| Literature DB >> 36211888 |
Basheer M Al-Ghazali1, Hamid Mahmood Gelaidan2, Syed Haider Ali Shah3, Rafia Amjad4.
Abstract
For countries and organizations to achieve sustainable development, radical green creativity is required. Despite the fact that the influencing elements of green creativity have received a lot of attention, there is little research on the antecedents of green creativity. The current study attempted to fill the gap by exploring the underlying mechanism of green thinking and green organizational identity as mediators. This study aimed to examine the impact of green transformational leadership on green creativity through mediators, such as green thinking and creative organizational identity in SMEs. We gathered data from 460 respondents from SMEs operating in Pakistan using a survey questionnaire. The findings revealed that green transformational leadership had a significant impact on green organizational identity, which cultivated green creativity in SMEs. Additionally, results portrayed that green organizational identity performed mediation in the relationship between green transformational leadership and green creativity. Moreover, green thinking mediates the association between green transformational leadership and green creativity. This study offers novel insights into how to stimulate green transformational leadership and cognitive processes in SMEs to encourage green creativity. The implications for management and practitioners are discussed in light of the study's findings.Entities:
Keywords: green creativity; green organizational identity; green thinking; green transformational leadership; small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs)
Year: 2022 PMID: 36211888 PMCID: PMC9533772 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.977998
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
Figure 1Conceptual framework of the study.
Mean, standard deviation, and intercorrelations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Perceived CSR | 3.51 (0.87) |
| |||
| 2 | Ethical leadership | 3.65 (0.65) | 0.240 |
| ||
| 3 | Moral reflectiveness | 3.95 (0.93) | 0.557 | 0.135 |
| |
| 4 | Pro-environmental behaviors | 3.66 (0.81) | 0.656 | 0.450 | 0.569 |
|
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).
Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed). Values in bold are Cronbach's alpha values. SD, Standard deviation.
Results of model comparisons using a CFA approach.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Four-Factor model (MO) | 541.352 | 274 | 0.941 | 0.966 | 0.969 | 0.865 | 0.057 | 0.0499 |
| Three-Factor model (M1) | 149.458 | 65 | 0.939 | 0.936 | 0.961 | 0.957 | 0.060 | 0.0370 |
| Two-Factor model (M2) | 65.615 | 33 | 0.963 | 0.965 | 0.988 | 0.965 | 0.056 | 0.0390 |
| One-Factor model (M3) | 121.995 | 8 | 0.812 | 0.872 | 0.871 | 0.887 | 0.267 | 0.0592 |
Construct validity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Green transformational leadership (GTI) | GTI 1 | 0.78 | 0.57 | 0.85 | 0.81 |
| GTI 2 | 0.81 | ||||
| GTI 3 | 0.78 | ||||
| GTI 4 | 0.75 | ||||
| GTI 5 | 0.89 | ||||
| GTI 6 | 0.77 | ||||
| Green organizational identity (GOI) | GOI 1 | 0.78 | 0.54 | 0.85 | 0.87 |
| GOI 2 | 0.73 | ||||
| GOI 3 | 0.85 | ||||
| GOI 4 | 0.87 | ||||
| GOI 5 | 0.79 | ||||
| GOI 6 | 0.71 | ||||
| Green thinking (GT) | GT 1 | 0.85 | 0.67 | 0.67 | 0.83 |
| GT 2 | 0.89 | ||||
| GT 3 | 0.74 | ||||
| GT 4 | 0.81 | ||||
| Green creativity (GC) | GC 1 | 0.67 | 0.55 | 0.92 | 0.91 |
| GC 2 | 0.75 | ||||
| GC 3 | 0.78 | ||||
| GC 4 | 0.80 | ||||
| GC 5 | 0.62 | ||||
| GC 6 | 0.67 |
Discriminant validity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GTI | 0.854 | 0.571 | 0.380 | 0.911 | 0.772 | |||
| GC | 0.912 | 0.558 | 0.461 | 0.920 | 0.532 | 0.685 | ||
| GT | 0.835 | 0.674 | 0.495 | 0.863 | 0.620 | 0.678 | 0.812 | |
| GOI | 0.857 | 0.541 | 0.493 | 0.896 | 0.515 | 0.670 | 0.712 | 0.793 |
GTI, Green transformational leadership; GOI, Green organizational identity; GT, Green thinking; GC, Green creativity; AVE, Average variance extracted; MSV, Maximum shared variance; MaxR(H), McDonald construct reliability.
Regression results of the structural model and hypotheses test outcomes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1 | Perceived | 0.53 | 0.79 | 6.802 | 0.001 | Supported |
| H2 | Perceived | 0.58 | 0.84 | 6.987 | 0.002 | Supported |
| H3 | Perceived | 0.77 | 0.07 | 7.547 | 0.004 | Supported |
| H4 | GOI | 0.58 | 0.62 | 6.852 | 0.002 | Supported |
| H5 | GT | 0.56 | 0.07 | 6.741 | 0.002 | Supported |
GTI, Green transformational leadership; GOI, Green organizational identity; GT, Green thinking; GC, Green creativity.
Standardized mediation effects: parameter estimate and bootstrap percentile method confidence intervals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H6 | Panel Ia | 0.344 | 0.264 | 0.420 | 0.014 | Supported |
| H7 | Panel IIb | 0.275 | 0.187 | 0.362 | 0.011 | Supported |
GTI, Green transformational leadership; GOI, Green organizational identity; GT, Green thinking; GC, Green creativity.
a) Goodness of fit: χ2/df = 1.789, RMSEA = 0.053, GFI = 0.932, CFI = 0.941.
(“GTL GOI” was constrained to be zero).
b) Goodness of fit: χ2/df = 2.225, RMSEA = 0.052, GFI = 0.934, CFI = 0.960.
(“GTL GT ” was constrained to be zero).