Organizations all over the world are continuously aiming to develop the skills of their employees to become more competitive. Importantly, the development of employee embodies intangible assets, creative processes, and routines that are difficult to imitate (Birsnav, Ragnekar, & Dalpati, 2011; Hyypiä & Parjanen, 2013). Therefore, the use of transformative leadership to develop employees’ skills assures an organization of having competent individuals who will make it achieve its objectives and also having a ‘hard-to-replicate’ competitive advantage, at least in the short-term. The purpose of this paper is to clarify how people development in an organization, and in particular creativity, can be supported using transformational leadership. This paper identifies that the employee learning orientation and transformative leadership are positively related to the employee personal development (creativity). Importantly, the employee creative self-efficacy is a mediator for employee learning orientation and transformative leadership in his/her personal development.
Keywords: Transformative leadership, learning orientation, creative self-efficacy, motivation
People Development Through Transformational Leadership: A Case Study of Increased Creativity
For a company to remain competitive and survive the many turbulent situations that occur in business, it must be capable of creating innovations and knowledge among its workers (George & Zhuo, 2002). Transformational leadership is one of the managerial tactics that promote the development of employees’ skills and creativity. Importantly, the development of employees’ skills and creativity is necessary for any organization since it increases their job performance (Zhou & Shalley, 2008). Furthermore, knowledge embodies intangible assets, creative processes, and routines that are difficult to imitate (Birsnav, Ragnekar, & Dalpati, 2011;   Hyypiä & Parjanen, 2013). As such, the use of transformational leadership to develop employee’s skills, such as their creativity, not only guarantee’s the organization of having competent workers, but also assures it of having innovative personnel who will make it more competitive and help it to continue operating into the future.
According to Jaussi and Dionne (2003), employees’ skills, especially creativity, flourish when they have a transformative leader and when they have a learning orientation (Gong, Huang, & Farh, 2009). Dweck (2000), notes that a learning orientation is simply a desire and willingness of developing one’s skills. Dvir, Eden, Avolio, and Shamir (2002) note that transformative leadership enables workers to improve their skills by broadening and elevating their goals and increasing their confidence to perform beyond the specified expectations. Accordingly, transformative leadership is essential for the success of any organization since it enables workers to develop their skills by increasing their confidence and drive in achieving their work goals.
Most of the current approaches in people development are formed on the assumption that organizations are incapable of independently developing innovations, and that their internal capabilities cannot cope with the challenges of the dynamic business environment (Hyypia & Parjanen, 2013). The search for new product ideas, solutions to business problems, and development of new organization structure considers both a company’s capabilities and those of other external players. Lettl, Herstatt, & Gemuended (2006) assert that enterprises rely heavily on their interactions with other players such as users, suppliers, employees, and competitors in the innovative process. Bogers & West (2010) note that businesses rely on any external expert to assist it in its innovative process.
Given the hap-hazard sources of innovations and creativity in organizations, it is clear that new ideas, products, and processes can originate from even employees who are not assigned the task (Hyypia & Parjanen, 2013). Therefore, businesses should always consider that employees have hidden abilities to innovate, and this ability can be made visible, exploitable, and recognizable for the benefit of the employee and the organization (Hyypia & Parjanen, 2013; Kesting & Ulhoi, 2010).
Usually, workers require a friendly work environment for them to be more productive. Hyypia and Parjanen (2013) espouse that employees must also be intrinsically motivated for them to be more creative. Intrinsically motivated employees are always good at their work, even when not supervised, due to their self-drive and the desire to innovate (Felberg & DeMarco, 1992). Miles, Miles, and Snow (2005) also opine that employees who feel their tasks are both exciting and rewarding are always willing to share and discover new knowledge. Further, Joo, Yoon, and Jeung (2012) note that employees became more productive and committed to their organization if they feel that their employers are committed to their wellbeing. Accordingly, the type of leadership in an organization is essential since it determines the level of collaboration, creativity, and achievement in the company (Gumusluoglu & Ilsev, 2009).
