THE INFLUENCES OF ANTECEDENTS ON … · THE INFLUENCES OF ANTECEDENTS ON EMPLOYEE CREATIVITY AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE: A META-ANALYTIC REVIEW ... Psychological empowerment is conceptualized

ijcrb.webs.com

INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS

COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 984

JUNE 2012

VOL 4, NO 2

THE INFLUENCES OF ANTECEDENTS ON EMPLOYEE CREATIVITY

AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE: A META-ANALYTIC REVIEW

Li-Yueh Lee*

Department of International Trade, Kun Shan University, Taiwan

No. 949, Da-Wan Rd., Yong-Kang District, Tainan City 71003, Taiwan

Emmelia Tan

International Business Department, Chinese Culture University, Taiwan 55, Hwa-Kang Road, Yang-Ming-Shan, Taipei 11114, Taiwan

*Corresponding Author: Li-Yueh Lee Department of International Trade, Kun Shan University, Taiwan

No. 949, Da-Wan Rd., Yong-Kang District, Tainan City 71003, Taiwan

Abstract The purpose of this study is to investigate what conditions can promote the creative performance of

employees in the workplace. Notwithstanding lack of previous empirical studies linking between

employee’s supervisor, psychological empowerment, innovative climate and organizational support to

employee creativity and performance, this study attempts to integrate the results of 57 related studies

that have examined in cross-level organizations from the year 1990-2011 by using the meta analytic

technique. Employee creativity and performance are good, when there are high quality relationships

between the employee and his/her supervisor. Likewise, psychological empowerment contributes

significantly to employee creativity and performance. Additionally, organizational support and

innovative climate moderate the effect of leader and psychological empowerment on employee

creativity and employee performance.

Keywords: creativity, work performance, leader member exchange, Psychological

empowerment, Innovative climate, and organizational support

1. Introduction

1.1. Research background

Creativity has become increasingly valued across a variety of tasks, jobs, and industries. In a dynamic work

environment, more and more managers are realizing that they need their employees to be actively involved

in their work and exhibit creative behaviors in order to remain competitive (Mumford et al., 2002).

Nowadays, understanding the dynamics of creativity in organizations is a high priority in organizational

behavior research (Zhou & Shalley, 2008).

According to Amabile (1998), individual creativity is classified by three components: expertise, creative-

thinking skills, and motivation. Managers can influence these components-for better and worse-through

workplace practices and conditions. Expertise and creative-thinking skills are more difficult and time

consuming to achieve than motivation. Intrinsic motivation stimulates high level of persistence and creative

effort in work contexts where creativity is clearly valued. While some theories of creativity suggest that

creative work is primarily sustained by intrinsic motivation (Amabile, 1998), emerging research evidence

suggests that extrinsic rewards can complement intrinsic motivation.

Several recent studies of leadership have examined the influence of leaders on employees’ creative

behaviors. Followers’ creativity achievement is likely to be mediated primarily by their degrees of

psychological involvement in creative processes (Carmeli & Schaubroeck, 2007). In linking to creativity,

theoretical have suggested that psychological empowerment, in turn, makes a critical contribution to

employee creativity by positively affecting an employee’s intrinsic motivation (Amabile et al., 1996;

Spreitzer, 1995). Psychological empowerment is conceptualized as an experienced psychological state or

set of cognitions (Zhang & Bartol, 2010). Therefore, this study aims to test the potential impact of person-

supervisor fit, supervisor support, LMX, and psychological empowerment to employee creativity and

ijcrb.webs.com



JUNE 2012

VOL 4, NO 2

employee performance by using the systematic and quantitative meta-analytic review from cross-level

organizations. Simultaneously, the indirect effects of innovative climate and organizational support that

contribute significantly to employee creativity and performance in the workplace are evaluated accordingly.

1.2. Research objective

Based on the above research motivation, the objectives of this study are: (1) to investigate the antecedents

of employee creativity and employee performance; (2) to investigate the positive influence of person-

supervisor fit, supervisor support and LMX to psychological empowerment; and (3) to investigate the

influence of employee creativity on employee performance.

2. Literature review and hypotheses development

2.1. Employee creativity

Creativity is not only generated from the overall firm strategy and access to resources but more

fundamentally from the minds of the individual employees, alone or with others, carrying out the work of

the organization every day. Creativity is derived from an individual’s accumulated creative thinking skills

and expertise based on their formal educations and past experiences (Amabile, 1998; Gong et al., 2009;

Tierney et al., 1999). How necessary to which employees will produce creative-novel and useful-ideas

depends not only on their individual characteristics but also on the work environment that they believe

around them (Amabile et al., 1996).

