THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND

INNOVATIVE WORK BEHAVIOR:

The role of Self-efficacy and the effect of Perceived Organizational Support on Innovative Work Behavior

Master thesis Human Resource Studies

Student: Bouke Kroes

ANR: 997301

Faculty of Social and Behavioral Sciences

Supervisor: Dr. M. Verhagen

Second reader: Dr. R. de Reuver

January 2015 – August 2015

3

Abstract

This cross-sectional study investigated the relationship between transformational leadership

and Innovative Work Behavior (IWB) mediated by employees´ self-efficacy. Previous studies

found already that transformational leadership positively impacted IWB. Digital questionnaires

were distributed among different Dutch organizations, which resulted in 267 participants. The

direct effect of transformational leadership on IWB is also found in this research. The Social

Cognitive Theory of Bandura (1985) was used to theoretically substantiate the mediating effect

of self-efficacy. Results of this research showed also that transformational leadership positively

increases employees´ self-efficacy and that self-efficacy, in turn, enhances employees´ IWB. The

process bootstrap method of Hayes (2013) indicated a positive significant mediating effect of

self-efficacy. Perceived Organizational Support (POS) was added as moderator in order to

examine whether the relationship of self-efficacy on IWB is strengthened by POS. However, the

expected significant moderating effect of POS was not found in this research. Further findings

are discussed in the paper and recommendations for further research are suggested.

Key words: Innovative work behavior, transformational leadership, self-efficacy, perceived

organizational support.

4

Introduction

Since employees are seen as crucial for continuity, viability, and growth within organizations,

organizational leaders are more focused on fostering innovative behavior among employees.

The need for capable employees, who are able to function in broader proactive work roles

(Bateman & Crant, 1993; Dean & Snell, 1991), remains as a recurring phenomenon within firms.

According to Crant (2000) innovation is a form of employee proactive work behavior. Dress and

Pickens (2000) describe innovation as a critical success factor whether an organization is

successful or fails. The concept innovation is widely used whereby creativity and the

implementation of new ideas are seen as crucial innovation aspects (Axtell, Holman, Unsworth,

Wall, Waterson, & Harrington, 2000). Innovation achieved by employees is considered as the

most excellent way to promote organizational innovation and success (Mytelka & Smith, 2002).

Creating competitive advantage and achieving important performance outcomes (e.g.

innovation) may be caused by employees´ innovative work behavior (Yuan & Woodman, 2010).

Innovative Work Behavior (IWB) is seen as an attractive topic where many researchers are

increasingly interested in. Innovation research discusses the importance of the management of

innovation at all levels within organizations, wherein the organizational, workgroup, network,

and individual level are included (King & Anderson, 2002). Encouraging innovative behavior at

all levels requires a leadership style in order to affect directly and indirectly organizations’

innovation (Jung, Wu, & Chow, 2003). Leaders’ ability to stimulate creativity and innovation

within the organization depends partially on the leader characteristics (Mumford, Scott, Gaddis,

& Strange, 2002). Furthermore, certain leadership styles and tactics have the ability to influence

employees´ willingness to engage in innovation, which in turn will lead to innovation (Mumford

et al., 2002). Transformational leadership is introduced by Bass (1985) as a leadership style

whereby the role of the leader is basically to function as a change agent. Transformational

leaders have a deviant perception of the future and encourage their employees to work

together to achieve the visualized new future (Vera & Crossan, 2004). Employees’ IWB can be

stimulated by having transformational leaders within the organization (Reuvers, Van Engen,

Vinkenburg, & Wilson-Evered, 2008).

5

To address the issue of enhancing employees’ IWB, specific attention should be paid to

employees’ belief of their competence which may influence their behavior. Self-efficacy impact

employees’ choices, and in which tasks employees engage because they feel self-assured and

capable in doing it. Previous studies examined the influence of creative self-efficacy on new

venture performance (Hmieleski & Corbett, 2008) and creative self-efficacy, and creative self-

efficacy development on creative performance (Tierney & Farmer, 2002; 2011). These results

emphasize the importance of the creative aspect of self-efficacy and show that employees´ self-

efficacy may impact changes in outcomes, creativity, and new venture performance.

However, the effect of general self-efficacy on IWB has been rarely studied. While the

relationship between transformational leadership and IWB is more often studied, the impact of

the intervening mediating effect of self-efficacy is emphasized in this research.

Transformational leadership may enhance employees’ self-efficacy which in turn will increase

employees’ IWB. Besides, the role of the organization in enhancing employees’ self-efficacy

may be crucial. Employees indicated that they feel the need to work in a highly supportive work

environment (Shalley & Gilson, 2004), which consists of interactions between the leader,

colleagues, team members, and employees, whether the work environment is perceived

supportive, and employees’ expectations of their evaluation and rewards. Based on the fact

that employees have the need to work in a supportive work environment (Shalley & Gilson,

2004), Perceived Organizational Support (POS) may be an important factor to strengthen the

effect of employees´ self-efficacy on IWB. Organizations should not neglect the impact of

fairness, rewards, agreeable job environment and supervisor support on employees’ perception

(Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). Employees who perceive their organization as supportive may

feel more confident and self-assured in order to exhibit IWB. The self-efficacy and IWB of

employees may therefore be enhanced by the experienced supportiveness of the organizations.

The aim of this research is to investigate to what extent transformational leadership influence

employees’ IWB through enhancing their self-efficacy, and how POS can strengthen the effect

of employees’ self-efficacy on IWB. As result the following research question is formulated:

´To what extent is Innovative Work Behavior related to transformational leadership and

self-efficacy and does Perceived Organizational Support moderate this relationship?´

6

Theoretical framework

Innovative Work Behavior

In the past few years, different definitions of IWB have been developed. Although there are

several definitions, a clear definition of IWB is still lacking. Spiegelaere, Van Gyes, and Van

Hootegem (2014) describe IWB as ‘all employee behavior aimed at generation, introduction

and/or application (within a role, group or organization) of ideas, processes, products or

procedures, new and intended to benefit the relevant adoption (p.144).’ This definition

emphasizes the importance of relative novelties and not only on absolute new innovations.

Employees’ IWB may therefore be understood as the initiation and intentional behavior to

introduce new ideas, products, processes, and procedures (Farr & Ford, 1990). The definition of

Spiegelaere et al. (2014) suggest that IWB affect different levels of the organization (role, group

or organization), whereby the emphasis is on the fact that IWB is applicable for everyone in the

organization. The importance of behavioral aspect of IWB instead of focusing on employees’

output or attitudes is also highlighted by this definition.

In order to describe innovation within organizations, De Jong and Den Hartog (2010)

characterize innovation as a multi-stage process. According to these researchers innovation

consist of the four elements, namely idea exploration, idea generation, idea championing, and

idea implementation. The first element idea exploration involves the process of searching for

ideas how actual products and processes can be improved and developed. The second element

idea generation refers to the process where information should be combined and reorganized

with a focus on problem solving and increasing current performance. The next element of IWB

is idea championing which includes promotion of new ideas that are not yet applied in the

organization. Idea championing comes into play when the ideas have already been generated.

The focus is on searching the right support and creating coalitions in the organization in order

to convince other people to become part of the innovation process. The final and fourth

element refers to the implementation of the ideas. Implementation of new ideas and

innovation should be part of the daily work process. Employees’ behavior is important in order

to develop, test, and possibly revise the new developed products, services, and processes.

7

Previous research found a positive relation between leadership behaviors and employees’ idea

generation and application (De Jong & Den Hartog, 2007). Although existing studies found

already evidence that leadership behaviors impact employees´ idea generation and application,

this research paid special attention to all the four elements of innovation. This research

assumed that leadership behavior is also positively related to idea exploration and idea

championing and used therefore IWB as one concept.

Transformational leadership

Leadership is a broad concept which has resulted in different perceptions and definitions. Over

years, research on leadership adopted various perspectives on how leadership characteristics

and behavior is linked to effectiveness. Research of Albrecht (2005) showed that employees’

leadership perceptions impacted their motivation to change, which implies that leadership is

seen as an important factor in order to stimulate employees to alter their behavior and come

into action. As a separate form of leadership, the concept transformational leadership was

initiated with focus on inspiring and empowering employees to step out of their comfort zone

(Bass, 1985).

Transformational leadership give insight in how leaders’ behavior may energize

colleagues and employees to go further in thinking and acting than they intended and to do

more than what they in advance expected to do. According to Bass and Avolio (1994)

transformational leadership consists of four components. First, transformational leadership can

be described as optimal when followers mirror the ideas and identify their self with their

leaders. Followers respect and trust their leaders based on the experienced ethical behavior

and charisma. Second, transformational leadership encourage and motivate followers to get

more understanding and enthusiasm for visioning future goals and plans through providing

followers challenges. The leader ensures that the future expectations of the followers are

clearly communicated in order to develop a shared vision and create commitment. Third,

transformational leadership emphasize the importance of intellectual stimulation of followers

to make use of their abilities. Followers are supported by their leaders to be innovative and

creative. New problem solutions and creative ideas are useful to approach the old and new

work situation and are not disapproved by their leaders if others viewed it as aberrant. Last, the

8

transformational leader needs to be sympathetic and thoughtful to their followers and provide

them coaching, mentoring, and support. The four elements of Bass and Avolio (1994) constitute

transformational leadership in order to create conditions for facilitating and guide employees.

