Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Journal of Organizational Behavior
J. Organiz. Behav. 31, 609–623 (2010)
Published online 20 August 2009 in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/job.650
* Correspondence to:Faculty of EconomicsE-mail: a.nederveen.p
Copyright # 2009
Transformational and transactionalleadership and innovative behavior:The moderating role of psychologicalempowerment
ANNE NEDERVEEN PIETERSE*, DAAN VAN KNIPPENBERG,
MICHAELA SCHIPPERS AND DAAN STAM
Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Summary Innovative behavior is increasingly important for organizations’ survival. Transformationalleadership, in contrast to transactional leadership, has been argued to be particularly effectivein engendering follower innovative behavior. However, empirical evidence for this relation-ship is scarce and inconsistent. Addressing this issue, we propose that follower psychologicalempowerment moderates the relationship of transformational and transactional leadershipwith follower innovative behavior. In a field study with 230 employees of a government agencyin the Netherlands combining multisource ratings, we show that transformational leadership ispositively related to innovative behavior only when psychological empowerment is high,whereas transactional leadership has a negative relationship with innovative behavior onlyunder these conditions. Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Introduction
Innovative behavior of employees is of great significance to organizational effectiveness and survival
(Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Scott & Bruce, 1994; Shalley, 1995; West, Hirst, Richter, & Shipton,
2004; Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993). Especially in today’s rapidly changing business
environment it is more and more important to be able to achieve a competitive advantage. Because
employees think of and implement innovative endeavors (Amabile, 1996), identifying how
management can affect the innovative behaviors of these employees holds the promise of gaining
a competitive edge. Therefore, not surprisingly, an important question for leadership research and
practice is how leadership may stimulate employee innovative behavior.
The question of how leadership may affect innovative behavior of employees, however, has not
received the attention of researchers it deserves (e.g., Basu & Green, 1997; Mumford, Scott, Gaddis, &
Anne Nederveen Pieterse, Department of Human Resource Management & Organizational Behavior,and Business, University of Groningen, Nettelbosje 2, 9747 AE Groningen, The Netherlands.
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Received 3 April 2008Revised 16 June 2009
Accepted 18 June 2009
610 A. NEDERVEEN PIETERSE ET AL.
Strange, 2002). Theories of transformational leadership have emphasized stimulating innovation as a
core leadership function (e.g., Bass, 1985; Conger, 1999; Tichy & Ulrich, 1984) and transformational
leadership, in contrast to transactional leadership, has been argued to be a particularly effective way to
engender innovative behavior (Basu & Green, 1997). However, the empirical evidence for the roles of
transformational and transactional leadership in engendering follower innovative behavior is scarce
and inconsistent (e.g., Basu & Green, 1997; cf. Kahai, Sosik, & Avolio, 2003; Shin & Zhou, 2003), with
some studies finding positive effects and others finding negative effects. These contradictory findings
suggest that our understanding of the relationship between transformational and transactional
leadership and innovative behavior may benefit from the identification of a moderator variable on
which these relationships are contingent and that helps to predict and understand when these
relationships would be positive or negative. Such focus on the moderation in the leadership–innovation
relationship is also consistent with the contingency approaches in leadership research more generally,
which hold that the effectiveness of leadership behavior is dependent on factors within the leadership
context (e.g., Fiedler, 1964; House, 1971; van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2003; Yukl, 2002).
Addressing this issue, in the present study we argue that the relationship between transformational
leadership and follower innovative behavior as well as the relationship between transactional
leadership and follower innovative behavior are contingent on follower psychological empowerment
(Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). More specifically, the inspiring and motivating nature of
transformational leadership should be more effective in engendering innovative behavior when
followers feel more able to proactively influence their work role and environment, that is, when
psychological empowerment is high. At the same time, under these circumstances transactional
leadership’s emphasis on clarifying in-role task requirements and performance monitoring may be
more impeding of extra-role innovative efforts, resulting in decreased follower innovative behavior.
Follower psychological empowerment should therefore moderate the effectiveness of transformational
and transactional leadership in engendering follower innovative behavior.
Transformational and Transactional Leadershipand Innovative Behavior
Transformational leadership is defined as a style of leadership that transforms followers to rise above
their self-interest by altering their morale, ideals, interests, and values, motivating them to perform
better than initially expected (Bass, 1985; Yukl, 1999). It is contrasted with transactional leadership,
which is based on an exchange relationship in which the leader makes clear what is expected of
followers (Bass, 1999; Yukl, 1999). Transformational leadership is a higher-order construct comprising
several components. The component idealized influence entails serving as a role model and sacrificing
self-gain for collective gain, thereby stimulating followers to do the same. Inspirational motivation
involves expressing an energizing vision. Intellectual stimulation is expressed by encouraging
followers to question the status quo and the final component individualized consideration entails
providing support for the individual development needs of followers.
Innovative behavior is a multi-stage process of problem recognition, generation of ideas or solutions,
building support for ideas, and idea implementation (cf. Kanter, 1988; Scott & Bruce, 1994). Creativity
(i.e., the production of novel and useful ideas; Amabile, 1988) is thus an important part of innovative
behavior. Besides being influenced by knowledge, skills, and abilities (Amabile, 1983b; Barron &
Harrington, 1981), innovative behavior has been argued to be largely a motivational issue (Amabile,
Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 31, 609–623 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/job
LEADERSHIP AND INNOVATIVE BEHAVIOR 611
1988). This makes it of considerable interest to leadership researchers (e.g., Pelz & Andrews, 1996;
Scott & Bruce, 1994).