Creativity is important to organizations because creative contributions can not only help organizations

become more efficient and more responsive to opportunities, but also help organizations adapt to change,

grow and compete in the global market. Researchers have mentioned that some level of creativity is needed

in almost any job (Shalley, Gilson, & Blum, 2000; Unsworth, 2001; Ford & Gioia, 2000). Specifically,

creativity influences innovation implementation. For example, when considering the tasks performed by

R&D professionals, employee creativity is desirable and necessary. Shalley and Gilson (2004) further

indicated that even for the jobs of cashiers or assembly line workers, an incremental change in how work

cans done efficiently is still dependent on employ creativity.

2.2. Employee performance

Employee work performance is multidimensional and critical for organizational success (Dyne, et al., 2002)

and effectiveness (Ohly & Frizt, 2010). Work performance is described as “synonymous with behavior it is

what people do that can be observed and measured in terms of each individual’s experience or level of

contribution” (Pulakos et al., 2000, p. 612). George and Jones (2008) further indicated that performance can

be viewed as an evaluation of the results of a person’s behavior which includes determining how well or

poorly a task has been completed.

Performance provides a comprehensive picture of subordinate workplace behavior (Kacmar, Collins, Harris

& Judge, 2009), therefore several researchers have carried out studies on job performance behaviors with

regard to supervisor rated task performance (Andrews, Kacmar, & Harris, 2009), organizational citizenship

behavior ( Andrew, et al., 2009; Borman & Motowidlo, 1997; Kacmar, et al., 2009), and contextual

performance (Borman & Motowidlo, 1997).

2.3. Person-supervisor fit, supervisor support and LMX

The match between characteristics of individuals and their work environments is commonly connected to as

person-environment fit (P-E fit). A last form of P-E fit that exists in the dyadic relationships between

individuals and their supervisors is likely to impact both employee motivation and organizational

effectiveness (Kristof-Brown, et al., 2005; Lee et al., 2010; Werbel & Johnson, 2001). The fundamental of

person-supervisor fit (P-S fit) is to create organizational values and individual employees’ perceptions of

working environment.

Supervisor characteristics may be an important factor influencing employees’ behaviors and attitudes (Van

Vianen, et al., 2010). If employees feel that their values fit with their leaders, this may make them feel

satisfied with their job and work environment (Wexley, Alexander, Greenawalt, & Couch, 1980). The

componential theory of creativity helps achieve as the theoretical basis for the claim that supervisor’s

support “exerts and influence on subordinates’ creativity through direct help with the project, the

development of subordinates expertise, and the enhancement of subordinate intrinsic motivation” (Amabile

et al., 2004, p.6).

ijcrb.webs.com



JUNE 2012

VOL 4, NO 2

Moreover, theory and research have noted that an influential way to energize the workplace and increase

involvement in the job is through high-quality interpersonal relationships (Dutton, 2003). Relationships

between leader and subordinate have been examined in leader member exchange (LMX) literature (Liden et

al., 1997). And some studies have focused on relationship between leader-member exchange and creativity

(Elkins & Kelles, 2003; Tierney et al., 1999). Therefore, the effects of positive consequences from person-

supervisor fit, supervisor support and LMX on employee creativity are investigated in this study. Thus the

following hypothesis is proposed:

Hypothesis 1: The degree of person-supervisor fit, supervisor support and LMX has a

positive influence on employee creativity.

Empirical studies provide suggesting evidence that person-supervisor fit is an important determinant of

long-term consequences for employee work performance (Kristof-Brown, et al., 2005). It is mentioned that

P-S fit would explain significant variance in job performance. Hence, supervisors should work on

encouraging and supporting their employees as well as developing fostering relationships. Several studies

of supervisory encouragement suggested that the role of projects managers or direct supervisors, especially

in goal clarity, open interaction, and supervisor support of a team’s work has a great impact on employee

performance (Joo, 2011).

Furthermore, leader member exchange (LMX) is a key view of leadership that emphasizes the quality of

relationship between leader and subordinate. Such relationship derived from work and emotional exchanges

and the quality connections should, more or less, be related to employee performance. Previous research has

demonstrated that the LMX quality is positively related to support and creates a sense of commitment in

individuals, who tend reciprocate through higher levels of performance (Joo, 2011). Thus the following

hypothesis is proposed:

Hypothesis 2: The degree or person-supervisor fit, supervisor support and LMX have a positive influence in

employee performance.