Although the concept of transformational leadership in determining organization’s performance has received much attention, its impact on influencing creativity and innovation has not been fully exploited (Liu & DeFrank, 2011). This paper will examine how transformation leadership supports creativity and innovation in a company by enhancing the level of employees’ development. It will also examine the effects of transformational leadership on employee learning orientation. Finally, it will elucidate employees’ development, especially in creativity and innovation, as a subject of employee learning orientation and transformational leadership.
Literature Review
Creative is one of the major factors for an organization to be innovative. Zhou and Shalley (2003) opine that creative workers usually generate novel responses that help them deal with various tasks in the organization. Accordingly, creativity is essential to the long-term success of a business since it helps it have unique innovations that give it a competitive advantage over its competitors (Amabile, 1997). Therefore, any organizations that support creativity and the subsequent adoption of innovative practices, services, and products increase its competitiveness in the market (Parjanen, 2012).
The objective of this study is to analyze transformational leadership behavior effect on personal development using creativity. Normally, transformational leadership enhances creativity at the beginning of innovation, the fuzzy from-end (Hyypia & Parjanen, 2013). The tasks at this stage are usually idea generation and concept development. Alam (2006) notes that the undefined and dynamic nature of the fuzzy front makes a person involved at this stage to be able to process complex information, manage various conflicting organizational pressures, have the tactical knowledge, and assess various uncertainties. Below is a simple illustration of the innovation process in a typical organization.
Figure 1
Innovation Process
Source: Hyypia and Parjanen (2013).
Noteworthy, in practice, the process may have some slight difference from the above model. Some phases may repeat, others may be left out, and others may be revisited in later stages (Herstatt & Verworn, 2001). Innovation entails the conversion of creative ideas into tangible products or intangible services or processes. According to Nayak (2008), employees’ creativity is paramount for the emergence of innovations in an organization. Ordinarily, creative achievements such as innovations require the collaboration of an employee with other individuals. For an individual to be creative, he/she should be exposed to diverse cultures, skills, experiences, knowledge, and perspectives (Hyypia & Parjanen, 2013). Therefore, the collaboration of various departments in a company triggers creativity among its employees. As such, innovations involve creating an environment where people can share diverse ideas and integrate their knowledge.
According to Hyypia and Parjanen (2013), the traditional culture in a company plays an essential role in the realization of innovation than directly influencing employees to become creative. For example, continuous communication in an organization increases creativity and innovativeness because it accumulates knowledge inside the organization, in turn enabling workers to develop this idea (Hyypia & Parjanen, 2013). Adamides and Karamacapildis (2004) note that flexible and flat organization structures are essential in improving innovativeness by making idea generation and communication more open. Furthermore, the structure of flexible organization enables the creation of a supportive organizational culture that fosters communication and can develop more creative, innovative, and committed workers in all the company’s departments (Hyypiä & Parjanen, 2013).
Given the importance of the organizational structure and managerial behavior in influencing creative performance, the type of leadership in each company is thought to have a direct effect on its culture. Mumford and Gustafson (1988) opine that leaders may support workers’ creativity by providing them with appropriate resources, access to funds, information, and facilities. Hyypia and Parjanen (2013) also note that how the management designs work groups affects the overall creativity of the company. Ordinarily, creative groups usually have diversely skilled individuals, member are always open to new ideas, are highly committed to their tasks, have a lot of interpersonal trust, and they are always willing to change each other’s ideas. Oldham and Cummings (1996) opine that a supportive leadership leads to an increase in employee creativity. For example, leaders can support creativity in their company by supporting and valuing the contribution of each employee. In practice, such an environment would encourage people to share their thoughts and ideas, which would effectively increase the levels of creativity in the company.
Leadership Behavior in Boosting Creativity
Since innovation is pegged on the idea that knowledge is exchanged at one’s free will, innovation cannot be managed hierarchically (Hyypiä & Parjanen, 2013). Oldham and Cummings (1996) note that leadership is essential in creating a conducive work environment. Gong, Huang, and Farh (2009) note that transformative leadership is composed of the following dimensions: charisma, intellectual stimulation, individualized considerations, and inspiring motivation (Bass, 1985).