Innovation is central to the thinking about transformational leadership. The concept of
transformational leadership was developed around leaders that transform the existing state of affairs
(Bass, 1985, 1998; Burns, 1978; Tichy & Devanna, 1986; Tichy & Ulrich, 1984). Bass (1985) theorized
that transformational leaders, in contrast to transactional leaders, are more innovative, have more novel
ideas, and can bring about major changes. Transformational leadership has been argued to center on the
processes of transformation and change (Bass & Riggio, 2006). Transformational leaders are proposed
to stimulate follower innovative behavior through expressing an inspiring vision, stimulating followers
to question the status quo, and allowing individual development and growth (Basu & Green, 1997).
Moreover, transformational leadership has been argued to entail aligning followers’ needs and desires
with the interests of the organization (Bass, 1999), which may also promote going the extra mile needed
for innovative behavior. However, as will be discussed below, empirical findings for the relationship of
transformational leadership with innovative behavior are less clear cut implying that this relationship is
more complex.
Transformational leadership is seen as a positive addition to transactional leadership, which is an
exchange relationship in which expectations are clarified and the immediate self-interests of leaders
and followers are addressed (Bass, 1999; Yukl, 1999). Transactional leadership is also a higher-order
construct comprising the components contingent reward (i.e., clarifying what the follower should do in
order to be rewarded) and management-by-exception (i.e., monitoring performance and taking
corrective action when problems arise; Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1999; Bass, 1985, 1999; Yukl, 1999). As
transformational leadership is contrasted with transactional leadership it is important to incorporate
transactional leadership in our analysis. Moreover, this contrast allows us to show that it is not simply
leader behavior that is more beneficial with high psychological empowerment, but transformational
leadership per se.
Transactional leadership can be argued to be negatively related to innovative behavior because it is
focused more on in-role performance and less on the stimulation of novel activities (which may be
particularly detrimental for jobs where innovation is not an explicit part of the job description).
Additionally, as transactional leadership clarifies expectations and gives feedback about meeting these
expectations, it will indicate the leader’s predilections. The perception of these leader preferences is
likely to have some bearing on followers, diverting them from their own innovative endeavors.
Moreover, transactional leadership may be perceived as controlling and demotivating, causing less
innovative behavior (Deci & Ryan, 1987).
In the following we address empirical evidence for the relationships of both transformational and
transactional leadership with follower innovative behavior. Research shows that transformational
leaders put greater emphasis on innovation than transactional leaders (Church & Waclawski, 1998;
Howell & Higgins, 1990). In addition, recent research found a positive relationship between
transformational leadership and organizational innovation (Gumusluoglu & Ilsev, 2009; Jung, Chow, &
Wu, 2003; Jung, Wu, & Chow, 2008). However, as these results concern organizational innovation, they
do not provide evidence that transformational leaders are more effective in stimulating innovative
behavior among followers—organizational innovation could also flow from strategic decisions such as
greater investments in research and development. As the essence of leadership is the influence in
mobilizing and motivating followers (Yukl, 2002), specific attention to whether transformational
leadership is effective in engendering follower innovative behavior, and more effective than
transactional leadership, is essential. Studies indirectly pointing to a positive relationship between
transformational leadership and follower innovative behavior have found transformational leadership
to be related to increased performance quality of R&D teams (Keller, 1992; Waldman & Atwater,
1994), which can be argued to be largely dependent on (but not equivalent to) innovative behavior. In
Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 31, 609–623 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/job
612 A. NEDERVEEN PIETERSE ET AL.
contrast, the few studies directly examining the relationship between transformational leadership and
follower innovative behavior have found very mixed results. One study found a negative relationship
(Basu & Green, 1997), whereas a second study found a positive effect (Boerner, Eisenbeiss, & Griesse,
2007), and a third study did not find any effects (Moss & Ritossa, 2007). Transactional leadership has
not been related to follower innovative behavior in previous research (Boerner et al., 2007; Moss &
Ritossa, 2007).
Follower creativity, an aspect of innovative behavior, has received slightly more attention as an
outcome variable of transformational and transactional leadership. In comparison to followers of
transactional leaders, followers of transformational leaders have been found to have higher creative
performance on idea generation tasks in experimental studies (Jung, 2001; Jung & Avolio, 2000). In
addition, an increase in transformational leadership has been related to improved idea generation in
laboratory studies (directly; Sosik, Kahai, & Avolio, 1998; and indirectly; Sosik, Kahai, & Avolio,
1999) and to ratings of follower creativity in field studies (Gumusluoglu & Ilsev, 2009; Shin & Zhou,
2003; cf. Shin & Zhou, 2007 in diverse teams). On the other hand, other studies in laboratory settings
found no relationship between transformational leadership and follower creativity (Jaussi & Dionne,
2003) or found followers with transformational leaders to generate less original ideas than followers
with transactional leaders (Kahai et al., 2003). These latter results are in line with Mumford and
colleagues’ (Mumford & Licuanan, 2004; Mumford et al., 2002) recent questioning of the value of
transformational leadership in stimulating creativity.