2.4. Psychological empowerment

Pieterse, van Knippenberg, Schippers, and Stam (2010, p. 613) indicated that “psychological empowerment

is a motivational construct originating in an employee’s perception of having choice in initiating and

regulating actions, having the ability to perform the job well (i.e., self-efficacy), being able to have an

impact on the environment, and the meaningfulness of the job.” Thomas and Velthouse (1990) defined

empowerment as an intrinsic motivation demonstrated in four cognitions reflecting an individual’s

orientation to his/her work role: meaning, competence, self-determination, and impact. Meaning is the part

of the job characteristics model which concerns a sense of individual’s work goal is important (Thomas &

Velthouse, 1990). Competence refers to self-efficacy specific to work or an individual’s belief in their

capacity to perform work activities with skill (Bandura, 1988; Gist, 1987; Spreitzers, 1995). Self-

determination is an individual’s perception of having choice in initiating and deciding on the work methods

used to carry out tasks (Deci et al., 1989; Spreitzer, 1995). Impact indicates “the degree to which an

individual’s behavior can influence the strategic, administrative, or operational outcome at work”

(Spreitzer, 1995, p.1443).

A key objective of psychological empowerment is to release the potential within employees to make a

positive change in their work roles, work units, or organization (Seibert et al., 2011). Empowerment is one

of the most important factors driving organizational effectiveness and individual task performance (Ahearne

et al., 2005), and it has the potential to positively influence outcomes that benefit both individual and

organizational outcome levels (Liden et al., 2000). This study defined psychological empowerment as the

process of putting employees in charge of an organization’s authority to make important decisions and to be

responsible to achieving their creativity and performance. Thus the following hypotheses are proposed:

Hypothesis 3: The degree of psychological empowerment has a positive influence on employee creativity.

Hypothesis 4: The degree of psychological empowerment has a positive influence on employee performance.

Spreitzer, Lam and Fritz (2008) concluded that a supportive, trusting relationship with one’s leader is an

important contextual antecedent of psychological empowerment. High Person-Supervisor fit perceptions

may ultimately lead to employees’ positive perceptions of empowerment based upon their individual

psychological response to their work environment (Kraimer et al., 1999; Van Vianen et al., 2010) and play

in shaping the work experience of followers (Liden et a.., 2010). Liu, Keller and Shih (2011) further

ijcrb.webs.com



JUNE 2012

VOL 4, NO 2

indicated that contextual factors such as organizational culture and top level support can be viewed as an

influencing empowerment.

Two key social relationships at work are those with superiors and subordinate have been used to examine in

leader member exchange (LMX) literature (Liden, Sparrowe, & Wayne, 1997). With an LMX approach

leaders are expected to provide the support and resources to subset of their subordinates. Higher levels of

decision-making influence and responsibility provide meaning, feelings of self-efficacy, a sense of impact,

and perceptions of self-determination that are defined as being key ingredients of empowerment (Thomas &

Velthouse, 1990; Spreitzer, 1995). Thus the following hypothesis is proposed:

Hypothesis 5: The degree of person-supervisor fit, supervisor support and LMX has a positive influence on psychological empowerment.

“Creative efforts lay the groundwork for creative performance in at least three ways: creative effort reflects

the extent to which the individual seeks new information and ideas, whether they explore new approaches

regardless of their difficulty, and the levels of persistence in this information searching process” (Hirst et

al., 2009, p. 966). Empirical study defined a link between creative efforts to foster creative performance.

Creative responses may include thinking up new procedures or processes for carrying out tasks, or

identifying products or services to better meet customer needs (Zhou & Shalley, 2008). It may also take the

form of refinements of existing procedures or processes to enhance efficiency or to look for alternative

procedures or processes that are more effective. According to Amabile et al., 1996, when employees exhibit

creativity at work, they generate novel responses that are useful in dealing with tasks at hand. Zhang and

Bartol (2010) found that there was a curvilinear relationship between creative process engagement and

employee overall job performance. Therefore, this study proposed that there is a positive influence of

employee creativity to employee performance. Thus the following hypothesis is proposed:

Hypothesis 6: The degree of employee creativity has a positive influence on employee performance.

2.5. Innovative climate

The climate concept has been described as employees’ perceptions of their organizations. The dominant

approach conceptualizes climate as employees’ shared perceptions of organizational events, practices, and

procedures (Patterson et al., 2005). It is assumed to be primarily descriptive rather than affective or

evaluative. The main purpose of an organizational climate study is to recognize the variables which result in

an organization’s ability to organize its workforce in order to achieve business goals and enhance

performance (Abbey & Dickson, 1983; Baer & Frese, 2003).

Research has found that structures of organization that promote open, ongoing contact with others or

information seeking from multiple sources were relates to creativity (Shalley et al., 2004). Justice and

fairness climate have to be in innovative climate. Fair context is one where individuals can focus on their

work. Component of procedural justice for instance, being able to participate in decision making and it

found to be a key process in enhancing innovation (West & Anderson, 1996). One of the keys to remain

competitive advantage for organizations is to promote the continuously innovative atmosphere to set in

movement in its internal processes, procedures, and capabilities (Merrifield, 2000; Chen & Huang, 2007).

