Empirical analysis of roles of perceived leadership styles and trust on team members’ creativity:...

earo

ee

heoAlthpirity.ity.nu

their initiating structure had a positive inuence on trust in both the leader and the organization. On

develnnovated to wMoreoe ferti

characterized by rapid innovation and fast-growing competitionwith increasingly higher stakes. For these reasons and more, crea-tivity in the ICT industry is one of the most interesting elds ofresearch.

Among organizational researchers, it is believed that leadershipstyle affects team members in various ways: e.g., performance;

e proposed a dya-rs perceptions ofrs creativiin building

bers creativity within organizations and to reveal how succetwo contrasting dichotomies of leadership features supportforms of trust. For empirical investigation of members crein organizations, we surveyed the employees of various ICT compa-nies in Korea who hold jobs requiring creativity.

This paper is organized as follows. Section 2 contains a briefoverview of related works suggested in our model and lays outour proposed hypotheses. In Section 3, the study methodologyand statistical analyses are presented. Finally, we discuss ourresults and offer concluding remarks.

Corresponding author.E-mail addresses: [email protected] (N.Y. Jo), [email protected]

(K.C. Lee), [email protected] (D.S. Lee), [email protected] (M. Hahn).

Computers in Human Behavior xxx (2014) xxxxxx

Contents lists availab

Computers in Hu

evially in the long-running, worldwide patent war. Their core contro-versial points are design, device user interface mechanisms andwireless technology patents, all of which are highly creative soft-ware assets. In this way, software trends in the ICT industry are

based on the theories set forth in prior research, wdic model of trust with antecedents of membeleaders behavior styles and their effect onmembestudy attempted to shed light on the role of trusthttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.0150747-5632/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Jo, N. Y., et al. Empirical analysis of roles of perceived leadership styles and trust on team members creativity: Evfrom Korean ICT companies. Computers in Human Behavior (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.015ty. Thismem-ssfullydyadicativitytechnology service, characterized by software-driven contents,produced Web 2.0 and SNS (Social Networking Service). Further,we see the desperate competition between involved parties, suchas two of the worlds major smartphone manufacturers, Appleand Samsung Electronics, who compete with each other continu-

Much past evidence has revealed the relationship between specicleadership paradigms and creativity, but few studies have discussedthe mediating role of trust between members creativity and theirperceptions of leaders two distinctive behavior patterns (i.e., rela-tionship anchored leadership and task-anchored leadership). Thus,1. Introduction

Recently, we have seen dramaticand innovation in the ICT industry. Iin the manufacturing industry have lthe second half of the 20th century.ware makes the industry even morthe other hand, while trust in the organization had a signicant positive inuence on members creativity,trust in the leader did not have a signicant inuence on team members creativity.

2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

opments in technologyions and reengineeringidespread prosperity inver, the power of soft-le. For example, smart

commitment, and creativity (Amabile, Schatzel, Moneta, & Kramer,2004; Amabile, Schazel, & Moneta, 2004; Bock et al., 2008; Madjar,Oldham, & Pratt, 2002; Scott & Bruce, 1994; Tierney, Farmer, &Graen, 1999, Tierney & Farmer, 2002). Together with leadershiptypes, howmediating andmoderating factors affect teammemberscreativity have been favorite topics in prior research (i.e., George &Zhou, 2007; Gumusluoglu & Ilsev, 2009; Zhang & Bartol, 2010).Trust in organizationCreativity

employees working in ICT companies to validate empirical evaluations of leadership styles (considerationand initiating structure), trust, and creativity. The results showed that both leaders consideration andEmpirical analysis of roles of perceived lon team members creativity: Evidence f

Nam Yong Jo, Kun Chang Lee , Dae Sung Lee, MinhSKKU Business School, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul 110-745, Republic of Korea

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Available online xxxx

Keywords:Leaders considerationLeaders initiating structureTrust in leaders

a b s t r a c t

This research proposes a tteam members creativity.research, relatively few emand team members creativence on members creativbehavioral styles and the i

journal homepage: www.elsdership styles and trustm Korean ICT companies

Hahn

retical model linking the role of trust to perceived leadership styles andough much attention has been given to trust in the eld of organizationalical investigations have been conducted on the relationship between trustWe examined the relationship between two types of trust and their inu-Additionally, we investigated the members perceptions of their leadersences of these on leader trust and organizational trust. We surveyed 350

le at ScienceDirect

man Behavior

er .com/locate /comphumbehidence

1978; Bass, 1985) and servant leadership (Greenleaf, 1998) havebeen developed, showing a shift in research interest. Further,

manresearchers are becoming more attracted to the study of how orga-nizational performance is driven by leadership styles. In fact, thestyles hold complementary positions, and there is a practicalemphasis on both appreciation and consideration of followers.However, these studies have distinct controversial variations: theservant leadership paradigm places much more emphasis on ser-vice on follows and service to followers, and gain[ing] inuencein a nontraditional manner (Stone et al., 2004).

