Skip to main content


Swipe to navigate through the articles of this issue

Published in: Journal of Business and Psychology 4/2021

15-05-2020 | Original Paper

Collective aspirations: collective regulatory focus as a mediator between transformational and transactional leadership and team creativity

Authors: Dina Van Dijk, Ronit Kark, Fadel Matta, Russell E. Johnson

Published in: Journal of Business and Psychology | Issue 4/2021

Login to get access


This paper examines the mediating role of two emergent team states—collective regulatory focus (CRF) and team initiative—for transmitting the effects of transformational and transactional leadership and team members’ chronic-regulatory focus on team creative performance. We conducted two studies. An experimental team-level study of 54 teams (n = 157) and a survey study conducted among employees who work in teams (n = 141). Team-level analysis of study 1 reveals that CRF and team initiative mediate the effect of leadership and team members’ chronic regulatory focus on creative performance. In addition, collective promotion moderates the negative effects of collective prevention on both team initiative and creativity. Study 2 confirms the relationships between leadership styles, team CRF, and team initiative with employees at the individual level. Understanding the collective mechanisms that enable transformational leadership to foster team creativity contributes to the ability of organizations and managers to increase the creativity of team production by influencing team dynamics. This study expands our knowledge on leader–follower dynamics at the team level and on the ability of these dynamics to shape team creativity. It also expands our knowledge on the emergence of regulatory focus at the team-level and its potential antecedents.


In order to ensure that the specific experimental session did not result in an additional level of nesting in the data, we tested null models to explore the extent to which the specific experimental session influenced variance in our core constructs. The results of these analyses revealed that the specific experimental session did not account for a statistically significant amount of variance in any of our constructs, demonstrating that the nested structure did not need to be accounted for in our analysis.


The scripts involved different languages, mottos, and messages across the transactional and transformational conditions. For example, in the transformational sessions, the manager presented his vision and aspirations about the expected outcomes from the interaction with the students, explained the importance and significance of the task with inspirational messages, and expressed his belief in the ability of the students to perform the task successfully. During the performance stage, the manager delivered transformational messages to the participants (e.g., “Each one of you will be able to express his/her personal abilities.”). In the transactional sessions, the manager showed a businesslike attitude, presented the interaction with the students as a “deal,” in which both sides had something to gain, explained the importance of performing the task according to the rules, and noted that he would supervise and monitor the students’ work to make sure they performed it correctly. During the performance stage, the manager delivered transactional messages to the participants (e.g., “Follow the rules, avoid deviation from the instructions, and keep on schedule.”).


No substantive differences in the parameter estimates emerged when testing the model outside of SEM using ordinary least squares regression. We decided to test our hypotheses using path analysis because it provides the best omnibus testing of our theorizing.


The latent correlation in the individual level CFA reported was .73. We chose an individual level CFA because our group level sample size resulted in a sample size-to-parameter ratio that did not allow for model convergence. One alternative is to conduct a group-level CFA using item parcels, resulting in a more optimal sample size-to-parameter ratio. The group-level CFA using item parcels (created using the distributed uniqueness technique) also resulted in a model that provided adequate fit to the data—χ2 (32) = 32.722 (n.s.), CFA = .997, RMSEA = .021, and SRMR = .059. The latent correlation in the group-level CFA was .74. In this model, merging initiative and promotion CRF resulted in significant misfit – χ2 (34) = 60.681 (p < .05), CFA = .906, RMSEA = .127, and SRMR = .070 - Δχ2 (Δ2) = 27.959 (p < .05).


To remedy any over-multicollinearity, we re-ran our models assessing the variance inflation factor (VIF) scores for each variable (in SPSS because VIF statistics are not available in MPlus). These scores indicate quantitatively the extent to which multicollinearity may be a concern. A typical rule of thumb is that scores over 10 as a general rule, or 5 as a conservative estimate, indicate that multicollinearity is a potential problem. VIF statistics for each of our parameters were all less than 2, suggesting that this was not a problem in our dataset.


The SRMR is slightly above the typical cutoff of .10 recommended by Hu and Bentler (1999). We note, however, that our fit indices are comparable to others published in top-tier management journals (e.g., Dierdorff, Surface, & Brown, 2010; Rich, LePine, & Crawford, 2010; Takeuchi, Bolino, & Lin, 2015; Wallace & Chen, 2006), and all of our other fit indices support good fit to the data.