Through formulating an innovative climate, employees are encouraged to think freely and communicate

their opinions and ideas openly, employees, thus, are more willing to interact with others for sharing

knowledge and creating thoughts (Edmondson, 1999; Jaw & Liu, 2003; Norrgren & Schaller, 1999). Chen

and Huang (2007, p.106) claimed that “an innovative climate will increase the social interaction among

organizational members.” Specifically, when innovative ideas occur to individuals, cooperation between

individuals becomes extremely important for developing and implementing these ideas (Jaw & Liu, 2003;

Sveiby & Simons, 2002). Such effective collaboration leads to competitive advantages of the firm (Gibson,

2001; Spender & Grant, 1996). Thus the following hypotheses are proposed:

Hypothesis 7a: The characteristics of innovative climate contribute significantly on employee creativity.

Hypothesis 7b: The characteristics of innovative climate contribute significantly on employee performance.

2.6. Organizational support

The concept of perceived organizational support (POS) originally introduced by Eisenberger et al. (1986) to

explain how the development of employee commitment to an organization can link to job performance

ijcrb.webs.com



JUNE 2012

VOL 4, NO 2

(Erdogan & Enders, 2007; Witt & Carlson, 2006) and reduce turnover (Loi et al., 2006). Eisenberger et al.

(1986, p. 501) suggested that “employees develop global beliefs concerning the extent to which the

organization values their contributions and cares about their well-being”. The general forms of perceived

favorable treatment received from organization (i.e., fairness, supervisor support, organizational rewards

and job conditions) should increase POS (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002).

Employee with high perceived support would be predicted loyalty and also be associated with

expectancies. Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002) in their meta-analysis found that POS positively related to

performance and expectancies such as opportunities for greater recognition, pay and promotion. And

employees may attempt to be creative when they perceive that creativity is valued and supported by an

organization (Scott & Bruce, 1994). This conditions make the potential risk associated with creativity is

minimized and perception of creative ideas being effective should be high (Madjar, 2008). Thus the

following hypotheses are proposed:

Hypothesis 8a: The characteristics of organizational support contribute significantly to employee creativity.

Hypothesis 8b: The characteristics of organizational support contribute significantly to employee performance.

3. Methodology

3.1. The research model and construct measurement

The conceptual framework in figure 1 describes the relationships between employee creativity and employee performance with its antecedents based on the literature review.

<Insert Figure 1 about here>

3.2. Procedure

This meta-analysis searched the acquired empirical studies in different scientific database in order to

identify the studies relevant to the research. This performed an extensive electronic and manual search

using the keywords of person-supervisor fit, supervisor support, leader member exchange, psychological

empowerment, innovative climate and organizational support to identify published articles, conference

papers, working papers and doctoral dissertations from sources as aforementioned in table 1.

<Insert Table 1 about here>

4. Analysis

All identified studies were examined and then determined the following relevant variables: authors, year,

journal, total sample size, the statistic measurement of each variable, and effect sizes. Two alternatives were

used for inclusion: (1) Correlational studies have to present the correlation coefficient (r) or the

standardized regression (beta) coefficient. Peterson and Brown (2005) investigated the empirical

relationship between simple correlation coefficients and standardized regression slopes as the effect-size

metric from published articles in behavioral journals. The result indicate that under certain conditions, using

knowledge of corresponding beta coefficients to input missing correlations (effect sizes) generally produces

relatively accurate population effect-size estimates; (2) Studies have to present the related statistic (t-test, p-

value) for the relationship between related variables. These statistics could be converted to effect size (r)

and Fisher Z effect using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (CMA) Software. Then comparing and combining

effect sizes and significance levels. In addition, this paper also incorporated those studies that provided only

the standardized regression (beta) coefficients using the formula suggested by Peterson and Brown (2005)

to estimate the correlations from the beta coefficients. The formula used is r = 0.98β + 0.05γ, where λ is a

variable that equals 1 when β is non-negative and 0 when β is negative.

There is also homogeneity analysis which tests whether the assumption that all of the effect sizes are

estimating the same population mean is a reasonable assumption. Homogeneity of the effect size

distribution was tested by the Q statistic proposed by Cochran and defined (Hedges, 1981; Hedges & Olkin,

1985) as,

2

)( TTwQ ii

ijcrb.webs.com



JUNE 2012

VOL 4, NO 2

where iw is the weighting factor for the ith study assuming a fixed-effects model, and

is defined as the usual estimate of a mean effect size consists of weighting every effect estimate,

,by its inverse variance, . Under the null hypothesis, the Q statistic is distributed as an asymptotic chi-

square with degree of freedom calculated by k - 1 where k is the total number of effect sizes. The null

hypothesis of the Q statistic is that the effect sizes are homogeneous. If Q values higher than critical point

for a given significance level (α) enable us to reject the null hypothesis and conclude there is statistically

significant between-study variation.