Based on Bandura (1997) social cognitive theory, it is clear that transformational leaders are essential in facilitating employee learning. By engaging in intellectual stimulation, transformational leaders act as creative role models for their workers and also establish to them some of their creative expectations. Further, the charismatic and inspirational nature of transformational leaders makes workers be more willing to learn from them. Additionally, transformational leaders enhance their followers’ behavioral models making them more able to develop new ideas and challenge the existing operating models (Bass & Avolio, 1990). Transformational leaders are always empathetic, considerate, and supportive of their employees. This individualized consideration helps their workers to have the confidence to challenge the status quo, which increases their creativity (Gong, Huang, & Farh, 2009). Dvir et al. (2002) also notes that transformational leaders are always willing to make their protégés more independent by delegating duties to them and by encouraging autonomy in all levels of their duties. Importantly, this development orientation enhances employees’ learning and makes them more innovative and creative.
Bass and Riggio (2006) note that the four dimensions of transformational leadership are not explanatory, but one of substantial value on the whole process. Accordingly, different dimensions are needed to influence people and partners to accomplish positive outcomes with collaboration (Kotter & Cohen, 2002). As such, the traits of transformational leadership help managers in the development process by enabling them to create an environment that supports creativity and innovation (Hyypiä & Parjanen, 2013). Therefore, transformation leadership fosters higher trust levels in an organization and creates a climate that supports creativity and innovation, and also increases group performances among workers who do not have direct contact with one another. These positive outcomes are primarily influenced by the integrity and dedication of the transformative leaders. Furthermore, the perceived fairness and trust from the transformative leader’s behavior has a significant effect on positive outcomes (Birasnav et al., 2011).
Learning Orientation and Transformation Leadership on Creativity
According to Weisber (1999), a willingness to learn is essential in enhancing an individual’s creativity. The social cognitive theory espouses that individuals acquire knowledge through “enactive mastery experience” and “mastery modeling” (Gong, Huang, & Farh, 2009). As such, both an individuals’ internal factors, such as willingness to learn, and external situation factors, such as transformational leadership, affect his/her acquisition of knowledge and skills (Bandura, 1986).
According to Dweck (1986), a learning orientation is an internal drive that inspires a person to develop his/her competence. Ames and Archer (1988) note that individuals with a willingness to learn to seek challenges that provide them opportunities for acquiring new skills or improving those that they possess. Another importance of a learning orientation is in enhancing cross-cultural adjustments. Gong and Fan (2006) note that learning orientation helps individuals to acquire culturally novel skills and behaviors. Importantly, the acquisition of knowledge and skills enhances an individual’s creativity (Gardener, 1993).
Employee Creative Self-Efficacy as a Mediator
For an employee learning orientation and transformational leadership to increase an employee’s creativity, the worker must have some creative self-efficacy as a mediator (Gong, Huang, & Farh, 2009). According to Tierney and Farmer (2004), employees are more creative when they have high levels of creative self-efficacy. Further, Gong, Huang, and Farh (2009) espouse that employee’s self-efficacy increases from employee learning orientation and transformational leadership.
According to Dweck & Leggett (1988), employee learning orientation is conducive to the formation and maintenance of creative self-efficacy because it is based on the individual’s incremental conception of ability. Importantly, the incremental conception ability enhance a person’s efficacy beliefs (Bandura, 1997). The second importance of the learning orientation is that it leads to a focus on competence development (Dweck, 2000). Dweck (2000) notes that workers with a learning orientation are likely to become experts after practicing on their tasks. The accumulated repertoire of skills and experiences can make the employees more self-efficacious in the production of creative outcomes. Thirdly, the learning orientation also helps individuals to have a positive attribution pattern when they are faced with setbacks. Importantly, their attribution pattern helps them to maintain their creative self-efficacy (Gong, Huang, & Farh, 2009). For example, such employees do not attribute setbacks in their creative works to their inability. Instead, they associate them with various underlying factors such as ineffective strategies or insufficient efforts (Dweck & Leggett, 1988). Therefore, such individuals are less likely to experience aversive arousal due to setbacks and are instead more likely to maintain their self-efficacy in their creative endeavors. Lastly, the desire to improve their self-competence is appropriate for employee learning orientation. Gong, Huang, and Farh (2009) note that the desire to self-improve rather than to get external approvals shields employees’ from negative experiences that may occur during the creative process. As such, learning-oriented individuals can maintain efficacy beliefs in their uncertain creative journey.