The results of a supplemental analysis including dispersion in team chronic promotion focus as a predictor of promotion CRF (β = .09, SE = .14, p = .54) and dispersion in team chronic prevention as a predictor of prevention CRF (β = .14, SE = .13, p = .28) revealed no significant associations. Moreover, the results of all hypothesis tests held in this analysis.


The transformational leadership manipulation check is negatively associated with a prevention CRF (β = − .33, p < .01) and is marginally positively associated with a promotion CRF (β = .23, p < .10). All other substantive results hold.


Because these models are not nested, we followed the procedure recommended by Hooper, Coughlan, and Mullen (2008), Kline (2011), and Wang and Chan (2011), which suggests comparing the Akaike information criterion (AIC) and the Bayesian information criterion (BIC) (for similar examples of testing reverse causality using AIC and BIC, see Jin, Seo, & Shapiro, 2016; Matta, Scott, Colquitt, Koopman, & Passantino, 2017; Qu, Janssen, & Shi, 2015). The results of these comparisons revealed that the hypothesized model (AIC = 281.47, BIC = 311.74) had lower AIC and BIC than the reverse causal model (AIC = 286.41, BIC = 316.68), demonstrating that the hypothesized model provided superior fit to the data and is the model most likely to replicate (Kline, 2011). Finally, we also tested whether the two antecedents of CRF, leadership and chronic-regulatory focus, interact in their effect on CRF. We did not find any interaction effect between them.