5. Results

The findings of this study prove all of the hypotheses. It shows all from 57 previous studies prove for the

influences of antecedents (including person-supervisor fit, supervisor support, leader member exchange,

psychological empowerment, innovative climate and organizational support) on employee creativity and

employee performance. Table 2 presents the results from integration of effect sizes of the variable. Reminds

as stated in Lipsey and Wilson (2001) for analyzing the magnitude of effect sizes (r < 0.10 as small; r =

0.25 as medium, and r > 0.40 as large effect size).

<Insert Table 2 about here>

Hypothesis 1 proposes that the degree of person-supervisor fit, supervisor support and LMX has a

positive influence on employee creativity. The results show coefficient correlation of these two variables is

0.383, which means these two variables have medium effect size. Hypothesis 2 proposes the degree of P-S

fit, supervisor support and LMX has a positive influence in employee performance. The results show

coefficient correlation of these two variables is 0.267, which means these two variables have medium effect

size. Hypothesis 3 proposes the degree of psychological empowerment has a positive influence on

employee creativity. The results show coefficient correlation of these two variables is 0.345, which means

these two variables have medium effect size. Hypothesis 4 proposes the degree of psychological

empowerment has a positive influence on employee performance. The results show coefficient correlation

of these two variables is 0.337, which means these two variables have medium effect size. Hypothesis 5

proposes the degree of P-S fit, supervisor support and LMX has a positive influence on psychological

empowerment. The results show coefficient correlation of these two variables is 0.486, which means these

two variables have large effect size. Hypothesis 6 proposes the degree of employee creativity has a high

positive influence on employee performance. The results show coefficient correlation of these two variables

is 0.413, which means these two variables have large effect size.

Hypothesis 7a proposes the characteristics of innovative climate contribute significantly on employee

creativity. The results show coefficient correlation of these two variables is 0.472, which means these two

variables have large effect size. Hypothesis 7b proposes the characteristics of innovative climate contribute

significantly on employee performance. The results show coefficient correlation of these two variables is

0.224, which means these two variables have small medium effect size. Hypothesis 8a proposes the

characteristics of organizational support contribute significantly to employee creativity. The results show

coefficient correlation of these two variables is 0.523, which means these two variables have large effect

size. Hypothesis 8b proposes the characteristics of organizational support contribute significantly to

employee performance. The results show coefficient correlation of these two variables is 0.359, which

means these two variables have medium effect size.

6. Conclusion

The study has integrated the quantitative research that exists in the workplace that should be of interest to

leaders within a framework of how leaders can manage their human resources to enhance employee

creativity and performance. The practical implications for day-to-day management of creative people

should be highlighted. First, across the empirical studies reviewed, individuals need to feel they are working

in supportive work environment. Second, leaders should communicate and support the goal or role

requirements of being creative in the workplace to employee and encourage them through the behaviors

leaders engage in creative ways. Third, organizational support and innovative climate develop employee’s

creativity in a collective endeavor and involves collaboration and interactions with others and help to

achieve his/her better performance at work.

To extend the findings of this study, there are some recommendations for future investigations. Future

research might examine leader in upper level from supervisor contribute significantly on employee

creativity and performance. Future research should examine whether the mediating of psychological

empowerment have significant influences between supervisor to employee creativity and performance. In

wiT

T

ijcrb.webs.com



JUNE 2012

VOL 4, NO 2

addition, future research should examine the moderating variables of organizational support and innovative

climate have significant influences between leader and psychological empowerment to employee creativity

and employee performance.

ijcrb.webs.com



JUNE 2012

VOL 4, NO 2

References

Abbey, A. & Dickson, J.W. (1994). R&D work climate and innovation in semiconductors. Academy of

Management Journal, 26, 362-368.

Ahearne, M., Mathieu, J., & Rapp, A. (2005). To empower or not to empower your sales force? An empirical examination of the influence of leadership empowerment behavior on customer satisfaction and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 945-955.

Amabile, T.M. (1998). How to kill creativity. Harvard Business Review, 76(5), 77-87.

Andrews, M.C., Kacmar, K.M., & Harris, K.J. (2009). Got political skill? The impact of justice on the importance of political skill for job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1427-1437.

Amabile, T.M., Conti R., Coon H., Lazenby J., & Herron M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. The Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1154-1184.

