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
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.
3
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).
4
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 selfefficacy development on creative performance (Tierney & Farmer, 2002; 2011). These results
emphasize the importance of the creative aspect of self-efficacy and show that employees´ selfefficacy 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?´
5
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.
6
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
7
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
8
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 selfefficacy. 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 selfassured employee in turn, will be more likely to exhibit IWB. Bandura (1995) described selfefficacy 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.
9
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
10
IWB as a whole. Therefore, it is considered as reasonable to focus not only on creative selfefficacy 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
11
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
12
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 selfefficacy 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.
13
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.
14
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).
15
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 fivepoint 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
16
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.
17
A correlation table was conducted in order to check for multicollinearity and to check
the coherency between IWB and the independent variables transformational leadership, selfefficacy 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 selfefficacy. 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 selfefficacy 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.
18
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.
19
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.
1. Innovative Work Behavior
3.42
6.07
2. Transformational leadership
3.66
7.87
.20**
3. Self-efficacy
4.04
2.89
.36**
.20**
4. Perceived Organizational
Support
5.44
6.32
.30**
.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.)
**: p < .01, *: p < .05
9.52
9.69
-.09
-.02
.11
.05
.69**
-.06
7.
-.17**
20
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
.21
.17
13.18***
.32
.11
19.30***
R²
 R²
F
.04
10.40**
*** p<.001, ** p < .01, *p < .05
21
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
Antecedent
X (Transformational leadership)
M (Self-efficacy)
Age (yrs.)
Gender (ref. male=0 female=1)
Education level job
Tenure
a1
Consequent
M(Self-efficacy)
Coeff. SE
p
.08
.02
.0010
-
-
-
.05
-.11
-.03
-.02
.02
.37
.29
.03
.0108
.7788
.9154
.5412
R² = .09
F(5, 239) = 4.47, p < .01
c’
b1
Y (Innovative Work Behavior)
Coeff.
SE
p
.11
.04
.0108
.77
.12
.0000
-.07
-2.06
3.00
.00
.04
.68
.52
.05
.0881
.0026
.0000
.9550
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
22
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
Antecedent
X (Self-efficacy)
M (Perceived Organizational
Support)
XxM
Age (yrs.)
Gender (ref. male=0, female =1)
Education level job
Tenure (yrs.)
Consequent
Y (Innovative Work Behavior)
Coeff.
SE
b1
.77
.13
p
.0000
b2
.14
.06
.0102
b3
.02
.02
.2091
-.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.
23
Table 5: Results of the conditional indirect effect of self-efficacy and Perceived Organizational
Support on Innovative Work Behavior
Antecedent
X (Transformational
leadership)
M (Self-efficacy)
a1
Consequent
M(Self-efficacy)
Coeff.
SE
p
.07
.02
.0011
c’
Y (Innovative Work Behavior)
Coeff.
SE
p
.05
.05
.3019
-
-
-
b1
-.12
.72
.8724
V (POS)
-
-
-
b2
-.45
.40
.2607
MxV
-
-
-
b3
.02
.02
.1757
.05
-.26
.02
.35
.0149
.4622
-.09
-1.92
.04
.66
.0167
.0040
.10
.01
.26
.02
.7016
.7620
3.07
.01
.50
.05
.0000
.8889
Age (yrs.)
Gender
(ref. male=0, female= 1)
Education level job
Tenure (yrs.)
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.
24
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 selfefficacy 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.
25
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
26
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.
27
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 crosssectional 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.
28
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
29
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.
30
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.
31
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.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
De organisatie houdt in sterke mate rekening met mijn waarden en doelstellingen.
De organisatie geeft echt om mijn welzijn.
De organisatie is slechts weinig met mij begaan.
De organisatie zou mij vergeven wanneer ik een eerlijke fout zou maken.
De organisatie geeft om mijn meningen.
Wanneer de kans zich voordoet, zou deze organisatie profiteren van mij.
Er is hulp van deze organisatie beschikbaar als ik een probleem heb.
De organisatie is bereid mij te helpen als ik een bepaalde gunst nodig heb.
