ASSOCIATION AMID INCLUSIVE LEADERSHIP AND EMPLOYEE

INVOLVEMENT IN CREATIVITY: PSYCHOLOGICAL SAFETY AS A MEDIATOR

Dr. Bikramjit Kaur

Associate Professor, Government College Of Commerce & Business Administration, Sector-50,
Chandigarh

Dr. Manveen Kaur

Former Research Scholar, University Business School, Panjab University, Chandigarh.

ABSTRACT
The present article examined the association amid inclusive leadership and employee creativity
at work, as demonstrated by a leader's openness, accessibility, and availability. We looked
examined how employee engagement in creative job tasks and PS were related using a sample of
300 respondents. According to the findings of structural equation modelling (SEM) analysis,
inclusive leadership is positively associated to PS, which in turn encourages staff members to
engage in creative work.
Keywords- Inclusive Leadership; Employee Involvement; Psychological Safety; Relational
Leadership, Employee Creativity

Leadership studies has made a point of emphasising how crucial it is to comprehend leadership
in the context of relationships with followers. Leader relationships with followers have been
found to be important for a variety of work outcomes, going back to the Ohio State studies that
identified two main behavioural patterns of deliberation (correlation) and initiating structure
(task); Judge, et al., 2004. More recently, the LMX theory, which focuses on distinctions in
relationships among ingroup and out-group participants and the manager (Gerstner & Day, 1997),
has also been discovered to be crucial. Relationship building, also known as relational leadership
(Fletcher, 2004, 2007, Uhl-Bien, 2006), has lately come to the attention of researchers as an
important but understudied topic of leadership study. Various methods for the study of leadership
have been brought together, according to some, by Relational Leadership (RL) Theory (Uhl-Bien,
2006). Two different types of theories can be specifically described as RL. The entity theories
examine relationships from the viewpoint of the individual, paying close attention to that person's
perceptions, cognition, feelings, and action. RL, according to Uhl-Bien (2006), is "a social
influence process by which emergent coordination" (i.e., changing social order) and "change"
(namely, new beliefs, perspectives, attitudes, behaviours, ideologies, etc.) are formed and
produced." According to this methodology, leadership will be better understood when the process
is examined rather than just the leader's style or interactions with followers. Leadership research
is still in its infancy when it comes to RL. Little is known about certain aspects of RL that could
shape employee views and promote productive outcomes. By emphasising inclusive leadership
(IL) as a particular type of RL, we aim to further this line of inquiry in this essay. Here, IL refers
to managers who communicate with employees in an open, accessible, and available manner.
This idea was first introduced by Nembhard and Edmondson (2006), who concentrated on leader
inclusivity to denote leader behaviours that invite and value feedback from others, so helping to
shape their team members' ideas that "their voices are actually valued." Therefore, IL is the
765
Journal of New Zealand Studies NS34 (2022), https://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.7509984
cornerstone of RL and concentrates on whether supporters believe that leaders are accessible to
them, yet if the leader listens, and whether the leader is attending to the needs of the followers.
There have been little attempts to establish the relationship between leadership and PS, despite
calls for more research on how leaders create psychologically safe work environments
(Edmondson, 2004). (Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006).
In this research, we answer this request by theorising about how IL promotes psychological safety
(PS) and increases engagement in creative work tasks, as well as empirically evaluating these
issues. A recent analysis of the theory and research on leadership and creativity specifically noted
that "while an increasing compilation of empirical studies has explored leadership for creativity,
to date, this area of inquiry is still in its fledgling stage." (2008) Tierney Research on the
relationship between RL and creativity is also scarce, and it frequently ignores the possible
mechanisms by which RL might affect employee creative activity. This is true despite rising
attention in the social factors that support creativity at work.
We specifically suggest and evaluate a paradigm that emphasises inclusive leadership, PS, and
EC (Figure 1). We contend that IL will foster PS and participation in creative work, which will
increase EC. Therefore, we investigate whether (i) IL promotes PS, (ii) PS is positively linked to
staff involvement in creative work tasks (EC), and (iii) PS mediates the relationship between IL
and EC.