The scarcity of empirical evidence directly speaking to the relationships between transformational
and transactional leadership and follower innovative behavior make it valuable to extend the body of
evidence. Moreover, in view of the inconsistent findings it also seems important to identify possible
causes of these inconsistencies. Leader effectiveness is a dynamic process, where leader behaviors need
to fit followers and circumstances in order to be effective (e.g., Reicher, Haslam, & Hopkins, 2005;
Shamir, 2007). Such a focus on moderation of the impact of leadership is consistent with the contingency
approach in leadership more generally, which provides compelling evidence that leader effectiveness is
often dependent on other factors (e.g., task context, follower characteristics; e.g., Fiedler, 1964; House,
1971; van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2003; Yukl, 2002). Thus, one explanation for the mixed results could be
the presence of moderator variables. Indeed too little is known about the impact of moderator variables on
the effects of transformational and transactional leadership (Bass, 1998; Yukl, 1999).
Accordingly, we argue that a straightforward main effect of transformational and transactional
leadership on innovative behavior in fact is quite unlikely (i.e., as it depends on the circumstances).
More specifically, we propose that the stimulation to innovate coming from the inspiring nature of
transformational leadership assumes a high level of follower psychological empowerment, which
makes transformational leadership less effective for followers with low psychological empowerment.
Moreover, for transactional leadership to have an effect on follower innovative behavior high levels of
psychological empowerment may also be a prerequisite, as only these individuals may perceive
transactional leadership as restrictive and controlling. Therefore, we propose that follower
psychological empowerment (cf. Kirkman & Rosen, 1997; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990) moderates
the relationships of transformational and transactional leadership with innovative behavior.
The Role of Psychological Empowerment
Psychological empowerment is a psychological state residing within individuals, reflecting an active
orientation towards a work role (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). It is thus distinct from the conception of
Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 31, 609–623 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/job
LEADERSHIP AND INNOVATIVE BEHAVIOR 613
empowerment as a set of managerial practices focused on the delegation of responsibilities (e.g., Leach,
Wall, & Jackson, 2003). 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 (Spreitzer, 1995; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). Psychological empowerment
has received a considerable amount of attention over recent years (e.g., Carless, 2004; Ergeneli,
Saglam, & Metin, 2007; Liden, Wayne, & Sparrowe, 2000). Psychological empowerment has multiple
antecedents, such as the organization, peers, and numerous other sources in the person or the
environment (Spreitzer, 1995; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). Although leaders can have a substantial
impact on the work environment of their followers they are bound by many factors within
organizations, for example, the rules and regulations of the organization, HRM policies, and
organizational and social settings. These can all to a great extent influence a follower’s sense of
psychological empowerment independent of leadership. In the present study we therefore focus on
empowerment as a psychological state that may be relatively independent of transformational
leadership and argue that psychological empowerment is an important moderator of the influence of
transactional and transformational leadership.
Psychologically empowered individuals see themselves as competent and able to influence their jobs
and work environments in meaningful ways, facilitating proactive behavior, showing initiative, and
acting independently (Spreitzer, 1995; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). We argue that followers need to
feel psychologically empowered to believe they have the ability to act on the inspiration of
transformational leadership. In other words, transformational leadership can make them willing to be
innovative, but they also need to feel able to be innovative (via psychological empowerment) in order to
move into action and behave innovatively. Therefore, we posit that transformational leadership inspires
followers high in psychological empowerment to actually make use of the possibility to take initiative.
This leads to more innovative behavior on the part of these followers. In contrast, inspiring followers
with low psychological empowerment is less effective, because these followers do not believe they
have the possibility to take initiative. This might cause followers to become demotivated, which in turn
could even hinder innovative behavior.
As previously stated, transactional leadership can be argued to be negatively related to innovative
behavior. We argue that the strength of this relationship will depend on the level of psychological
empowerment. Transactional leadership communicates what is expected of the follower in terms of in-
role performance and monitors whether these expectations are met, and thereby provides direction and
emphasizes in-role task performance more than innovation. We argue that highly empowered followers
in particular might view this as controlling and demotivating causing less innovative behavior (Deci &
Ryan, 1987).
In short, we propose that transformational leadership is more effective in engendering innovative
behavior under conditions of high psychological empowerment than under conditions of low
psychological empowerment, whereas transactional leadership is more likely to be detrimental to
innovative behavior under conditions of high psychological empowerment.
Hypothesis 1: The relationship between transformational leadership and follower innovative
behavior is moderated by psychological empowerment, such that the relationship is positive with
high psychological empowerment and weaker with low psychological empowerment.
Hypothesis 2: The relationship between transactional leadership and follower innovative behavior is
moderated by psychological empowerment, such that the relationship is negative with high
psychological empowerment and weaker with low psychological empowerment.
Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 31, 609–623 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/job
614 A. NEDERVEEN PIETERSE ET AL.
Method
Research context
Respondents in this study were employees of a government agency in the Netherlands. The agency’s
main responsibility was to monitor environmental conditions in the Netherlands. In addition, the
organization was to inform the public on this issue. As government agencies in the Netherlands require
individual accountability, employees did not work in teams but had their own individual
responsibilities. No major events took place during the collection of data in the organization. The
jobs of the employees varied from administrative work to microbiological research.