Transformational leadership and Innovative Work Behavior

The Attribution Theory (Weiner, 1985) indicates that people have to interpret and observe their

work environment, and determine causes before they behave. To describe employees’ behavior

this theory distinguishes situational and dispositional attributions (Martinko, 1995). Employees’

dispositional attributions refer to the behavior to internal factors (e.g. individual characteristics

or ability). In contrast, situational attributions refer to employees’ behavior based on external

factors. An example of an external factor is social influence such as the leadership within the

organization. Individual perceptions and interpretation of the leadership are first formed,

hereafter certain behavior is exhibited. Employees give meaning to behavior of people through

their perceptions of the other persons’ intentions (Thomas & Pondy, 1977). Leaders’ perceived

intentionality will influence employees’ interpretations and responses, which results in certain

behavior (Ferris, Bhawuk, Fedor, & Judge, 1995). Behavior exhibited by transformational

leaders, such as support or intellectual stimulation, may influence employees´ innovative

behavior by creating new ideas and solutions, and reframing existing work processes. Prior

research found already a positive relationship between transformational leadership and idea

generation and implementation (De Jong & Den Hartog, 2007). However, this research suggests

that transformational leadership is also able to positively affect idea exploration and

championing. Idea exploration may be enhanced by the transformational leader who

intellectual stimulates the employees to make use of their abilities in order search for new

ideas to improve processes and products. Intellectual stimulation combined with support,

mentoring, and coaching provided by the leader, are possible factors for searching new

products and processes. Besides, mentoring, coaching, and support may be important aspects

for reorganizing information in order to solve problems and enhance performance, and for

implement new ideas in the daily work setting. Transformational leadership which also focuses

on creating commitment and a shared vision, may be essential for employees in order promote

9

their innovative ideas to other employees in the organization. Besides the possible

interconnection between elements of both concepts, previous research indicates already that

transformational leadership positively affect IWB (Reuvers, et al., 2008; Afsar, Badir, & Bin

Saeed, 2014), which support the assumption of this research that transformational leadership

may influence all the four elements of IWB.

H1: Transformational leadership increases employee´s Innovative Work Behavior.

The mediating effect of self-efficacy

This study assumed that transformational leadership may impact employees’ IWB via self-

efficacy. Aspects from a transformational leadership style such as coaching, mentoring, support,

encouraging for envisioning future goals, stimulating employees´ intellectual abilities to be

supportive and creative, may be important for enhancing employees´ self-efficacy. A self-

assured employee in turn, will be more likely to exhibit IWB. Bandura (1995) described self-

efficacy as the ‘belief in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action

required to manage prospective situations’ (p.2). Employees’ self-efficacy influence employees’

thoughts, feelings, and determines how they handle and motivate their selves.

Transformational leaders may positively influence employees’ self-efficacy. Positive

supportiveness perceptions of employees from their supervisor result in positive outcomes

such as job satisfaction, positive mood, and performance (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002).

Findings of Janssen (2005) reveal that supportive supervisors who encourage innovation have a

positive effect on employees’ intention to make use of their influence in order to execute

innovative work activities. Transformational leaders who exhibit supportiveness towards their

employees combined with showing ethical behavior and, motivate and stimulate employees

intellectually may therefore be essential for increasing self-efficacy.

H2: Transformational leadership positively influence employee´s self-efficacy.

10

The Social Cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986) explains that employees’ motivations and

behavior is based on judgments that they make of own capabilities and the expectations of

possible outcomes of their performed tasks. Employees’ judgments of their own capabilities

and confidence are influenced by individuals’ self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is seen as a motivational

concept which has the ability to influence employees’ goals, activity choices, and performance.

High levels of employee self-efficacy are assumed to increase employees’ IWB. The concept

self-efficacy can be distinguished into three dimensions magnitude, strength of employees´

perception, and generality (Bandura, 1977a). First, magnitude refers to employees’ beliefs to

what extent they can attain the level of task difficulty. This can be linked to the extent

employees are searching for new innovative ideas and whether information should be

combined and reorganized with focus on problem solving and current performance. Second,

the strength of employees’ perceptions describes the degree of employees´ beliefs whether

they are seriously able to attain the level of task difficulty. This aspect of self-efficacy may be

seen as crucial for employees in order to promote their ideas within the organization and

therefore be connected to IWB. Third, generality applies to the extent employees’ expectations

are transferred in different activities and situations, which can be linked to the implementation

of innovation and new ideas. The three dimensions of Bandura (1977a) provide a foundation for

describing the construct self-efficacy.

High levels of self-efficacy may ensure that employees feel more self-assured, are more

motivated to set goals, and to see problems as challenges rather than as complicated. Research

found a positive relation between employees’ self-efficacy beliefs and work-related attitudes

(Walumbwa, et al. 2005). Self-efficacy was found to have a positive impact on employees’

proactive behavior (Parker, 1998; Speier & Frese, 1997). Other studies found a positive relation

between domain-specific self-efficacy and creative work behavior (Gong, Huang, & Farh, 2009;

Tierney & Farmer, 2002). This research assumed that employees’ IWB may be influenced by

their self-efficacy. Results of prior research of Michael, Hou, and Fan (2011) found already that

creative self-efficacy result in high levels of IWB. Previous studies are in general focused on

creative self-efficacy or on certain phases of innovation. This study is concentrating on a

broader definition of IWB in order to research whether the assumed relationships still apply to

11

IWB as a whole. Therefore, it is considered as reasonable to focus not only on creative self-

efficacy but also focus on a wider and more general work-related approach of self-efficacy.

H3: Self-efficacy positively influences employee´s Innovative Work Behavior.

Besides the expected direct effect of transformational leadership on IWB, this research

assumed an indirect path. Transformational leadership is assumed to increase employees’ IWB

via self-efficacy. Therefore, the fourth hypothesis is formulated to describe partial mediation.

H4: The relationship between transformational leadership and Innovative Work Behavior is

partial mediated by self-efficacy.

The moderating effect of Perceived Organizational Support

Employees´ self-efficacy is assumed to have more impact on IWB when the employees perceive

their organization as supportive. POS may therefore be interpreted as an important factor to

strengthen the relationship between self-efficacy and IWB. Research of Rhoades and

Eisenberger (2002) found that employees experience supervisor support, agreeable job

environment, rewards, and fairness as appreciative conditions in order to perceive their

organizations as supportive. POS refers to the perception of employees how their organization

and their supervisors care and contribute to their well-being. Agreeable job environment is the

second component of POS whereby job security, autonomy, role stressors, the organization size

and whether trainings are provided, are seen as important factors whether employees

experience their job environment as pleasant. The reward component describes employees´

perceived conditions to what extent there is pay, promotion, and recognition within the

organization. The fourth component of POS is fairness, which explains whether resources are

equally distributed among employees and whether employees perceive this as justice and have

the feeling that they are equally threaten.

POS will result in positive outcomes for the organization and employee such as

performance, commitment, and positive mood (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). According to

Eisenberger, Armeli, Rexwinkel, Lynch, and Rhoades (2001) employees’ belief of competence

will be influenced by POS. Research demonstrated that organizational support positively affect

12

employees’ judgments of their self-efficacy, which suggests that more resources will enhance

employees’ capability (Igbaria & Iivari, 1995). Additionally, research found that supervisor

support, as an element of POS, positively affect employees´ IWB. Results showed that when

supervisors are supportive and encourage employees to be innovative, employees feel

stimulated to make use of their influence in order to execute innovative work activities (Janssen,

2005). While POS was found to have an influence on IWB and self-efficacy, the moderating

effect of POS is studied in this research. This means that when self-assured employees have the

feeling the organization cares and contribute to their well-being, experience their job

environment as pleasant, have acceptable reward conditions, and perceive the resource

distribution as equal and justice, these self-assured employees are more prone to exhibit IWB.

Transformational leadership and POS possess also similar aspects. Both variables may

possibly increase or influence the effect of self-efficacy on IWB. While transformational

leadership is assumed to indirectly influence IWB via self-efficacy, POS is assumed to strengthen

the effect of self-efficacy on IWB. Supervisor support as an important element of POS may be

connected to the sympathetic element of transformational leadership which involves coaching,

support, and mentoring. Furthermore, an important focus of a transformational leader is to

encourage intellectual stimulation of employees, which may be partially associated with an

agreeable job environment of POS. Employees which are provided from training by the

organization and who have certain autonomy may have the feeling that they are intellectual

stimulated to make use of their abilities. Although, the conception of an agreeable job

environment is defined broader and is more than only focused on motivating employees to

make use of their abilities.

While transformational leadership and POS have a certain overlap in their elements, this

research assumed the added value of POS on the relationship of self-efficacy on IWB.

Transformational leadership is generally focused on leader´s ethical behavior, charisma, and a

visioning future with appropriate plans and goals. In contrast, POS is more focused on the

perceived supportive conditions provided by the entire organization and not only dependent of

the leader. The definition of POS may therefore be interpreted as a broader conception of

support compared to only coaching, support, and mentoring, and intellectual stimulation

13

provided by the transformational leader. Based on these argumentation, existing theory, and

results, this research suggests that POS may strengthen the effect of self-efficacy on IWB.

H5: Perceived Organizational Support strengthens the relationship of employee’s self-efficacy on

employee´s Innovative Work Behavior.

Building upon the mediation model, whereby transformational leadership is assumed to

increase employees’ IWB via self-efficacy, the sixth hypothesis is formulated in order to

hypothesize the total conceptual model. The sixth hypothesis assumed that the effect of self-

efficacy on IWB may be strengthened by employees’ POS. The hypothesized model is presented

in figure 1.

H6: The relationship between transformational leadership and Innovative Work Behavior is

partial mediated by self-efficacy and moderated by Perceived Organizational Support.