THEORY BASELINE AND HYPOTHESES

Leadership and Creativity
According to Mumford & Hunter (2005), and Shalley & Gilson (2004), leadership has been
identified as a particularly significant component that affects creativity and innovation in
businesses. Research on how leaders affect the creative performance of their teams suggests that
leaders support employee creativity (EC) in a variety of ways. In the first place, leaders can serve
as examples of creative behaviour (Jaussi & Dionne, 2003). Second, leaders can give the
information, funds, and time needed for the creative project (Reiter-Palmon & Illies, 2004).
Third, managers can inspire and motivate their staff members to be more imaginative (Atwater
& Carmeli, 2009). Fourthly, leaders encourage innovative behaviour through fostering positive
relationships with their subordinates (Arad, et al., 1997; Tierney, Farmer, & Graen, 1999). The
766
Journal of New Zealand Studies NS34 (2022), https://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.7509984
culture of the team or organisation can also be shaped by leaders to affect EC (Amabile et al.,
2004; Arad et al., 1997; Mumford & Hunter, 2005). The last three factors—motivation,
assistance, and climate—are particularly pertinent to RL. There is a wealth of research on the
connection between drive and creativity (Amabile, 1983). By establishing standards for creative
performance (Carmeli & Schaubroeck, 2007; Redmond et al., 1993; Tierney & Farmer, 2004),
boosting intrinsic motivation, and fostering resources for the creative task (Atwater & Carmeli,
2009; Shin & Zhou, 2003), leaders can affect their subordinates' motivation to engage in creative
performance. Here, one's participation in creative endeavours is emphasised because this is a
prerequisite to EC. Motivation is crucial for creative production since innovation requires time
and effort.
The drive to carry out creative activities and exhibit creative behaviours has been demonstrated
to be consistently correlated with leader support. ( Atwater & Carmeli, 2009; George & Zhou,
2007; Tierney et al., 1999) Supportive behaviour that has been connected to creative performance
contains high quality LMX relationships, assisting employee choices and actions, giving details,
advising employees, and confidence in the leader.
Despite the significance of this, there is a paucity of knowledge regarding the exact leader
behaviours that foster creative performance (Amabile et al., 2004; Mumford et al., 2002). Most
research has concentrated on typical forms of leadership support (Oldham & Cummings, 1996;
Tierney et al., 1999). Few studies, including the one by Amabile and her collaborators (2004),
have examined the precise traits or behaviours of leader support that may boost creativity. In
keeping with this line of inquiry, our study makes use of the relational leadership concept and
explores how inclusive leadership affects creativity specifically through the growth of
psychological safety perceptions and the connection to employee willingness to put forth effort
and participate in behaviours that foster creative production.
Inclusive Leadership and Psychological Safety
PS relates to how people perceive the effects of taking personal risks in the workplace
(Edmondson, 1999, 2004; Kahn, 1990). As a result, it speaks to the idea that "people are
comfortable being themselves" (Edmondson, 1999) and "feel able to exhibit and employ oneself
without fear of negative consequences to personality, position, or career" (Kahn, 1990,).
Edmondson (2004), however, argued that PS and trust are two different things. PS places the
emphasis on the self, whereas trust places the emphasis on the other. Another distinction is that
whereas trust spans a broad temporal range, PS is concerned with a limited and brief time frame
(Edmondson, 2004).
According to research, leader behaviours influence followers' perceptions of their PS (Nembhard
& Edmondson, 2006). In particular, Edmondson (2004) argued that leaders are more likely to
encourage the growth of PS among workers when they demonstrate openness, availability, and
accessibility. By explaining the significance of such activities and assuring followers that
negative repercussions will not follow, leaders can motivate followers to propose novel ideas and
take calculated risks. Leaders are better equipped to express these expectations when they are
open, accessible, and available.
Edmondson's (2004) theory about openness, accessibility, and availability in leadership is also in
line with other studies that have shown, for instance, that behaviours that indicate leader
benevolence (such as genuine care and concern for the follower) and leader assistance raise
believe (Burke, Sims, et al., 2007). Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that having healthy
767
Journal of New Zealand Studies NS34 (2022), https://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.7509984
interpersonal connections makes it easier for one to establish a sense of PS (Carmeli & Gittell,
2009). Nembhard and Edmondson (2006) discovered that when followers believed their leaders
valued and invited their contribution, they generated a sense of PS, which allowed them to speak
up and express themselves with confidence. Therefore, we recommend the following scenario:
Hypothesis 1 – Inclusive Leadership has a positive significant relationship amid Psychological
Safety.
Psychological Safety and Employee Creativity
EC is defined as the creation of innovative or original ideas, products, or methods that have the
potential to be helpful to the employing organisation, in line with Amabile's (1983) definition.
As a result, creativity is the process of coming up with ideas, solving problems, and executing
those ideas or solutions (Sternberg, 1988). Usually, being creative involves taking risks. By
definition, creativity provides novelty and raises uncertainty. Proactive behaviour and initiative
have been linked to creativity and invention in studies on individual creativity in workplace
settings (Rank, et al., 2004). According to Binnewies et al. (2007), communication about
initiatives and ideas raised employee creative engagement.
George (2008) claimed that indications for safety are one of the most significant contextual
factors connected to creativity in a review of the research on organisational creativity. Individuals
are more prone to adopt a defensive attitude and are less likely to exhibit creative and inventive