  1. Amabile, T. A., & Khaire, M. (2008). Creativity and the role of the leader. Harvard Business Review, 86, 100–109.PubMed
  2. Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York: Springer-Verlag. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​0022-3514.​45.​2.​357.View Article
  3. Amabile, T. M. (1998). How to kill creativity. Harvard Business Review, 76(5), 76–87.PubMed
  4. Amabile, T. M. (2000). Stimulate creativity by fueling passion. In E. Locke (Ed.), Handbook of principles of organizational behavior (pp. 331–341). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
  5. Ashforth, B. E., Harrison, S. H., & Corley, K. G. (2008). Identification in organizations: An examination of four fundamental questions. Journal of Management, 34, 325–374. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​0149206308316059​.View Article
  6. Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999). Re-examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the multifactor leadership. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 441–462. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1348/​096317999166789.View Article
  7. Barczak, G., Lassk, F., & Mulki, J. (2010). Antecedents of team creativity: An examination of team emotional intelligence, team trust and collaborative culture. Creativity and Innovation Management, 19(4), 332–345. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​j.​1467-8691.​2010.​00574.​x.View Article
  8. Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., Neubert, M. J., & Mount, M. K. (1998). Relating member ability and personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 377–391. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​0021-9010.​83.​3.​377.View Article
  9. Barsade, S. G. (2002). The ripple effect: Emotional contagion and its influence on group behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 644–675. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2307/​3094912.View Article
  10. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
  11. Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8, 9–32. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​135943299398410.View Article
  12. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1990). Transformational leadership development: Manual for the multifactor leadership questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
  13. Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership (2nd ed.). New York: Psychology Press. https://​doi.​org/​10.​4324/​9781410617095.View Article
  14. Beersma, B., Homan, A. C., Van Kleef, G. A., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2013). Outcome interdependence shapes the effects of prevention focus on team processes and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 121, 194–203. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​j.​obhdp.​2013.​02.​003.View Article
  15. Benjamin, L., & Flynn, F. J. (2006). Leadership style and regulatory mode: Value from fit? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100, 216–230. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​j.​obhdp.​2006.​01.​008.View Article
  16. Binnewies, C., Ohly, S., & Sonnentag, S. (2007). Taking initiative and communicating about ideas: What is important for the creative process and for idea creativity? European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 16, 432–455. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​1359432070151472​8.
  17. Boies, K., Fiset, J., & Gill, H. (2015). Communication and trust are key: Unlocking the relationship between leadership and team performance and creativity. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(6), 1080–1094. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​j.​leaqua.​2015.​07.​007.View Article
  18. Brodscholl, J. C., Kober, H., & Higgins, E. T. (2007). Strategies of self-regulation in goal attainment versus goal maintenance. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 628–648. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​ejsp.​380.View Article
  19. Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1998). On the self-regulation of behavior. New York: Cambridge University Press.View Article
  20. Cesario, J., Grant, H., & Higgins, E. T. (2004). Regulatory fit and persuasion: Transfer from "feeling right.". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 388–404. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​0022-3514.​86.​3.​388.View ArticlePubMed
  21. Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 234–246. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​0021-9010.​83.​2.​234.View Article
  22. Chen, G., Kanfer, DeShon, R., Mathieu, R. P., E, J., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2009). The motivating potential of teams: Test and extension of Chen and Kanfer’s (2006) cross-level model of motivation in teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 110, 45–55. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​j.​obhdp.​2009.​06.​006.View Article
  23. Cherulnik, P. D., Donley, K. A., Wiewel, T. S., & Miller, S. R. (2001a). Charisma is contagious: The effects of leader’s charisma on observers’ affect. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 2149–2159. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​j.​1559-1816.​2001.​tb00167.​x.View Article
  24. Cherulnik, P. D., Donley, K. A., Wiewel, T. S., & Miller, S. R. (2001b). Charisma is contagious: The effects of leader’s charisma on observers’ affect. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 2149–2159. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​j.​1559-1816.​2001.​tb00167.​x.View Article
  25. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  26. Cole, D. A., Ciesla, J. A., & Steiger, J. H. (2007). The insidious effects of failing to include design-driven correlated residuals in latent-variable covariance structure analysis. Psychological Methods, 12, 381–398. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​1082-989X.​12.​4.​381.View ArticlePubMed
  27. Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1998). Charismatic leadership in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  28. Crowe, E., & Higgins, E. T. (1997). Regulatory focus and strategic inclinations: Promotion and prevention in decision-making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69, 117–132. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1006/​obhd.​1996.​2675.View Article