In the prior creativity literature, there have been numerous dis-cussions of specic leadership styles and their inuences on mem-bers creativity (Amabile, Schatzel, Moneta, & Kramer, 2004;Amabile, Schazel, & Moneta, 2004; George & Zhou, 2007; Shalley& Gilson, 2004). In those studies, leaders styles are considered toaddress the nature of creative works. Typically, transformationalleadership and empowering leadership are understood as havinga signicant inuence on individuals creativity by emphasizingemployees self-inuence processes and by actively encouragingthem to develop self-direction and self-motivation (Pearce & Sims,2002). Fewer research studies have compared distinctly differentleadership styles as antecedents that inuence members beliefsor attitudes; thus, we recommend the use of a dyadic model tostudy leadership in order to reveal its overall effectiveness withinthe context of creativity research.

2.2. Leadership and trust

Trust is dened as a willingness to depend on another party(Ganster, Fusilier, & Mayes, 1986) and as an expectation that theother party will reciprocate if one cooperates. Another well knownconcept of trust is that of the willingness to accept vulnerability,based on positive expectations of the intentions or behaviors of an-other (Madjar & Ortiz-Walters, 2009). For the past four decades,many researchers have recognized the importance of employeestrust in their leaders. Trust can exist on various levels: individual;organizational, and inter-organizational. Trust in leaders is relatedpositively to organizational citizenship behaviors, employee satis-faction, and performance (Jung & Avolio, 2000; Pillai, Schriesheim,& Wailliams, 1999). In most organizations, employees perceptionsof their leaders abilities are an essential factor in trusting them.Employees are not willing to trust in their leaders unless they ex-pect them to be capable of fullling an expected role (Whitener,Brodt, Korsgaard, & Werner, 1998).2. Research model and hypotheses

2.1. Leadership styles

In the historical context of the leadership literature, the earlystages of study focused on situational aspects of leadership. Itmoved next to focus on organizational performance (Stone, Russell,& Patterson, 2004). The Ohio State University (OST) leadershipstudies of 1957 represent the quintessential situational studies.This research focused on two major characteristics of leadership:(a) consideration for employees and relationship and (b) initiatingstructure dealing with tasks (Stone et al., 2004). Other subsequentstudies emphasized two contrasting dichotomies of leadership fea-tures concerning: (a) people and (b) production (Blake & Mouton,1964; Likert, 1961, 1967). These studies shared similar conceptsof leadership, in that the relationship is held between people andthe product is task output.

Lately, the paradigms of transformational leadership (Burns,

2 N.Y. Jo et al. / Computers in HuIn past leadership studies, transformational and charismaticleaders were thought to build trust in their followers (Kirkpatrick& Locke, 1996; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990).

Please cite this article in press as: Jo, N. Y., et al. Empirical analysis of roles of pefrom Korean ICT companies. Computers in Human Behavior (2014), http://dx.do2.3. Trust and creativity

The generally accepted idea of mutual trust is considered to be afactor in the success of innovations; however, prior research on therelationship between trust and creativity remains largely inconclu-sive (Bidault & Castello, 2009). Recently, some researchers havestudied the relationship between trust and creativity at the organi-zational, as well as the individual level. For example, in the organi-zational unit of analysis, trust can inspire creativity signicantly,regardless of its conceptual dimension (e.g., goodwill trust andcompetence trust; Brattstrma, Lfstenb, & Richtnra, 2012);stronger team trust does not yield signicant optimal productionof creative ideas, even though it does exert a benecial effect onteam performance (Langfred, 2004; Sinaceur, 2010) while mutualtrust has a positive inuence on creativity in R&D teams (Chen,Chang, & Hung, 2008).

In other studies at the individual unit of analysis, members in ateam with high levels of trust tend to conform better to the team,in the sense that they are reluctant to express diverse thoughts,question the current organizational situation, or openly opposeother members ideas (Ford, 1996; Lewicki & Bunker, 1996). Fur-ther, a study on cognition-based trust in supervisors and its linkto employees creativity produced contrary results when it wasmoderated by the valence of followers emotions (e.g., positive ornegative; George & Zhou, 2007).

As stated above, prior studies above the relationship betweenHypothesis 4. The members perception of leaders high initiatingstructure lead to their strong trust in organization.Hypothesis 3. The members perception of leaders high consider-ation lead to their strong trust in organization.Hypothesis 2. The members perception of leaders high initiatingstructure lead to their strong trust in the leaders.Recently, however, there is a general consensus that trust seemsto develop when a leaders behavior is more open and supportive(Carnevale & Probst, 1998). As a whole, employees perceptionsthat their leaders have trustworthy attributes is an important mea-sure of leaders effectiveness (Hogan, Curphy, & Hogan, 1994), andthe consideration dimension of a leaders behavior is regarded asan important measure of howwell that leader fullls his or her role(Fleishman & Harris, 1962). Moreover, from the perspective of theperception of the leaders character and its effect on followers vul-nerabilities in a hierarchical relationship (e.g., Mayer, Davis, &Schoorman, 1995), it is evident that trust-related concerns abouta leaders character are important because the leader has theauthority to make decisions that have signicant effects on follow-ers and their abilities to achieve goals (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002).

As we have seen, various studies have highlighted the impor-tant link between a leadership paradigm and trust within an orga-nization (Jung & Avolio, 2000; Pillai et al., 1999; Whitener et al.,1998). However, few of these studies address specically in thesame model the relationship between the classical members per-ceived leadership behaviors (i.e., leaders consideration and lead-ers initiating structure) and their trust toward leadersconcurrent with organization itself. Thus, we propose the followingalternative hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1. The members perception of leaders high consid-eration lead to their strong trust in the leaders.