Figure 1: Hypothesized model

Note: The dotted arrow in the model demonstrates the indirect path for partial mediation as described in

the fourth hypothesis.

14

Methods

Design, population, and sample

An explanatory study was executed to research the research question and hypotheses of the

hypothesized model. This research focused on employees who are engaged in paid work in

Dutch organizations and who have certain autonomy in their work. Cross-sectional design was

used in order to collect data at one period of time in different organizations and sectors in the

Netherlands. Data from the participating respondents were collected by two students from the

study HRS at Tilburg University. Data collection resulted in a response rate of 81.2%, which

corresponds to a total amount of 267 participants (N = 267). From all the 267 participants in

this research 48.7% was male and 50.3% female. This can be interpreted as representative

based on figures of Central Bureau for Statistics (CBS) where the average percentage of male is

49.5 and 50.5 for female in the Netherlands (CBS, 2014). The average age of the participants

was 36.9 years with a range from 20 to 64 years. Figures of CBS shows that the average age of

employees in Dutch organizations was 41.9 years (CBS, 2014). Most of the participants are

functioning on a HBO education level in their current job (58.1%), followed by MBO (29.6%),

WO (9.4%), and secondary education level (2.6%). The average level of education in this sample

is higher compared to the average education level of the Dutch labour force, where a MBO

degree dominates (CBS, 2014). Respondents are working 9.5 years on average at an

organization, ranged from 0 to 43 years. Different organizations, sectors, and functions were

included in the sample in this research.

Procedure

Before data collection has taken place, the questionnaires were designed to meet all the

desired researched variables. Hereafter, contact was made with several organizations to

distribute the questionnaires, whereby most of the organizations were SMEs. The digital

version of the questionnaire was sent to the participating organizations. Organizations made

their own selection for participating departments or employees based on time, availability, or

let it depend on the willingness of the employees. Besides, this research also contacted

separate individuals from the private network who were willing to participate in this research.

15

Convenience sampling was executed in order to search for participants. Dörnyei (2007)

described this sampling method as a non-probability technique in where participant are

selected based on certain practical principles as accessibility, availability, or willingness to

volunteer.

All participating employees received the questionnaire and a cover letter wherein the

purpose of the research and information about the confidentially was described. Results of the

questionnaires were gained digitally.

Instruments

Based on existing scales the relation between transformational leadership and IWB was

measured. This research investigated to what extent self-efficacy and POS have an effect on this

relationship. Because all data was collected in Dutch organizations, this research used the

Dutch translated scales. Principal Component Analysis with oblimin rotation was used to check

whether underlying constructs for sets of items exists. The number of components of the

different scales were determined based on the eigenvalue criterion, wherein a minimum value

of 1 was applied. In appendix III the outcomes of the factor analysis are displayed.

Innovative Work Behavior (IWB)

This research used the measurement scale of De Jong and Den Hartog (2010) in order to study

the four components of IWB, idea exploration, generation, championing, and implementation.

This scale consists of ten items and was measured by a five-point likert scale (1 = never, 5 =

constantly). IWB is measured based on questions to get answer whether an employee exhibit

innovative work behavior. An example question of this scale was: “I find new approaches to

execute tasks.” Based on the executed factor analysis a two factor solution was found.

Although, the two factor solution was not used for measuring IWB. The four elements of IWB

were used for the theoretical definition of IWB. Therefore, IWB was measured as one factor

which is based on the theoretical definition in this study that IWB is seen as one comprehensive

concept. The reliability of the scale was checked which resulted in a Cronbach´s Alpha of .90 (α

= .90).

16

Transformational leadership

The concept transformational leadership was measured by the CLIO measurement of Hoogh,

Koopman and Den Hartog (2004). The CLIO questionnaire focuses especially on charismatic and

empowerment leadership styles, namely transformational leadership. The questionnaire

measures also transactional, passive, autocratic leadership styles. However, this research used

only the eleven items of transformational leadership. The CLIO was used to address the various

weaknesses of the widely used MLQ. Yukl’s critiques about the weaknesses of the MLQ (1999)

refer to the discussion that the questionnaire should also include participative leadership and

empowerment, so that employees have the freedom to participate and make their own

decisions. The transformational leadership part was measured with a five-point likert scale (1 =

strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). An example question of an item was: “My manager

stimulates workers to think about work problems in new ways.” Factor analysis indicated a one

factor solution. Reliability analysis showed a Cronbach’s alpha of .93 for the eleven

transformational leadership items (α = .93).

Self-efficacy

The construct self-efficacy was measured by the shortened OCCSEF (occupational self-efficacy

scale) of Schyns and Von Collani (2002). The measurement scale consist of six items and a five-

point likert scale was used (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). An example question was:

“I can remain calm when facing difficulties in my job because I can rely on my abilities”. Factor

analysis revealed a one factor solution. Based on reliability analysis this research found a

Cronbach’s Alpha of .78 (α = .78) for the OCCSEF scale.

Perceived Organizational Support (POS)

The moderator POS was measured based on the eight items of the Survey Perceived

Organizational Support (SPOS) of Eisenberger, Cummings, Armeli and Lynch (1997). Different

than other variables, this concept was measured by a seven-point likert scale (1= strongly

disagree, 7= strongly agree). An example question of one of the items was: “the organization

17

really cares about my well-being.” Factor analysis found for the scale POS a one factor

solution.This research found a Cronbach’s Alpha of .85 (α = .85) for the eight items of SPOS.

Control variables

Control variables were added to the hypothesized model to assess the relation between

transformational leadership, self-efficacy, POS and IWB and to check whether this relation was

not influenced by other variables. This research included in total the five control variables age,

tenure, gender, and education level of the job in the analysis. Mumford and Gustafson (1988)

found that employees´ tenure in the organization and age influences IWB. Gender was added as

control variable based on earlier evidence where gender is described as an important factor in

understanding career self-efficacy differences (Lent & Hacket, 1987; Nevill & Schlekckler, 1988).

Results found that female employees have lower expectations for occupational success

compared to male (Eccles, 1994). Gender was measured by a dummy variable, whereby males

were the reference category (male = 0 and female = 1). In addition, education level of the job

was added as control variable. Research of Tierney and Farmer (2004) found that education

level is positively significantly related to creative self-efficacy.

Statistical analysis

The returned questionnaires were first checked whether they were completely filled in. Data

screening was used to check whether the data set was complete. Missing values were recoded

as ‘99’ and pairwise excluded from the data set in order to retain only the useful information of

other variables. Hereafter, the validity and reliability of the measurement scales were tested in

SPSS. Reliability analysis was used to test the quality of the scales, and to check for negative

outcomes in the inter-item correlation matrix. Factor analysis (Principal Component Analysis)

provided insight into the underlying constructs of a group of items. The aim of this data

reduction technique is to bundle the items of the researched variables by as few as possible

number of factors.

18

A correlation table was conducted in order to check for multicollinearity and to check

the coherency between IWB and the independent variables transformational leadership, self-

efficacy and POS. The control variables were added at the analysis at the same time to test

whether they correlate with variables of the hypothesized model and to check their coherence.

Multiple regression analysis was executed to determine how well transformational

leadership, self-efficacy and POS predict IWB. The relationship between transformational

leadership and IWB and the relationship between self-efficacy and IWB was executed by a

hierarchical regression analysis in SPSS. Transformational leadership was entered in block one

as independent variable. The second step included also the control variables. Self-efficacy was

added in the third block. The first two blocks provided an estimation of this relationship

between transformational leadership and IWB with the associated p-value. The third block

provides information about the prediction of self-efficacy on IWB and transformational

leadership on IWB.

The resampling bootstrap process macro method of Hayes (2013) was used to check

whether the relationship between transformational leadership and IWB is mediated by self-

efficacy. Four requirements were addressed in order to test partial mediation. Transformational

leadership was assumed to have both direct and indirect effect on IWB, whereby the

independent variable transformational leadership had effect on the mediator variable self-

efficacy and self-efficacy had a unique effect on the dependent variable IWB. First,

transformational leadership was tested whether it was a significant predictor of IWB. Second, it

was tested if transformational leadership had a significant effect on the mediator self-efficacy.

The third and fourth requirement were tested at one last step, whereby the significant effect of

self-efficacy on IWB was checked controlled for the effect of transformational leadership and

other control variables. The added value of the process macro bootstrap method of Hayes

(2013) is the increasing power by using bootstrapping in SPSS. The bootstrap method assumes

that the data is not by definition normal distributed and is therefore useful for a small sample

size like this research. The bootstrap method (Hayes, 2013) test whether the indirect effect

significant differs from the total effect. The number of bootstrap resample used in this study

was 1000 and the level of confidence for the confidence intervals was set on 95.

19

As next step, the interaction effect POS was tested in order to examine whether POS

strengthen the relationship between self-efficacy and IWB. Before moderated mediation was

tested, the effect of POS on the relationship between self-efficacy and IWB was tested. In this

step the interaction effect of POS was tested without the indirect effect of transformational

leadership on self-efficacy. An interaction term of self-efficacy and POS was the results of

multiplying the mean scores of both variables (self-efficacy*POS). The first model of the process

macro bootstrap method of Hayes (2013) was executed in order to test the moderation effect

of POS.

The final step of the data analysis in this research included the total hypothesized model.

Moderated mediation was executed, which is considered as a conditional indirect effect. The

previous used process macro bootstrap method of Hayes (2013) in the separate moderation

and mediation effects was also used for testing the complete hypothesized model. Both the

mediation and moderation model were merged in one statistical analysis, whereby model

fourteen of Hayes (2013) was selected.