  29. DeChurch, L. A., & Mesmer-Magnus, J. R. (2010). The cognitive underpinnings of effective teamwork: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 32–53. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​a0017328.View Article
  30. Delegach, M., Kark, R., Katz-Navon, T., & Van Dijk, D. (2017). A focus on commitment: The roles of transformational and transactional leadership and self-regulatory focus in fostering organizational and safety commitment. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 26, 724–740. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​1359432X.​2017.​1345884.View Article
  31. Dierdorff, E. C., Surface, E. A., & Brown, K. G. (2010). Frame-of-reference training effectiveness: Effects of goal orientation and self-efficacy on affective, cognitive, skill-based, and transfer outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 1181–1191. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​a0020856.View Article
  32. Dong, Y., Bartol, K. M., Zhang, Z. X., & Li, C. (2017). Enhancing employee creativity via individual skill development and team knowledge sharing: Influences of dual-focused transformational leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38, 439–458. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​job.​2134.View Article
  33. Eisenbeiss, S. A., Van Knippenberg, D., & Boerner, S. (2008). Transformational leadership and team innovation: Integrating team climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1438–1446. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​a0012716.View Article
  34. Epitropaki, O., & Martin, R. (2005). From ideal to real: A longitudinal study of the role of implicit leadership theories on leader-member exchanges and employee outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 659–676. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​0021-9010.​90.​4.​659.View Article
  35. Eyal, O., & Kark, R. (2004). How do transformational leaders transform organizations? A study of the relationship between leadership and entrepreneurship. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 3, 209–233. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​1570076049050371​5.View Article
  36. Faddegon, K., Scheepers, D., & Ellemers, N. (2008). If we have the will, there will be a way: Regulatory focus as a group identity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 880–895. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​ejsp.​483.View Article
  37. Fay, D., & Frese, M. (2001). The concept of personal initiative: An overview of validity studies. Human Performance, 14(1), 97–124. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1207/​S15327043HUP1401​_​06.View Article
  38. Florack, A., & Hartmann, J. (2007). Regulatory focus and investment decisions in small groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 626–632. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​j.​jesp.​2006.​05.​005.View Article
  39. Förster, J., Higgins, E. T., & Bianco, T. A. (2003). Speed/accuracy decisions in task performance: Built-in trade-off or separate strategic concerns? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 90, 148–164. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​S0749-5978(02)00509-5.View Article
  40. Frese, M., & Fay, D. (2001). Personal initiative: An active performance concept for work in the 21st century. Research in Organizational Behavior, 23, 133–187. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​S0191-3085(01)23005-6.View Article
  41. Frese, M., Fay, D., Hilburger, T., Leng, K., & Tag, A. (1997). The concept of personal initiative: Operationalization, reliability and validity in two German samples. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70, 139–161.View Article
  42. Friedman, R. S., & Förster, J. (2001). The effects of promotion and prevention cues on creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 1001–1013. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​0022-3514.​81.​6.​1001.View ArticlePubMed
  43. Friedman, R. S., & Förster, J. (2005). Effects of motivational cues on perceptual asymmetry: Implications for creativity and analytical problem solving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 263–275. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​0022-3514.​88.​2.​263.View ArticlePubMed
  44. Gino, F., Argote, L., Miron-Spektor, E., & Todorova. (2010). First, get your feet wet: The effects of learning from direct and indirect experience on team creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 111, 102–115. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​j.​obhdp.​2009.​11.​002.View Article
  45. Gong, Y., Huang, J. C., & Farh, J. L. (2009). Employee learning orientation, transformational leadership, and employee creativity: The mediating role of employee creative self-efficacy. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 765–778. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5465/​AMJ.​2009.​43670890.
  46. Gorman, C. A., Meriac, J. P., Overstreet, B. L., Apodbaca, S., McIntyre, A. L., Park, P., & Godbey, J. N. (2012). A meta-analysis of the regulatory focus nomological network: Work-related antecedents and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80, 160–172.View Article
  47. Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219–247. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​1048-9843(95)90036-5.View Article
  48. Hardin, C. D., & Higgins, E. T. (1996). Shared reality: How social verification makes the subjective objective. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition (Vol. 3) (pp. 28–84). New York: Guilford.
  49. Harrison, D. A., & Klein, K. J. (2007). What's the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32, 1199–1228. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5465/​amr.​2007.​26586096.View Article
  50. Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Rapson, R. L. (1994). Emotional Contagion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  51. Hatfield, E., Rapson, R. L., & Le, Y. L. (2009). Emotional contagion and empathy. In J. Decety & W. Ickes (Eds.), The social neuroscience of empathy (pp. 19–30). Boston, MA: MIT Press.View Article