behaviours at work when they are exposed to psychological threats and feel psychologically
insecure, according to studies by West and Richter (2008) and Nicholson and West (1988). Burke,
et al. (2006) discovered that the use of PS enhances the possibility that team members will feel
comfortable to challenge ideas and judgments. We contend that high levels of involvement in
creative activities—which are crucial for employee creative performance—are more likely to
develop when staff members feel psychologically secure to speak up, ask for help, and convey
themselves without worrying about unfavourable interpersonal repercussions. Consequently, it is
recommended that:
Hypothesis 2 - Psychological safety has a positive significant relationship amid employee
involvement in creative work task.
Inclusive Leadership, Psychological Safety, and Employee Involvement in Creative Tasks
According to earlier studies, leadership support is crucial for innovation and creativity (Hunter et
al., 2007). Nevertheless, the majority of research on leader support has concentrated on overall
leader support, considering elements like leader appreciation, support for new ideas and
innovation, and leader support through resources, and has not made distinctions between the
various aspects of support (George & Zhou, 2007). According to studies on the impact of
supportive leadership, which concentrate more on the relationship between the leader and the
follower, overall support is advantageous for creativity (George & Zhou, 2007; Oldham &
Cummings, 1996).
Additionally, some studies have highlighted the influence that leadership has in creating
environments that foster employee creativity. For instance, research by George and Zhou (2007)
examined the mechanism through which support from leaders fosters innovation and creativity.
According to the findings of their study, all three types of behavioural support promote higher
creativity. Mumford et al., 2002 stated that leaders who encourage creativity are more successful
at encouraging it because they can create and preserve work environments that are essential for
inspiring people to engage in creative behaviours. Furthermore, in line with earlier research, we
768
Journal of New Zealand Studies NS34 (2022), https://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.7509984
hypothesise that psychological safety is created through relational leadership and functions as a
crucial social psychological mechanism by which people can express creativity without
encountering interpersonal threats and forming defensive orientations (Carmeli et al., 2009). We
propose that the connection between IL and creativity will be mediated through PS in accordance
with this line of study (De Dreu & West, 2001). People feel empowered to speak and share novel
ideas, which frequently go against the grain, in an environment that is fostered by inclusive
leaders who are accessible, open, and available to staff members who have fresh ideas. In turn,
PS is probably going to lead to a higher level of staff participation in creative activity. As a result,
the following hypothesis is developed.
Hypothesis 3- Psychological safety significantly mediates the association amid inclusive
leadership and employee involvement in creative work task.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Participants and Procedure
300 personnel who work in the information technology centre in Tricity (Chandigarh, Mohali,
Panchkula) were chosen to take part in the study with application of convenience sampling. They
worked in the Software Engineering and Mobile Applications Developer departments. The
respondents were sent the questionnaire via email, WhatsApp, and LinkedIn. The respondents
filled out the surveys online. It took an average of 10 minutes to complete this questionnaire.
The authorisation from the director of the human resources department was received before
sending the questionnaire to their employees and explained the objectives and parameters of our
investigation. We pledged to deliver the study's findings upon request in exchange for
cooperation. The study's topic was briefly introduced at the work sites by one of the authors,
hence the questionnaires were sent.
The questionnaires were completed by 300 employees, an 83% response rate. There were 162
female responders. 64 % of individuals were married. The respondents' median age was 32.27
years (SD: 7.11), and their median time spent working for the company was 3.69 years (SD:
5.07). 27% of the participants had completed high school or its equivalent, while 44.7% had
earned a bachelor's degree, 25.3% had earned a master’s degree, and the remaining participants
had earned a PhD.
Instruments
The Appendix A contains a list of all measuring items.
IL - We developed a 9-item questionnaire to assess the openness, availability, and accessibility
of inclusive leaders. First, we identified how much they thought it represented the construct it
was intended to represent. Every item designated as reflecting more than 1 dimension or none of
the dimensions was eliminated. The amount to which their leader demonstrates openness and is
approachable to them at work was asked of the respondents on a five-point scale (range from 1
not at all to 5 to a great extent). A 1-factor solution with an eigenvalue of 6.18 and an explanation
of 68.74% of the variation was produced through factor analysis. It had factor loadings amid .51
and.82. For this construct, Cronbach's alpha was .94.
PS - This measurement evaluates the degree to which a member of an organisation feels
psychologically secure to take chances, speak up, and have open discussions about problems. We
used five items from Edmondson's (1999) PS scale after doing a factor analysis. On a 5-
point scale, opinions ranged from 1 (not at all) to 5. (to a large extent). For this measurement,
769
Journal of New Zealand Studies NS34 (2022), https://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.7509984
Cronbach's alpha was.74.
EC - We used four of the items from the employee creativity scale created by Tierney et al. in
1999 and further used in other research that looked at the extent to which people engage in
creative job tasks (Carmeli & Schaubroeck, 2007). The degree to which several behaviours
indicative of involvement in creative work are displayed on a regular basis by respondents was
asked for. Responses were given on a five-point scale, with 1 being the least helpful and 5 being
the most helpful (to a large extent). For this construct, Cronbach's alpha was.89.