Baer, M., & Frese, M. (2003). Innovation is not enough: Climates for initiative and psychological safety, process innovations, and firm performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 45-68.

Bandura, A. (1988). Organizational applications of social cognitive theory. Australian Journal of Management, 13, 275-302.

Borman, W. C. & Motowidlo, S.J. (1997). Task performance and contaxtual performance: the meaning for personnel selection research. Human Performance, 10(2), 99-109.

Carmeli, A., & Schaubroeck J. (2007). The influence of leaders and other referents’ normative expectations on individual involvement in creative work. Leadership Quarterly, 18, 35-48.

Chen, C.J. & Huang, J.W. (2007). How organizational climate and structure affect knowledge management—The social interaction perspective. International Journal of Information Management, 27 (2), 104–118.

Deci, E.L., & Ryan R.M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268.

Dutton, J.E. (2003). Energize your workplace: how to build and sustain high-quality relationships at work. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA.

Dyne, L.V., Jehn, K.A. & Commings, A. (2002). Differential impacts of strains on two forms of work: Individual employee sales and creativity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 57-74.

Erdogan, B., & Enders, J. (2007). Support from the top: Supervisors' perceived organizational support as a moderator of leader-member exchange to satisfaction and performance relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 321-330.

Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I.L., & Rhoades, L. (2002). Perceived supervisor support: contributions to perceived organizational support and employee retention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 565-573.

Elkins, T.K., & Keller, R.T. (2003). Leadership in research and development organizations: A literature review and conceptual framework. Leadership Quarterly, 14(4/5), 587-606.

Erdogan, B., & Enders, J. (2007). Support from the top: Supervisors' perceived organizational support as a moderator of leader-member exchange to satisfaction and performance relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 321-330.

Gist, M.E. (1987). Self-efficacy: Implications for organizational behavior and human resource management. Academy of Management Review, 12, 472-485.

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(4), 765-778.

ijcrb.webs.com



JUNE 2012

VOL 4, NO 2

Hirst, G., van Dick, R., & van Knippenberg, D. (2009). A social identity perspective on leadership and employee creativity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 963–982.

Joo (Brian), B-K. (2011). Leader–member exchange quality and in-role job performance: The moderating role of learning organization culture. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 19(1), 25-34.

Kacmar, K. M., Collins, B. J., Harris, K. J., & Judge, T. A. (2009). Core self-evaluations and job performance: The role of the perceived work environment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1572-1580.

Kraimer, M.L., Seibert, S.E., & Liden, R.C. (1999). Psychological empowerment as a multidimensional construct: a test of construct validity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59(1), 127-142.

Kristof-Brown, A.L., Zimmerman, R., Johnson, E.C. (2005). Consequences of individuals’ fit at work: A meta-analysis of person–job, person–organization, person–group, and person–supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58, 281-342.

Liden, R.C., Sparrowe, R.T., & Wayne, S.J. (1997). Leader-member exchange theory: The past and potential for the future. In G. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol.15, pp.47-119). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Liden, R.C. & Wayne S.J. (2000). An examination of the mediating role of psychological the relations between the job, interpersonal relationships, and work outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3), 407-416.

Liu, Y., Keller, R. T. and Shih, H.A. (2011). The impact of team-member exchange, differentiation, team commitment, and knowledge sharing on R&D project team performance. R&D Management, 41(3), 274-287.

Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Madjar, N. (2008), Emotional and informational support from different sources and employee creativity.

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81, 83-100.

Merrifield, D. B. (2000). Changing nature of competitive advantage. Research Technology Management, 43(1),

41-45.

Mumford, M.D., Scott, G.M., Gaddis, B., & Strange, J.M. (2002). Leading creative people: Orchestrating expertise and relationships. Leadership Quarterly, 13(6), 705-750.

Ohly, S. & Fritz, C. (2010). Work characteristics, challenge appraisal, creativity, and proactive behavior: A multi-level study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 543-565.

Patterson, M.G., West M.A., Shackleton V.J., Dawson J.F., Lawthom R., Maitlis S., RobinsonD.L., & Wallace A.M. (2005). Validating the organizational climate measure: Links to managerial practices, productivity and innovation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 379-408.

Peterson, R. A., & Brown, S. P. (2005). On the use of beta coefficients in meta-analysis. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 90(1), 175-181.

Pieterse, A.N., van Knippenberg, D., Schippers, M., & Stam, D. (2010). Transformational and transactional leadership and innovative behavior: The moderating role of psychological empowerment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(4), 609–623.

Pieterse, A. N., van Knippenberg, D., Schippers, M. & Stam, D. (2010). Transformational and transactional

leadership and innovative behavior: The moderating role of psychological empowerment. Journal of

Organization Behavior, 31(4), 609-623.

