Leader behaviors and the work environment for creativity: Perceived leader support

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.12.003Get rights and content

Abstract

This exploratory study investigated leader behaviors related to perceived leader support, encompassing both instrumental and socioemotional support. The study first established that leader support, proposed to be a key feature of the work environment for creativity, was positively related to the peer-rated creativity of subordinates working on creative projects in seven different companies. Then, to identify the specific leader behaviors that might give rise to perceived support, two qualitative analyses were conducted on daily diary narratives written by these subordinates. The first, which focused on specific leader behaviors that had significantly predicted leader support in a preliminary quantitative analysis, illuminated both effective and ineffective forms of leader behavior. In addition, it revealed not only subordinate perceptual reactions to this behavior (their perceptions of leader support), but affective reactions as well. The second qualitative analysis focused on the behavior of two extreme team leaders in context over time, revealing both positive and negative spirals of leader behavior, subordinate reactions, and subordinate creativity.

Introduction

Like other crucial organizational outcomes, creativity and innovation stem not only from overall firm strategy and access to resources but, more fundamentally, from the minds of the individual employees who, alone or with others, carry out the work of the organization every day. The extent to which they will produce creative—novel and useful—ideas during their everyday work depends not only on their individual characteristics, but also on the work environment that they perceive around them (Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby, & Herron, 1996). In contemporary knowledge-work-intensive organizations, most projects are done by teams of professionals striving to be both productive and creative in developing new products, new services, new processes, or new ways of doing business. Of all of the forces that impinge on people's daily experience of the work environment in these organizations, one of the most immediate and potent is likely to be the leadership of these teams—those “local leaders” who direct and evaluate their work, facilitate or impede their access to resources and information, and in a myriad of other ways touch their engagement with tasks and with other people.

Previous research presents some intriguing evidence that people's perceptions of the work environment created by their team leaders and, in particular, their perceptions of instrumental and socioemotional support, relate to their creativity (e.g., Oldham & Cummings, 1996, Scott & Bruce, 1994). However, little is known about how, specifically, these positive or negative work environments arise. What is it that leaders say and do, day by day, that leads people to perceive that they do or do not have the leader's support? We tackle this question in an exploratory study, by examining the daily diaries of employees who were working on team projects that required creativity. By studying these subordinates' diaries for evidence of the leader behaviors that stood out in their minds day by day, and the level of leader support that they perceived in their daily work environment, we probe the complex microprocesses through which organizational creativity ultimately rises and falls.

Section snippets

Leader support and creativity

Surprisingly, leadership has not generally been treated as a particularly important influence on creativity (Mumford, Scott, Gaddis, & Strange, 2002), despite the likely impact of leader behavior on the perceived work environment, and the demonstrated impact of the perceived work environment on creativity (e.g., Amabile et al., 1996, Mumford & Gustafson, 1988, Mumford et al., 2002, Witt & Beorkrem, 1989). Each of the three major theories of organizational creativity—the componential theory of

Influences of leader behaviors on perceived leader support

Our second research question focuses on how perceptions of leader support arise. We began our study with the assumption that it should be possible to identify specific leader behaviors associated with higher or lower levels of perceived support—particularly if we could track leader behaviors and subordinates' perceptions of support on a daily basis. Because we aim to link specific day-by-day leader behaviors with the perceived day-by-day leader support that we propose enhances creativity, the

Overview

The data for this study were collected as part of a multistudy longitudinal research program designed to investigate employees' experience of day-by-day organizational events, perceptions of the work environment, and performance. Our primary goal in the present study was to identify the day-by-day leader behaviors that might affect subordinates' perceptions of leader support and, ultimately, their creativity. We began by establishing a relationship between perceived leader support and

Relationship between perceived leader support and subordinate creativity

Research Question #1 asks whether a subordinate's day-by-day perceptions of team leader support relate to the subordinate's overall creativity. Because this question does not involve leader behaviors, we addressed it by using data from all 211 subordinates, regardless of whether they had reported a team leader behavior. The relationship between subordinates' mean daily perceived leader support and their mean peer-rated creativity was positive, moderate, and significant (ρ=.18, p<.05). This

Discussion

This study suggests that a leader who interacts daily with subordinates may, through certain behaviors directed at those subordinates, influence their daily perceptions, feelings, and performance, ultimately influencing the overall creativity of the work that they do. To come to this conclusion, we took advantage of a large and complex database with many unique characteristics. Although a full examination of the database will require a series of studies over a long period of time, this study

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Harvard Business School Division of Research and Faculty Development as part of the multistudy research program entitled “The T.E.A.M. Study: Events That Influence Creativity.” We gratefully acknowledge the help of several individuals in carrying out this research and preparing this manuscript: Robin Ely, Scott Snook, Monica Higgins, Jennifer Mueller, Susan Archambault, Debbie Siegel, Rasheea Williams, Talia Grosser, Allison Bonk, Dean Whitney, Jeremiah

References (42)

  • D.G. Ancona et al.

    Bridging the boundary: External activity and performance in organizational teams

    Administrative Science Quarterly

    (1992)
  • F.M. Andrews

    Creative ability, the laboratory environment, and scientific performance

    IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management

    (1967)
  • J.A. Arnold et al.

    The empowering leadership questionnaire: The construction and validation of a new scale for measuring leader behaviors

    Journal of Organizational Behavior

    (2000)
  • C.A. Bartel et al.

    The collective construction of workgroup moods

    Administrative Science Quarterly

    (2000)
  • E.L. Deci et al.

    Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior

    (1985)
  • E.A. Fleishman

    The description of supervisory behavior

    Journal of Applied Psychology

    (1953)
  • C.M. Ford

    A theory of individual creative action in multiple social domains

    Academy of Management Review

    (1996)
  • H. Goldstein

    Multilevel statistical models

    (1995)
  • H. Goldstein et al.

    A user's guide to MLwiN

    (1998)
  • P. Hersey et al.

    Life cycle theory of leadership

    Training and Development Journal

    (1969)
  • R.J. House

    A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness

    Administrative Science Quarterly

    (1971)
  • Cited by (904)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text