Sample and procedure
Surveys were sent by internal mail to 425 employees. Only employees who had worked with their
supervisor for over 3 months were approached. Respondents varied in hierarchical position and
educational background. Subordinates were asked to rate their own level of psychological
empowerment and the level of transformational and transactional leadership of their primary leader.
Two hundred thirty one of the employees returned the questionnaire (54 per cent). Sixty-six per cent
was male, thirty-four per cent was female. Mean age was 39.9 (SD¼ 9.7). On average these individuals
had been working for this organization for 8 years (SD¼ 6.67). Twenty-one per cent had a lower level
of education (vocational degree). Thirty-six per cent had a bachelors degree and forty-three per cent
had a masters degree or higher. To avoid common source bias, direct daily supervisors were approached
to rate the employees on their level of innovative behavior. Eighty-six per cent (198) of the participating
employees were also rated by their supervisor.
Measures
Transformational and transactional leadership
To measure transformational and transactional leadership the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire
Form 5X was used (Bass & Avolio, 1995). The questionnaire was translated using the translation-back-
translation procedure (in collaboration with Bruce Avolio, one of the authors of the MLQ).
Transformational leadership was measured with 20 items (4 items per subcomponent) and transactional
leadership was measured with 8 items (4 items per subcomponent). Sample items are ‘‘My leader
articulates a compelling vision of the future’’ (transformational leadership) and ‘‘My leader provides
assistance in exchange for your effort’’ (transactional leadership) rated on a five-point scale ranging
from 1 (not at all) to 5 (frequently, if not always).
Follower psychological empowerment
A translation (Janssen, Schoonenbeek, & van Looy, 1997) of the entire 12-item questionnaire of
Spreitzer (1995) was used to measure follower psychological empowerment. The scale consisted of
four three-item subscales measuring meaning, competence, self-determination, and impact. Sample
items are ‘‘The work I do is meaningful to me’’ (meaning), ‘‘I am confident about my ability to do my
job’’ (competence), ‘‘I have significant autonomy in determining how I do my job’’ (self-
determination), and ‘‘My impact on what happens in my department is large’’ (impact), varying from 1
(completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree).
Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 31, 609–623 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/job
LEADERSHIP AND INNOVATIVE BEHAVIOR 615
Follower innovative behavior
Innovative behavior was measured by ratings from the supervisors of the participating employees on a
scale used by Janssen et al. (1997; cf. Janssen, 2001). The scale consisted of 16 items measuring the
subscales problem recognition, generation of ideas or solutions, building support for ideas, and idea
implementation with four items each. Sample items include ‘‘signals problem areas’’ (problem
recognition), ‘‘generates original solutions’’ (generation of ideas or solutions), ‘‘seeks support for
innovations behind the scenes’’ (building support for ideas), and ‘‘translates innovative ideas into
feasible applications’’ (idea implementation) 1 (to a small extent) to 5 (to a large extent).
Control variablesPast research has consistently related level of education and tenure to innovative behaviors (e.g., Baer,
Oldham, & Cummings, 2003; West & Anderson, 1996, Wiersema & Bantel, 1992). To make sure our
findings hold irrespective of these individual attribute variables, we incorporated these variables as
control variables. Level of education was divided into three levels: (1) ‘‘Lower vocational degree or
less’’; (2) ‘‘bachelor degree’’; and (3) ‘‘master degree or more’’. Even though we did not expect effects
for gender, we examined it as a control variable to make sure this demographic variable did not affect
our results. Consistent with prior research (cf. Jung, 2001), gender was not related to innovative
behavior (b¼ .10, b¼ .07, p¼ .33). Therefore, we did not incorporate it in our final model. Excluding
gender did not affect our findings.
Results
Table 1 displays means, standard deviations, reliabilities, and correlations among all variables. The
reliability of most scales was high; only transactional leadership had moderate reliability.
Regression analyses
To test the hypotheses, hierarchical regression analysis was performed using centered variables and
pairwise deletion (Aiken & West, 1991). In the first step the control variables were entered. In the
Table 1. Descriptive statistics and correlations among the variables
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 Gender .34 .48 —2 Age 39.86 9.67 �.28�� —3 Level of education 2.22 0.78 �.08 �.24�� —4 Tenure 8.88 4.08 �.20�� .68�� �.29�� —5 Transformational leadership 3.55 0.59 �.03 �.03 .06 .01 (.90)6 Transactional leadership 2.70 0.51 .00 .08 �13 .12 .56�� (.63)7 Psychological empowerment 3.77 0.51 .07 .08 �.06 .09 .33�� .17� (.85)8 Innovative behavior 3.15 0.68 .12 �.24�� .38�� �.28�� .04 �.19� .15� (.93)
Note: Cronbach as are reported on the diagonal between brackets. N¼ 230, with pairwise deletion of missing values, whichmeans that some correlations are based on lower N.�p< .05; ��p< .01.
Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 31, 609–623 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/job
Table 2. Hierarchical regressions
Variable
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4
b b b b b b b b
Level of education .29 .32�� .26 .29�� .27 .31�� .26 .29��
Tenure �.03 �.18� �.03 �.17� �.03 �.18�� �.03 �.18�
Transactional leadership �.29 �.22� �.28 �.21� �.26 �.20�
Transformational leadership .17 .14 .07 .06 .09 .08Psychological empowerment .26 .20�� .25 .19��
Transactional leadership x psychologicalempowerment
�.58 �.20�
Transformational leadership x psychologicalempowerment
.37 .17�
Note: R2¼ .14�� for Step 1; DR2¼ .03� for Step 2; DR2¼ .03� for Step 3; DR2¼ .03�� for Step 4. N¼ 230, with pairwise deletion.Note that pairwise deletion of missing values implies that N varies for each pair of variables in the equation as a function of thenumber of missing values for each variable involved.�p< .05; ��p< .01.