DATA ANALYSIS
The research model was estimated using SEM. We used a two-step method to SEM, as described
by Anderson and Gerbing (1988), in which confirmatory factor analysis was used to evaluate
construct validity, then a comparison of a series of nested structural models was made. When
evaluating the fit of the research model, we used numerous goodness-of-fit indices in order to
avoid issues with utilising a single goodness-of-fit index in SEM (Medsker et al., 1994). These
fit indices recommended values are as following:
FIT INDICES RECOMMENDED VALUES
(Joreskog & Sorbom, 1993; Kline, 1998)
RMSEA acceptable up to .08
Comparative Fit Index (CFI) greater than .90
Tucker-Lewis coefficient (TLI) greater than .90
degrees of freedom (df) less than 3

RESULTS
Table 1 lists the means, standard deviations, reliability coefficients, and correlations of the study's
variables. The bivariate correlations show a favourable association between IL and both PS (r -
.39, p .01) and EC (r - .25, p .01). Additionally, the findings demonstrate a positive correlation
between psychological safety and staff members' participation in creative work (r - .34, p .01).

Note. N=300, 2-tailed test. *p < .05; **p < .01

Preliminary Analysis
First, we used confirmatory factor analysis to demonstrate additional support for the concept
validity of our latent components (CFA). The proposed three-factor measurement model was put
to the test to determine whether each measurement item would significantly contribute to the
scales with which it was related. The findings of the CFA overall demonstrated a good fit with
the data (Figure 2). The range of the standardised coefficients from items to factors was 0.47 to
770
Journal of New Zealand Studies NS34 (2022), https://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.7509984
0.98. Additionally, the CFA found that each indicator variable and its associated construct had a
significant link (p .01), confirming the hypothesised associations between the indicators and
constructs and proving the convergent validity of the study (Hair, et al., 1998).
Figure 2 Results of the overall CFA Model
FIT INDICES VALUES

RMSEA .08
CFI .91
IFI .91
TLI .90
2
X (135) 289.8

Our measurement model's fit was compared to a two-factor model with IL and PS items loaded
onto one factor and EC put onto a second factor. In comparison to our suggested three-factor
model, the fit of this model (Figure 3) was noticeably inferior.