  52. Henker, N., Sonnentag, S., & Unger, D. (2015). Transformational leadership and employee creativity: The mediating role of promotion focus and creative process engagement. Journal of Business and Psychology, 30, 235–247. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10869-014-9348-7.View Article
  53. Herrmann, D., & Felfe, J. (2013). Moderators of the relationship between leadership style and employee creativity: The role of task novelty and personal initiative. Creativity Research Journal, 25, 172–181. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​10400419.​2013.​783743.View Article
  54. Herrmann, D., & Felfe, J. (2014). Effects of leadership style, creativity technique and personal initiative on employee creativity. British Journal of Management, 25, 209–227. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​j.​1467-8551.​2012.​00849.​x.View Article
  55. Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280–1300. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​0003-066X.​52.​12.​1280.View Article
  56. Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 1–46. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​S0065-2601(08)60381-0.
  57. Higgins, E. T., Shah, J., & Friedman, R. (1997). Emotional responses to goal attainment: Strength of regulatory focus as moderator. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 515–525. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​0022-3514.​72.​3.​515.View ArticlePubMed
  58. Hofmann, D. A., & Jones, L. M. (2005). Leadership, collective personality, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 509–522. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​0021-9010.​90.​3.​509.View Article
  59. Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6, 53–60.
  60. Howell, J. M., & Shamir, B. (2005). The role of followers in the charismatic process: Relationships and their consequences. Academy of Management Review, 30, 96–112. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5465/​AMR.​2005.​15281435.View Article
  61. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​1070551990954011​8.View Article
  62. Itzkin, A., Van Dijk, D., & Azar, O. H. (2016). At least I tried: The relationship between regulatory focus and regret following action vs. inaction. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1684. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3389/​fpsyg.​2016.​01684.View ArticlePubMedPubMed Central
  63. James, L. R. (1982). Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 219–229. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​0021-9010.​67.​2.​219.View Article
  64. Jiang, Y., & Chen, C. C. (2018). Integrating knowledge activities for team innovation: Effects of transformational leadership. Journal of Management, 44, 1819–1847. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​0149206316628641​.
  65. Jin, S., Seo, M. G., & Shapiro, D. L. (2016). Do happy leaders lead better? Affective and attitudinal antecedents of transformational leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 27, 64–84. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​j.​leaqua.​2015.​09.​002.View Article
  66. Johnson, P. D., Smith, M. B., Wallace, J. C., Hill, A. D., & Baron, R. A. (2015). A review of multilevel regulatory focus in organizations. Journal of Management, 41, 1501–1529. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​0149206315575552​.View Article
  67. Johnson, P. D., & Wallace, J. C. (2011). Increasing individual and team performance in an organizational setting through the situational adaptation of regulatory focus. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 63, 190–201. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​a0025622.View Article
  68. Johnson, R. E., Chang, C.-H., Meyer, T., Lanaj, K., & Way, J. D. (2013). Approaching success or avoiding failure? Approach and avoidance motives in the work domain. European Journal of Personality, 27, 424–441. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​per.​1883.View Article
  69. Johnson, R. E., Chang, C. H., & Yang, L. Q. (2010). Commitment and motivation at work: The relevance of employee identity and regulatory focus. Academy of Management Review, 35, 226–245.
  70. Johnson, R. E., King, D. D., Lin, S. H., Scott, B. A., Jackson Walker, E. M., & Wang, M. (2017). Regulatory focus trickle-down: How leader regulatory focus and behavior shape follower regulatory focus. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 140, 29–45. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​j.​obhdp.​2017.​03.​002.View Article
  71. Johnson, R. E., Lin, S.-H., Kark, R., Van Dijk, D., King, D. D., & Esformes, E. (2017). Consequences of regulatory fit for leader–follower relationship quality and commitment. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 90, 379–406. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​joop.​12176.View Article
  72. Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 755–768.View Article
  73. Jung, D. I. (2001). Transformational and transactional leadership and their effects on creativity in groups. Creativity Research Journal, 13(2), 185–195. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1207/​S15326934CRJ1302​_​6.
  74. Kameda, T., Takezawa, M., & Hastie, R. (2003). The logic of social sharing: An evolutionary game analysis of adaptive norm development. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 2–19 10.​1207%2FS15327957PSPR0​701_​1.View Article
  75. Kanter, R. (1988). When a thousand flowers bloom: Structural, collective and social conditions for innovation in organizations. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 10, pp. 169–211). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
  76. Kark, R., Katz-Navon, T., & Delegach, M. (2015). The dual effects of leading for safety: The mediating role of employee regulatory focus. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 1332–1348. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​a0038818.View Article
  77. Kark, R., & Medler-Liraz, H. (2007). Chapter 7 Leading with a smile: The influence of managers’ leadership behavior on the emotional experience of employees and customers. Functionality, intentionality and morality (research on emotion in organizations, volume 3). Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 177-198.
