Skip to main content
PMC home page
Frontiers in Psychology logoLink to Frontiers in Psychology
. 2023 Mar 28;14:1077594. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1077594

Coaching leadership and creative performance: A serial mediation model of psychological empowerment and constructive voice behavior

Chan Young Hwang 1, Seung-Wan Kang 2,*, Suk Bong Choi 1,*
PMCID: PMC10086331  PMID: 37057151

Abstract

This study empirically analyzes the role of coaching leadership in enhancing an organization’s creative performance, discussing and evaluating important mediating paths of coaching leadership regarding creative performance. As a result of an empirical analysis based on survey data collected from 332 employees of Korean companies, this study first confirms that coaching leadership has a positive effect on both employees’ creative performance. We also found that psychological empowerment and constructive voice behavior positively mediated the relationship between coaching leadership and creative performance. Finally, the serial mediating effect of coaching leadership on creative performance was tested through psychological empowerment and constructive voice behavior and confirmed to have a positive effect. This study indicates the importance of leadership as a critical variable that promotes employees’ creative performance. In addition, by confirming the serial mediating role of psychological empowerment and constructive voice behavior, this study improves understanding of key mechanism in which coaching leadership leads to creative performance.

Keywords: coaching leadership, creative performance, psychological empowerment, constructive voice behavior, serial mediation analysis

1. Introduction

Today, organizations innovate to achieve sustained growth in response to rapid technological changes (Tierney and Farmer, 2011; Wang et al., 2021). Organizational innovation is important for ensuring that leaders and employees are aware of the flow of the market environment, respond actively to change, and exercise the necessary creativity (Amabile, 1988; Shalley, 1995; Shalley and Gilson, 2004). In other words, for a company to maintain continuous innovation, creative performance through various ideas must drive its success (Amabile, 1988; Shalley, 1995; Shalley and Gilson, 2004). Creative performance is the result of solving various problems that arise while performing tasks with creativity (Zhou and George, 2001; Choi et al., 2021). According to previous studies, the higher an individual’s internal motivation, the higher their creativity, organizational trust (Titrek, 2016), which promotes creative performance (Shalley and Gilson, 2004). The leader’s essential role is to promote creative performance by creating a positive atmosphere in the organization and giving employees internal motivation (Titrek and Çelik, 2011; Ye et al., 2020). In addition, to present directions of change and induce employees to exercise creativity, a leader’s role assignment and attention are needed (Abbas et al., 2022). From this point of view, this study analyzes the role of coaching leadership as an important factor in inducing creative performance. Coaching leadership focuses on growing and supporting organizational members (Whitmore, 2010) and refers to leaders’ actions that maintain positive relationships with organizational members and help them grow by drawing out their potential capabilities, unlike traditional leadership by direction and control around vertical hierarchies (Whitmore, 2010). Through coaching leadership, leaders set organizational goals, present future directions, and provide opportunities for competency development (Dahling et al., 2016; Cui et al., 2022). In other words, coaching leadership provides the resources needed to increase employees’ internal motivation, objectively evaluates the work process, and enables new ideas to be exercised through repeated feedback, leading to achieving organizational goals (Zhou and Shalley, 2003). This can lead to creative performance by employees voluntarily exerting the creativity necessary to achieve their organizational goals. Therefore, this study expects that coaching leadership is a factor in promoting creative performance and accordingly conducts an empirical analysis. On the other hand, psychological empowerment may promote creative performance by delegating and supporting employees to work with autonomy and confidence to achieve organizational goals (Zhang and Bartol, 2010; Malik et al., 2021). According to previous studies, coaching leadership promotes work autonomy and efficacy by communicating organizational goals and recognizing the meaning and importance of work by employees (Zhang and Bartol, 2010; Malik et al., 2021). Coaching leadership is expected to contribute to corporate performance by demonstrating creativity, as leaders stimulate employees’ passion, skills, and experience to achieve organizational goals (Gilson and Shalley, 2004; Yang et al., 2019). Therefore, this study analyzes how psychological empowerment mediates the relationship between coaching leadership and employee creative performance. In addition, employees are expected to improve creative performance by engaging in constructive voice behavior necessary for organizational innovation. According to previous studies, communication between leaders and employees promotes constructive voice behavior by relieving psychological pressure in job performance and increasing safety (Rusbult et al., 1988; Withey and Cooper, 1989), i.e., coaching leadership can increase confidence in performing tasks by supporting employees and providing them with the necessary opportunities for self-development (Eccles, 1993). This behavior is expected to contribute to creative performance by providing the constructive remarks employees need to achieve their goals and create various ideas (Edmondson et al., 2004). Therefore, this study analyzes whether constructive voice behavior mediates the relationship between coaching leadership and employees’ creative performance.