Figure 3 Results of the 2-factor model CFA Model

FIT INDICES VALUES

RMSEA .11
CFI .84
IFI .84
TLI .82
X2 (136) 409.8

We also assessed a one-factor model, known as the Herman one-factor test for common method
bias, in which all questions evaluating IL, PS, and EC were loaded onto a single factor. In
comparison to our proposed three-factor model, this model's fit (Figure 4) was noticeably inferior.
Figure 4 Results of the 1-factor CFA Model
FIT INDICES VALUES

RMSEA .17
CFI .62
IFI .62
TLI .58
2
X (137) 781.8

In conclusion, the three-factor measurement model that was hypothesised fit the data more
closely than the two- and one-factor models. In the section that follows, we test our proposed
research paradigm and hypotheses. Additionally, using ANOVA, changes in the variables of
interest between organisations were looked at. The research was carried out across all
organisations because no major differences were discovered.

771
Journal of New Zealand Studies NS34 (2022), https://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.7509984
Comparison of Models and Hypothesis Testing
To recap, we put forth a mediated model in which PS acts as a mediator between IL and worker
participation in creative projects. As Schneider, et al. (2005) advised, we investigated the putative
mediating link through a series of nested model comparisons because conventional
recommendations for testing mediation are not as applicable for SEM applications. SEM is a
superior statistical method for examining latent variables with different measures (Holmbeck,
1997), accounting for measurement error to prevent underestimating the impact of mediation
(Hoyle & Smith, 1994), analysing more complicated structures (Hoyle & Smith, 1994), and
identifying all pertinent paths (Baron & Kenny, 1986).
We first investigated our hypothesised mediation model, defining PS's function as a mediator for
the link between IL and EC (IL-PS-EC). Additional pathways from the control variables
(respondent age and duration in the business) to EC were also provided in this model. The model
successfully fit the data, as evidenced by the results in Table 2. In order to determine whether
mediation actually occurred, we evaluated by comparing the fit and path coefficients of the
proposed mediation model to those of a control model (Model 1) that was nearly identical to the
one we had proposed—with the exception of the addition of a direct effect path from IL to EC—
but not by much.

Thus, the findings confirm the research hypotheses as well as our proposed mediation model,
which is shown in Figure 1. The outcomes of the proposed mediation model support hypothesis
1, which proposed a favourable correlation among IL and PS (.47, p .01). Also supported (.38, p
.01) was hypothesis 2, which asserted that PS and EC would be positively correlated. Last but
not least, the results are consistent with hypothesis 3, which proposed that PS would mediate the
interaction between IL and EC, as the paths from IL and PS as well as from PS and EC remained
significant, while the path from IL to EC was not statistically significant (see Table 2).

772
Journal of New Zealand Studies NS34 (2022), https://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.7509984
DISCUSSION
The competitive advantage of enterprises frequently rests on workers who generate original and
helpful ideas that help an organisation deal with growing difficulties, remain competitive, or
change an industry, making research on the ways leaders may nurture EC essential. By examining
the function of a particular type of RL, IL, and the manner in which it encourages EC in the
workplace through an emphasis on EC, we aimed to add to the literatures on both leadership and
creativity in this paper.
By putting forward and testing a mediation model that looks at the interaction between IL, PS,
and EC, our study specifically aims to expand on earlier research on the function of leadership in
facilitating EC. We looked into how IL, PS, and EC relate to one another using a sample of 300
workers. The SEM findings imply that PS mediates the interaction between IL and EC by acting
as an intermediary since IL and EC were positively correlated with PS, and improved EC was the
outcome. In doing so, this study adds to the body of knowledge regarding leadership and
creativity theory and research in a number of ways.
Our study responds to the request for more research on the function of relational leadership in
workplace settings (Fletcher, 2004, 2007; Uhl-Bien, 2006). We put up and researched a particular
type of RL called IL that consists of the three reinforcing features openness, accessibility, and
availability. By concentrating on an individual element of RL and leader support, inclusive
leadership, rather than a general construct like leader support, this study deepens our
understanding of RL. Additionally, it has been asserted that this style of leadership and its features
may result in PS (Edmondson, 2004). The results of this study further demonstrate the
significance of lL in the growth of PS (Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006).