Pulakos, E.D., Arad, S., Donovan, M.A., & Plamondon, K.E. (2000). Adaptability in the workplace: Development of a taxonomy of adaptive performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(4), 612-624.

Rhoades L., & Eisenberger R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychological, 87(4), 698-714.

ijcrb.webs.com



JUNE 2012

VOL 4, NO 2

Shalley, C. E., Gilson, L. L., & Blum, T. C. (2000). Matching creativity requirements and the work environment: Effects on satisfaction and intentions to leave. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 215-223.

Spreitzer, G.M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and

validation. Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38, No.5, 1442-1465.

Spreitzer, G.M. Lam, C.F. & Fritz, C. (2008). Engagement and human thriving: complementary perspectives

on energy and connections to work. In Bakker and Leiter (Eds.). Work Engagement: Recent developments

in theory and research. UK: Routledge.

Tierney, P., Farmer, S. M., & Graen, G. B. (1999). An examination of leadership and employee creativity: The relevance of traits and relationships. Personnel Psychology, 52, 591-620.

Thomas, K.W., & Velthouse, B.A. (1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment: An “interpretive” model of intrinsic task motivation. Academy of Management Review, 15(4), 666-681.

Unsworth, L. (2001). Teaching multiliteracies across the curriculum: Changing contexts of text and image in classroom practice. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Van Vianen, A.E.M., Shen, C.T., & Chuang, A. (2011). Person–organization and person–supervisor fits: Employee commitments in a Chinese context. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32, 906-926.

Werbel, J.D. & Johnson, D. (2001). The use of person–group fit for employment selection: A missing link in person–environment fit. Human Resource Management, 40, 227-240.

Wexley,K.N., Alexander, R.A., Greenawalt, J.P. & Couch, M.A. (1980). Attitudinal congruence and similarity as related to interpersonal evaluations in manager-subordinate dyads. Academy of Management Journal, 23, 320-330.

Witt, L. A., & Carlson, D. (2006). The work-family interface and job performance: Moderating effects of

conscientiousness and perceived organizational support. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11,

343-357.

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(1), 107-128.

Zhou, Jing, & Shalley, C.E. (2008). Handbook of organizational creativity, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Taylor & Francis Group.

ijcrb.webs.com



JUNE 2012

VOL 4, NO 2

Annexure

Figure 1. Conceptual framework

ijcrb.webs.com



JUNE 2012

VOL 4, NO 2

Table 1. Studies alphabetically by source and codes for hypotheses testsa,b

Ahearne, et al., 2005(SPV,PE,EP)2 Gong, Y., et

al.,2009(SPV,EC,EP)1 Randall, et al.,1999(EP,OS)5

Amabile, et al.,2004(SPV,EC)6 Gregory, et al.,2010(PE,EP)24 Raub S., & Robert

C.,2010(PE,EP)14

Anderson, N.R., & West,

M.A.,1998(EP,IC)5

Gumusluoglu, L. et

al.,2009(SPV,PE,EC,IC)10

Scott, S.G., & Bruce,

R.A.,1994(EC,IC)1

Aryee, S., & Chen,

Z.X.,2006(SPV,PE,EP)10 Hon, A.H.Y.,2010(SPV,EC)9

Seibert, et

al.,2011(SPV,PE,EC,EP,OS)2

Avolio, et al.,2004(PE,EP)5 Hosseini, et al.,2003(EP,IC)19 Shin, S.J., & Zhou,

J.,2003(SPV,EC)1

Bordin, et al.,2007(SPV,PE)18 Huang, M.et al.,2005(SPV,EP)8 Spreitzer,

G.M.,1995(PE,EC,EP,IC)1

Cakir S.G., & Guneri,

O.Y.,2011(EP,OS)20

Joo (Brian), B-

K.,2011(SPV,PE,EP)11 Spreitzer, G.M.,1996(EP,OS)1

Carmeli, A.et al.,2007(SPV,PE,EC)6 Jung, D.I., et al.,2003(EP,IC)6 Spreitzer, et al.,1999(PE,EC)5

Chen, C-J, & Huang, J-

W.,2007(EC,IC)13 Keller, R.T.,2007(EC,EP)23 Tierney, P.,1999(EC,IC)7

Chiang, C-F., & Hsieh, T-

S.,2012(EP,OS)9 Kraimer, et al.,1999(SPV,PE)15 Tierney, P.et al.,2004(SPV,PE,EC)4