Bandura (1997) notes that transformational leadership has the following effects on creative self-efficacy: observational learning, physiological arousal, enactive mastery, and verbal persuasion. Transformative leaders are usually proactive in both their thinking and in the generation of new ideas. In practice, they also expect their followers to have similar attributes instead of following established routines (Gong, Huang, & Farh, 2009). The freedom of making employees make their own independent decisions makes them more confident and enhances their ability to create new ideas and innovations through observational learning (Bass & Avolio, 1990). Bass (1985) opines that the intellectually stimulating and charismatic nature of transformative leaders makes them persuade employees that they can also be creative. In particular, the individualized support offered by transformational leaders persuades employees of their capability of producing creative outcomes (Tierney & Farmer, 2002).
Another vital aspect of transformational leadership is in mentorship programs. Transformational leaders are always willing to mentor their employees. Accordingly, they make their workers enjoy some enactive mastery experience, which helps them to progressively enhance their creative self-efficacy (Gong, Huang, & Farh, 2009). Further, these leaders also delegate tasks to employees, which enables them to enhance their capacity for creativity and independent critical thinking (Bass & Avolio, 1990; Dvir et al., 2002). Finally, transformative leaders are usually supportive, considerate, and appreciative of their employees’ efforts and initiatives. Accordingly, this support and encouragement make employees less likely to experience aversive physiological arousal, which has the potential of reducing their creative self-efficacy (Gong, Huang, & Farh, 2009).
Hypothesis in This Analysis
Hypothesis 1
H=0: Creative employees will have a higher level of job performance than those who are less creative.
H=1: Creative employees will have a lower level of job performance than the less creative ones.
Hypothesis 2
H=0: Employees with a learning orientation are always more creative than those with no learning orientation.
H=1: Employees with a learning orientation are less creative than those with no learning orientation.
Hypothesis 3
H=0: Transformational leadership is positively related to employee creativity.
H=1: Transformational leadership is negatively related to employee creativity.
Hypothesis 4
H=0: Employee creative self-efficacy enables employee learning orientation to increase the employee creativity.
H=1: Employee creative self-efficacy does not enable employee learning orientation to increase the employee creativity.
Hypothesis 5
H=0: Employee creative self-efficacy enables transformational leadership to increase the employee creativity.
H=1: Employee creative self-efficacy does not enable transformational leadership to increase the employee creativity.
This paper provides an empirical review of a case study done by Gong, Huang, and Farh (2009). The experiment was performed to evaluate the effects of transformative leadership on employees’ personal development of their creative skills. All the sales agent worked in insurance companies that were based in Taiwan. Only insurance agents were used in the research to have comparable nature of works. As noted by Perry-Smith (2006), creativity is appropriate in various professions and is not limited to scientific fields. Among insurance agents, their creativity is appropriate in their marketing and sales functions (Gong, Huang, & Farh, 2009). As a result, the study on insurance agents provides a ‘real-world’ insight on transformation management on employee development, especially regarding creativity. In the insurance industry, creativity in sales and marketing may including having parties with potential customers, such as alumni and classmates. A person may also host seminars and conferences that address specific insurance topics that are of interest to clients.
Study Design
In the main study, 277 insurance agents among 544 possible agents were selected using random selection. The use of random selection was important in avoiding bias in the assessment process. Just before the start of the fourth quarter (time 1), a survey was conducted examining the sales agents learning orientation and demographic profile. In the fourth week of this quarter (time 2), another test was conducted to assess the employees’ creative self-efficacy. The transformational leadership was measured in time 2, to observe their supervisor’s transformational leadership. Noteworthy, the learning orientation of new employees was assessed at time 1. At the end of the fourth quarter (time 3), we asked sales agents to provide us with a rating of each agent’s overall job performance and creativity. 211 sales agents and 111 immediate supervisors responded to our survey. Noteworthy, some immediate supervisors were in-charge of more than one sales agent.
