., Gaddis B., and Strange, J. M. (2002). Leading creative
people: Orchestrating expertise and relationships, The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 705-750.

Nunnally J. (1978). Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Oldham, G. R., and Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual
factors at work, Academy of Management Journal, 39 (3), 607-634.

Pillai, R., Schriesheim, C. A., and Williams, E. S. (1999). Fairness perceptions and trust as
mediators for transformational and transactional leadership: A two-sample study, Journal of
Management, 27 (6), 897-933.

Redmond, M. R., Mumford, M. D., and Teach, R. (1993). Putting creativity to work: Effects
of leader behavior on subordinate creativity, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 55, 120-151.

Ringle, C., Wende, S., and Will, A. (2005). Smart-PLS 2.0, University of Hamburg,
Hamburg.
Shamir, B. (1991). The charismatic relationship: Alternative explanations and predictions,
The Leadership Quarterly, 2 (2), 81-102.

Shin, J. S., and Zhou, J. (2003). Transformational leadership, conservation, and creativity:
Evidence from Korea, Academy of Management Journal, 46 (6), 703-714.

Singer, M. S., and Singer, A. E. (2001). Situational constraints on transformational versus

transactional leadership behavior, subordinates leadership preference, and satisfaction, The
Journal of Social Psychology, 130 (3), 385-396.

Tabachnick, B. G., and Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. Boston, MA:
Pearson.

Tejeda, M.J., Scandura, T.A., and Pillai, R. (2001). The MLQ revisited. Psychometric
properties and recommendations, The Leadership Quarterly, 12, 31-52.

Tierney, P., and Farmer, S. M. (2002). Creative self-efficacy: Potential antecedents and
relationship to creative performance, Academy of Management Journal, 45 (6), 1137-1148.

Tsai, W., Chen, H., and Cheng, J. (2009). Employee positive moods as a mediator linking
transformational leadership and employee work outcomes, The International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 20 (1), 206-219.

Wang, H., Law, K. S., Hackett, R. D., Wang, D., and Chen, Z. X. (2005). Leader-Member
Exchange as a mediator of the relationship between transformational leadership and followers
performance and organizational citizenship behavior, Academy of Management Journal, 48
(3), 420-432.

Weber, M. (1947). The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. Glencoe, Illinois: Free
Press.

Woodman, R. W., and Schoenfeldt, L. F. (1989). Individual differences in creativity: An

interactionist perspective. In J. A. Glover, R. R. Ronning, & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook
of creativity. 77-92. New York: Plenum Press.

Yammarino, F. J., and Dubinsky, A. J. (1994). Transformational leadership theory: Using

levels of analysis to determine boundary conditions, Personnel Psychology, 47, 787-811.

Yukl, G. A. (1998). Leadership in Organizations (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall.

Zhou, J., and George, J., M. (2001). When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity:
Encouraging the expression of voice, Academy of Management Journal, 44 (4), 682-696.