4.3 Article

Authentic leadership and employee creativity: testing the multilevel mediation model

期刊

出版社

EMERALD GROUP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1108/LODJ-09-2015-0194

关键词

LMX; Creativity; Authentic leadership; Psychological safety; Thriving

资金

  1. Training Program on Major Research Project of Social Science Foundation of Jilin University, China [2015ZDPY19]
  2. Humanity and Social Science on Youth Fund of the Ministry of Education [15YJCZH084]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China, China [71602067]
  4. Ministry of Science and Technology Individual Research Grant of Taiwan [MOST 104-2410-H-277-001-MY2]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to test a multilevel framework to further explicate how team leaders' authentic leadership is related to their followers' individual creativity. Design/methodology/approach - This study is based on a questionnaire survey/analysis of analyses of multisource and lagged data from 63 team leaders and 428 followers in Taiwan. Findings - The findings demonstrated that leader-member exchange (LMX) and team psychological safe climate mediated the positive relationship of authentic leadership on followers thriving at work. Furthermore, employee thriving at work sequentially mediated the positive relationship between authentic leadership and employee creativity. The author also found that indirect relationship of LMX with employee creativity through thriving at work was stronger when authentic leadership was higher. Originality/value - The authors contribute to the existing understanding that authentic leadership relates to individual creativity through three multilevel mechanisms: leaders modeling their authenticity to develop and maintain their dyad-level exchange relationships with their followers (LMX), motivating the team, captured by team-level psychological safe climate and its members, reflected by employee-level thriving at work, and facilitating the relationship between LMX and employee thriving at work.

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

4.3
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