20

Results

Descriptive statistics

This section describes the results of the data gathered in this study. The mean scores, standard

deviations, and Pearson Correlations of the variables are displayed in the correlation matrix

(Table 1). Results shows that IWB was positive significantly correlated with transformational

leadership (r = .20, p < .01) and self-efficacy (r = .36, p < .01). The two independent variables

transformational leadership and self-efficacy were also positively significantly correlated (r = .20,

p < .01). The moderator POS was also correlated with IWB (r = .30, p < .01). Moreover,

significant correlations were found between POS and transformational leadership (r = .59, p

< .01) and POS self-efficacy (r = .41, p < .01). The two control variables gender (r = -.22, p < .01)

and education level job (r = .37, p < .01) were correlated with the dependent variable IWB.

These correlations suggests that male exhibited more IWB compared to female, and that

participants who are functioning in a job which requires a higher education level exhibited

more IWB. Furthermore, age was positively correlated with the mediator self-efficacy (r = .20, p

< .01), what indicated that employees´ age is associated with self-efficacy. Other control

variables revealed no significant correlations with the variables of the hypothesized model.

Table 1: Correlation matrix

M SD 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

1. Innovative Work Behavior 3.42 6.07

2. Transformational leadership 3.66 7.87 .20**

3. Self-efficacy

4. Perceived Organizational

Support

4.04

5.44

2.89

6.32

.36**

.30**

.20**

.59**

.41**

5. Age (yrs.) 36.99 12.31 -.01 .03 .20** .12

6. Gender (ref. male=0, female =1) 0.51 -.22** .11 -.01 .07 -.18**

7. Education level job 2.74 .66 .37** .01 .00 .07 -.04 -.17**

8. Tenure (yrs.) 9.52 9.69 -.09 -.02 .11 .05 .69** -.06 -.17**

**: p < .01, *: p < .05

21

Hypothesis testing

Multiple hierarchical regression was executed in order to predict the effect of the IWB on

transformational leadership and self-efficacy. Table 2 shows the results of the hierarchical

regression analysis with IWB as dependent variable. Results of the first model shows the direct

effect of transformational leadership on IWB (β = .20, p < .01). The effect of transformational

leadership on IWB still remained significant when the control variables age, gender, educational

level job, and tenure were added in the second model (β = .21, p < .01). Although, only the

control variables gender and education level of the job had a significant impact on the models.

The effect of the direct relation between transformational leadership on IWB decreased when

self-efficacy was added as second independent variable (β = .15, p < .01), but the direct

relationship between transformational leadership and IWB still remained. Besides, the total

explained variance increased from R² = .21 to R² = .32. The first hypothesis, which stated that

transformational leadership increases employee´s IWB holding constant for self-efficacy and

control variables is therefore confirmed.

Table 2: Results of the regression analysis predicting Innovative Work Behavior

Model 1 β

2 β

3 β

Transformational leadership .20** .21** .15**

Self-efficacy

.34***

Age -.01 -.09

Gender (ref. male=0, female =1) -.19** -.19**

Education level job .33*** .33***

Tenure -.03 -.02

R² .04 .21 .32

R² .17 .11

F 10.40** 13.18*** 19.30***

*** p<.001, ** p < .01, *p < .05

22

The process macro bootstrap method of Hayes (2013) was used to test the effect of the

mediator self-efficacy and moderator POS on the hypothesized model. Table 3 provides the

result of the bootstrap method for mediation. First, the path of transformational leadership on

self-efficacy was tested, which resulted in a positive significant effect (β = .08, p < .01). The

second hypothesis which suggested that transformational leadership positively influence

employee´s self-efficacy holding constant for other variables is thus confirmed.

Table 3: Results of the mediating effect of self-efficacy on Innovative Work Behavior

Consequent M(Self-efficacy) Y (Innovative Work Behavior)

Antecedent Coeff. SE p Coeff. SE p

X (Transformational leadership) a1 .08 .02 .0010 c’ .11 .04 .0108

M (Self-efficacy) - - - b1 .77 .12 .0000

Age (yrs.)

Gender (ref. male=0 female=1) Education level job Tenure

.05 -.11 -.03 -.02

.02

.37

.29

.03

.0108 .7788 .9154 .5412

-.07 -2.06 3.00 .00

.04

.68

.52

.05

.0881 .0026 .0000 .9550

R² = .09 F(5, 239) = 4.47, p < .01

R² = .32 F(6, 238) = 18.76, p < .001

SPSS Bootstrap results PROCESS macro (Hayes, 2013). CI 95%; number of bootstrap: 1000.

Table 3 shows that self-efficacy is influenced by transformational leadership, and that

self-efficacy in turn positively affect IWB (β = .77, p < .001). The third hypothesis which stated

that self-efficacy positively influences employee´s IWB while holding constant for

transformational leadership and other variables is therefore confirmed.

The relationship between transformational leadership and self-efficacy and self-efficacy

and IWB was found to be significant. Based on the bootstrap method of Hayes (2013) the total

indirect effect of multiplying both paths with each other resulted in a positive effect on IWB (β

= .06). Besides, results of the bootstrap method showed that the total model is significant (p

< .001) and that the model explained 32% of the variance (R² = .32). Results of the bootstrap

showed the lower level confidence interval and the upper limit interval significantly different

from zero (LLCI = .0225, ULCI = .1101), which suggested that the indirect path was significant.

The direct effect of transformational leadership on IWB was significant (β = .11, p < .05), which

23

indicate that partial mediation exists. Hypothesis 4 which stated that the relationship between

transformational leadership and IWB is partially mediated by self-efficacy is therefore

confirmed.

Table 4: Results of the moderating effect of Perceived Organizational Support on the

relationship between self-efficacy and Innovative Work Behavior

Consequent Y (Innovative Work Behavior)

Antecedent Coeff. SE p X (Self-efficacy) b1 .77 .13 .0000

M (Perceived Organizational Support)

b2 .14 .06 .0102

X x M b3 .02 .02 .2091

Age (yrs.)

Gender (ref. male=0, female =1) Education level job Tenure (yrs.)

-.07 -1.82 -3.14 -.00

.04

.67

.51

.05

.0623

.0066

.0000

.9258

R² = .35 F(7, 235) = 17.77, p < .001

SPSS Bootstrap results PROCESS macro (Hayes, 2013). CI 95%; number of bootstrap: 1000.

POS was added as an interaction term in order to check whether POS is an essential

contributor to the relation between self-efficacy and IWB. Table 4 provides the results for

testing the hypothesis 5. The direct effect of self-efficacy on IWB was already tested earlier and

ensured a positive effect (β = .77, p < .001). The direct effect of POS on IWB was also executed

and revealed a positive significant effect (β = .14, p < .05). Results of the bootstrap macro

method (Hayes, 2013) showed that adding the interaction term POS did not ensure a significant

effect on IWB as expected (β = .02, p = . 93). The model explained 35 percent of the variance

significant (R² = .35, p < .001). Adding the interaction term ensured a not significant increase in

the explained variance of 0.4 percent (R² = .004, p = .2091). Results of the bootstrap showed

the lower level confidence interval and the upper limit interval did not significantly differ from

zero (LLCI = - .0115, ULCI = .0524). Based on these results, the fifth hypothesis is rejected.

24

Table 5: Results of the conditional indirect effect of self-efficacy and Perceived Organizational

Support on Innovative Work Behavior

Consequent M(Self-efficacy) Y (Innovative Work Behavior)

Antecedent Coeff. SE p Coeff. SE p

X (Transformational leadership)

a1 .07 .02 .0011 c’ .05 .05 .3019

M (Self-efficacy) - - - b1 -.12 .72 .8724

V (POS) - - - b2 -.45 .40 .2607

M x V - - - b3 .02 .02 .1757

Age (yrs.) Gender

(ref. male=0, female= 1) Education level job Tenure (yrs.)

.05 -.26

.10 .01

.02

.35

.26

.02

.0149

.4622

.7016

.7620

-.09 -1.92

3.07 .01

.04

.66

.50

.05

.0167 .0040

.0000 .8889

R² = .11 F(5, 232) = 5.50, p < .01

R² = .37 F(8, 229) = 16.58, p < .001

SPSS Bootstrap results PROCESS macro (Hayes, 2013). CI 95%; number of bootstrap: 1000.

The moderated mediating model in Table 5 shows that the effect of POS on the relation

between self-efficacy and IWB was not significant (β = .02, p = .18). Although, the effect of

transformational leadership on self-efficacy still remained significant (β = .07, p < .01). Results

showed that since the interaction effect of POS was added to the model, effects of

transformational leadership and self-efficacy on IWB were not significant anymore (β = .05 , p

= .30; β = -.12, p = .87). The positive effect of self-efficacy on IWB, which was found in the

mediating model, changed into a not significant negative effect. Because of the non-significant

interaction effect, the mediation effect does not proceeds conditional as expected. The

bootstrap results showed that the lower limit confidence interval and the upper limit

confidence interval were not significantly different from zero (LLCI = -.0006, ULCI = .0055).

Hypothesis 6, which suggested that POS strengthens the relationship between self-efficacy on

IWB, is therefore rejected.