616 A. NEDERVEEN PIETERSE ET AL.
second step transactional leadership and transformational leadership were added. Subsequently, in the
third step we added psychological empowerment. In the final step the interaction terms of
psychological empowerment with transformational and transactional leadership were added to test our
hypotheses. One outlier was removed from analyses based on an extreme score on transactional
leadership (z score> 3.29). As the distribution of tenure was skewed towards short-term employees, the
square root was taken to transform the variable into a normal distribution (using the transformed or
original variable in our model does not alter our findings). Table 2 shows the results of the hierarchical
analyses.
Results showed that before taking the interactions into account, level of education was positively
related to innovative behavior and tenure was negatively related to innovative behavior. In addition,
transactional leadership was negatively related to innovative behavior. Transformational leadership
was not related to innovative behavior, lending support to our argument that the relationship between
transformational leadership and innovative behavior should not be seen as a straightforward main
effect. Psychological empowerment was positively related to innovative behavior. The model
containing psychological empowerment as a moderator of transformational leadership had significant
added value over the model with only the main effects and the interaction between transactional
leadership and psychological empowerment.
In line with Hypothesis 1, we found an interaction between transformational leadership and
psychological empowerment, as can be seen in Figure 1. To determine the nature of this interaction, we
performed simple slopes analysis (Aiken & West, 1991). For individuals high on psychological
empowerment (one standard deviation above the mean) a positive relationship between transforma-
tional leadership and innovative behavior was found (b¼ .29, b¼ .25, p¼ .03). For low empowered
individuals (one standard deviation below the mean) transformational leadership had no relationship
with innovative behavior (b¼�.10, b¼�.09, ns.). As expected (Hypothesis 2) we found moderation
by psychological empowerment of the relationship between transactional leadership and innovative
behavior (Figure 2). Simple slopes analysis showed that for high psychological empowerment a
negative relationship between transactional leadership and innovative behavior was found (b¼�.58,
b¼�.43, p¼ .001). For lower levels of psychological empowerment no relationship was found
(b¼ .03, b¼ .03, ns.).
Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 31, 609–623 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/job
Figure 1. The interaction between transformational leadership and follower psychological empowerment oninnovative behavior of followers
Figure 2. The interaction between transactional leadership and follower psychological empowerment on inno-vative behavior of followers
LEADERSHIP AND INNOVATIVE BEHAVIOR 617
Discussion
Evidence for the relationships of transformational and transactional leadership with follower
innovative behavior is scarce and inconsistent. The goal of the present study was to shed more light on
these relationships by examining follower psychological empowerment as a moderator. Psychological
empowerment was found to moderate the relationship with innovative behavior of both
transformational and transactional leadership. Transformational leadership was positively related to
Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 31, 609–623 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/job
618 A. NEDERVEEN PIETERSE ET AL.
follower innovative behavior only with higher psychological empowerment, whereas transactional
leadership was negatively related to follower innovative behavior only under these conditions.
Moreover, we found support for a more refined augmentation hypothesis for follower innovative
behavior, showing that the interaction between transformational leadership and psychological
empowerment significantly added to the impact of transactional leadership. The present study thus
shows that a more refined model of transformational and transactional leadership may be a stronger
predictor of follower innovative behavior, indicating the importance of incorporating psychological
empowerment in research in transformational and transactional leadership.
Theoretical implications
The findings of the present study establish a boundary condition (i.e., psychological empowerment) to
the effectiveness of transformational leadership in engendering innovative behavior. Results supported
our argument that followers need to feel empowered to act on the inspirational appeal of
transformational leadership. Thus, whereas the present study confirms the proposition that
transformational leadership may engender innovative behavior—a proposition that is a cornerstone
in transformational leadership theory—it also shows that psychological empowerment plays an
important role in determining whether this positive relationship materializes.
Transactional leadership was shown to be detrimental to innovative behavior with higher levels of
follower psychological empowerment, corroborating our argument that followers with high
psychological empowerment may view transactional leadership as controlling and demotivating at
the expense of innovative behavior. With lower psychological empowerment transactional leadership
was less strongly related to innovative behavior. Results underline the notion that transactional
leadership does not necessarily have detrimental effects on followers, in accordance with arguments of
previous researchers (e.g., Bass, 1999)—although we should add that no positive influence on
innovative behavior was obtained either.
Results of the present study show that both transformational and transactional leadership seem to be
influential only with high psychological empowerment. Indeed psychological empowerment seems to be a
precondition for innovative behavior. With low psychological empowerment innovative behavior was low
irrespective of leadership behavior. With high psychological empowerment leadership influenced the
extent to which this translated into innovative behavior. These results are in line with previous research that
highlighted the importance of psychological empowerment for innovative behavior (e.g., Jung et al., 2003;
Spreitzer, 1995; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990), but also qualify these findings by demonstrating the
influence of leadership on the innovative behavior of psychologically empowered individuals.