Behavior xxx (2014) xxxxxxtrust and creativity are largely inconclusive with respect to thedimension of trust and its role as a mediator. Therefore, it isworthwhile to investigate the role of trust in the workplace where

rceived leadership styles and trust on team members creativity: Evidencei.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.015

members are highly required to present their creativity in perform-ing their job. Thus, we proposed the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 5. The high degree of members trust in leaders leadsto high level of their creativity.

Hypothesis 6. The high degree of members trust in organizationleads to high level of their creativity.

Fig. 1 depicts our research model and hypotheses, wherein weexamine leadership types in ICT companies and their effects onmembers creativity and mediating effect of trust in leaders andorganization.

3. Research methodology

we did not distinguish between leader, supervisor andmanager; rather, we used the terms interchangeably (i.e., leaderand supervisor/manager) because that is how they are referred tofrequently in the literature (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002) as well as inreal-life organizations. In addition, we adopted the measures forperception of leadership styles in Bock et al. (2008), which wereadopted for the study under virtual community context from theoriginal instruments used in the OSU study (1957; Hinkin & Sch-riesheim, 1989). Then, we modied them slightly to increase rele-vance to the context of off-line organization (e.g., My leaderensures that his/her part in the community is understood by themembers).

Researchers have previously developed various measures fortrust (Bromiley & Cummigs, 1993; Cook & Wall, 1980; Podsakoffet al., 1990; Rotter, 1967). Considering our specic interest in truststarget, themeasures should be got along with both leader and orga-

N.Y. Jo et al. / Computers in Human Behavior xxx (2014) xxxxxx 33.1. Research setting and descriptions

Survey data were collected by a well-known major commercialresearch agency in Korea. The target population for our study wascomprised specically of members who were working in ICT com-panies; thus, the agency distributed the survey requests via e-mailto target groups listed in its database. These survey requests in-cluded statements of survey objectives and guides for response.The e-mail had a link to the website that hosted the questionnaire,so that the responses could be stored electronically in theirdatabase.

Each respondent had been working for an ICT company formore than two years; however, we could not obtain the exactcounts of respondents afliations, because we told them to ll thatinformation optionally. The number of initial respondents was 365,but we concluded with 350 respondents [N (male) = 292; (fe-male) = 58] after removing insincere respondents.

The age range was considerable, with 54.0% of respondents intheir thirties, 24.0% in their twenties, 20.9% in their forties, andonly 1.4% in their fties. The majority of the respondents workedin areas that demanded high creativity (i.e., 26.0% were R&D staff;22.2% were requirement and system analysts; 18.3% were consul-tants; 16.3% were IT planning staff, and the remainder was occu-pied in other creative jobs). Respondents reported that theaverage tenure of their jobs was 7.0 years (SD = 5.5).

3.2. Measures

We developed questionnaire items by adapting existing mea-sures from prior studies (see Table 1). In measuring leadership,Fig. 1. Hypothes

Please cite this article in press as: Jo, N. Y., et al. Empirical analysis of roles of pefrom Korean ICT companies. Computers in Human Behavior (2014), http://dx.donization. The Organizational Trust Inventory (Nyhan & Marlowe,1997) is a reliable and valid collection of 12 items for our purpose,in that it has been developed to measure the relationship betweena leadership and trust in leader or organization (Joseph & Winston,2005). The instrument uses a seven-point Likert scale anchored bynearly zero and nearly 100%, and respondents were requiredto ll in the name of their supervisors in the rst blank space of eachitem when measuring their trust of their leaders. However, weadopted a seven-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree;7 = strongly agree) for all items without the leaders name.

A 13-item measure was adopted to assess the level of memberscreativity from Zhang and Bartol (2010). However, there is a differ-ence in survey subjects in that former study gave the measure to asupervisor to assess his/her members creativity, whereas we gaveit to members to asses themselves. Table 1 lists all of the nal mea-surement items.

3.3. Methods

In the individual creativity literature, the role of trust, such astrust in leader and trust in organization, is still in the early stagesof investigation. Specically, our research model consisted of pre-dictors, mediators and dependents, which are latent variables con-sisting of reective indicators. Thus, the structural equation model(SEM) was employed to test our research hypotheses in a simulta-neous analysis. SEM is regarded as advantageous over traditionalregression methods in analyzing causal paths in the diagrams withlatent variables and multiple indicators (Gefen, Rigdon, & Straub,2011). In particular, we considered whether to select the formerbetween two most widely used types of SEM: PLS (Partial Leastized model.


manTable 1Operationalization of variables.

Item References

Members perception of leadersconsideration

Bock et al. (2008)

Members perception of leadersinitiating structure

Trust in leader Nyhan and Marlowe (1997)

Trust in organization

4 N.Y. Jo et al. / Computers in HuSquares) and CBSEM (Covariance based SEM). According to Gefenet al. (2011), the two approaches are chosen based on the followingfour considerations: (1) the purpose of employing the method (e.g.,theory testing and development or predictive application); (2) dis-tributional assumptions to avoid bias; (3) research objectives (e.g.,exploratory or conrmatory), and (4) measurement scales (forma-tive and reective). In the history of SEM research, the reasons foradopting PLS over CBSEM have been cited as: small sample sizes;data that are not normally distributed; employment of formativemeasures; focus on prediction; complex model; exploratory re-search, and theory development (Ringle, Sarstedt, & Straub,2012). Although both approaches can be applied to our research,we decided to adopt PLS, focusing on its strength in exploratorytests of the relationship of trust based on weaker theoretical sup-port (Gefen, Straub, & Boudreau, 2000). We used the SmartPLS2.0.M3 package (Ringle, Wende, & Will, 2005) to examine our mea-surements and the PLS model, which is accessible at http://www.smartpls.de.