To complement the response that was received from supervisors, a report of the sales agents’ performance (successful sales), in the third and fourth quarter was used for comparison. The valid sale data was 178. The average age of the sales agents was 36.94 years. The average employment tenure for insurance agents was 46.40 years while their average insurance business experience was 52.65 months. 41% percent of the insurance agents that we examined were male, and 59% were female. 16% of the agents had middle school education, 43% only had a high school education, and 41% had a university education (Gong, Huang, & Farh, 2009).
Employee Creativity
In the assessment of employee creativity, four items were considered:

  1. An individual’s ability to custom-made product/service packages for his/her clients.
  2. The number of clients acquired by the sales agent.
  3. The number of sales promotions developed by the sales agent.
  4. The increase in the sales

A scale with 5 scores was used in the analysis. 1= strongly disagree, 2= disagree, 3= somewhat agree, 4= agree, 5 was for strongly agree (Appendix 1).
Employee Job Performance
The employee level of performance was measured in two ways. There was the examination of supervisors’ response to each’s job performance. Also, there was the assessment of the objective employee performance by checking on their sales as at the end of the fourth quarter. Importantly, we confirmed whether the employees’ actual performance matched the ratings given by their respective supervisors (Appendix 1). In the first measure, which considered the supervisors’ response, the sample questions were as follows:

  1. This person always completes his/her task on time. (1=“ strongly disagree,” to 5= “strongly agree).
  2. This individual is one of the best employees for the company. (1=“ strongly disagree,” to 5= “strongly agree).

Employee Learning Orientation
The Elliot and Church (1997) six-item learning orientation scale was used in this case. The sample questions, in this case, included: I desire to master my job; I prefer tasks that challenge me to learn a few things. The scores ranged from 1= I strongly agree to 7= I strongly disagree.
Transformational Leadership
The analysis of transformational leadership was based on the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) Form 5X-Short (Bass & Avolio, 1995). The questionnaire had the following five subscales: idealized influence on attribute, behavior, inspirational motivation, individualized consideration, and intellectual stimulation (Gong, Huang, & Farh, 2009). For example, in the idealized influence on attribute subscale, the questionnaire asked; does your supervisor act respectfully (Gong, Huang, & Farh, 2009). The idealized influence on behavior had the question; does your supervisor talk about his/her most important values and beliefs. For inspirational motivation, the question was: Does your supervisor express confidence that the team will achieve its goals. The question for individualized consideration was: Does your supervisor spend time teaching and coaching you (Gong, Huang, & Farh, 2009). For intellectual stimulation, the question was: Does your supervisor seek different opinions on how to solve various work-related problems. Noteworthy, a scale with 7 scores was used in the analysis. The scores ranged from 1= strongly disagree to 7= strongly agree.
Employee Creative Self-Efficacy
The employee creativity was measured using the Tierney and Farmer’s (2002) four-item measure of creative self-efficiency. This measurement showed how an individual felt about his/her creative ability. The agent’s responses were scored ranging from 1= strongly disagree to 7= strongly agree. The sample item had questions such as:

  1. I have confidence in my problem-solving
  2. I am good at generating innovations.

Control Variables
The control variables in the experiment were education, rank (experience at work), and gender.  Education was ranked according to a person’s level, where 1=middle school, 2= high school, 3= university. Tierney et al. (1999), note that education may affect the domain-relevant skill and expertise needed when forming creative ideas. Furthermore, since the study assessed the effects of transformational leadership as affected by a person’s learning orientation in time 1 and that of time 3, it was essential to have an analysis based on a person’s educational level. In the control of rank, 1= entry level sales agents and 5= senior sales manager. Ibarra (1993) notes that an individual’s rank in the company is correlated with his/her experience. Simply, the more experienced a person is, the more creative ideas that he/she has.