In addition, the relationship between creative performance and coaching leadership is expected to be promoted through psychological empowerment and constructive voice behavior, identifying a double mediating effect. This study explores the path through which coaching leadership promotes creative performance. In other words, coaching leadership promotes the constructive voice behavior necessary for innovative change by way of the internal motivation gained through employees’ psychological empowerment. Then, we analyze whether this constructive voice behavior increases creative performance based on the dual sequential mediating effect model.

2. Theoretical background and research hypotheses

2.1. Coaching leadership and creative performance

Coaching leadership is defined as the actions of leaders who support employee competency development and manage job performance to grow efficiently (Hamlin et al., 2009; Hagen and Aguilar, 2012). Therefore, coaching leadership can be seen as a leader’s behavior that improves the relationship between leaders and employees by supporting employee growth and managing job performance to achieve corporate goals. Specifically, coaching leadership presents employees with four components: direction, development, accountability, and relationship based on interviews (Stowell, 1986). On the other hand, creative performance is defined as the challenges employees need to achieve organizational goals by presenting potential ideas and deriving innovative solutions (Zhou and George, 2001; Choi et al., 2021). In other words, creative performance means the results of solving problems with various approaches and new ideas that maintain sustainable growth by increasing the competitiveness of the organization. This study infers based on the following logic that coaching leadership will positively affect employees’ creative performance.

First, leaders and employees establish directions and goals for company growth through the communication and diverse sense making processes (Lussier and Achua, 2004; Schilling et al., 2022). In this process, leader’s behavior is typically closely monitored and interpreted by their follower (Schilling et al., 2022). Coaching leadership can increase communication, improving employees’ understanding of the organization’s future direction and internal motivation by recognizing their roles within the organization (Shalley and Gilson, 2004). Through coaching leadership, internal motivation increases, and the remaining employees can voluntarily present ideas and actively work (Mulki et al., 2006). Therefore, in promoting organizational innovation, coaching leadership can lead to creative results by presenting more diverse ideas and applying them to work (Zhou, 2003; Shalley and Gilson, 2004). Second, coaching leadership provides not only material support but also mental support (Baron and Morin, 2010; Yuan et al., 2019), offering the resources needed to realize employees’ various ideas toward promoting organizational change (Srivastava et al., 2006). Coaching leadership can improve employees’ psychological expectation that they will receive the resources needed to achieve their goals and actively perform their tasks (Yuan et al., 2019). Therefore, coaching leadership promotes creative performance by allowing employees to present various ideas through material and mental support.

Third, coaching leadership involves evaluating employees’ work processes and providing appropriate feedback. Through this process, employees can effectively perform by recognizing and supplementing errors in the work process (Raza et al., 2017). In addition, as the feedback process is repeated, satisfaction with the organization increases by recognizing the leader as part of a cooperative relationship (Mulki et al., 2006). This process generates the various ideas necessary to achieve organizational goals by increasing positive emotions regarding the relationship between leaders and employees (Fredrickson, 2001; Choi et al., 2015). Therefore, employees can present the necessary ideas after receiving feedback on problems that arise in the process of organizational change, leading to creative performance. As such, coaching leadership can generate creative results by increasing employees’ understanding of organizational goals through active communication and by providing various ideas and problem-solving methods alongside necessary resources and feedback (Lussier and Achua, 2004). Therefore, the following hypothesis was established.

Hypothesis 1 (H1). Coaching leadership will have a positive (+) effect on creative performance.

