| Literature DB >> 35457388 |
Qinghua Fu1, Jacob Cherian2, Naveed Ahmad3,4, Miklas Scholz5,6,7,8, Sarminah Samad9, Ubaldo Comite10.
Abstract
Creativity at the level of employees is of utmost importance for every sector of an economy, with no exception to a healthcare system. The reason why employee creativity is important lies in the fact that employees have profound knowledge of their job and thus can serve as a source of meaningful innovation in an organization. Research shows that employee creativity is largely dependent on leadership. Corporate leaders significantly influence subordinates' behavior. However, with the economic development, globalization, and changing business environment, a traditional authoritative leadership style can no longer be effective in understanding employees' psychological needs to foster their creative behavior. In this regard, the role of inclusive leadership as an effective organizational management strategy was recently discussed in literature at different levels. It was also stated that an inclusive leader could foster employee creativity. However, such relationships in healthcare systems of developing economies have largely remained under-explored previously. We explored employee creativity in a healthcare context of a developing economy in an inclusive leadership framework to bridge such knowledge gaps. We also investigated the mediating roles of psychological safety and polychronicity in the above-stated relationship. We collected the data from hospital employees through a questionnaire (paper-pencil method). A hypothetical model was developed, which was tested through structural equation modeling in AMOS. Based upon the statistical outcomes, we found that an inclusive leadership style in a hospital can significantly foster employee creativity, whereas psychological safety and polychronicity mediate this relationship. This study offers different theoretical and practical insights, especially to a healthcare system. An important finding was that an inclusive leader can motivate the followers to be more creative. This finding is significant for a hospital because creative employees provide a hospital with a solid competitive base.Entities:
Keywords: creativity; healthcare system; leadership; polychronicity; psychological safety
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35457388 PMCID: PMC9028499 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19084519
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1Hypothetical Framework.
Demographic detail of sample.
| Demographic | Frequency | % |
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
| Male | 223 | 60.93 |
| Female | 143 | 39.07 |
|
| ||
| 18–22 | 52 | 14.21 |
| 23–27 | 59 | 16.12 |
| 28–32 | 79 | 21.58 |
| 33–37 | 71 | 19.40 |
| 38–42 | 49 | 13.39 |
| Above | 56 | 15.30 |
|
| ||
| 1–3 | 69 | 18.85 |
| 4–6 | 131 | 35.79 |
| 7–9 | 107 | 29.23 |
| Above | 59 | 16.12 |
|
| ||
| 12 years | 57 | 15.57 |
| 14 years | 194 | 53.01 |
| Masters | 115 | 31.42 |
|
| 366 | 100 |
Construct evaluation.
| Λ | λ2 | S.E | T. Values | E-Variance | AVE | C.R | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| InL | 0.597 | 0.930 | |||||
| InL-1 | 0.699 | 0.489 | 0.049 | 14.27 | 0.511 | ||
| InL-2 | 0.711 | 0.506 | 0.047 | 15.13 | 0.494 | ||
| InL-3 | 0.720 | 0.518 | 0.044 | 16.36 | 0.482 | ||
| InL-4 | 0.762 | 0.581 | 0.038 | 20.05 | 0.419 | ||
| InL-5 | 0.818 | 0.669 | 0.036 | 22.72 | 0.331 | ||
| InL-6 | 0.822 | 0.676 | 0.033 | 24.91 | 0.324 | ||
| InL-7 | 0.746 | 0.557 | 0.051 | 14.63 | 0.443 | ||
| InL-8 | 0.738 | 0.545 | 0.039 | 18.92 | 0.455 | ||
| InL-9 | 0.913 | 0.834 | 0.033 | 27.67 | 0.166 | ||
| E.C | 0.559 | 0.864 | |||||
| E.C-1 | 0.718 | 0.516 | 0.052 | 13.81 | 0.484 | ||
| E.C-2 | 0.829 | 0.687 | 0.047 | 17.64 | 0.313 | ||
| E.C-3 | 0.758 | 0.575 | 0.042 | 18.05 | 0.425 | ||
| E.C-4 | 0.716 | 0.513 | 0.040 | 17.90 | 0.487 | ||
| E.C-5 | 0.712 | 0.507 | 0.038 | 18.74 | 0.493 | ||
| P.S | 0.607 | 0.865 | |||||
| P.S-1 | 0.868 | 0.753 | 0.062 | 14.00 | 0.247 | ||
| P.S-2 | 0.719 | 0.517 | 0.058 | 12.40 | 0.483 | ||
| P.S-3 | 0.706 | 0.498 | 0.049 | 14.41 | 0.502 | ||
| P.S-4 | 0.730 | 0.533 | 0.036 | 20.28 | 0.467 | ||
| P.S-5 | 0.716 | 0.513 | 0.038 | 18.84 | 0.487 | ||
| PoL | 0.592 | 0.878 | |||||
| PoL-1 | 0.717 | 0.514 | 0.055 | 13.04 | 0.486 | ||
| PoL-2 | 0.744 | 0.554 | 0.048 | 15.50 | 0.446 | ||
| PoL-3 | 0.829 | 0.687 | 0.034 | 24.38 | 0.313 | ||
| PoL-4 | 0.813 | 0.661 | 0.039 | 20.85 | 0.339 | ||
| PoL-5 | 0.736 | 0.542 | 0.046 | 16.00 | 0.460 |
Notes: λ = Item loadings, C.R = composite reliability, ∑λ2 = sum of square of item loadings, E-Variance = error variance, InL = inclusive leadership, E.C = employee creativity, P.S = psychological safety, and PoL = polychronicity.
Correlations and discriminant validity.
| Construct | InL | E.C | P.S | PoL | Mean | SD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| InL |
| 0.489 ** | 0.416 ** | 0.278 ** | 5.02 | 0.54 |
| E.C |
| 0.338 ** | 0.396 ** | 4.77 | 0.72 | |
| P.S |
| 0.319 ** | 4.39 | 0.76 | ||
| PoL |
| 4.98 | 0.59 |
Notes: SD = standard deviation, ** = significant values of correlation, and bold diagonal = discriminant validity values.
Model fit comparison, alternate vs. hypothesized models.
| Model | Δ | NFI | CFI | RMSEA | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4-factor | 1.982 | _ | 0.942 | 0.949 | 0.043 |
| 3-factor | 3.408 | 1.426 | 0.876 | 0.882 | 0.050 |
| 2-factor | 3.592 | 0.184 | 0.839 | 0.863 | 0.057 |
| 1-factor | 5.082 | 1.490 | 0.598 | 0.604 | 0.083 |
Direct effect structural model results.
| Hypotheses | Relationship Nature | Beta-Value (SE) | CR | CI | Decision | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1: E.C ← InL | + | ( | 15.305 | *** | 0.563–0.611 | Accepted |
| H2: P.S ← InL | + | ( | 10.368 | *** | 0.529–0.597 | Accepted |
| H4: PoL ← InL | + | ( | 06.829 | *** | 0.732–0.744 | Accepted |
Notes: CI = 95% confidence interval with lower and upper limits, **, *** = significant values.
Mediation and conditional effects.
| Path | Estimates | S.E | Z-Score | CI | Decision | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H3:E.C ← P.S ← InL | ( | 0.0198 | 10.655 | *** | 0.363–0.404 | Accepted |
| H5: E.C ← PoL ← InL | ( | 0.024 | 07.208 | *** | 0.299–0.369 | Accepted |
Notes: CI = 95% confidence interval with lower and upper limits, **, *** = significant values, and S.E = standard error.