From the analysis, there was a positive correlation between employee’s creativity and the supervisor-rated employee job performance. Similarly, the employee learning orientation and transformational leadership were positively related to employee creativity and employee creative self-efficacy (Gong, Huang, & Farh, 2009). The employee creative self-efficacy was positively related to employee creativity (Gong, Huang, & Farh, 2009).
The hierarchically linear modeling (HLM) for the non-independent observations (Bliese & Hanges, 2004). Noteworthy, separate tests using the ordinary least square regression showed almost similar results all hypothesis. In the test for hypothesis 1, we regressed the supervisor-rated employee job performance and the sales of the fourth quarter separately on employee creativity. The test results showed that there was a positive relationship between the employee creativity and the supervisor-rated performance (Gong, Huang, & Farh, 2009). The Baron and Kenny procedure for the analysis was used in tests 2, 3, 4, and 5. The second analysis entailed a regression of the employee creative self-efficacy on employee learning orientation and transformational leadership. In the third analysis, there was a regression of the employee creativity on employee learning orientation, transformational leadership, and employee creative self-efficacy. There was control of age, gender, education level, company tenure, and insurance business experience to have accurate results from the regression (Appendix 2) (Gong, Huang, & Farh, 2009).
The experiment by Gong, Huang, and Farh (2009) showed that an employee’s learning orientation and transformational leadership are significant predictors of the individual’s creative self-efficacy (ᵧ = .45, ᵖ <.01; ᵧ = .13, ᵖ <.05 respectively). In the second analysis, it was observed that there was a significant relationship between employee learning orientation and transformational leadership with his/her creativity (ᵧ = .18, ᵖ <.01; ᵧ = .10, ᵖ <.05 respectively). In the third analysis, a correlation test was done of the employee’s creativity given his/her creative self-efficacy, his/her learning orientation, and transformational leadership. The test showed that transformational leadership and employee learning orientation were no longer significant; however, the employee’s creative self-efficacy was significant (ᵧ = .09, ᵖ <.05) (Appendix 3) (Gong, Huang, & Farh, 2009). The results of this test supported hypothesis 4 and 5. Gong, Huang, and Farh (2009), also performed the Sobel test to identify the indirect effect of the dependent variables through a mediator. From the test, the indirect effect of transformational leadership on employee creativity was 0.3 (ᵖ <.05; 95% CI: 0.01-0.08) (Gong, Huang, & Farh, 2009). The indirect effect of learning orientation on employee creativity was 0.08 (ᵖ <.01; 95% CI: 0.2-0.15)  (Appendix 4). The results of the Sobel test also supported hypothesis 4 and 5.
The Gong, Huang, and Farh (2009), research was based on the following goals: investigating the effects of transformational leadership on employees’ development of their creativity. The examination of the effect of transformational leadership on an employee’s creativity development given his/her learning orientation. The assessment of creative self-efficacy as a mediator of the effects of transformational leadership and employee learning orientation on his/her creativity showed that employees’ whose supervisors had given highest ratings were more creative than those with lower performances (Gong, Huang, & Farh, 2009). Secondly, there was a positive correlation between the employee’s learning orientation and transformational leadership with his/her creativity (Gong, Huang, & Farh, 2009). Thirdly, Gong, Huang, and Farh (2009) also found there is a positive relationship between employee learning orientation and transformational leadership to employee creativity, which is influenced by the employee’s creative self-efficacy.
Effect of Creativity on Their Job Performance
The results of this study were consistent with those of previous research on the topic. Gong, Huang, and Farh (2009) found that there is a positive relationship between employee’s creativity and job performance. Hyypia and Parjen (2013), also note that creative individuals are usually more motivated and more productive than none motivated employees.
Employee Learning Orientation and Transformational Leadership on their Creativity
The study by Gong, Huang, and Farh (2009) established there is a positive correlation between employee learning orientation and transformational leadership on employee creativity. The findings of Gong, Huang, and Farh (2009) were consistent with those of Shin and Zhou (2003). In this case, transformational leadership can result in employee development, in this study it was creativity, as long as the work environment provides for genuine interactions between leaders and their subordinates.