  78. Kark, R., & Shamir, B. (2002). The dual effect of transformational leadership: Priming relational and collective selves and further effects on followers. In B. J. Avolio & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Transformational and charismatic leadership (pp. 67–91). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
  79. Kark, R., Shamir, B., & Chen, G. (2003). The two faces of transformational leadership: Dependence and empowerment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 243–255. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​0021-9010.​88.​2.​246.View Article
  80. Kark, R., & Van Dijk, D. (2007). Motivation to lead motivation to follow: The role of self-regulatory focus in leadership processes. Academy of Management Review, 32, 500–528. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5465/​AMR.​2007.​24351846.View Article
  81. Kark, R., & Van Dijk, D. (2019). Keep your head in the clouds and your feet on the ground: A multi-focal review of leadership–followership self-regulatory focus. Academy of Management Annals, 13, 1–38. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5465/​annals.​2017.​0134.View Article
  82. Kark, R., Van Dijk, D., & Vashdi, D. (2018). De-motivated to be creative: The role of the self-regulatory focus in leadership processes. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 67, 186–224. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​apps.​12122.View Article
  83. Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
  84. Kozlowski, S. W., & Bell, B. S. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. In I. B. Weiner, N. W. Schmitt, & S. Highhouse (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Vol. 12. Industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 412–469). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
  85. Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7, 77–124.View Article
  86. Lanaj, K., Chang, C. H., & Johnson, R. E. (2012). Regulatory focus and work-related outcomes: A review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 998–1034. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​a0027723.View ArticlePubMed
  87. LeBreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. (2008). Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11, 815–852. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​1094428106296642​.View Article
  88. LePine, J. A., Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., & Hedlund, J. (1997). Effects of individual differences on the performance of hierarchical decision-making teams: Much more than g. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 803–811. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​0021-9010.​82.​5.​803.View Article
  89. Levine, J. M., Higgins, E. T., & Choi, S. H. (2000). Development of strategic norms in groups. Organization Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82, 88–101. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1006/​obhd.​2000.​2889.View Article
  90. Li, C. R., Li, C. X., & Lin, C. J. (2018). How and when team regulatory focus influences team innovation and member creativity. Personnel Review, 47, 95–117. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​PR-09-2016-0236.View Article
  91. Li, C. R., Lin, C. J., & Liu, J. (2018). The role of team regulatory focus and team learning in team radical and incremental creativity. Group & Organization Management, 1–31. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​1059601118775196​/​.
  92. Liberman, N., Idson, L. C., Camacho, C. J., & Higgins, T. E. (1999). Promotion and prevention choices between stability and change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1135–1145. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​0022-3514.​77.​6.​1135.View ArticlePubMed
  93. Liberman, N., Molden, D. C., Idson, L. C., & Higgins, E. T. (2001). Promotion and prevention focus on alternative hypotheses: Implications for attributional functions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 5–18. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​0022-3514.​80.​1.​5.View ArticlePubMed
  94. Lindell, M. K., & Brandt, C. J. (1999). Assessing interrater agreement on the job relevance of a test: A comparison of the cvi, t, (rwg(j)), and r*(wg(j)) indexes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 640–647.View Article
  95. Lindell, M. K., Brandt, C. J., & Whitney, D. J. (1999). A revised index of interrater agreement for multi-item ratings of a single target. Applied Psychological Measurement, 23, 127–135.View Article
  96. Liu, J., Liu, X., & Zeng, X. (2011). Does transactional leadership count for team innovativeness? The moderating role of emotional labor and the mediating role of team efficacy. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 24(3), 282–298. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​0953481111113269​5.View Article
  97. Lockwood, P., Jordan, C. H., & Kunda, Z. (2002). Motivation by positive or negative role models: Regulatory focus determines who will best inspire us. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 854–864. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​0022-3514.​83.​4.​854.View ArticlePubMed
  98. Ma, X., & Jiang, W. (2018). Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, and employee creativity in entrepreneurial firms. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 54(3), 302–324. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​0021886318764346​ Article
  99. Mainemelis, C., Kark, R., & Epitropaki, O. (2015). Creative leadership: A multi-context conceptualization. The Academy of Management Annals, 9, 393–482. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​19416520.​2015.​1024502.View Article
  100. Matta, F. K., Scott, B. A., Colquitt, J. A., Koopman, J., & Passantino, L. (2017). Is consistently unfair better than sporadically fair? An investigation of justice variability and stress. Academy of Management Journal, 60, 743–770. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5465/​amj.​2014.​0455.View Article
  101. Meade, A. D., & Craig, S. B. (2012). Identifying careless responses in survey data. Psychological Methods, 17, 437–455. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​a0028085.View ArticlePubMed