32
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
constant
TRANSF
Q3
Males
Q6
Q7
coeff
19,4647
,0763
,0532
-,1053
-,0303
-,0158
se
1,3476
,0230
,0207
,3744
,2849
,0258
t
14,4439
3,3203
2,5699
-,2812
-,1064
-,6119
p
,0000
,0010
,0108
,7788
,9154
,5412
LLCI
16,8100
,0310
,0124
-,8428
-,5915
-,0667
ULCI
22,1194
,1216
,0940
,6323
,5309
,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
constant
SELF
TRANSF
Q3
Males
Q6
Q7
coeff
6,2880
,7730
,1091
-,0649
-2,0624
2,9974
,0026
se
3,3323
,1169
,0425
,0379
,6766
,5148
,0467
t
1,8870
6,6140
2,5689
-1,7126
-3,0483
5,8227
,0565
p
,0604
,0000
,0108
,0881
,0026
,0000
,9550
LLCI
-,2766
,5428
,0254
-,1396
-3,3953
1,9833
-,0894
ULCI
12,8527
1,0033
,1928
,0098
-,7296
4,0115
,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
SELF
,0590
,0226
BootLLCI
,0225
BootULCI
,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.
22
------ END MATRIX -----
The number of such cases was:
33
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
,3254
R-sq
,1059
MSE
6,6227
F
5,4951
df1
5,0000
df2
232,0000
p
,0001
Model
constant
TRANSF
Q3
Males
Q6
Q7
coeff
19,5375
,0700
,0469
-,2550
,1010
,0073
se
1,2358
,0212
,0191
,3463
,2632
,0241
t
15,8091
3,3107
2,4523
-,7364
,3837
,3033
p
,0000
,0011
,0149
,4622
,7016
,7620
LLCI
17,1026
,0284
,0092
-,9374
-,4176
-,0402
ULCI
21,9725
,1117
,0845
,4273
,6196
,0548
**************************************************************************
Outcome: MeanIWB
Model Summary
R
,6056
R-sq
,3667
MSE
23,9829
F
16,5755
df1
8,0000
df2
229,0000
p
,0000
Model
constant
SELF
TRANSF
POS
int_1
Q3
Males
Q6
Q7
coeff
26,6025
-,1155
,0522
-,4498
,0223
-,0891
-1,9219
3,0739
,0064
se
17,4030
,7178
,0504
,3990
,0164
,0369
,6611
,5028
,0459
t
1,5286
-,1608
1,0348
-1,1274
1,3583
-2,4116
-2,9071
6,1140
,1399
p
,1277
,8724
,3019
,2607
,1757
,0167
,0040
,0000
,8889
LLCI
-7,6880
-1,5298
-,0472
-1,2359
-,0100
-,1619
-3,2246
2,0833
-,0841
ULCI
60,8930
1,2989
,1516
,3363
,0547
-,0163
-,6193
4,0646
,0969
Interactions:
int_1
SELF
X
POS
******************** DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS *************************
Direct effect of X on Y
Effect
SE
,0522
,0504
t
1,0348
p
,3019
LLCI
-,0472
ULCI
,1516
Conditional indirect effect(s) of X on Y at values of the moderator(s):
Mediator
34
SELF
SELF
SELF
POS
36,8977
43,3571
49,8166
Effect
,0495
,0596
,0697
Boot SE
,0214
,0223
,0266
BootLLCI
,0172
,0240
,0304
BootULCI
,1013
,1124
,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
SELF
Index
,0016
SE(Boot)
,0014
BootLLCI
-,0006
BootULCI
,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.
29
------ END MATRIX -----
The number of such cases was:
35
The moderation effect of Perceived Organizational Support on the relationship between selfefficacy 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
,5884
R-sq
,3462
MSE
24,9446
F
17,7741
df1
7,0000
df2
235,0000
p
,0000
Model
constant
POS_cen
SELF_cen
int_1
Males
Q3
Q6
Q7
coeff
29,1064
,1442
,7672
,0204
-1,8258
-,0697
3,1368
-,0043
se
1,9197
,0557
,1338
,0162
,6662
,0372
,5110
,0467
t
15,1618
2,5904
5,7334
1,2595
-2,7407
-1,8734
6,1389
-,0932
p
,0000
,0102
,0000
,2091
,0066
,0623
,0000
,9258
LLCI
25,3243
,0345
,5036
-,0115
-3,1382
-,1430
2,1302
-,0963
ULCI
32,8885
,2539
1,0308
,0524
-,5133
,0036
4,1435
,0876
Interactions:
int_1
SELF_cen
X
POS_cen
R-square increase due to interaction(s):
R2-chng
F
df1
df2
int_1
,0044
1,5862
1,0000
235,0000
p
,2091
*************************************************************************
Conditional effect of X on Y at values of the moderator(s):
POS_cen
Effect
se
t
p
-6,5271
,6338
,1665
3,8055
,0002
-,0713
,7657
,1338
5,7247
,0000
6,3845
,8976
,1732
5,1835
,0000
LLCI
,3057
,5022
,5565
ULCI
,9619
1,0292
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.