The present study also points to the role of other potential moderator variables that may be precursors
to psychological empowerment. Of specific interest may be creativity-relevant knowledge, skills, and
abilities (i.e., KSAs; Amabile, 1983a, 1983b). These variables have received a large amount of
attention over the years and have been shown to be important for creative performance (Amabile,
1983a, 1983b; Barron & Harrington, 1981). Because the focus of the present study was on the
motivational aspects of innovative behavior, we did not examine KSAs directly. However, one might
argue that creativity-relevant KSAs affect creative self-efficacy (Tierny & Farmer, 2002). In turn, creative
self-efficacy can be reasoned to be quite strongly related to psychological empowerment, because
perceived competence is an important part of psychological empowerment as well as of creative self-
efficacy. Therefore, creativity-relevant KSAs may also moderate the relationships of transformational and
transactional leadership with innovative behavior. This is a promising avenue for future studies.
Given the importance of psychological empowerment for the relationships of transformational and
transactional leadership with follower innovative behavior, psychological empowerment can also be
Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 31, 609–623 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/job
LEADERSHIP AND INNOVATIVE BEHAVIOR 619
expected to be important for the effects of both leadership styles on other follower behaviors. That is,
our arguments are not necessarily restricted to innovative behavior. Based on the influence processes
underlying the effects of transformational and transactional leadership, we expect that psychological
empowerment may be especially important for effects on more complex and less routine task-
performance (e.g., in knowledge-intensive work) and on more complex instances of extra-role
behavior. Examples are complex instances of organizational citizenship behavior (Organ, 1988),
certain kinds of prosocial behavior (Brief & Motowidlo, 1986), and personal initiative (Frese, Kring,
Soose, & Zempel, 1996). Indeed, we predict that the more complex and non-routine the targeted
behavior in question, the more important psychological empowerment is as a moderator of the effects
of transformational (and transactional) leadership.
An additional implication of the present study may be that only with higher psychological
empowerment transformational leadership can be seen as more beneficial to innovative behavior than
transactional leadership. As theoretical and empirical research frequently contrast the (positive) effects
of transformational with the (less beneficial) effects of transactional leadership, the present study
suggests this is only warranted with elevated levels of psychological empowerment—at least where
innovative behavior is concerned. As indicated in the preceding paragraph, however, this may also hold
for other outcomes (e.g., personal initiative; Frese et al., 1996).
Managerial implications
The results of the present study imply that transformational leadership can be instrumental in
increasing in employee innovative behavior. However, organizations should not simply promote
transformational or discourage transactional leadership, but should take follower psychological
empowerment into account. Through management development programs leaders could be made
aware of the level of psychological empowerment of followers, indicating when more attention should
be paid to stimulating psychological empowerment versus stimulating transformational leadership. In
general, it seems most beneficial to stimulate both followers’ psychological empowerment and
transformational leadership. Through empowerment programs organizations may set the stage for the
more effective use of transformational leadership in engendering innovative behavior. Furthermore,
research has shown that transformational and transactional leadership can be learned and training
programs have been developed (Barling, Weber, & Kelloway, 1996; Dvir, Eden, Avolio, & Shamir,
2002), suggesting that efforts to increase follower psychological empowerment can be complemented
by leadership development efforts to increase transformational leadership.
Limitations and suggestions for future research
Some limitations of the present study must be considered. One limitation is that our study makes use of
a cross-sectional survey which does not allow conclusions regarding causality nor does it fully capture
the dynamic nature of the relationship between leader and follower behavior. Replication of our
findings in studies using different methods, for instance laboratory or field experiments, as well as
longitudinal designs would be highly valuable.
The sample of the study might be another limitation. The organization was a governmental agency,
which might have restricted psychological empowerment by limiting the amount of autonomy for
followers and the impact they could have on their surroundings. However, this would more likely have
attenuated the relationships under investigation, rendering the current tests relatively conservative.
Nevertheless, it would be interesting to replicate the present results in a different environment.
Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 31, 609–623 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/job
620 A. NEDERVEEN PIETERSE ET AL.
In addition, the constructs in the present study were measured with subjective ratings. Common
source bias was avoided by using both leader and follower ratings. However, replicating the findings
with more objective measures would add to our confidence in our findings.
Also, we need to mention that the aim of the study was not to provide a comprehensive model of all
antecedents of innovative behavior of employees. Our aim was to clarify the relationship between
transactional and transformational leadership with follower innovative behavior in particular. In
addition, we need to stress that also other moderators may affect the relationship between trans-
formational and transactional leadership and innovative behavior. Our specific focus should by no means
be interpreted as arguing against or downplaying the influence of other moderators or antecedents of
innovative behavior, such as a climate supportive of innovation (West & Anderson, 1996).
Finally, the present study did not focus on the underlying influence processes. Therefore, based on
the present data we cannot conclude that the current findings were obtained through the underlying
processes we assumed. Future studies might for instance examine perceptions of transactional
leadership to verify that it is indeed perceived as overly controlling and demotivating by employees
high in psychological empowerment.
