4.5 Article

A moderated mediation examination of shared leadership and team creativity: a social information processing perspective

期刊

ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT
卷 40, 期 1, 页码 295-327

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10490-021-09786-6

关键词

Shared leadership; Climate for innovation; Team creativity; Task uncertainty

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Research has focused largely on the impact of formal leadership on creating an atmosphere of innovation, leaving little understanding of how shared leadership, an informal type of leadership, may affect this process. This study examines how shared leadership can positively influence team processes and performance. The findings support a moderated mediation model that demonstrates the indirect effect of shared leadership on team creativity through a climate for innovation, with task uncertainty playing a moderating role.
Research has mostly focused on how formal leadership can shape a climate for innovation, but we know little about how informal leadership, such as shared leadership, may affect this process. Departing from this dominant focus, we examine how shared leadership may have a positive influence on team processes and performance. Based on social information processing theory, we develop a moderated mediation model that examines the indirect effect of shared leadership on team creativity via a climate for innovation and further investigates the moderating effect of task uncertainty. Two survey-based field studies using multisource, multiwave data support the hypothesized model. The findings reveal that (1) shared leadership positively predicts a climate for innovation, (2) this relationship is stronger when the team faces task uncertainty, (3) a climate for innovation positively predicts team creativity, (4) shared leadership predicts team creativity through the mediating effect of a climate for innovation, and (5) this mediation effect is stronger when task uncertainty is high. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据