| Literature DB >> 35846716 |
Meizhao Chen1, Muhammad Zada2,3, Jawad Khan4, Noor Ul Saba5.
Abstract
Grounding on social exchange theory and using the creative process engagement as a lens, this article study investigates the influence of servant leadership on employee creativity. In addition, the research examines the role of knowledge sharing in the link between servant leadership and employee creativity. Time lag method was used to collect the data from 242 employees and 57 managers employed in Chinese publicly listed companies. The data collection was divided into two parts. The subordinates were asked to rate servant leadership, their creative process engagement behavior, and knowledge sharing. The supervisors were asked to rate their associates regarding employee creativity. According to the results, employees creative process engagement behaviors mediated servant leadership and employees' creativity. In addition, the link between servant leadership and employees' creativity was strengthened by knowledge sharing. A detailed model is also provided, highlighting the significance of leadership, work engagement, knowledge sharing in fostering employee creativity in the Asian environment.Entities:
Keywords: creative process engagement; employee creativity; knowledge sharing; quantitative; servant leadership
Year: 2022 PMID: 35846716 PMCID: PMC9284035 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.947092
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
Factor loadings.
| Constructs | Items | Factor Loadings | CR | AVE | √AVE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| SL2 | 0.77 | ||||
| SL3 | 0.81 | ||||
| SL4 | 0.77 | ||||
| SL5 | 0.77 | ||||
| SL6 | 0.75 | ||||
| SL7 | 0.82 | ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| KS2 | 0.78 | ||||
| KS3 | 0.79 | ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
| CPE3 | 0.84 | ||||
| CPE4 | 0.83 | ||||
| CPE5 | 0.74 | ||||
| CPE6 | 0.71 | ||||
| CPE7 | 0.79 | ||||
| CPE8 | 0.92 | ||||
| CPE9 | 0.76 | ||||
| CPE10 | 0.78 | ||||
| CPE11 | 0.81 | ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| EC2 | 0.77 | ||||
| EC3 | 0.82 | ||||
| EC4 | 0.76 |
Mean, SD, correlations, and reliability.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | Age | 2.43 | 0.82 | |||||||
| 2. | Education | 2.86 | 0.58 | 0.041 | ||||||
| 3. | Experience | 1.99 | 0.70 | 0.051 | −0.034 | |||||
| 4. | Servant Leadership | 3.88 | 0.77 | 0.075 | 0.053 | 0.048 |
| |||
| 5. | Creative Process Engagement | 3.81 | 0.62 | 0.040 | 0.078 | −0.025 | 0.467 |
| ||
| 6. | Employee Creativity | 4.12 | 0.79 | 0.105 | 0.107 | 0.006 | 0.547 | 0.535 |
| |
| 7. | Knowledge Sharing | 3.57 | 0.77 | 0.087 | 0.215 | 0.020 | 0.364 | 0.406 | 0.508 |
|
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Results of the confirmatory factor analysis (N = 299).
| Model’s |
|
| TLI | CFI | RMSEA | SRMR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hypothesized one-factor model | 2,374 | 1,261 | 0.91 | 0.92 | 0.03 | 0.04 |
| Two-factor model: | 3,356 | 3,247 | 0.53 | 0.63 | 0.15 | 0.11 |
| Three-factor model: | 5,360 | 4,256 | 0.42 | 0.54 | 0.17 | 0.15 |
| Four-factor model: SL, EC, KS and CEP | 6,374 | 5,227 | 0.32 | 0.42 | 0.23 | 0.26 |
X2 = normal-theory weighted least-squares Chi-square. TLI, Tucker–Lewis fit index; CFI, Comparative fit index; RMSEA, Root-mean-square error of approximation; SRMR, Standardized root-mean-square residual.
Path analysis (direct relationship).
| Hypotheses |
|
|
| Decision | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1 | 0.38 | 0.639 | 13.72 | 0.000 | 38% variation in EC due to SL |
| H2 | 0.70 | 0.680 | 27.08 | 0.000 | 70% variation in CPE due to SL |
| H3 | 0.46 | 0.873 | 16.64 | 0.000 | 46% variation in EC due to CPE |
Hypotheses tested at a confidence interval of 95%.
Mediation analysis.
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LL | UL | |||||
|
| ||||||
| Constant | 0.8060 | 0.2018 | 3.9943 | 0.0001 | 0.4090 | 1.2031 |
| SL | 0.1503 | 0.0776 | 1.9362 | 0.0537 | −0.0024 | 0.3030 |
| EC | 0.7184 | 0.0956 | 7.5184 | 0.0000 | 0.5304 | 0.9064 |
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|
| ||||||
| Mediation path | 0.4719 | 0.0611 | 0.3535 | 0.5918 | Partial Mediation | |
Moderation analysis.
| Variables | SL (X) | Knowledge sharing (W) | EC(Y) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| SE |
|
| 95%CI | |||
| LL | UL | ||||||
| Constant | −0.7332 | 0.6188 | −1.1847 | 0.2370 | −1.9508 | 0.4845 | |
| SL | 0.8636 | 0.1699 | 5.0829 | 0.0000 | 0.5293 | 1.1979 | |
| KS | 0.8436 | 0.1780 | 4.7390 | 0.0000 | 0.5134 | 1.2138 | |
| SL * KS | −0.1122 | 0.0472 | −2.3765 | 0.0181 | −0.2050 | −0.0193 | |
|
| 0.5501 | 0.0532 | 10.3433 | 0.0000 | 0.4455 | 0.6548 | |
|
| 0.3751 | 0.0586 | 6.4072 | 0.0000 | 0.2599 | 0.4904 | |
|
| |||||||
|
| |||||||
p < 0.01;
p < 0.001.
Moderator values are the mean and ± 1 SD, LLCI, lower limit 95% confidence interval; ULCI, upper limit 95% confidence interval.
Figure 1Conceptual model.
Figure 2Interaction model.