4. Results

4.1. Measurement model validation

We rst conducted PLS analysis to examine item reliability. Atotal of ve constructs was included: two constructs of

Members creativity Zhang and Bartol (2010), Shin and Zhou(2003)

Please cite this article in press as: Jo, N. Y., et al. Empirical analysis of roles of pefrom Korean ICT companies. Computers in Human Behavior (2014), http://dx.doMeasurement items

PLC1-My leader dose personal favors for the member

PLC2-My leader nds time to listen to the memberPLC3-My leader is friendly and approachablePLC4-My leader makes the members feel at ease when talking with them

PLI1-My leader schedules the task to be done

PLI2-My leader makes sure that his/her part in the organization is understoodby membersPLI3-My leader lets the members know what is expected of themPLI4-My leader sees to it that the tasks of the members are coordinated

TL1-My leader is technically competent at the critical element of his or her jobTL2-My leader will make well thought out decisions about his or her jobTL3-My leader has acceptable level of understanding of his/her jobTL4-My leader will follow through on assignmentsTL5-My leader will be able to do his/her job in an acceptable mannerTL6-When my leader tells me something, I can rely on what he/she tells meTL7-My leader does the job without causing other problemsTL8-My leader will think through what he/she is doing on the job

TO1-This organization will treat me fairlyTO2-Supervisor and worker in this organization trust each otherTO3-The people I work with on a regular basis trust each other

Behavior xxx (2014) xxxxxxmembers perceptions of leadership styles; two constructs oftrust, and one measure of creativity. Any items, including con-structs, were dropped if they fell below the value of insignicantitem loadings (Chu, Hsiao, Lee, & Chen, 2004). Items loadingsshould be greater than 0.5 to ensure item reliability (Hasan &Ali, 2007; Janz & Prasarnphanich, 2003). In our factor loadings,no item had a value lower than 0.5. In addition, the lowest Cron-bachs alpha values we obtained for any indicator was greaterthan 0.844, exceeding the recommended value of 0.7 (Nunnally,1978). Thus, the overall measurement items loadings demon-strated adequate reliability.

Furthermore, to conrm the reliability and validity of themeasurement data, we performed a conrmatory factor analysis.In the reliability test, the smallest of the composite reliabilitieswas 0.895, and all values of AVEs (Average Variance Extracted),which should have been at least 0.5, were greater than 0.608(Bagozzi & Yi, 1988). Next, we assessed discriminant validity bycomparing the correlation between two factors and the squareroot of the AVE value of each factor (Bock et al., 2005). Table 3shows that the square roots of AVE for each construct weregreater than the correlation involving the constructs. Finally, allcorrelations were sufciently below 0.712, which is less thanthe cutoff value of 0.8 (Bryman & Cramer, 1994), indicating thepresence of multicollinearity. Thus, the data in our experimentswere reliable and valid.

TO4-We can depend on each other in this organization

CR1-Suggests new ways to achieve goals or objectives

CR2-Comes up with new and practical ideas to improve performanceCR3-Searches out new technologies, processes, techniques, and/orproduct ideasCR4-Suggests new ways to increase qualityCR5-Is a good source of creative ideasCR6-Is not afraid to take risksCR7-Promotes and champions ideas to othersCR8-Exhibits creativity on the job when given the opportunity toCR9-Develops adequate plans and schedules for the implementationof new ideasCR10-Often has new and innovative ideasCR11-Comes up with creative solutions to problemsCR12-Often has a fresh approach to problemsCR13-Suggests new ways of performing work tasks


4.2. The structural model with results

After assessing the measurement model, we performed a boot-strapping procedure with 1000 sub-samples, as is suggested byHair, Anderson, Tatham, and Black (1998), in order to examinethe statistical signicance of each path coefcient using a t-test.The variance explained (R2) in the endogenous variables and theregression coefcients signicance served as indicators of themodels quality (Chin, 1998). The results of the analysis are shownin Fig. 2. The R2 value of trust in leaders (i.e. 0.484) indicates thatthe independents explains an adequate amount of variance in thismodel (Huang, 2009). Both members perceptions of their leadersconsideration (PLC) and members perceptions of their leaders ini-tiating structure (PLI) signicantly inuenced trust in leader with

organization inuenced members creativity signicantly. There-fore, from the standpoint of trust, it appears that only trust inthe organization mediates leadership styles and members creativ-ity successfully.

The rst key nding in our research is the pioneering focus onthe relationship between perceived leaders behavior and trust inthe organization as antecedents of individual creativity. The resultsshowed that the style of the leaders behavior positively inuencedboth members trust in the leader (i.e., individual level) and trust inthe organization (i.e., organizational level). Most research that hastried to reveal the relationship between trust and leadership hasfocused on the facilitating role of leadership in developing trustin the leader, which describes the interpersonal outcomes betweenleader and member (Avolio & Bass, 1995; Casimir, Waldman,

N.Y. Jo et al. / Computers in Human Behavior xxx (2014) xxxxxx 5path coefcient of 0.281 (p < 0.01) and 0.467 (p < 0.01) for each.Thus, both hypotheses 1 and 2 were supported.