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

We acknowledged that other unobserved variables may be crucial for explaining EC in the
workplace, even though our focus was on RL and PS. As a result, unobserved variables could
restrict the application of our research. Future studies may incorporate EC at work explanations
and ideas that complement one another. For example, even though we stress the significance of
RL in supporting PS for improving EC, cognitive abilities and job qualities may also promote
creative behaviours. Additionally, it's likely that a leader's inclusiveness will impact a good
attitude toward them or their own creativity. Therefore, it is crucial to look for ways to create a
more integrated knowledge of how IL fosters employee creativity. Second, self-reports were
773
Journal of New Zealand Studies NS34 (2022), https://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.7509984
employed in the study to evaluate the variables that might be influenced by common method bias;
specifically, the variables assessed here all asked for employee perceptions. As a last test of their
level of participation in creative production, we looked at how employees perceived their own
inventiveness. Studying employees' self-perceived creativity has great theoretical worth,
according to Zhou, Shin, and Cannella (2008). However, we recognise the necessity for different
referents, such as direct supervisors, peers, and customers, to be used in future studies to evaluate
EC.

CONCLUSION
This research is a significant step toward comprehending RL, a style of leadership that has
received little attention, and its potential to support EC. This work advances our understanding
in two areas while adding to the body of evidence that RL enhances EC. The first part of this
research assesses a particular type of RL, IL. Second, this study looked into the processes via
which RL, and particularly inclusive leadership, might promote EC. The study's findings that IL,
which is characterised by openness, accessibility, and availability, raises PS and, in turn, raises
EC provide evidence in favour of the significance of these dimensions in comprehending the
relationship between leadership and creativity.