Cooke, W.N., & Meyer

D.G.,2008(EP,IC)25

Kristof-Brown, et

al.,2005(SPV,EP)3 Van Vianen, et al.,2011(SPV,PE)5

Dawley, et al.,2008(SPV,EP,OS)16 Liden, R.C. et

al.,2000(SPV,PE,EP)2 Van Scooter, Jet al.,2000(EC,EP)2

De Dreu, C.K. & West

M.A.,2001(EC,IC)2 Luthans, et al.,2008(EP,IC)5 Vilela, et al.,2008(SPV,EP)22

Eisenberger, et al.,2002(EC,OS)2 Mathieu, et

al.,2006(SPV,PE,EC)1 Wei, F., et al.,2010(SPV,PE,EC)17

Erdogan, B.,& Bauer,

T.N.,2009(PE,EC)2

Ng, Thomas W.H.et

al.,2009(EC,EP)7

Yoon, J., & Lim, J-

C.,1999(EP,OS)14

Ergeneli, et al.,2007(SPV,PE)10 Oldham, G. R.et

al.,1996(SPV,EC,EP)1

Yun Lin, C.,et

al.,2012(SPV,EC,OS)12

Farmer, S.M., et al.,2003(PE,EC,OS)1 Patterson, et al.,2005(EC,IC)7 Zhang, X., &

B.K.M.,2010,study1(PE,EC,EP)2

Francis C.A.,2011(SPV,EP,OS)11 Pieterse, et al.,2010(SPV,PE,EC)7 Zhang, X., & B.

K.M.,2010,study2(SPV,PE,EC)1

Gilson, L.L., & Shalley

C.E.,2004(EC,IC)4

Rafferty, A.E.et

al.,2006(PE,EP)21

Zhou, J., & George, J.

M.,2001(EC,OS)2 aCodes in parentheses: SPV=Person-Supervisor Fit, Supervisor Support, & Leader Member Exchange; PE=Psychological Empowerment;

EC=Employee Creativity; EP=Employee Performance; IC=Innovative Climate; OS=Organizational Support. journals are footnoted in alphabetical order: (1)Academy of Management Journal, (2)Journal of Applied Psychology, (3)Personnel

Psychology, (4)Journal of Management, (5)Journal of Organizational Behavior, (6)Leadership Quarterly, (7)Journal of Organizational

Change Management,(8)International Journal of Manpower, (9)International Journal of Hospitality Management, (10)Journal of Business

Research, (11)Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, (12)European Journal of Innovation Management,(13)International Journal

of Information Management, (14)Human Relations, (15)Educational and Psychological Measurement, (16)Leadership & Organization Development Journal,(17)Frontiers of Business Researches in China, (18)Management Research News, (19)Public Organization Review,

(20)International Journal of Psychology,(21)Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, (22)Industrial Marketing

Management, (23)The Business Review, (24)Journal of Business & Psychology,(25)unpublished research study.

ijcrb.webs.com



JUNE 2012

VOL 4, NO 2

Tabel 2. Meta-analysis of the antecedents on employee creativity and employee performance

Hy

p Variables k Total

Effect Size & 95% Confidence

Interval Heterogeneity

Independent Dependent

Studi

es n r LCI UCI

p-

value

Chi-

square Q-value

I-

squared

Antecedents

1

Person-

Supervisor Fit

Employee

Creativity 12 3320 0.383 0.352 0.413 0.000 19.675 107.902 90.732

2

Person-

Supervisor Fit

Employee

Performance 9 2951 0.267 0.233 0.300 0.000 15.507 19.429 58.825

3

Psychological

Empowerment

Employee

Creativity 11 4868 0.345 0.319 0.369 0.000 18.307 128.913 92.243

4

Psychological

Empowerment

Employee

Performance 12 13252 0.337 0.321 0.352 0.000 19.675 83.489 86.825

5

Person-

Supervisor Fit

Psychological

Empowerment 11 9727 0.486 0.471 0.501 0.000 18.307 190.681 94.756

6

Employee

Creativity

Employee

Performance 6 1588 0.413 0.371 0.453 0.000 11.070 124.051 95.969

Organizational-level factors

7a

Innovative

Climate

Employee

Creativity 7 7836 0.472 0.455 0.489 0.000 12.591 44.517 86.522

7b

Innovative

Climate

Employee

Performance 6 2195 0.224 0.183 0.263 0.000 11.070 63.468 92.122

8a

Organizational

Support

Employee

Creativity 4 1191 0.523 0.481 0.563 0.000 7.814 49.573 93.948

8b

Organizational

Support

Employee

Performance 8 25347 0.359 0.348 0.369 0.000 14.067 123.459 94.330

Documents

THE INFLUENCES OF ANTECEDENTS ON … · THE INFLUENCES OF ANTECEDENTS ON EMPLOYEE CREATIVITY AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE: A META-ANALYTIC REVIEW ... Psychological empowerment is conceptualized