Likewise, the R2 value of trust in organization (i.e. 0.254) indi-cates the independents accounted for a considerable amount ofthe variance in trust in organization. Again, both paths from PLCand PLI to trust in organization were statistically signicant witheach coefcient value of 0.231 (p < 0.01) and 0.312 (p < 0.01). Thus,hypotheses 3 as well as 4 were supported.

Finally, the R2 value of members creativity indicates that themediators accounted for 22.8% of variance in the dependent con-struct, however only trust in organization was signicantly relatedto members creativity with the path coefcient of 0.445 (p < 0.01).The path from trust in leader to members creativity was not signif-icant with value of -0.035 (p > 0.1). Accordingly, hypothesis 6 wassupported but hypothesis 5 was not supported. The paths from PLCand PLI to members creativity were not signicant in the struc-ture. However, when we ran separate PLS in subdivided models(Baron & Kenny, 1986), we found trust in organization fully medi-ated leaders initiating structure and members creativity. Thus, wedid not further conduct Sobels test (1982, 1986) to investigate par-tial mediating effect. Tables 24 summarize our test results.

5. Discussion

The results of this study help us better understand the role ofmembers trust, their antecedents on the subject of perceived lead-ership and their inuence on members creativity within the con-text of Korean ICT companies. In addition, our ndings suggest amodication to the classical two-factor theory of leaders behaviorby introducing the factor of members trust target (Amabile, Schat-zel, Moneta, & Kramer, 2004; Amabile, Schazel, & Moneta, 2004;Fleishman, 1953). Our ndings address the fact that members per-ceptions of the leaders consideration and initiating structure bothhave positive effects on trust in the leader and trust in the organi-zation; however, between the two trust targets, only trust in theFig. 2. Results of the

Please cite this article in press as: Jo, N. Y., et al. Empirical analysis of roles of pefrom Korean ICT companies. Computers in Human Behavior (2014), http://dx.doBartram, & Yang, 2006; Podsakoff et al., 1990). Given that the valueof R2 for trust in leader was higher than that of trust in organiza-tion (0.484 > 0.254) and the coefcient values were stronger inthe path to trust in the leader (0.281 > 0.231 from leaders consid-eration, and 0.467 > 0.312 from leaders initiating structure), mem-bers perceptions of the leaders behavior strongly inuence theirtrust in the leader, which supports prior research. However, ourstudy contributes to the literature, in that members perceptionsof their leaders behavior also inuenced their trust in the organi-zation signicantly. This result is important in the study of individ-ual creativity because trust in the organization was revealed to bethe only signicant antecedent for members creativity within thecontext of ICT companies.

Further, we found that the links from trust in leader and trust inorganization to members creativity were counterintuitive. Inter-estingly, when the target of members trust was the leader, theinuence on the members creativity was not signicant, eventhough it was more strongly developed by an increasing positiveperception of leaders behavior styles. In contrast, when the objectof the members trust was the organization, the relationship wassignicant and positive. Considering that the relationship betweentrust and creativity remains largely inconclusive in prior research,this nding is worthy of note, in that the environmental feature oftrust may be a more robust factor in increasing individual creativ-ity. Indeed, in prior research, when trust referred to the mutualrelationship between the member and leader only, the effect oftrust on creativity was complex and inconclusive. The results de-pended on moderators in some models and in other models, therewas an inverted U-shaped curve showing a maximum level rela-tionship between trust and creativity (Bidault & Castello, 2009;George & Zhou, 2007). However, our results on the relationship be-tween trust in the organization and members creativity (b = 0.445,p < 0.01) is more consistent with prior literature when we considerthat the organization has an environmental feature (Amabile,Schatzel, Moneta, & Kramer, 2004; Amabile, Schazel, & Moneta,structural model.


din

11.046 0.844 0.895 0.685

manTable 2Results of reliability and factor analyses.

Construct Indicator Item loa

Members perception of leaders consideration PLC1 0.797PLC 2 0.888PLC 3 0.925PLC 4 0.890

Members perception of leaders initiating structure PLI1 0.633PLI2 0.887PLI3 0.897PLI4 0.864

Trust in leader TL1 0.830TL2 0.892TL3 0.844TL4 0.888TL5 0.849TL6 0.862TL7 0.779TL8 0.882

Trust in organization TO1 0.809

6 N.Y. Jo et al. / Computers in Hu2004; Madjar & Ortiz-Walters, 2009; Oldham & Cummings, 1996;Scott & Bruce, 1994). For example, Amabile et al. (2004) focusedon leadership and its effect on the work environment with respectto subordinates creative performance; Madjar and Ortiz-Walters(2009) discussed how team trust inuences team creativity posi-tively, in that discussing a trusting environment encourages indi-viduals to be more willing to take risk[s] by sharing informationand co-operating with others. Thus, although there is a notable dif-ference between the two types of trust and members creativity,we infer cautiously that members creativity is related more closelyto trust in the organization as a whole rather than to memberstrust in their leaders; members who perceive task-oriented leader-ship tend to trust the organization and other members more, andtherefore perform creative tasks better.