Employee Creative Self-Efficacy as a Mediator
Gong, Huang, and Farh (2009) extend previous research on transformational leadership by examining the mediating role of creative self-efficacy on influencing transformational leadership and an employee’s learning orientation to enhance an individual’s creativity. Shin and Zhou (2003) had earlier established that an employee’s intrinsic motivations are a partial mediator between his/her creativity and transformational leadership. The findings by Gong, Huang, and Farh (2009) established that creative self-efficacy is a mediator. These conclusions can be explained by the fact that individuals who have high creative self-efficacy are always knowledgeable, skillful, and intrinsically motivated to be creative (Gong, Huang, & Farh, 2009). Importantly, the use of creative self-efficacy as a mediating variable enabled the research to reflect the elements of Ambile’s (1988) conventional model, which are domain-relevant knowledge, intrinsic motivation, and creativity-relevant skills. Gong, Huang, and Farh (2009) also note that individuals with creative self-efficacy may also have high goal-based motivation. Ordinarily, persons with high creative self-efficacy may also establish high creativity goals for themselves (Gong, Huang, & Farh, 2009). This conclusion is consistent with Shalley (1995) findings that goal setting for creativity has a positive correlation with actual creativity.
Managerial Implications
Usually, innovations enable businesses to be more competitive by increasing an employee’s productivity. Therefore, the establishment of creativity in workers is an essential aspect of their personal development (Hyypia & Parjanen, 2013). Since creative workers are always beneficial to organizations by coming up with innovation that increases a company’s performance, managers can benefit by developing creative employees. From Gong, Huang, and Farh (2009) study, managers should be careful when selecting employees based on their learning orientation since that does not guarantee they will be creative. However, building the employee’s creative self-efficacy will establish the appropriate conditions for employees learning orientation and enable them to be creative. Gong, Huang, and Farh (2009) note that managers should stimulate creative self-efficacy by building a right environment, such as through transformational leadership. Positive managerial behavior can provide appropriate conditions for the development of creative self-efficacy. These methods include managers acting as creative role models, demonstrating and instructing their employees on skills that are necessary for their creativity, and by offering support and encouragement.
Adamides, E., & Karacapilidis, N. (2004). Information technology support for the knowledge and social processes of innovation management. Technovation, 26, 50–59.
Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students’ learning strategies and motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 260–267.
Alam, I. (2006). Removing the fuzziness from the fuzzy front-end of service innovations through customer interactions. Industrial Marketing Management, 35, 468–480.
Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovations in organizations. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, vol. 10: 123–167. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Amabile, T. M. (1997). Motivating creativity in organizations: On doing what you love and loving what you do. California Management Review, 40(1), 39–58.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W.H. Freeman.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York, NY: Free Press.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1990). The implications of transactional and transformational leadership for individual, team, and organizational development. In R. W. Woodman & W. A. Pasmore (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development, vol. 4: 231–272. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1995). Multifactor leadership questionnaire. Binghamton, NY: Center for Leadership Studies.
Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership (2nd Ed.). New Jersey, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Birasnav, M., Rangnekar, S., & Dalpati, A. (2011). Transformational leadership and human capital bene-fits: The role of knowledge management. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 32(2), 106–126.
Bliese, P. D., & Hanges, P. J. (2004). Being both too liberal and too conservative: The perils of treating grouped data as though they were independent. Organizational Research Methods, 7: 400–417.
Bogers, M., & West, J. (2010). Contrasting innovation creation and commercialization within open, user and cumulative innovation. Working paper. San José State University, San José, CA.
Felberg, J. D., & DeMarco, D. A. (1992). From experience: New idea enhancement at Amoco Chemical: An early report from a new system. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 9, 278–286.
Gong, Y., Huang, Y-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.
Hyypia, M., & Parjanen, S. (2013). Boosting creativity with transformational leadership in fuzzy front-end innovation processes. Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge, and Management, 8, 20-41.
Jaussi, K. S., & Dionne, S. D. 2003. Leading for creativity: The role of unconventional leader behavior. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 475–498.