  102. Medler-Liraz, H., & Kark, R. (2012). It takes three to tango: Leadership and hostility in the service encounter. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(1), 81–93. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​j.​leaqua.​2011.​11.​007.View Article
  103. Miron, E., Erez, M., & Naveh, E. (2004). Do personal characteristics and cultural values that promote innovation, quality, and efficiency compete or complement each other? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 175–199. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​job.​237.View Article
  104. Miron-Spektor, E., & Beenen, G. (2015). Motivating creativity: The effects of sequential and simultaneous learning and performance achievement goals on product novelty and usefulness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 127, 53–65. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​j.​obhdp.​2015.​01.​001.View Article
  105. Miron-Spektor, E., Erez, M., & Naveh, E. (2011). The effect of conformist and attentive-to-detail members on team innovation: Reconciling the innovation paradox. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 740–760. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5465/​amj.​2011.​64870100.View Article
  106. Morgeson, F., & Hofmann, D. A. (1999). The structure and function of collective constructs: Implications for multilevel research and theory development. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 249–265. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5465/​AMR.​1999.​1893935.View Article
  107. Morgeson, F. P., DeRue, D. S., & Karam, E. P. (2010). Leadership in teams: A functional approach to understanding leadership structures and processes. Journal of Management, 36, 5–39. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​0149206309347376​.View Article
  108. Mumford, M., & Gustafson, S. (1988). Creativity syndrome: Integration, application, and innovation. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 27–43. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​0033-2909.​103.​1.​27.View Article
  109. Mumford, M. D., Medeiros, K. E., & Partlow, P. J. (2012). Creative thinking: Processes, strategies, and knowledge. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 46, 30–47. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​jocb.​003.View Article
  110. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2010). Mplus user's guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
  111. Neubert, M. J., Kacmar, K. M., Carlson, D. S., Chonko, L. B., & Roberts, J. A. (2008). Regulatory focus as a mediator of the influence of initiating structure and servant leadership on employee behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1220–1233. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​a0012695.View Article
  112. Owens, B. P., & Hekman, D. R. (2016). How does leader humility influence team performance? Exploring the mechanisms of contagion and collective promotion focus. Academy of Management Journal, 59, 1088–1111. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5465/​amj.​2013.​0660.View Article
  113. Pennington, G. L., & Roese, N. J. (2003). Regulatory focus and temporal distance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 563–576. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​S0022-1031(03)000581.View Article
  114. Qu, R., Janssen, O., & Shi, K. (2015). Transformational leadership and follower creativity: The mediating role of follower relational identification and the moderating role of leader creativity expectations. The Leadership Quarterly, 26, 286–299. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​j.​leaqua.​2014.​12.​004.
  115. Rich, B. L., LePine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 617–635. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5465/​amj.​2010.​51468988.View Article
  116. Rietzschel, E. F. (2011). Collective regulatory focus predicts specific aspects of team innovation. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14(3), 337–345. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​1368430210392396​.View Article
  117. Roberson, Q. M., & Williamson, I. O. (2012). Justice in self-managing teams: The role of social networks in the emergence of procedural justice climates. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 685–701. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5465/​amj.​2009.​0491.View Article
  118. Sacramento, C. A., Fay, D., & West, M. A. (2013). Workplace duties or opportunities? Challenge stressors, regulatory focus, and creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 121, 141–157. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​j.​obhdp.​2013.​01.​008.View Article
  119. Sarros, J. C., Cooper, B. K., & Santora, J. C. (2008). Building a climate for innovation through transformational leadership and organizational culture. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 15, 145–158. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​1548051808324100​.View Article
  120. Sassenberg, K., & Hamstra, M. R. W. (2017). The intrapersonal and interpersonal dynamics of self-regulation in the leadership process. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 55, 193–257. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​bs.​aesp.​2016.​08.​001.View Article
  121. Sassenberg, K., & Woltin, K. (2008). Group-based self-regulation: The effects of regulatory focus. European Review of Social Psychology, 19, 126–164. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​1046328080220189​4.View Article
  122. Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  123. Schneider, B., & Reichers, A. E. (1983). On the etiology of climates. Personnel Psychology, 36, 19–39.View Article
  124. 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, 33–53. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​j.​leaqua.​2003.​12.​004.View Article
  125. Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organizational Science, 4, 577–594.View Article
  126. Shamir, B., Zakay, E., Breinin, E., & Popper, M. (1998). Correlates of charismatic leader behavior in military units: Subordinates’ attitudes, unit characteristics and superiors’ appraisals of leader performance. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 387–409. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2307/​257080.View Article