25

Conclusion and discussion

General conclusion

This study investigated whether employees´ IWB is influenced by transformational leadership

and employees´ self-efficacy, and to what extent POS strengthened the relationship of self-

efficacy on IWB. The following research question was therefore formulated: ´To what extent is

Innovative Work Behavior related to transformational leadership and self-efficacy and does

Perceived Organizational Support moderate this relationship?´ Findings of this study confirmed

that transformational leaders are able to influence employees´ IWB. The process macro

bootstrap method showed that the total indirect path of self-efficacy was significant and that

the model including self-efficacy explained more variance compared to only the direct effect of

transformational leadership on IWB ( R² = .11). The impact of the direct effect of

transformational leadership on IWB became smaller, but still remained significant. From this it

can be concluded that partial mediation exists. This means that transformational leaders are

able to increase employees´ self-efficacy and that when employees are self-assured they are

more prone to exhibit IWB. The control variables in this research indicate that males exhibit

more IWB compared to females, and that education level of the job substantially affects

employees´ IWB.

Since POS was added as final step to the model, only the relationship between

transformational leadership and self-efficacy still remained significant. The effects of

transformational leadership on IWB and self-efficacy on IWB were not significant anymore. In

this research, POS did not significantly contribute to the hypothesized model. When the

interaction effect was tested on the relationship between self-efficacy and IWB without the

indirect effect of transformational leadership, the effect was positive. However, the moderating

effect was not significant. Therefore, it can be concluded that perceived support from the

organization did not ensure that self-assured employees who are encouraged by their

transformational leader feel more stimulated to exhibit IWB.

26

Discussion

Employees´ IWB was measured by the innovative work behavior scale of De Jong and Den

Hartog (2010), which suggested that IWB consists of four dimensions. Innovation and IWB are

concepts which are widely used in scientific research. De Jong and Den Hartog (2010) were the

first researchers who introduced the four dimensions of IWB. These four dimensions fit well

with the used IWB definition of Spiegelaere et al. (2014) in this research. However, it could be

questioned whether the IWB scale is reliable and whether it consists of four dimensions or that

it can be interpreted as one dimensional comprehensive concept. Factor analysis revealed two

components of this scale. The first factor includes eight items and corresponds to the second

dimension generation, third dimension championing, and fourth dimension implementation.

The second factor covers two questions of the first dimension exploration. However, this

research used IWB as one comprehensive concept in the analysis. The reliability, accurately,

and whether the innovative work behavior scale actually measures IWB should be considered.

Besides, the extent to which the scale covers the definition of IWB is doubtful.

Earlier research found a positive relationship between transformational leadership and

IWB (De Jong & Den Hartog, 2007; Reuvers, et al., 2008; Afsar, et al., 2014). Findings of this

study showed that transformational leaders are able to influence employees´ IWB. Although

the relationship between transformational leadership and IWB has been confirmed, this

research proved the importance of self-efficacy as intervening mechanism between

transformational leadership and IWB. Findings support the assumption for partial mediation,

which can be theoretically explained by the conception of the transformational leadership style.

Transformational leadership in general ensures positive effects such as motivation to change

(Albrecht, 2005), encouraging employees to work together in order to achieve a visualized new

future (Vera & Crossan, 2001), and empowering and inspiring employees to step out of their

comfort zone (Bass, 1985). Besides, this research proved that transformational leadership is

also beneficial for influencing innovation. Transformational leadership are focused on

encouraging innovation, providing coaching and mentoring, and intellectual stimulate

employees. These tactics are all focusing on enhancing innovation by employees.

Transformational leaders are able to positively affect employees´ intention to make use of their

27

abilities and influence to deliver innovative work activities (Janssen, 2005). Behavioral aspects

as motivating and stimulating employees, showing ethical behavior, and being supportive to

employees are seen as crucial for increasing self-efficacy. These theoretical arguments may be

the clarification for the found results for partial mediation.

Previous research found that POS influences employees´ belief of competence

(Eisenberger et al., 2001) and that perceived supportiveness from supervisors influences the

willingness of employees to execute innovative work activities (Janssen, 2005). The results from

existing research, which proved these direct significant effects of POS, was the foundation for

the assumed moderating effect of POS. Self-assured employees who have the feeling that the

organization cares and contribute to their well-being, perceive their job environment as

agreeable, experience acceptable reward conditions, and perceive the resource distribution as

justice, are assumed to exhibit more IWB. Besides, employees´ self-efficacy, which can be

enhanced by a transformational leader, possesses some similar supervisor supportive aspects

as POS. For these reasons, POS was seen as a potentiating effect to enhance employees´ IWB.

Results showed also that the interaction effect of POS, without the indirect effect of

transformational leadership, was positive but not significant. When the model includes

moderated mediation, the hypothesized model explained just one per cent more variance

compared to the mediating model. The effect of self-efficacy on IWB became negative and the

earlier found significant direct relationship significantly disappeared. The negative change can

possibly be explained by the relative high correlation between POS and transformational

leadership. Although, POS was not found to have a significant effect, it may push away other

effects. Because of the non significant interaction effect of POS, the indirect path of

transformational leadership on IWB via self-efficacy does not proceed conditional as expected.

Besides, another clarification for the non found significant results may that the results from

earlier studies were not sufficient for supporting the assumption for moderation. Previous

studies may have different research designs or different perception of the concepts POS, IWB,

and/or self-efficacy. Consequently, these results may not always be seen as the basis or a

guarantee for finding the assumed moderation.

28

Results of this research indicate that employees´ who are working in a job on a higher

education level, show more IWB. Assuming that only the level of education of the job is

determinative may be too short-sighted. Certain aspects of employees´ job, such as the

requirements of the job or the possibility to show IWB, may be decisive for the relationship

between education level of the job and IWB.

Besides, results of this study show that males exhibit more IWB towards females.

Gender differences can be explained by for example the type of the function wherein the

employee is functioning or differences in work-life conflict/balance. Research of Cinamon and

Rich (2002) found that female are more focused on their family role, whereas male are more

focused on their the work role. Female participants in this study are possibly less prone to show

IWB compared to male, because they may ascribe high importance to their family role.

Although, the found gender difference in this research is unexplainable and a clear clarification

is therefore still lacking.

Limitations

Certain choices and deficiencies have led to a number of limitations. A limitation of this study

was how the data was collected. Different organizations were contacted to participate in this

research. Organizations made their own selection for participating employees or let it depend

on the willingness of the employees. Besides, data was collected in private circles from

individuals who were willing to fill in the questionnaire. One of the limitations was that this

research used convenience sampling. Overall, the sample was sufficient based on figures of the

CBS (2014). Although, the sample revealed on average a higher education level compared to

what is the average standard in the Dutch labour force. Because of the non-probability

sampling technique an incorrect interpretation of the population probably occurred.

Another limitation occurred due to the used research design. This research used a cross-

sectional design, whereby data was collected at one period of time. Outcomes of this study

show therefore only the state of mind or perception of the employee at the moment of filling in

the questionnaire. Results could differ in periods of time. Certain developments and changes

personally or in the work setting may not be incorporated, but may have serious impacts.

29

Because this research used the data based on employee perceptions, including changes in the

perceptions with regard to transformational leadership, self-efficacy, and POS could lead to

different research outcomes.

Earlier studies found direct relationships between POS and self-efficacy and IWB.

However, assuming that moderation exists and that these studies can be compared in order to

support a theoretical foundation for the assumed moderation effect could be biased. This bias

is called common source bias, which refers to the possibility of inaccuracies when other studies

are combined and compared. When these studies have the same source or use identical

methodologies, such as the scale type, general context of the study, or the content of certain

items, a common source bias can affect the accuracy of the results.

Most of the questionnaires in the HR field are almost positive formulated. A rule of

thumb of designing a questionnaire is that approximately half of the questions should be

positive formulated and the other half negative formulated in order to overcome the effect of

unreliable answers of participants (Maes, Ummelen, & Hoeken, 1996). A possible consequence

of having almost only positively worded items is that effects of the variables are overestimated.

Participants may be encouraged to fill in the questionnaire only positive or negative. The

reliability can thus be adversely affected.

Practical implications and future research

Findings of this study result in several practical implications. This research showed the

importance of transformational leadership in organizations to influence employees´ IWB. In

practice, organizations are usually aimed at IWB of the individual employee. However,

organizations may potentially influence IWB by focusing on having transformational leaders

within their organization. Transformational leaders are able to increase employees´ IWB, which

in turn may result in positive outcomes for organizations as viability and growth. It may

desirable for organizations to obtain managers who possess certain capabilities and

transformational characteristics. Moreover, this research indicates the relevance of employees´

self-efficacy in order to enhance IWB. The importance of self-efficacy raises the question how

this can be influenced by organizations. Transformational leadership is found as an important

30

factor which has the ability to influence employees- self- efficacy. Therefore, organizations and

managers should be aware of their potential to impact employees´ self-efficacy and employees’

work environment. However, other potentiating factors for enhancing self-efficacy may also be

beneficial.

This study measured the variables transformational leadership, self-efficacy, and POS in

order to predict IWB. Although, POS did not significantly contributes to the hypothesized model.

Suggested is that the overlap with transformational leadership causes the negative and non

significant effects. However, the reason why POS pushes the effect of transformational

leadership away and which elements of POS and transformational leadership are experienced

equally by employees, should be further examined. Besides, other factors may potentially affect

employees’ IWB. Future research should examine which aspects of the education level of the

job influences employees´ IWB. Whether employees are required to show IWB or the possibility

and autonomy of employees to show IWB in their job, are aspects which may explain why the

level of education affect employees’ IWB. Furthermore, the underlying factors which may

explain gender differences in case of showing IWB should be further examined. Differences in

type of function or work-family conflict are possible factors which may explain the dissimilarity

in gender outcomes of exhibiting IWB. Further research is needed to determine this.

Future research should also pay attention by using existing scales. There is a need for

new developed and designed scales for the Human Resource Management field. At this

moment, proper scales including positively and negatively worded items is still lacking. Many

surveys used and still using these scales, while it is known that these scales may lead to

underestimated results.