2.2. Psychological empowerment as a mediator

Psychological empowerment refers to the psychological state of having influence in the organization by leaders stimulating employees’ skills and experiences (Eccles, 1993) and employees recognizing the meaning of the assigned tasks (Thomas and Velthouse, 1990; Corsun and Enz, 1999). In this study, psychological empowerment is expected to play a mediating role in the relationship between coaching leadership and employees’ creative performance. In other words, it is inferred that employees will have a positive effect on psychological empowerment and, as a result, a positive effect on creative performance through coaching leadership. First, according to previous studies, coaching leadership involves presenting a company’s future vision and providing a guide for employees to understand the meaning of performance tasks (Stowell, 1986). This strengthens internal motivation by instilling an awareness that the work assigned in the innovation process is important (Amabile, 1988). Coaching leadership contributes to creative performance by recognizing the authority and role granted to employees to achieve corporate goals and promoting the psychological internal motivation to engage in tasks (Spreitzer, 1995), i.e., by actively presenting the various ideas needed to solve problems (Redmond et al., 1993).

Second, coaching leadership provides employees with opportunities for systematic competency development to enhance their competitiveness (Dahling et al., 2016; Cui et al., 2022). This effectively increases confidence by developing the competence employees need for their work (Eden, 1992; Kovjanic et al., 2013; Chen et al., 2014). Therefore, as employees increase their capabilities and strengthen confidence in their assigned tasks, they will actively present various ideas and creative problem-solving methods to contribute to creative outcomes (Bandura, 1977; Edmondson et al., 2004; Wang et al., 2021). Third, coaching leadership involves creating an organizational culture based on interpersonal skills to form a positive relationship with the organization (Gilley et al., 2010; Cui et al., 2022). The more positive the organization’s atmosphere, the higher the employees’ cooperative feelings (Cui et al., 2022). As a result of these strengthened cooperative feelings, employees will contribute to creative performance by presenting various ideas necessary for the organizational change process (Baumeister and Leary, 1995; Wang et al., 2022). In this way, coaching leadership increases employees’ voluntary internal motivation by improving their understanding of the company’s future vision and supporting capacity development (Dahling et al., 2016; Cui et al., 2022), therefore helping them actively demonstrate creativity during organizational change. Therefore, in this study, the following hypothesis is established.

Hypothesis 2 (H2). Psychological empowerment positively mediates the relationship between coaching leadership and creative performance.

2.3. Constructive voice behavior as a mediator

Constructive voice behavior refers to employees’ voluntary expression of positive opinions needed for organizational innovation (Organ and Ryan, 1995; Morrison, 2011), which means that they actively communicate individual beliefs needed for organizational change as a result of the positive relationship created between leaders and employees. In this study, constructive voice behavior is expected to mediate the relationship between coaching leadership and creative performance. In other words, it is inferred that coaching leadership will have a positive effect on employees’ constructive voice behavior, and as a result, it will also have a positive effect on creative performance.

First, coaching leadership provides mental support for employees to be confident even if they face unexpected work failures or risks (Baron and Morin, 2010; Yuan et al., 2019). Coaching leadership allows employees to actively express their beliefs by increasing employees’ psychological safety even if they face unexpected confrontations while proceeding with organizational change (Srivastava et al., 2006). Therefore, to lead organizational change successfully and constructively, various opinions must be sufficiently expressed. These active employee voice behaviors contribute to organizational performance by creating new ideas and problem-solving methods (Edmondson et al., 2004). Second, according to previous studies, coaching leadership helps to form a culture of free communication between leaders and employees (Fredrickson, 2001; Choi et al., 2015), improving understanding of others’ opinions through communication, relieving psychological pressure, and increasing safety (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005). It also leads to active publishing behavior by providing the necessary speaking opportunities for the organizational change process (Avey et al., 2012; Zhou and Long, 2012). Therefore, a healthy organizational communication culture formed by coaching leadership that promotes employees’ opportunities to speak can lead to creative performance by creating various ideas necessary for organizational change (Edmondson et al., 2004).

Third, coaching leadership includes providing effective and psychological comfort in building positive relationships with employees by offering feedback and promoting interaction with them (Owens et al., 2015; Yang et al., 2021). In addition, the interaction between leaders and employees promotes the constructive voice behavior needed to achieve organizational goals while raising trust (Fredrickson, 2001; Choi et al., 2015). Therefore, coaching leadership contributes to creative performance by actively promoting new ideas, encouraging interaction with leaders for enhanced psychological comfort, and fostering the constructive voices necessary for organizational change (Edmondson et al., 2004). In this way, coaching leadership builds positive relationships through interactions between leaders and employees (Owens et al., 2015; Yang et al., 2021), and these relationships contribute to creative performance by leading employees to voluntarily engage in the constructive voice behavior necessary to achieve organizational goals (Edmondson et al., 2004). Therefore, for this study, the following hypothesis is established.