  127. Shin, S. J., & Zhou, J. (2003). Transformational leadership, conservation, and creativity: Evidence from Korea. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 703–714. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5465/​30040662.View Article
  128. Shin, S. J., & Zhou, J. (2007). When is educational specialization heterogeneity related to creativity in research and development teams? Transformational leadership as a moderator. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1709–1721. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​0021-9010.​92.​6.​1709.View Article
  129. Shin, Y., Kim, M., Choi, J. N., & Lee, S. H. (2016). Does team culture matter? Roles of team culture and collective regulatory focus in team task and creative performance. Group & Organization Management, 41, 232–265. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​2F10596011155849​98.View Article
  130. Somech, A., & Drach-Zahavy, A. (2013). Translating team creativity to innovation implementation: The role of team composition and climate for innovation. Journal of Management, 39, 684–708. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​0149206310394187​.View Article
  131. Stam, D., Lord, R. G., Van Knippenberg, D., & Wisse, B. (2014). An image of who we might become: Vision communication, possible selves, and vision pursuit. Organization Science, 25, 1172–1194. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1287/​orsc.​2013.​0891.View Article
  132. Stone-Romero, E. F., & Rosopa, P. J. (2008). The relative validity of inferences about mediation as a function of research design characteristics. Organizational Research Methods, 11, 326–352. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​1094428107300342​.View Article
  133. Stone-Romero, E. F., & Rosopa, P. J. (2011). Experimental tests of mediation: Prospects, problems, and some solutions. Organizational Research Methods, 14, 631–646. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​1094428110372673​.View Article
  134. Takeuchi, R., Bolino, M. C., & Lin, C. C. (2015). Too many motives? The interactive effects of multiple motives on organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 1239–1248. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​apl0000001.View Article
  135. Tindale, R. S., & Kameda, T. (2000). “Social sharedness” as a unifying theme for information processing in groups. Group Process & Intergroup Relations, 3, 123–140.View Article
  136. Van de Ven, A. H. (1986). Central problems in the management of innovation. Management Science, 32, 590–607. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1287/​mnsc.​32.​5.​590.View Article
  137. Van Dijk, D., Seger-Guttmann, T., & Heller, D. (2013). Life threatening event reduces subjective well-being through activating avoidance motivation: A longitudinal study. Emotion, 13, 216–225. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​a0029973.View ArticlePubMed
  138. van Stekelenburg, J., & Klandermans, P. G. (2004). Regulatory focus meten met behulp van spreekwoorden. In D. H. J. Wigboldus, E. S. Kluwer, & B. Doosje (Eds.), Jaarboek Sociale Psychologie 2003 (pp. 345–357). Delft: Eburon.
  139. Wallace, C., & Chen, G. (2006). A multilevel integration of personality, climate, self-regulation, and performance. Personnel Psychology, 59, 529–557. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​j.​1744-6570.​2006.​00046.​x.View Article
  140. Wang, M., & Chan, D. (2011). Mixture latent Markov modeling: Identifying and predicting unobserved heterogeneity in longitudinal qualitative status change. Organizational Research Methods, 14, 411–431. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​2F10944281093571​07.View Article
  141. Wang, X. H., Kim, T. Y., & Lee, D. R. (2016). Cognitive diversity and team creativity: Effects of team intrinsic motivation and transformational leadership. Journal of Business Research, 69, 3231–3239. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​j.​jbusres.​2016.​02.​026.View Article
  142. Yaffe, T., & Kark, R. (2011). Leading by example: The case of leader OCB. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 806–826. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​a0022464.View Article
  143. Yammarino, F. J., Spangler, W. D., & Dubinsky, A. J. (1998). Transformational and contingent reward leadership: Individual, dyad, and group levels of analysis. Leadership Quarterly, 9, 27–54. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​S1048-9843(98)90041-8.View Article
  144. Yukl, G. (1998). Leadership in organizations (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  145. Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  146. Zaccaro, S. J., Rittman, A. L., & Marks, M. A. (2001). Team leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 12(4), 451–483. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​S1048-9843(01)00093-5.View Article
  147. Zhang, A. Y., Tsui, A. S., & Wang, D. X. (2011). Leadership behaviors and group creativity in Chinese organizations: The role of group processes. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 851–862. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​j.​leaqua.​2011.​07.​007.View Article
  148. Zhang, X., & Bartol, K. M. (2010). Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: The influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process engagement. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 107–128.View Article
  149. Zhu, W., Avolio, B. J., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2009). Moderating role of follower characteristics with transformational leadership and follower work engagement. Group & Organization Management, 34, 590–619. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​1059601116638774​.View Article
Collective aspirations: collective regulatory focus as a mediator between transformational and transactional leadership and team creativity
Dina Van Dijk
Ronit Kark
Fadel Matta
Russell E. Johnson
Publication date
Springer US
Published in
Journal of Business and Psychology / Issue 4/2021
Print ISSN: 0889-3268
Electronic ISSN: 1573-353X

Other articles of this Issue 4/2021

Journal of Business and Psychology 4/2021 Go to the issue

Premium Partner