Our results have managerial implications for organizationsdependent on creative output. Our study indicates the need topay attention not only to relational orientation, but also to meth-ods to initiate members into performing tasks, as the link to trustin them appears more effective, but is not effective in inducingmembers creativity. Therefore, we recommend that relationship-oriented and task-oriented trust should be balanced. Next, consid-

TO2 0.835TO3 0.885TO4 0.853

Followers creativity CRE1 0.830CRE2 0.830CRE3 0.792CRE4 0.834CRE5 0.831CRE6 0.541CRE7 0.607CRE8 0.765CRE9 0.772CRE10 0.805CRE11 0.838CRE12 0.800CRE13 0.830

Table 3Correlations of latent variables and AVEs.

PLC

Members perception of leaders consideration 0.876Members perception of leaders initiating structure 0.712Trust in leader 0.613Trust in organization 0.454Followers creativity 0.271

Note: Values on the italicized diagonal are the square roots of the AVEs.

Please cite this article in press as: Jo, N. Y., et al. Empirical analysis of roles of pefrom Korean ICT companies. Computers in Human Behavior (2014), http://dx.do60.69260.67851.031

38.946 0.947 0.956 0.72967.28943.05957.51832.61056.79426.41161.981

27.559 0.867 0.910 0.716g T-statistic Cronbachs alpha Composite reliability AVE

27.824 0.898 0.929 0.76857.714107.20968.723

Behavior xxx (2014) xxxxxxering the fact that our survey targeted members of ICT organiza-tions (e.g., 26% R&D staff and 22.2% requirement and systemanalysts, etc.), it helps managers understand the process by whichcreativity is revealed in individuals who are working on limitedprojects. In those organizations, the leaders role tends to be towork temporarily until projects are completed, which results intrust in the organization rather than trust in a temporal leader. Thisseems to be salient to members in yielding creativity. Thus, suchleaders should make greater efforts to build more collaborative,sustainable and trustworthy organizations.

6. Concluding remarks

In summary, we proposed a research model to demonstrate therelationships between members perceived leadership styles andtheir creativity. Further, trust targeted toward dyadic objects wasalso introduced to reveal the role of members trust. Although re-cent studies have investigated a specic leadership style (e.g.,transformational leadership and transactional leadership), we sug-gested a classical approach to perceived leaders behavior, with

28.35148.18737.259

43.868 0.945 0.952 0.60846.42232.85649.33342.7029.91313.89817.03826.81735.87047.59834. 85541.509

PLI TL TO CRE

0.8270.667 0.8540.477 0.551 0.8460.271 0.274 0.472 0.780


ongo theongeir scref th

manrelationship-oriented and task-oriented leadership juxtaposed toreveal the role of trust more clearly, a relationship that is stillinconclusive in the existing creativity literature. Thus, trust in lea-der and trust in organization were introduced specically for thispurpose.

By conducting PLS analysis on the survey data, which were col-lected from 350 employees working for Korean ICT companies, wefound that: (1) members perceptions of leaders consideration andleaders initiating structure affected trust in both leader and orga-nization concurrently; (2) nevertheless, between the two, onlytrust in the organization inuenced members creativity signi-cantly; (3) in our proposed model, the path starting from leadersinitiating structures mediated by trust in the organization en-hanced members creativity more effectively. From these results,we conclude cautiously that employee creativity is better encour-aged by building trust in an organization characterized by its workenvironmental feature. To take advantage of these ndings, leadersshould balance themselves between task-oriented and relation-ship-oriented leadership styles in an environment of creative worksuch as that in ICT companies. Industries like ICT are highly depen-dent on fast growing, cutting-edge technology, creative ideas andinnovation in order to be optimally competitive in the global mar-ket. The ndings of this study provide managers as well asresearchers with implications on how to enhance members crea-tivity in this environment. We hope that this study will help thembetter understand the relationships among leaders behavior, trusttarget and creativity revelation.

There are several limitations we would like to point out, aswell as suggestions for future research. First, a partial mediatingrole of the trust we expected to nd between leadership andmembers creativity could not be revealed in this study. Althoughthere have not been sufcient studies to support a direct link be-tween leadership and creativity, we expected to nd such a rela-tionship in our exploratory study. Nonetheless, we contend thatthis result may be distinct to the context of organizations thatconsist of temporal leaders. Thus, in future research, we suggestan organizational comparative study to investigate clearlywhether or not leaders behavior inuences members creativitydifferently in an environment of temporal leadership. Further,trust in the leader did not have a signicant inuence on mem-

Table 4Results of hypothesis testing.

Hypotheses

H1: The members perception of the leaders high consideration leads to their strH2: The members perception of the leader leads high initiating structure lead tH3: The members perception of the leaders high consideration leads to their strH4: The members perception of the leaders high initiating structure leads to thH5: The high degree of members trust in their leader leads to high level of theirH6: The high degree of members trust in their organization leads to high level o

N.Y. Jo et al. / Computers in Hubers creativity in our study. This result may also be due to thefeatures of a project-based organization that features temporalleadership. Finally, with regard to prior research, it could be ar-gued that there may be a curvilinear relationship between trustin the leader and members creativity or moderating factorsmay exist that would make the relationship signicant. Thus,we recommend that researchers conduct tests in various typesof organizations and validate moderating variables in continuedefforts to generalize the effects of trust.

Acknowledgment

This work was supported by the National Research FoundationGrant funded by the Korean Government (NRF-2009-342-B00015).