Furthermore, a different sample method should be chosen when a comparable research

will be executed. This research used convenience sampling, which is viewed as the easiest

method to collect data. Stratified random sampling whereby from every organization a list with

general information of the employees is provided and participants are selected per strata is

desirable. This possibly enables a better reflection of gender and the education level of the job

in the sample. A mini-reproduction of the population is thereby better guaranteed compared to

the convenience sampling technique done in this research.

31

Appendix I Scales Innovative Work Behavior Questionnaire

Innovative Work Behavior

De Jong and Den Hartog (2010)

10 items

1 = Nooit, 2 = Zelden, 3 = Soms, 4 = Vaak, 5 = Voortdurend

1. Ik let op issues die geen onderdeel vormen van mijn dagelijks werk.

2. Ik vraag me af hoe zaken verbeterd kunnen worden.

3. Ik ben nieuwe werkmethoden, technieken of instrumenten aan het uitzoeken.

4. Ik genereer originele oplossingen voor problemen.

5. Ik vind nieuwe manieren om taken uit te voeren.

6. Ik maak belangrijke organisatieleden enthousiast voor innovatieve ideeën.

7. Ik probeer mensen te overtuigen om nieuwe ideeën te ondersteunen.

8. Ik introduceer systematisch innovatieve ideeën in het werk.

9. Ik draag bij in de implementatie van nieuwe ideeën.

10. Ik span me in voor de ontwikkeling van nieuwe dingen.

Transformational leadership

CLIO- Hoogh, Koopman and Den Hartog (2004)

11 items

1=helemaal mee oneens, 2= mee oneens, 3=neutraal, 4=mee eens, 5=helemaal mee eens.

1. De leidinggevende praat met medewerkers over wat voor hen belangrijk is.

2. De leidinggevende stimuleert medewerkers om op nieuwe manieren over problemen na

te denken.

3. De leidinggevende heeft visie en een beeld van de toekomst.

4. De leidinggevende is altijd op zoek naar nieuwe mogelijkheden voor de organisatie.

5. De leidinggevende moedigt medewerkers aan om onafhankelijk te denken.

6. De leidinggevende is in staat anderen enthousiast te maken voor zijn/haar plannen.

7. De leidinggevende betrekt medewerkers bij besluiten die van belang zijn voor hun werk.

8. De leidinggevende stimuleert medewerkers hun talenten zo goed mogelijk te

ontwikkelen.

9. De leidinggevende geeft medewerkers het gevoel aan een belangrijke,

gemeenschappelijke missie/opdracht te werken.

10. De leidinggevende laat zien overtuigd te zijn van zijn/haar idealen, opvattingen en

waarden.

11. De leidinggevende delegeert uitdagende verantwoordelijkheden aan medewerkers.

32

Self-efficacy

OCCSEFF-Schyns and Von Collahi (2002)

6 items

1=helemaal mee oneens, 2= mee oneens, 3=neutraal, 4=mee eens, 5=helemaal mee eens.

1. Ik kan kalm blijven wanneer ik geconfronteerd word met moeilijkheden in mijn baan,

omdat ik kan terugvallen op mijn vaardigheden.

2. Wanneer ik geconfronteerd word met een probleem in mijn werk, dan vind ik meestal

verschillende oplossingen.

3. Wat er ook gebeurt in mijn werk, ik kan het gewoonlijk wel aan.

4. De ervaringen die ik in het verleden in mijn baan heb opgedaan, hebben me goed

voorbereid op mijn huidige baan.

5. In mijn baan haal ik de doelstellingen die ik mezelf stel.

6. Ik ben voldoende gewapend om de eisen van mijn baan het hoofd te bieden.

Perceived organizational support

SPOS- Eisenberger, Cummings, Armeli, and Lynch (1997)

8 items

1= helemaal mee oneens, 2= mee oneens, 3=een beetje mee oneens, 4=niet mee oneens/niet

mee eens, 5= een beetje mee eens, 6= mee eens, 7= helemaal mee eens.

1. De organisatie houdt in sterke mate rekening met mijn waarden en doelstellingen.

2. De organisatie geeft echt om mijn welzijn.

3. De organisatie is slechts weinig met mij begaan.

4. De organisatie zou mij vergeven wanneer ik een eerlijke fout zou maken.

5. De organisatie geeft om mijn meningen.

6. Wanneer de kans zich voordoet, zou deze organisatie profiteren van mij.

7. Er is hulp van deze organisatie beschikbaar als ik een probleem heb.

8. De organisatie is bereid mij te helpen als ik een bepaalde gunst nodig heb.

33

Appendix II Results process macro bootstrap method (Hayes, 2013)

Mediation model without moderation:

Run MATRIX procedure:

**************** PROCESS Procedure for SPSS Release 2.13 *****************

Written by Andrew F. Hayes, Ph.D. www.afhayes.com

Documentation available in Hayes (2013). www.guilford.com/p/hayes3

**************************************************************************

Model = 4

Y = MeanIWB

X = TRANSF

M = SELF

Statistical Controls:

CONTROL= Q3 Males Q6 Q7

Sample size

245

**************************************************************************

Outcome: SELF

Model Summary

R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p

,2924 ,0855 7,9174 4,4694 5,0000 239,0000 ,0007

Model

coeff se t p LLCI ULCI

constant 19,4647 1,3476 14,4439 ,0000 16,8100 22,1194

TRANSF ,0763 ,0230 3,3203 ,0010 ,0310 ,1216

Q3 ,0532 ,0207 2,5699 ,0108 ,0124 ,0940

Males -,1053 ,3744 -,2812 ,7788 -,8428 ,6323

Q6 -,0303 ,2849 -,1064 ,9154 -,5915 ,5309

Q7 -,0158 ,0258 -,6119 ,5412 -,0667 ,0351

**************************************************************************

Outcome: MeanIWB

Model Summary

R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p

,5666 ,3211 25,8484 18,7571 6,0000 238,0000 ,0000

Model

coeff se t p LLCI ULCI

constant 6,2880 3,3323 1,8870 ,0604 -,2766 12,8527

SELF ,7730 ,1169 6,6140 ,0000 ,5428 1,0033

TRANSF ,1091 ,0425 2,5689 ,0108 ,0254 ,1928

Q3 -,0649 ,0379 -1,7126 ,0881 -,1396 ,0098

Males -2,0624 ,6766 -3,0483 ,0026 -3,3953 -,7296

Q6 2,9974 ,5148 5,8227 ,0000 1,9833 4,0115

Q7 ,0026 ,0467 ,0565 ,9550 -,0894 ,0947

******************** DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS *************************

Direct effect of X on Y

Effect SE t p LLCI ULCI

,1091 ,0425 2,5689 ,0108 ,0254 ,1928

Indirect effect of X on Y

Effect Boot SE BootLLCI BootULCI

SELF ,0590 ,0226 ,0225 ,1101

******************** ANALYSIS NOTES AND WARNINGS *************************

Number of bootstrap samples for bias corrected bootstrap confidence intervals:

1000

Level of confidence for all confidence intervals in output:

95,00

NOTE: Some cases were deleted due to missing data. The number of such cases was:

22

------ END MATRIX -----

34

Hypothesized model including mediation and moderation:

Run MATRIX procedure:

**************** PROCESS Procedure for SPSS Release 2.13 *****************

Written by Andrew F. Hayes, Ph.D. www.afhayes.com

Documentation available in Hayes (2013). www.guilford.com/p/hayes3

**************************************************************************

Model = 14

Y = MeanIWB

X = TRANSF

M = SELF

V = POS

Statistical Controls:

CONTROL= Q3 Males Q6 Q7

Sample size

238

**************************************************************************

Outcome: SELF

Model Summary

R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p

,3254 ,1059 6,6227 5,4951 5,0000 232,0000 ,0001

Model

coeff se t p LLCI ULCI

constant 19,5375 1,2358 15,8091 ,0000 17,1026 21,9725

TRANSF ,0700 ,0212 3,3107 ,0011 ,0284 ,1117

Q3 ,0469 ,0191 2,4523 ,0149 ,0092 ,0845

Males -,2550 ,3463 -,7364 ,4622 -,9374 ,4273

Q6 ,1010 ,2632 ,3837 ,7016 -,4176 ,6196

Q7 ,0073 ,0241 ,3033 ,7620 -,0402 ,0548

**************************************************************************

Outcome: MeanIWB

Model Summary

R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p

,6056 ,3667 23,9829 16,5755 8,0000 229,0000 ,0000

Model

coeff se t p LLCI ULCI

constant 26,6025 17,4030 1,5286 ,1277 -7,6880 60,8930

SELF -,1155 ,7178 -,1608 ,8724 -1,5298 1,2989

TRANSF ,0522 ,0504 1,0348 ,3019 -,0472 ,1516

POS -,4498 ,3990 -1,1274 ,2607 -1,2359 ,3363

int_1 ,0223 ,0164 1,3583 ,1757 -,0100 ,0547

Q3 -,0891 ,0369 -2,4116 ,0167 -,1619 -,0163

Males -1,9219 ,6611 -2,9071 ,0040 -3,2246 -,6193

Q6 3,0739 ,5028 6,1140 ,0000 2,0833 4,0646

Q7 ,0064 ,0459 ,1399 ,8889 -,0841 ,0969

Interactions:

int_1 SELF X POS

******************** DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS *************************

Direct effect of X on Y

Effect SE t p LLCI ULCI

,0522 ,0504 1,0348 ,3019 -,0472 ,1516

Conditional indirect effect(s) of X on Y at values of the moderator(s):

Mediator

35

POS Effect Boot SE BootLLCI BootULCI

SELF 36,8977 ,0495 ,0214 ,0172 ,1013

SELF 43,3571 ,0596 ,0223 ,0240 ,1124

SELF 49,8166 ,0697 ,0266 ,0304 ,1356

Values for quantitative moderators are the mean and plus/minus one SD from mean.