Conclusion
As innovation is more and more important for organizations, the study of what affects innovative
behavior of employees is increasingly important. Especially the study of antecedents that are under
managerial control are of substantial value for organizations. The rise in research on transformational and
transactional leadership over the past decades held the promise of uncovering transformational leadership
as an important determinant of follower innovative behavior. However, evidence to this effect has been
scarce and inconsistent. The present study aspired to uncover a possible reason for the inconsistent findings
of research into this relationship, identifying psychological empowerment as a prerequisite for the
effectiveness of transformational leadership: Transformational leadership is only associated with increased
follower innovative behavior when psychological empowerment of followers is high.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to Bruce Avolio for his help with translating the MLQ in Dutch through back translation
and to Steffen Giessner, Terry Beehr, and three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.
Author biographies
Anne Nederveen Pieterse is Postdoctoral Researcher at the Human Resource Management &
Organizational Behavior Department, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Groningen,
The Netherlands. She received her Ph.D. from the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus
University Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Her research interests focus on leadership, innovation, team
functioning, team diversity, and goal orientation.
Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 31, 609–623 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/job
LEADERSHIP AND INNOVATIVE BEHAVIOR 621
Daan vanKnippenberg is Professor of Organizational Behavior at Rotterdam School of Management,
Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands. He received his Ph.D. from Leiden University, The
Netherlands. His research interests include work group performance, especially work group diversity
and group decision making, leadership, in particular the roles of self and identity, and of emotions, and
social identity processes in organizations.
Michaela Schippers is Assistant Professor of Organizational Behavior at the Rotterdam School of
Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, the Netherlands. She received her Ph.D. from the
Psychology Department at the Free University in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Her current research
interests include team reflexivity, team diversity, and leadership, as well as team cognition, learning and
decision-making.
Daan Stam is Assistant Professor of Innovation Management at the Rotterdam School of Management,
Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands. He received his Ph.D. from the Rotterdam School of
Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands. His research interests include leader-
ship, teams, self-regulation, and creativity and innovation.
References
Aiken, J. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. New York: Sage.Amabile, T. M. (1983a). The social psychology of creativity. New York: Springer-Verlag.Amabile, T. M. (1983b). The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 45, 357–376.
Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in OrganizationalBehavior, 10, 123–167.
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999). Re-examining the components of transformational and
transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organ-izational Psychology, 72, 441–462.
Baer, M., Oldham, G., & Cummings, A. (2003). Rewarding creativity: When does it really matter? LeadershipQuarterly, 14, 569–586.
Barling, J., Weber, T., & Kelloway, E. K. (1996). Effects of transformational leadership training on attitudinal andfinancial outcomes: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 827–832.
Barron, F., & Harrington, D. M. (1981). Creativity, intelligence, and personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 32,439–476.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: The Free Press.Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industry, military, and educational impact. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership. European Journal ofWork and Organizational Psychology, 8, 9–32.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1995). MLQ Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Redwood City, CA: MindGarden.
Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Basu, R., & Green, S. G. (1997). Leader-member exchange and transformational leadership: An empirical exami-
nation of innovative behaviors in leader-member dyads. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 477–499.Boerner, S., Eisenbeiss, S. A., & Griesse, D. (2007). Follower behavior and organizational performance: The
impact of transformational leaders. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 13, 15–26.Brief, A. P., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1986). Prosocial organizational behaviors. Academy of Management Review, 11,
710–725.Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.Carless, S. A. (2004). Does psychological empowerment mediate the relationship between psychological climate
and job satisfaction? Journal of Business and Psychology, 18, 405–425.
Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 31, 609–623 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/job
622 A. NEDERVEEN PIETERSE ET AL.
Church, A. H., & Waclawski, J. (1998). The relationship between individual personality orientation and executiveleadership behavior. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 71, 99–125.
Conger, J. A. (1999). Charismatic and transformational leadership in organizations: An insider’s perspective onthese developing streams of research. The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 145–462.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). The support of autonomy and the control of behavior. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 53, 1024–1037.
Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B. J., & Shamir, B. (2002). Impact of transformational leadership on followerdevelopment and performance: A field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 735–744.
Ergeneli, A., Saglam, G., & Metin, S. (2007). Psychological empowerment and its relationship to trust inimmediate managers. Journal of Business Research, 60, 41–49.
Fiedler, F. E. (1964). A contingency model of leadership effectiveness. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances inexperimental social psychology (pp. 149–190). New York: Academic Press.
Frese, M., Kring, W., Soose, A., & Zempel, J. (1996). Personal initiative at work: Differences between East andWest Germany. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 37–63.
Gumusluoglu, L., & Ilsev, A. (2009). Transformational leadership, creativity, and organizational innovation.Journal of Business Research, 62, 461–473.
House, R. J. (1971). A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, 321–338.Howell, J. M., & Higgins, C. A. (1990). Champions of technological innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly,35, 317–341.
Janssen, O. (2001). Fairness perceptions as a moderator in the curvilinear relationships between job demands, andjob performance and job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 1039–1050.
Janssen, O., Schoonenbeek, G., & van Looy, B. (1997). Cognities van empowerment als de schakel tussendelegerend leiderschap en innovatief gedrag van werknemers. Gedrag en Organisatie, 10, 175–194.
Jaussi, K. S., & Dionne, S. D. (2003). Leading for creativity: The role of unconventional leader behavior. TheLeadership Quarterly, 14, 475–498.
Jung, D. I. (2001). Transformational and transactional leadership and their effects on creativity in groups.Creativity Research Journal, 13, 185–195.