Joo, B-K., Yoon, H. J., & Jeung, C.W. (2012). The effects of core self-evaluations and transformational leadership on organizational commitment. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 33(6), 564–582.
Kesting, P., & Ulhøi, J. (2010). Employee-driven innovation: Extending the license to foster innovation. Management Decision, 48(1), 65-84.
Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B. J., & Shamir, B. (2002). Impact of transformational leadership on follower development and performance: A field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 735–744.
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational process affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41: 1040–1048.
Dweck, C. S. (2000). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Philadelphia, PA: Psychological Press.
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256–273.
Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 218–232.
Gardner, H. (1993). Creating minds: An anatomy of creativity seen through the lives of Freud, Einstein, Picasso, Stravinsky, Eliot, Graham, and Gandhi. New York, NY: Basic Books.
George, J. M., & Zhou, J. (2002). Understanding when bad moods foster creativity and good ones don’t: The role of context and clarity of feelings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 687–697.
Gong, Y., & Fan, J. (2006). Longitudinal examination of the role of goal orientation in cross-cultural adjustment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 176–184.
Gumusluoglu, L., & Ilsev, A. (2009). Transformational leadership, creativity, and organizational innovation. Journal of Business Research, 62(4), 461–473.
Herstatt, C., & Verworn, B. (2001). The “fuzzy front end” of innovation (Working Paper 4.). Hamburg, HR: Hamburg University of Technology.
Ibarra, H. (1993). Network centrality, power, and innovation involvement: Determinants of technical and administrative roles. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 471–501.
Kotter, J. P., & Cohen, D. (2002). Creative ways to empower action to change the organizations: Cases in Point. Journal of Organizational Excellence, 22(1), 73–82.
Lettl, C., Herstatt, C., & Gemuenden, H.G. (2006). User‘s contributions to radical innovation: Evidence from four cases in the field of medical equipment technology. R&D Management, 36(3), 251-272.
Liu, Y., & DeFrank, R. S. (2011, August). Self-interest and knowledge sharing intentions: The impacts of leadership climate and HR practices. Paper presented at the 71st Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management Conference, San Antonia, Texas, USA.
Miles, R. E., Miles, G. & Snow, C. C. (2005). Collaborative entrepreneurship. California, CA: Stanford business books.
Mumford, M., & Gustafson, S. (1988). Creativity syndrome: Integration, application, and innovation. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 27-43.
Nayak, A. (2008). Experiencing creativity in organisations: A practice approach. Long Range Planning, 41, 420–439.
Oldham, G., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 607–634.
Parjanen, S. (2012). Creating possibilities for collective creativity, brokerage functions in practice-based innovation. Acta Universitatis Lappeenrantaensis 474, Diss. Lappeenranta University of Technology, Finland.
Perry-Smith, J. E. (2006). Social yet creative: The role of social relationships in facilitating individual creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 49: 85–101.
Shalley, C. E. (1995). Effects of coaction, expected evaluation, and goal setting on creativity and productivity. Academy of Management Journal, 38: 483–503.
Shin, S. J., & Zhou, J. (2003). Transformational leadership, conservation, and creativity: Evidence from Korea. Academy of Management Journal, 46: 703–714.
Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2004). The Pygmalion process and employee creativity. Journal of Management, 30, 413–432.
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.
Weisberg, R. W. (1999). Creativity and knowledge: A challenge to theories. In R. J. Sterngerg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity: 226–250. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Zhou, J., & Shalley, C. E. (2003). Research on employee creativity: A critical review and directions for future research. In J. Martocchio (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management, vol. 22: 165–217. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Zhou, J., & Shalley, C. E. (2008). Expanding the scope and impact of organizational creativity research. In J. Zhou & C. E. Shalley (Eds.), Handbook of organizational creativity: 347–368. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Appendix 1
Source: Gong, Huang, & Farh (2009).
Appendix 2
Source: Gong, Huang, & Farh (2009).
Appendix 3
Source: Gong, Huang, & Farh (2009).
Appendix 4
Source: Gong, Huang, & Farh (2009).