Hypothesis 3 (H3). Constructive voice behavior positively mediates between coaching leadership and creative performance.

2.4. Integrated model: A serial mediating effect

In considering the mediating effects proposed in this study, the sequential double mediating effects can be estimated. In other words, it can be inferred that psychological empowerment and constructive voice behavior will double mediate the relationship between coaching leadership and creative performance. First, coaching leadership stimulates internal motivation by presenting guides to increase understanding of the organization’s future vision and the meaning of tasks, therefore allowing employees to recognize the importance of tasks assigned to them (Zhou and George, 2001; Choi et al., 2021). This interaction increases employees’ psychological empowerment and leads to constructive voice behavior without adding or subtracting the individual’s conviction needed for organizational change (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005). Employees’ constructive statements to enhance organizational performance can be seen as promoting creative performance by creating new solutions (Zhou and George, 2001; Choi et al., 2021). Second, coaching leadership helps employees develop job skills and stimulates personal growth by forming a positive relationship between leaders and employees (Stowell, 1986). These actions encourage close relationships with leaders, and employees enhance their sense of authority and ownership psychologically, which results in increased constructive voice behavior where employees express various opinions regarding organizational development (Baumeister and Leary, 1995; Wang et al., 2022). As such, constructive voice behavior for the purpose of organizational change contributes to creative performance by providing various ideas about existing work methods and processes, complementing deficiencies, and deriving new alternatives (Edmondson et al., 2004).

In this way, coaching leadership promotes constructive voice behavior, where employees express the individual beliefs necessary for organizational change and development without hesitation, by increasing psychological empowerment through interaction between leaders and employees (Owens et al., 2015; Yang et al., 2021). Employees’ constructive voices lead to improved creative performance as they develop creative solutions (Edmondson et al., 2004). Therefore, in this study, the following hypothesis is established.

Hypothesis 4 (H4). Psychological empowerment and constructive voice behavior double mediate coaching leadership and creative performance.

The hypothesized research model is presented in Figure 1.

FIGURE 1.

FIGURE 1

Open in a new tab

Hypothesized research model. N = 321. ***p < 0.001 (two-tailed test).

3. Methodology

3.1. Sample and procedure

Data collection for this study was conducted through an online and offline questionnaire in Korean manufacturing firms for the month of February 2022. The respondent’s main tasks were managerial, clerical, production, sales and customer service. We visited each company, explained the intent of the survey to the department managers, and received their permission. Of these 340 questionnaires, 19 questionnaires were considered invalid due to omitted or incorrect answers. Eventually, 321 responses were used for data analysis. The demographic characteristics of the respondents are as follows. Among the 321 respondents of this study, 160 (49.8%) were male, and 161 (50.2%) were female. The average age of the respondents was 45.1 years (SD = 10.06), with 6.9% of them averaging between 20 and 29 years, 26.8% averaging between 30 and 39 years, 29.3% averaging between 40 and 49 years, 30.5% averaging between 50 and 59 years, and 6.5% averaging over 51 years old. Regarding education background, 17.8% had completed high school, 14.3% had college diplomas, 55.5% held bachelor’s degrees, 9.0% had master’s degrees, and 1.6% held doctorates. The average organizational tenure was 11.02 years (SD = 8.14).

3.2. Measures

The original questionnaire was in English, then it was translated into Korean using the Brislin (1980) back-translation procedure. A professional translator translated the original version into Korean, then a bilingual scholar (who neither was aware of the study’s purpose nor had seen the original survey) back-translated it into English. As commonly used in previous studies (e.g., Ko and Yu, 2017; Chegini et al., 2020 for coaching leadership; Zhang and Bartol, 2010 for psychological empowerment; Yang et al., 2019; Avey et al., 2012 for constructive behavior; Ahmad et al., 2019 for creative performance; Shin et al., 2019), all instruments used in this study were aggregated into one dimension and used for empirical analysis.