Jung, D. I., & Avolio, B. J. (2000). Opening the black box: An experimental investigation of the mediating effectsof trust and value congruence on transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of OrganizationalBehavior, 21, 949–964.
Jung, D. I., Chow, C., & Wu, A. (2003). The role of transformational leadership in enhancing organizationalinnovation: Hypotheses and some preliminary findings. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 525–544.
Jung, D. I., Wu, A., & Chow, C. (2008). Towards understanding the direct and indirect effects of CEO’stransformational leadership on firm innovation. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 582.
Kahai, S. S., Sosik, J. J., & Avolio, B. J. (2003). Effects of leadership style, anonymity, and rewards on creativity-relevant processes and outcomes in an electronic meeting system context. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 499–524.
Kanter, R. M. (1988). When a thousand flowers bloom: Structural, collective, and social conditions for innovationin organizations. In B. M. Staw, & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior 10 (pp. 169–211). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Keller, R. T. (1992). Transformational leadership and the performance of research and development project groups.Journal of Management, 18, 489–501.
Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. (1997). A model of work team empowerment. Research in Organizational Changeand Development, 10, 131–167.
Leach, D. J., Wall, T. D., & Jackson, P. R. (2003). The effect of empowerment on job knowledge: An empirical testinvolving operators of complex technology. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76, 27–52.
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Sparrowe, R. T. (2000). An examination of the mediating role of psychologicalempowerment on the relations between the job, interpersonal relationships, and work outcomes. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 85, 407–416.
Moss, S. A., & Ritossa, D. A. (2007). The impact of goal orientation on the association between leadership styleand follower performance, creativity and work attitudes. Leadership, 3, 433–456.
Mumford, M. D., & Licuanan, B. (2004). Leading for innovation: Conclusions, issues, and directions. TheLeadership Quarterly, 15, 163–171.
Mumford, M. D., Scott, G. M., Gaddis, B., & Strange, J. M. (2002). Leading creative people: Orchestratingexpertise and relationships. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 705–750.
Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 31, 609–623 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/job
LEADERSHIP AND INNOVATIVE BEHAVIOR 623
Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work. Academy ofManagement Journal, 39, 607–634.
Organ, D. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: LexingtonBooks.
Pelz, D. C., & Andrews, F. M. (1996). Autonomy, coordination, and stimulation in relation to scientificachievement. Behavioral Science, 11, 89–97.
Reicher, S., D., Haslam, S. A., & Hopkins, N., (2005). Social identity and the dynamics of leadership:Categorization, entrepreneurship and power in the transformation of social reality. Leadership Quarterly,16, 547–568.
Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation inthe workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 580–607.
Shalley, C. E. (1995). Effects of coaction, expected evaluation, and goal setting on creativity and productivity.Academy of Management Journal, 38, 483–503.
Shamir, B. (2007). From passive recipients to active coproducers: Followers’ roles in the leadership process. In B.Shamir, R. Pillai, M. C. Bligh, & M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.), Follower-centered perspectives on leadership: A tribute tothe memory of James R. Meindl (pp. ix–xxxix). Greenwich, CT: Inform Age.
Shin, A. J., & Zhou, J. (2003). Transformational leadership, conservation and creativity: Evidence from Korea.Academy of Management Journal, 46, 703–714.
Shin, A. J., & Zhou, J. (2007). When is educational specialization heterogeneity related to creativity in research anddevelopment teams? Transformational leadership as a moderator. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1709–1721.
Sosik, J. J., Kahai, S. S., & Avolio, B. J. (1998). Transformational leadership and dimensions of creativity:Motivating idea generation in computer-mediated groups. Creativity Research Journal, 11, 111–121.
Sosik, J. J., Kahai, S. S., & Avolio, B. J. (1999). Leadership style, anonymity, and creativity in group decisionsupport systems: The mediating role of optimal flow. Journal of Creative Behavior, 33, 227–256.
Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation.Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1442–1465.
Thomas, K. W., & Velthouse, B. A. (1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment: An ‘‘interpretive’’ model ofintrinsic task motivation. Academy of Management Review, 15, 661–681.
Tichy, N. M., & Devanna, M. A. (1986). The transformational leader. New York: Wiley.Tichy, N. M., & Ulrich, D. O. (1984). The leadership challenge—a call for the transformational leader. SloanManagement Review, 26, 59–68.
Tierny, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2002). Creative self-efficacy: Its potential antecedents and relationship to creativeperformance. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 1137–1148.
van Knippenberg, D., & Hogg, M. A. (2003). A social identity model of leadership effectiveness in organizations.Research in Organizational Behavior, 25, 243–295.
Waldman, D. A., & Atwater, L. E. (1994). The nature of effective leadership and championing processes atdifferent levels in an R&D hierarchy. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 5, 233–245.
West, M. A., & Anderson, N. R. (1996). Innovation in top management teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81,680–693.
West, M. A., Hirst, G., Richter, A., & Shipton, H. (2004). Twelve steps to heaven: Successfully managing changethrough developing innovative teams. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 13, 269–299.
Wiersema, M. G., & Bantel, K. A. (1992). Top management team demography and corporate strategic change.Academy of Management Journal, 35, 91–121.
Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy ofManagement Review, 18, 293–321.
Yukl, G. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories.The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 285–305.
Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations (5th ed.) Upper Saddle Rive, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 31, 609–623 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/job