Please cite this article in press as: Jo, N. Y., et al. Empirical analysis of roles of pefrom Korean ICT companies. Computers in Human Behavior (2014), http://dx.doReferences

Amabile, T. M., Schatzel, E. A., Moneta, G. B., & Kramer, S. J. (2004). Leader behaviorsand the work environment for creativity: Perceived leader support. LeadershipQuarterly, 15(1), 532.

Amabile, T. M., Schatzela, E. A., & Moneta, G. B. (2004). Leader behaviors and thework environment for creativity: Perceived leader support. The LeadershipQuarterly, 15(1), 522.

Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1995). Individual consideration viewed at multiple levelsof analysis: A multi-level framework for examining the diffusion oftransformational leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 199218.

Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models.Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 7494.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderatormediator variable distinction insocial psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statisticalconsiderations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 11731182.

Bidault, F., & Castello, A. (2009). Trust and creativity: Understanding the role of trustin creativity-oriented joint development. R&D Management, 39(3), 259270.

Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managerial grid. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing.Bock, G., Ng, W., & Shin, Y. (2008). The effect of a perceived leaders inuence on the

motivation of the members of nonwork-related virtual communities. IEEETransactions on Engineering Management, 55(2), 292303.

Bock, G.-W., Zmud, R. W., Kim, Y.-G., & Lee, J. N. (2005). Behavioral intentionformation in knowledge sharing: Examining the roles of extrinsic motivators,social-psychological forces, and organizational climate. MIS Quarterly, 29(1),87111.

Brattstrma, A., Lfstenb, H., & Richtnra, A. (2012). Creativity, trust and systematicprocesses in product development. Research Policy, 41(4), 743755.

Bromiley, P., & Cummigs, L.L. (1993). Organizations with trust: Theory andmeasurement. In Paper presented at the 53rd annual meeting of the academy ofmanagement. Atlanta, GA.

Bryman, A., & Cramer, D. (1994). Quantitative data analysis for social scientists. NewYork: Routledge.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free

Press.Carnevale, P. J., & Probst, T. M. (1998). Social values and social conict in creative

problem solving and categorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,74(5), 13001309.

Casimir, G., Waldman, D. A., Bartram, T., & Yang, S. (2006). Trust and therelationship between leadership and follower performance: Opening theblack box in Australia and China. Journal of Leadership and OrganizationalStudies, 12(3), 6884.

Chen, M. H., Chang, Y. C., & Hung, S. C. (2008). Social capital and creativity in R&Dproject teams. R&D Management, 38(1), 2134.

Chin, W. W. (1998). Issues and opinion on structural equation modeling. MISQuarterly, 22(1), 716.

Chu, P. Y., Hsiao, N., Lee, F. W., & Chen, C. W. (2004). Exploring success factors forTaiwans Government electronic tendering system: Behavioral perspectivesfrom end users. Government Information Quarterly, 21(2), 219234.

Cook, J., & Wall, T. L. (1980). New work attitude measures of trust, organizationalcommitment, and personal need non-fulllment. Journal of Occupational

Results

trust in the leaders Supportedir strong trust in the leaders Supportedtrust in organization Supportedtrong trust in organization Supportedativity Not supportedeir creativity Supported

Behavior xxx (2014) xxxxxx 7Psychology, 53(1), 3952.Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, L. D. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic ndings and

implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4),611628.

Fleishman, E. A. (1953). The description of supervisory behavior. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 37(1), 16.

Fleishman, E. A., & Harris, E. E. (1962). Patterns of leadership behavior related toemployee grievances and turnover. Personnel Psychology, 15(1), 4356.

Ford, C. M. (1996). A theory of individual creative action in multiple social domains.Academy of Management Review, 21(4), 11121142.

Ganster, D. C., Fusilier, M. R., & Mayes, B. T. (1986). Role of social support in theexperience of stress at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(1), 102110.

Gefen, D., Straub W. D., & Boudreau, M. (2000). Structural equation modeling andregression: Guidelines for research practice. Communications of the Associationfor Information Systems, (7:7, August), pp. 178.

Gefen, D., Rigdon, E. E., & Straub, D. (2011). An update and extension to SEMguidelines for administrative and social science research. MIS Quarterly, 35(2),iiixiv.


George, J. M., & Zhou, J. (2007). Dual tuning in a supportive context: Jointcontributions of positive mood, negative mood, and supervisory behaviors toemployee creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 50(3), 605622.

Greenleaf, R. K. (1998). The power of servant-leadership. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Gumusluoglu, L., & Ilsev, A. (2009). Transformational leadership, creativity, andorganizational innovation. Journal of Business Research, 62(4), 461473.

Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate dataanalysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NK: Prentice-Hall.

Hinkin, T. R., & Schriesheim, C. A. (1989). Development and application of newscales to measure the French and Raven (1959) bases of social power. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 74(4), 561567.

Hogan, R., Curphy, G. J., & Hogan, J. (1994). What we know about leadership:Effectiveness and personality. American Psychologist, 49(6), 493504.

Huang, C. (2009). Knowledge sharing and group cohesiveness on performance: Anempirical study of technology R&D teams in Taiwan. Technovation, 29(11),786797.

Janz, B. D., & Prasarnphanich, P. (2003). Understanding the antecedents ofeffectiveness knowledge management: The importance of a knowledge-centerculture. Decision Sciences, 34(2), 351384.