First, we used Stowell’s (1986) 13-item scale to measure coaching leadership. Respondents rated items on five-point Likert scales that ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Sample items are: “My supervisor actively helps me set specific work goals for myself,” and “My supervisor gives me a clear direction for my work.” The Cronbach’s alpha was 0.946. Next, we used Spreitzer’s (1995) 12-item scale to measure psychological empowerment. Respondents rated items on five-point Likert scales that ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Sample items are: “The work I am doing is very important to me,” and “Activities related to my job are personally meaningful to me.” The Cronbach’s alpha was 0.901. Then, we used Van Dyne and LePine (1998) 12-item scale to measure constructive voice behavior. Respondents rated items on five-point Likert scales that ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Sample items are: “I can make constructive suggestions to my supervisor on issues that affect the organization,” and “I encourage my colleagues to take a joint interest in improving problems that affect the organization.” The Cronbach’s alpha was 0.901. Lastly, we used Oldham and Cummings’s (1996) and Morrison and Phelps’s (1999) six-item scale to measure creative performance. Respondents rated items on five-point Likert scales that ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Sample items are: “I come up with creative ideas when I do my work,” and “I am always on the lookout for new technology, process or product ideas.” The Cronbach’s alpha was 0.845.

4. Results

4.1. Correlation and reliability analysis

A correlation analysis was conducted by using SPSS 21.0 to investigate the relationships among the measured variables. Means, standard deviations, and correlations among the variables are reported in Table 1. Coaching leadership was significantly related to creative performance (r = 0.415, p < 0.01), psychological empowerment (r = 0.328, p < 0.01), and constructive voice behavior (r = 0.487, p < 0.01).

TABLE 1.

Descriptive statistics and correlations.

Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Gender (0 = M;1 = F)a 1.502 0.501
2. Age 45.137 10.064 −0.015
3. Educationb 4.396 1.302 −0.090 -0.078
4. Tenurec 11.019 8.141 −0.145** 0.474** 0.153**
5. Position 2.461 1.227 −0.291** 0.289** 0.318** 0.500**
6. Coaching leadership 3.234 0.773 −0.022 -0.024 -0.017 0.027 0.023 (0.946)
7. Psychological empowerment 3.559 0.587 −0.040 0.130* 0.065 0.190** 0.188** 0.328** (0.901)
8. Constructive voice behavior 3.437 0.593 −0.013 0.062 0.007 0.106 0.141* 0.487** 0.657** (0.826)
9. Creative performance 3.308 0.612 −0.110* 0.109 0.086 0.135* 0.219** 0.415** 0.628** 0.765** (0.845)
Open in a new tab

N = 321; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; Reliability alpha (α) coefficients are reported in diagonal.

aM = male; F = female.

bEducation = years of formal education.

cTenure = number of years.

4.2. Common method bias and confirmatory factor analysis

To assess common method variance, we followed the recommendation by Podsakoff et al. (2003) and conducted Harman’s single-factor test by loading all the items of the study constructs into an exploratory factor analysis. The results indicate that no single factor explains more than 38.61% of the covariance among the variables. We also conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on the measures of the key variables by using AMOS 20.0 to verify their factor structure and construct validity. We modeled four factors: coaching leadership, psychological empowerment, constructive voice behavior, and creative performance. The results are shown in Table 2. This theoretical four-factor model provided a reasonable fit to the data (χ2 = 1,134.511), degree of freedom (df) = 616, Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = 0.923, Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) = 0.917, Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) = 0.046, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA = 0.051). Additionally, a series of Chi-square difference tests revealed that the four-factor model fits the data significantly better than several alternative measurement models (Table 2). The results verify the theoretical four-factor model, thus supporting discriminant validity among the measures.

TABLE 2.

A confirmatory factor analysis for comparison of measurement models.

Model χ2 (df) CFI TLI RMR RMSEA Δχ2 (df)
Theoretical 4-factor model 1,134.511 (616) 0.923 0.917 0.046 0.051
3-factor modela 1,352.867 (619) 0.901 0.883 0.053 0.061 218.356 (3)***
2-factor modelb 2,155.726 (621) 0.773 0.756 0.106 0.088 802.859 (2)***
1-factor modelc 2,876.673 (622) 0.666 0.642 0.103 0.106 720.947 (1)***
Open in a new tab

n = 321. ***p < 0.001 (two-tailed test).

aThree-factor model with psychological empowerment and constructive voice behavior on the same factor.

bTwo-factor model with coaching leadership and psychological empowerment, constructive voice behavior, and creative performance on the same factor.

cOne-factor model with coaching leadership, psychological empowerment, constructive voice behavior, and creative performance on the same factor.