Values for dichotomous moderators are the two values of the moderator.

******************** INDEX OF MODERATED MEDIATION ************************

Mediator

Index SE(Boot) BootLLCI BootULCI

SELF ,0016 ,0014 -,0006 ,0055

******************** ANALYSIS NOTES AND WARNINGS *************************

Number of bootstrap samples for bias corrected bootstrap confidence intervals:

1000

Level of confidence for all confidence intervals in output:

95,00

NOTE: Some cases were deleted due to missing data. The number of such cases was:

29

------ END MATRIX -----

36

The moderation effect of Perceived Organizational Support on the relationship between self-efficacy and Innovative Work Behavior

Run MATRIX procedure:

**************** PROCESS Procedure for SPSS Release 2.13 *****************

Written by Andrew F. Hayes, Ph.D. www.afhayes.com

Documentation available in Hayes (2013). www.guilford.com/p/hayes3

**************************************************************************

Model = 1

Y = MeanIWB

X = SELF_cen

M = POS_cen

Statistical Controls:

CONTROL= Males Q3 Q6 Q7

Sample size

243

**************************************************************************

Outcome: MeanIWB

Model Summary

R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p

,5884 ,3462 24,9446 17,7741 7,0000 235,0000 ,0000

Model

coeff se t p LLCI ULCI

constant 29,1064 1,9197 15,1618 ,0000 25,3243 32,8885

POS_cen ,1442 ,0557 2,5904 ,0102 ,0345 ,2539

SELF_cen ,7672 ,1338 5,7334 ,0000 ,5036 1,0308

int_1 ,0204 ,0162 1,2595 ,2091 -,0115 ,0524

Males -1,8258 ,6662 -2,7407 ,0066 -3,1382 -,5133

Q3 -,0697 ,0372 -1,8734 ,0623 -,1430 ,0036

Q6 3,1368 ,5110 6,1389 ,0000 2,1302 4,1435

Q7 -,0043 ,0467 -,0932 ,9258 -,0963 ,0876

Interactions:

int_1 SELF_cen X POS_cen

R-square increase due to interaction(s):

R2-chng F df1 df2 p

int_1 ,0044 1,5862 1,0000 235,0000 ,2091

*************************************************************************

Conditional effect of X on Y at values of the moderator(s):

POS_cen Effect se t p LLCI ULCI

-6,5271 ,6338 ,1665 3,8055 ,0002 ,3057 ,9619

-,0713 ,7657 ,1338 5,7247 ,0000 ,5022 1,0292

6,3845 ,8976 ,1732 5,1835 ,0000 ,5565 1,2388

Values for quantitative moderators are the mean and plus/minus one SD from mean.

Values for dichotomous moderators are the two values of the moderator.

******************** ANALYSIS NOTES AND WARNINGS *************************

Level of confidence for all confidence intervals in output:

95,00

NOTE: Some cases were deleted due to missing data. The number of such cases was:

24

------ END MATRIX -----

37

Appendix III Results factor analysis

Table 5: Factor analysis Innovative Work Behavior

Scale

IWB1.Ik let op issues die geen onderdeel vormen van mijn

dagelijks werk.

IWB2. Ik vraag me af hoe zaken verbeterd kunnen worden.

IWB3. Ik ben nieuwe werkmethoden, technieken of

instrumenten aan het uitzoeken.

IWB4. Ik genereer originele oplossingen voor problemen.

IWB5. Ik vind nieuwe manieren om taken uit te voeren.

IWB6. Ik maak belangrijke organisatieleden enthousiast voor

innovatieve ideeën.

IWB7. Ik probeer mensen te overtuigen nom nieuwe ideeën

te ondersteunen.

IWB8. Ik introduceer systematisch innovatieve ideeën in het

werk.

IWB9. Ik draag bij in de implementatie van nieuwe ideeën.

IWB10. Ik span me in voor de ontwikkeling van nieuwe

dingen.

.635

.629

.779

.851

.801

.880

.872

.674

.908

.737

Eigenvalue

Cronbach´s

5,37

.90

1,12

Principal Component Anlaysis with oblimin rotation

38

Table 6: Factor analysis items independent variables and interaction

Scale Transformational

leadership

Self-efficacy Perceived

Organizational

Support

TL1. De leidinggevende praat met medewerkers

over wat voor hen belangrijk is.

TL2. De leidinggevende stimuleert medewerkers

om op nieuwe manieren over problemen na te

denken.

TL3. De leidinggevende heeft visie en een beeld

van de toekomst.

TL4. De leidinggevende is altijd op zoek naar

nieuwe mogelijkheden voor de organisatie.

TL5. De leidinggevende moedigt medewerkers

aan om onafhankelijk te denken.

TL6. De leidinggevende is in staat anderen

enthousiast te maken voor zijn/haar plannen.

TL7. De leidinggevende betrekt medewerkers bij

besluiten die van belang zijn voor hun werk.

TL8. De leidinggevende stimuleert medewerkers

hun talenten zo goed mogelijk te ontwikkelen.

TL9. De leidinggevende geeft medewerkers het

gevoel aan een belangrijke, gemeenschappelijke

missie/opdracht te werken.

TL10. De leidinggevende laat zien overtuigd te zijn

van zijn/haar idealen, opvattingen en waarden.

TL11. De leidinggevende delegeert uitdagende

verantwoordelijkheden aan medewerkers.

SELF1. Ik kan kalm blijven wanneer ik

geconfronteerd word met moeilijkheden in mijn

baan, omdat ik kan terugvallen op mijn

vaardigheden.

SELF2. Wanneer ik geconfronteerd word met een

.759

.831

.779

.754

.802

.818

.711

.830

.809

.742

.702

.718

39

probleem in mijn werk, dan vind ik meestal

verschillende oplossingen.

SELF3. Wat er ook gebeurt in mijn werk, ik kan het

gewoonlijk wel aan.

SELF4. De ervaringen die ik in het verleden in mijn

baan heb opgedaan, hebben me goed voorbereid

op mijn huidige baan.

SELF5. In mijn baan haal ik de doelstellingen die ik

mezelf stel.

SELF6. Ik ben voldoende gewapend om de eisen

van mijn baan het hoofd te bieden.

POS1. De organisatie houdt in sterke mate

rekening met mijn waarden en doelstellingen.

POS2. De organisatie geeft echt om mijn welzijn.

POS3. De organisatie is slechts weinig met mij

begaan.

POS4. De organisatie zou mij vergeven wanneer ik

een eerlijke fout zou maken.

POS5. De organisatie geeft om mijn meningen.

POS6. Wanneer de kans zich voordoet, zou deze

organisatie profiteren van mij.

POS7. Er is hulp van deze organisatie beschikbaar

als ik een probleem heb.

POS8. De organisatie is bereid mij te helpen als ik

een bepaalde gunst nodig heb.

.710

.748

.638

.637

.761

.793

.828

.678

.659

.766

.314

.708

.767

Eigenvalue

Cronbach´s

6,65

.93

2,97

.78

3,43

.85

Principal Component Analysis with oblimin rotation

40

Literature

Afsar, B., F. Badir, Y., & Bin Saeed, B. (2014). Transformational leadership and innovative work

behavior. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 114(8), 1270-1300. doi:10.1108/

IMDS-05-2014-0152

Albrecht, S. (2005). Leadership climate in the public sector: Feelings matter too!. Intl Journal of

Public Administration, 28(5-6), 397-416. doi: 10.1081/PAD-200055195

Axtell, C.M., Holman, D.J., Unsworth, K.L., Wall, T.D., Waterson, P.E. & Harrington, E. (2000)

Shopfloor innovation: Facilitating the suggestion and implementation of ideas Journal of

Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73(3), 265–286. doi:10.1348/0963179001

67029

Bandura, A. (1977a) Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological

Review, 84(2), 191-215. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (1995). Exercise of personal and collective efficacy in changing societies. Self-efficacy in

Changing Societies, 15, 334. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511527692.003

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social

psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.

Bass, B., & Avolio, B. (1994). Transformational leadership and organizational culture. The

International Journal of Public Administration, 17(3-4), 541-554. doi:10.1080/019006994

08524907

41

Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior: A

measure and correlates. Journal of organizational behavior, 14(2), 103-118. doi: 10.1002/

job.4030140202

Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek. (2014, August 26). Bevolking; kerncijfers [webmagazine

statistics].Retrieved July 22, 2015 from http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/

?VW=T&DM=SLNL&PA=37296ned&D1=a&D2=0,10,20,30,40,50,60,(l-1),l&HD=130605

0924&HDR=G1&STB=T

Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek. (2015, May 13). Bevolking; hoogst behaald onderwijsniveau;

geslacht, leeftijd en herkomst [webmagazine statistics]. Retrieved July 22, 2015 from

http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/?VW=T&DM=SLNL&PA=82275NED&LA=NL

Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek. (2015, February 25). Werkzame beroepsbevolking;

vergrijzing per bedrijfstak SBI 2008 [webmagazine statistics]. Retrieved July 22, 2015

from http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/?VW=T&DM=SLNL&PA=80832NED&LA=NL

Cinamon, R. G., & Rich, Y. (2002). Gender differences in the importance of work and family roles:

Implications for work–family conflict. Sex Roles, 47(11-12), 531-541. doi:10.1023/

A:1022021804846

Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 26(3), 435-462.

doi:10.1016/S0149-2063(00)00044-1

Dean, J. W., & Snell, S. A. (1991). Integrated manufacturing and job design: moderating effects

of organizational inertia. Academy of Management Journal, 34(4), 776-804.

doi:10.2307/256389

Dress, G., & Pickens, J. (2000). Changing roles: Leadership in the 21st Century. Organizational

Dynamics, 28(3), 18-34. doi:10.1016/S0090-2616(00)88447-8

Eccles, J. (1994). Understanding women’s educational and occupational choices. Psychology of

Women Quarterly, 18, 585–609.