24
------ END MATRIX -----
The number of such cases was:
36
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.
.908
IWB2. Ik vraag me af hoe zaken verbeterd kunnen worden.
.737
IWB3. Ik ben nieuwe werkmethoden, technieken of
instrumenten aan het uitzoeken.
.635
IWB4. Ik genereer originele oplossingen voor problemen.
.629
IWB5. Ik vind nieuwe manieren om taken uit te voeren.
.779
IWB6. Ik maak belangrijke organisatieleden enthousiast voor
innovatieve ideeën.
.851
IWB7. Ik probeer mensen te overtuigen nom nieuwe ideeën
te ondersteunen.
.801
IWB8. Ik introduceer systematisch innovatieve ideeën in het
werk.
.880
IWB9. Ik draag bij in de implementatie van nieuwe ideeën.
.872
IWB10. Ik span me in voor de ontwikkeling van nieuwe
dingen.
.674
Eigenvalue
5,37
Cronbach´s 
.90
1,12
Principal Component Anlaysis with oblimin rotation
37
Table 6: Factor analysis items independent variables and interaction
Scale
Transformational
leadership
TL1. De leidinggevende praat met medewerkers
over wat voor hen belangrijk is.
.759
TL2. De leidinggevende stimuleert medewerkers
om op nieuwe manieren over problemen na te
denken.
.831
TL3. De leidinggevende heeft visie en een beeld
van de toekomst.
.779
TL4. De leidinggevende is altijd op zoek naar
nieuwe mogelijkheden voor de organisatie.
.754
TL5. De leidinggevende moedigt medewerkers
aan om onafhankelijk te denken.
.802
TL6. De leidinggevende is in staat anderen
enthousiast te maken voor zijn/haar plannen.
.818
TL7. De leidinggevende betrekt medewerkers bij
besluiten die van belang zijn voor hun werk.
.711
TL8. De leidinggevende stimuleert medewerkers
hun talenten zo goed mogelijk te ontwikkelen.
.830
TL9. De leidinggevende geeft medewerkers het
gevoel aan een belangrijke, gemeenschappelijke
missie/opdracht te werken.
Perceived
Organizational
Support
.809
TL10. De leidinggevende laat zien overtuigd te zijn
van zijn/haar idealen, opvattingen en waarden.
.742
TL11. De leidinggevende delegeert uitdagende
verantwoordelijkheden aan medewerkers.
.702
SELF1. Ik kan kalm blijven wanneer ik
geconfronteerd word met moeilijkheden in mijn
baan, omdat ik kan terugvallen op mijn
vaardigheden.
Self-efficacy
.718
SELF2. Wanneer ik geconfronteerd word met een
38
probleem in mijn werk, dan vind ik meestal
verschillende oplossingen.
.710
SELF3. Wat er ook gebeurt in mijn werk, ik kan het
gewoonlijk wel aan.
.748
SELF4. De ervaringen die ik in het verleden in mijn
baan heb opgedaan, hebben me goed voorbereid
op mijn huidige baan.
.638
SELF5. In mijn baan haal ik de doelstellingen die ik
mezelf stel.
.637
SELF6. Ik ben voldoende gewapend om de eisen
van mijn baan het hoofd te bieden.
.761
POS1. De organisatie houdt in sterke mate
rekening met mijn waarden en doelstellingen.
.793
POS2. De organisatie geeft echt om mijn welzijn.
.828
POS3. De organisatie is slechts weinig met mij
begaan.
.678
POS4. De organisatie zou mij vergeven wanneer ik
een eerlijke fout zou maken.
.659
POS5. De organisatie geeft om mijn meningen.
.766
POS6. Wanneer de kans zich voordoet, zou deze
organisatie profiteren van mij.
.314
POS7. Er is hulp van deze organisatie beschikbaar
als ik een probleem heb.
.708
POS8. De organisatie is bereid mij te helpen als ik
een bepaalde gunst nodig heb.
Eigenvalue
Cronbach´s 
.767
6,65
.93
2,97
.78
3,43
.85
Principal Component Analysis with oblimin rotation
39
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
40
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.
41
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 selfefficacy. 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
42
Igbaria, M., & Iivari, J. (1995). The effects of self-efficacy on computer usage. Omega, 23(6), 587605. 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.
43
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/S10489843(02)00158-3
Mytelka, L. K., & Smith, K. (2002). Policy learning and innovation theory: an interactive and coevolving 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
44
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.14678691.2008.00487.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), 825836. 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
45
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
46
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
47