χ2, chi-square; df, degrees of freedom; CFI, comparative Fit Index; TLI, Tucker-Lewis Index; RMR, root mean square residual; RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation.

The index for the overall confirmatory factor analysis is presented in Table 2. The results of the confirmatory factor analysis were χ2 (df) = 1,134.511(616), Incremental Fit Index (IFI) = 0.924, TLI = 0.917, CFI = 0.923, Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) = 0.832, RMR = 0.046, RMSEA = 0.051, and Normed Fit Index (NFI) = 0.847. As shown in Table 2, although GFI and NFI are not in the best model indicator, χ2 (df), IFI, TLI, CFI, and RMSEA are included in the best model indicator, and the values of RMR are at acceptable levels (Hair et al., 2010). Therefore, the results of confirmatory factor analysis are acceptable. In addition, the average variance extracted (AVE), the variance size that explains the concept of the measurement variables, is greater than 0.5, the reference value. The construct reliability value exceeded 0.7, thus supporting the convergent validity and reliability of the constructs (Fornell and Larcker, 1981).

4.3. Hypothesis testing

We used the hierarchical regression analysis by using SPSS 21.0 to test the hypothesized relationships (Wiklund and Shepherd, 2005; Hoch et al., 2010). The results of the hierarchical regression analysis are shown in Table 3. H1 proposed that coaching leadership is positively related to creative performance. After controlling for gender, age, education, organization tenure, and interaction frequency, Table 3 shows the positive relationship between coaching leadership and creativity performance (β = 0.413, p < 0.001; Model 2), therefore supporting H1. H2 posited that psychological empowerment would mediate the relationship between coaching leadership and creative performance such that coaching leadership would enhance psychological empowerment and psychological empowerment would lead to better creative performance. In bootstrapping to test the mediating effect of coaching leadership on creative performance through psychological empowerment, the observed coefficient effect was 0.0568, and the 95% bias-corrected bootstrap confidence interval (CI) did not include 0 (0.0252, 0.0987) (see Table 4). Thus, we consider H2 supported. H3 posited that constructive voice behavior would mediate the relationship between coaching leadership and creative performance such that coaching leadership would enhance constructive voice behavior and constructive voice behavior would lead to better creative performance. In bootstrapping to test the mediating effect of coaching leadership on creative performance through constructive voice behavior, the observed coefficient effect was 0.1432, and the 95% bias-corrected bootstrap confidence interval (CI) did not include 0 (0.0919, 0.1994). Thus, we consider H3 supported. H4 predicted that psychological empowerment and constructive voice behavior would serially mediate the relationship between coaching leadership and creative performance such that coaching leadership would enhance psychological empowerment, which would in turn increase constructive voice behavior, and then increased constructive voice behavior would enhance creative performance. Indirect testing with bootstrapping produced a coefficient of 0.0860, and the 95% bias-corrected bootstrap CI also excluded zero (0.0494, 0.1308). These results indicate that H4 is supported.

TABLE 3.

Results from hierarchical linear regression analysis with creative performance and coaching leadership.

Variables Creative performance
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
Gender -0.055 -0.050 -0.059 -0.077*
Age 0.057 0.080 0.046 0.064
Education 0.030 0.045 0.031 0.063
Tenure 0.009 -0.009 -0.058 -0.029
Position 0.172* 0.162** 0.102 0.069
Coaching Leadership 0.413*** 0.241*** 0.064
Psychological Empowerment 0.530***
Constructive Voice Behavior 0.722***
R2 0.054 0.224 0.461 0.611
ΔR2 0.170 0.238 0.149
Open in a new tab

n = 321. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001 (two-tailed test). Standardized regression coefficients reported.

TABLE 4.

Bootstrapped indirect effects.

Indirect effects Effect Boot SE Boot LLCI Boot ULCI
CL → EM → CP 0.0568 0.0188 0.0252 0.0987
CL → CVB → CP 0.1432 0.0277 0.0919 0.1994
CL → EM → CVB → CP 0.0860 0.0206 0.0494 0.1308
Open in a new tab

CL, coaching leadership; EM, psychological empowerment; CVB, constructive voice behavior; CP, creative performance.