42

Eisenberger, R., Cummings, J., Armeli, S., & Lynch, P. (1997). Perceived organizational support,

discretionary treatment and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(5), 812-820.

doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.82.5.812

Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P. D., & Rhoades, L. (2001). Reciprocation of

perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 42–51.

doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.42

Eisenberger, R., Cotterell, N., & Marvel, J. (1987). Reciprocation ideology. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 53(4), 743-750. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.53.4.743

Farr, J., & Ford, C. (1990). Individual innovation. In M.A. & J.L. Farr (Eds.). Innovation and

creativity at work. (pp. 63-80). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.

Ferris, G. R., Bhawuk, D. P. S., Fedor, D. F., & Judge, T. A. (1995). Organizational politics and

citizenship: Attributions of intentionality and construct definition. In Martinko, M.J. (Ed.).

Advances in Attribution Theory: An Organizational Perspective. (pp. 231-252). Delray Beach,

Florida: St. Lucie Press.

Gong, Y., Huang, J., & Farh, J. (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. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2009.

43670890

Gumusluoglu, L., & Ilsev, A. (2009). Transformational leadership, creativity, and organizational

innovation. Journal of business research, 62(4), 461-473. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2007. 07.032

Hayes, A.F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. A

regression-based approach. The Guilford Press, New York-London.

Hmieleski, K. M., & Corbett, A. C. (2008). The contrasting interaction effects of improvisational

behavior with entrepreneurial self-efficacy on new venture performance and entrepreneur

work satisfaction. Journal of Business Venturing, 23(4), 482-496. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.

2007.04.002

43

Igbaria, M., & Iivari, J. (1995). The effects of self-efficacy on computer usage. Omega, 23(6), 587-

605. doi:10.1016/0305-0483(95)00035-6

Janssen, O. (2005). The joint impact of perceived influence and supervisor supportiveness on

employee innovative behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational

Psychology, 78(4), 573-579. doi:10.1348/096317905X25823

De Jong, J., & Den Hartog, D. (2007). How leaders influence employees' innovative behavior.

European Journal of innovation management, 10(1), 41-64. doi:10.1108/14601060710720

546

De Jong, J., & Den Hartog, D. (2010). Measuring innovative work behaviour. Creativity and

Innovation Management, 19(1), 23-36. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8691.2010.00547.x

Jung, D. I., Chow, C., & Wu, A. (2003). The role of transformational leadership in enhancing

organizational innovation: Hypotheses and some preliminary findings. The Leadership

Quarterly, 14(4), 525-544. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(03)00050-X

Jung, D., Wu, A. & Chow, C. (2008), “Towards understanding the direct and indirect effects of

CEOs’ transformational leadership on firm innovation”, The Leadership Quarterly, 19(5),

582-594. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.07.007

Ketelslegers, S., Peferoen, C., & Vanderstraeten, A. (2013). Onderzoek naar de implementatie

van employee performance management in een social profit organisatie. Derived from:

http://lib.ugent.be/fulltxt/RUG01/002/062/089/RUG01-002062089_2013_0001_AC.pdf

King, N. & Anderson, N. (2002). Managing Innovation and Change: A Critical Guide for

Organizations. Thomson, London.

Lent, R. & Hackett, G. (1987). Career self-efficacy: Empirical status and future directions. Journal

of Vocational Behavior, 30, 347–383.

44

Lynch, P. D., Eisenberger, R., & Armeli, S. (1999). Perceived organizational support: Inferior versus

superior performance by wary employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(4), 467-483.

doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.84.4.467

Maes F., Ummelen N., & Hoeken H. (1996). Instructieve teksten, analyse, ontwerp en evaluatie.

Bussum: Uitgeverij Coutinho.

Majumdar, B., & Ray, A. (2011). Transformational leadership and innovative work behavior. Journal

of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 37(1), 140-148.

Martinko, M. J. (1995). The nature and function of attribution theory within the organizational

sciences. In M. J. Martinko (Ed.), Attribution theory: an organizational perspective (pp. 7−16).

Delray Beach, FL: St. Lucie Press.

Michael, L., Hou, S., & Fan, H. (2011). Creative Self‐Efficacy and Innovative Behavior in a Service

Setting: Optimism as a Moderator. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 45(4), 258-272.

doi: 10.1002/j.2162-6057.2011.tb01430.x

Mumford, M. D., & Gustafson, S. B. (1988). Creativity syndrome: Integration, application, and

innovation. Psychological Bulletin, 103(1), 27-47.

Mumford, D., & Licuanen, B. (2004). Leading for innovation: Conclusions, issues, and directions.

The leadership quarterly, 15(1), 163-171. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.103.1.27

Mumford, M.., Scott, G., Gaddis, B., & Strange, J. (2002). Leading creative people: Orchestrating

expertise and relationships. Leadership Quarterly, 13(6), 705–750. doi:10.1016/S1048-

9843(02)00158-3

Mytelka, L. K., & Smith, K. (2002). Policy learning and innovation theory: an interactive and co-

evolving process. Research policy, 31(8), 1467-1479. doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00076-8

Nemanich, L., & Keller, R. (2007). Transformational leadership in an acquisition: A field study of

employees. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(1), 49-68. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.11.003

45

Nevill, D. & Schleckler, D. (1988). The relation of self-efficacy to willingness to engage in

traditional/nontraditional career activities. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 12, 91–98.

Pallant, J. (2010). SPSS survival manual: a step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS. Mc Graw

Hill: England.

Parker, S. K. (1998). Enhancing role breadth self-efficacy: the roles of job enrichment and other

organizational interventions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(6), 835-852.

doi:10. 1037/0021-9010.83.6.835

Reuvers, M., Van Engen, M. L., Vinkenburg, C. J., & Wilson‐Evered, E. (2008). Transformational

leadership and innovative work behaviour: Exploring the relevance of gender

differences. Creativity and Innovation Management, 17(3), 227-244. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-

8691.2008.00487.x

Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R., & Armeli, S. (2001). Affective commitment to the organization: the

contribution of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5), 825-

836. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.86.5.825

Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: a review of the

literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 698-714.doi:10.1037//00219010.87.4.698

Schyns, B., & von Collani, G. (2002). A new occupational self-efficacy scale and its relation to

personality constructs and organizational variables. European Journal of Work and

Organizational Psychology, 11(2), 219-241. doi: 10.1080/13594320244000148

Schyns, B., & Felfe, J. (2006). The personality of followers and its effect on the perception of

leadership an overview, a study, and a research agenda. Small Group Research, 37(5),

522-539. doi: 10.1177/1046496406293013

Shalley, C. E., & Gilson, L. L. (2004). What leaders need to know: A review of social and

contextual factors that can foster or hinder creativity. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(1),

33-53. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.12.004

46

Smith, B. N., Montagno, R. V., & Kuzmenko, T. N. (2004). Transformational and servant

leadership: Content and contextual comparisons. Journal of Leadership and Organizational

Studies, 10(4), 80-91. doi: 10.1177/107179190401000406

Speier, C., & Frese, M. (1997). Generalized self efficacy as a mediator and moderator between

control and complexity at work and personal initiative: A longitudinal field study in East

Germany. Human Performance, 10(2), 171-192. doi: 10.1207/s15327043hup1002_7

De Spiegelaere, S., Van Gyes, G., & Van Hootegem, G. (2014). Innovatief werkgedrag als

concept: definiëring en oriëntering. Gedrag en Organisatie, 27(2), 139-156.

Thomas, K. W., & Pondy, L. R. (1977). Toward and “intent” model of conflict management among

principal parties. Human Relations, 30(12), 1089-1102. doi:10.1177/ 001872677703001203

Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2002). Creative self-efficacy: Its potential antecedents and

relationship to creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6), 1137 1148.

doi:10.2307/3069429

Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2004). The Pygmalion process and employee creativity. Journal of

Management, 30(3), 413-432. doi: 10.1016/j.jm.2002.12.001

Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2011). Creative self-efficacy development and creative performance

over time. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(2), 277-293. doi: 10.1037/a0020952

Vera, D., & Crossan, M. (2004). Strategic leadership and organizational learning. Academy of

Management Review, 29(2), 222−240. doi:10.5465/AMR.2004.12736080

Walumbwa, F. O., Lawler, J. J., Avolio, B. J., Wang, P., & Shi, K. (2005). Transformational

leadership and work-related attitudes: The moderating effects of collective and self- efficacy

across cultures. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 11(3), 2-16. doi: 10.1177/

107179190501100301

Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological

Review, 92(4), 548-573. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.92.4.548

47

West, M. A., & Farr, J. L. (1990). Innovation and creativity at work: Psychological and organizational

perspectives. Chichester: JohnWiley.

Yuan, F., & Woodman, R. W. (2010). Innovative behavior in the workplace: The role of

performance and image outcome expectations. Academy of Management Journal, 53(2),

323-342. doi: 10.5465/AMJ.2010.49388995