REFERENCES
Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Amabile, T. M., & Gryskiewicz, N. D. (1989). The creative environ- ment scales: Work
environment inventory. Creativity Research Journal, 2, 231–253.
Amabile, T. M., Schatzel, E. A., Moneta, G. B., & Kramer, S. J. (2004). Leader behaviors and
work environment for creativity: Perceived leader support. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 5–32.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation model- ing in practice: A review
and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411–423.
Arad, S., Hanson, M. A., & Schnieder, R. J. (1997). A framework for the study of relationship
between organizational characteristics and organizational innovation. Journal of Creative
Behavior, 31, 42–58. Atwater, L., & Carmeli, A. (2009). Leader–member exchange, feelings of
energy and involvement in creative work. Leadership Quarterly, 20, 264–275.
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, 1173–1182.
Barron, F., & Harrington, D. M. (1981). Creativity, intelligence, and personality. Annual Review
of Psychology, 32, 439–476.
Basu, R., & Green, S. G. (1997). Leader–member exchange and trans- formational leadership:
An empirical examination of innovative behaviors in leader–member dyads. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 27, 477–499.
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.
Burke, C. S., Sims, D. E., Lazzara, E. H., & Salas, E. (2007). Trust in leadership: A multi-level
review and integration. Leadership Quarterly, 18, 606–632.
Burke, C. S., Stagl, K. C., Salas, E., Pierce, L., & Kendall, D. (2006). Understanding team
adaptation: A conceptual analysis and model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1189–1207.
Carmeli, A., Ben-Hador, B., Waldman, D. A., & Rupp, D. E. (2009). How leaders cultivate social
774
Journal of New Zealand Studies NS34 (2022), https://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.7509984
capital and nurture employee vigor: Implications for job performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 94, 1553–1561.
Carmeli, A., Brueller, D., & Dutton, J. E. (2009). Learning behaviors in the workplace: The role
of high-quality interpersonal relation- ships and psychological safety. Systems Research and
Behavioral Science, 26, 81–98.
Carmeli, A., & Gittell, J. H. (2009). High-quality relationships, psychological safety, and learning
from failures in work organiza- tions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 709–729.
Carmeli, A., & Schaubroeck, J. (2007). The influence of leaders’ and other referents’ normative
expectations on individual involvement in creative work. Leadership Quarterly, 18, 35–48.
Chan, D. (2009). So why ask me? Are self-report data really that bad? In C. E. Lance & R. J.
Vandenberg (Eds.), Statistical and methodo- logical myths and urban legends: Received doctrine,
verity, and fable in the organizational and social sciences (pp. 311–338). New York: Routledge.
Edmondson, A. C. (1996). Learning from mistakes is easier said than done: Group and
organizational influences on the detection and cor- rection of human error. Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, 32, 5–28.
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 44, 350–383.
Edmondson, A. C. (2002). The local and variegated nature of learning in organizations: A group
level perspective. Organization Science, 13, 128–146.
Edmondson, A. C. (2004). Psychological safety, trust, and learning in organizations: A group-
level lens. In R. M. Kramer & K. S. Cook (Eds.), Trust and distrust in organizations: Dilemmas
and approaches (pp. 239–272). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
George, J. M., & Zhou, J. (2007). Dual tuning in a supportive context: Joint contributions of
positive mood, negative mood, and supervis- ory behaviors to employee creativity. Academy of
Management Journal, 50, 605–622.
Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader– member exchange theory:
Correlated and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 827–844.
Hair, J. F, Anderson, P. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Holmbeck, G. N. (1997). Toward terminological, conceptual, and stat- istical clarity in the study
of mediators and moderators: Examples from the child–clinical and pediatric psychology
literatures. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 599–610.
Hunter, S. T., Bedell, K. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2007). Climate for creativity: A quantitative
review. Creativity Research Journal, 19, 69–90.
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at
work. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692–724.
Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D., & Bolger, N. (1998). Data analysis in social psychology. In D. Gilbert,
S. Fiske & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 233–265). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York:
Guilford.
Lee, F., Edmondson, A. C., Thomke, S., & Worline, M. (2004). The mixed effects of
inconsistency on experimentation in organizations. Organization Science, 15, 310–326.
Mumford, M. D., & Hunter, S. T. (2005). Innovation in organizations: A multi-level perspective
775
Journal of New Zealand Studies NS34 (2022), https://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.7509984
on creativity. Multi-Level Issues in Strat- egy and Methods, 4, 11–73.
Nembhard, I. M., & Edmondson, A. C. (2006). Making it safe: The effects of leader
inclusiveness and professional status on psychological safety and improvement efforts in health
care teams.Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 941–966.
Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at
work. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 607–634.
Rank, J., Pace, V. L., & Frese, M. (2004). Three avenues for future research on creativity,
innovation, and initiative. Applied Psy- chology; An International Review, 53, 518–528.
Redmond, M. R., Mumford, M. D., & Teach, R. (1993). Putting creativity to work: Effects of
leader behavior on subordinate creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 55, 120–151.
Reiter-Palmon, R., & Illies, J. J. (2004). Leadership and creativity: Understanding leadership
from a creative problem-solving perspec- tive. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 55–77.
Schneider, B., Ehrhart, M. G., Mayer, D. M., Saltz, J. L., & Miles-Jolly, K. (2005). Understanding
organization–customer links in service settings. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 1017–
1032.
Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of
individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 580–607.
Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Crant, J. M. (2001). What do proac- tive people do? A
longitudinal model linking proactive personality and career success. Personnel Psychology, 54,
845–874.
Shin, S. J., & Zhou, J. (2003). Transformational leadership, conser- vation, and creativity:
Evidence from Korea. Academy of Manage- ment Journal, 46, 703–714.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1991). An investment theory of creativity and its development.
Human Development, 34, 1–31.
Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2004). The Pygmalion process and employee creativity. Journal of
Management, 30, 413–432.
Tierney, P., Farmer, S. M., & Graen, G. B. (1999). An examination of leadership and employee
creativity: The relevance of traits and relations. Personnel Psychology, 52, 591–620.
Uhl-Bien, M. (2006). Relational Leadership Theory: Exploring the social processes of leadership
and organizing. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 654–676.
Zhou, J., Shin, S. J., & Cannella, A. A. (2008). Employee self-perceived creativity after mergers
and acquisitions: Interactive effects of threat–opportunity perception, access to resources, and
support for creativity. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 44, 397–421

776
Journal of New Zealand Studies NS34 (2022), https://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.7509984
 777
Journal of New Zealand Studies NS34 (2022), https://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.7509984