Joseph, E. E., & Winston, B. E. (2005). A correlation of servant leadership, leadertrust, and organizational trust. Leadership & Organization Development Journal,26(1), 622.

Jung, D. I., & Avolio, B. J. (2000). Opening the black box: An experimentalinvestigation of the mediating effects of trust and value congruence ontransformational and transactional leadership. Journal of OrganizationalBehavior, 21(8), 949964.

Kirkpatrick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. (1996). Direct and indirect effects on three corecharismatic leadership components on performance and attitudes. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 81(1), 3651.

Langfred, C. W. (2004). Too much of a good thing? Negative effects of high trust and

Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextualfactors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39(3), 607634.

Pearce, C. L., & Sims, H. P. Jr., (2002). Vertical versus shared leadership as predictorsof the effectiveness of change management teams: An examination of aversive,directive, transactional, transformational, and empowering leader behaviors.Group Dynamics Theory Research and Practice, 6(2), 172197.

Pillai, R., Schriesheim, C., & Wailliams, E. (1999). Fairness perceptions and trust asmediators for transformational and transactional leadership: A two samplestudy. Journal of Management, 25(6), 897933.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990).Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers trust inleader satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior. Leadership Quarterly,1(2), 107142.

Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., &Will, S. (2005), SmartPLS 2.0 (M3) Beta, Hamburg. .

Ringle, C., Sarstedt, M., & Straub, W. D. (2012). A critical look at the use of PLS-SEMin MIS quarterly. MIS Quarterly, 36, iiixiv.

Rotter, J. B. (1967). A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust. Journalof Personality, 35(4), 651665.

Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A pathmodel of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of ManagementJournal, 37(3), 580607.

Shalley, C. E., & Gilson, L. L. (2004). What leaders need to know: A review of socialand contextual factors that can foster or hinder creativity. Leadership Quarterly,15, 3353.

Shin, S. J., & Zhou, J. (2003). Transformational leadership, conservation, andcreativity: Evidence from Korea. Academy of Management Journal, 46(6),703714.

Sinaceur, M. (2010). Suspending judgment to create value: Suspicion and trust innegotiation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(3), 543550.

8 N.Y. Jo et al. / Computers in Human Behavior xxx (2014) xxxxxxindividual autonomy in self-managing teams. Academy of Management Journal,47(3), 385399.

Lewicki, R. J., & Bunker, B. B. (1996). Developing and maintaining trust in workrelationships. In R. M. Kramer, & T. R. Tyler (Eds.). Trust in organizations:Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 114139). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Likert, R. (1961). New patterns of management. New York: McGraw-Hill.Likert, R. (1967), The human organization: Its management and value. New York:

McGraw-Hill.Madjar, N., Oldham, G. R., & Pratt, M. G. (2002). Theres no place like home? The

contributions of work and nonwork creativity support to employees creativeperformance. Academy of Management Journal, 45(4), 757767.

Madjar, N., & Ortiz-Walters, R. (2009). Trust in supervisors and trust in customer:Their independent, relative, and joint effects on employee performance andcreativity. Journal of Human Performance, 22(2), 128142.

Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model oforganization trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709734.

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Nyhan, R. C., & Marlowe, H. A. Jr., (1997). Development and psychometric

properties of the organizational trust inventory. Evaluation Review, 21(5),614635.Please cite this article in press as: Jo, N. Y., et al. Empirical analysis of roles of pefrom Korean ICT companies. Computers in Human Behavior (2014), http://dx.doSobel, M. E. (1982). Suspending asymptotic condence intervals for indirect effectsin structural equation models. Sociological Methodology, 13, 290312.

Sobel, M. E. (1986). Some new results on indirect effects and their standard errors incovariance structure models. Sociological Methodology, 13, 159186.

Stone, A. G., Russell, R. F., & Patterson, K. (2004). Transformational versus servantleadership: A difference in leader focus. Leadership & Organization DevelopmentJournal, 25(4), 349361.

Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2002). Creative self-efcacy: Potential antecedents andrelationship to creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6),11371148.

Tierney, P., Farmer, S., & Graen, G. (1999). An examination of leadership andemployee creativity: The relevance of traits and relationships. PersonnelPsychology, 52(3), 591620.

Whitener, E. M., Brodt, S. E., Korsgaard, M. A., & Werner, J. M. (1998). Managers asinitiators of trust: An exchange relationship framework for understandingmanagerial trustworthy behavior. Academy of Management Review, 23(3),513530.

Zhang, X., & Bartol, K. M. (2010). Linking empowering leadership and employeecreativity: The inuence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation,and creative process engagement. Academy of Management Journal, 53(1),107128.rceived leadership styles and trust on team members creativity: Evidencei.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.015

Empirical analysis of roles of perceived leadership styles and trust on team members creativity: Evidence from Korean ICT companies1 Introduction2 Research model and hypotheses2.1 Leadership styles2.2 Leadership and trust2.3 Trust and creativity

3 Research methodology3.1 Research setting and descriptions3.2 Measures3.3 Methods

4 Results4.1 Measurement model validation4.2 The structural model with results

5 Discussion6 Concluding remarksAcknowledgmentReferences

Empirical analysis of roles of perceived leadership styles and trust on team members’ creativity:...

Documents

Transcript of Empirical analysis of roles of perceived leadership styles and trust on team members’ creativity:...