5. Conclusion and implications

To accommodate rapid environmental changes and maintain a stable business, it is important to find new ideas and problem-solving methods for producing creative results (Gilson and Shalley, 2004; Shalley et al., 2009). However, despite this need, research on the coaching leadership as a factor in increasing creative performance is still insufficient (Kim et al., 2013; Wang et al., 2017; Peng et al., 2019). Therefore, this study analyzes leadership’s effect on employees’ creative performance as well as the mediating role and a serial mediating effect of psychological empowerment and constructive voice behavior in these relationships.

5.1. Theoretical implications

This study’s results provide the following theoretical implications. First, many studies have examined the effectiveness of leadership as a prerequisite for organizational creative performance (Shalley et al., 2009). However, research linking coaching leadership to creative performance is still insufficient. This study confirms the important role of coaching leadership in promoting creative performance. Coaching leadership is a leader’s behavior that contributes to creative performance by supporting employee growth and job competency (Stowell, 1986; Baron and Morin, 2010; Yuan et al., 2019). This study expands research on leadership and creativity by revealing that coaching leadership is an important determinant of creative activities and performance, and it helps employees accurately recognize changes in the organizational environment and supports necessary competency development.

Second, this study analyzes both psychological and behavioral situations to explain the process by which coaching leadership promotes creative performance. Psychological empowerment was selected as a parameter representing a psychological situation, and as a result, it was confirmed as an effective parameter affecting creative performance by increasing employees’ psychological empowerment through linkage action (Hagen and Aguilar, 2012). In addition, constructive voice behavior was selected as a parameter representing behavioral situations, and as a result, employees’ voice behavior had a positive effect on creative performance (Organ and Ryan, 1995; Morrison, 2011). This study provides insights to understand coaching leadership by analyzing its mediating effect on creative performance through employees’ psychological and behavioral situations. Third, to explain how coaching leadership promotes creative performance, this study analyzes the sequential double mediating effect through psychological empowerment and constructive voice behavior. In previous studies, the relationship between leadership and innovation performance has been analyzed for direct or primary indirect effects. However, this study provides a different analysis model by analyzing the double mediating effect of coaching leadership on creative performance through psychological and behavioral situations. Therefore, it provides insights into understanding the path from coaching leadership to creative performance.

5.2. Practical implications

This study has the following practical implications based on its empirical results. First, as a result of this study’s empirical analysis, it was found that coaching leadership positively contributes to creative performance. This effect contributes to the increase in creative performance through close supervisory load interactions, with coaching leadership providing material and psychological support to employees (Stowell, 1986; Redmond et al., 1993; Baron and Morin, 2010; Yuan et al., 2019). Therefore, an organization must be aware of the positive effects of leadership and establish systematic selection, and education and training programs to develop and strengthen managers’ coaching leadership capabilities. More specifically, we suggest that organization establish effective selection system based on coaching instruments to recruit managers who already possess coaching capability externally and promote employees who are potential coaches internally (Cui et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2022). In addition, organizations also could provide or support formal training and education program to help managers become effective coaches. For instance, organizations could use external professional coaching institutes to help managers become certified coaches (Cui et al., 2022). In general, we also found that leaders are required to prepare proper leadership styles and strategies for developing management skills to increase the efficiency of their organizations (Fenitra et al., 2022). Second, organization should facilitate the coaching organizational culture, motivating the leader to have various kinds of coaching behavior (Wang et al., 2022). For instance, organization could support managers’ coaching related behavior such as guidance, facilitation and inspiration of coaching activities which further enhance the employee’s sense of belonging to the organization and of psychological safety so that employees can continue their creative work.

Third, this study confirms that psychological empowerment and constructive voice behavior had an important mediating effect on connecting and promoting creative outcomes not only individually but also together. Therefore, to improve an organization’s creative performance, leaders need to develop coaching leadership, as well as establish an open organizational culture that guarantees free communication and support systems at various organizational levels to strengthen employees’ psychological empowerment and constructive voice behavior.

Finally, the sample of this study found that the average age and tenure of employees were relatively higher. It implies that organizations that would like to increase their creative performance might benefit from employees who are old and more long tenured. This is because they might benefit from providing incentives and support for performing their job creatively (Kim et al., 2015). Such organizations might also encourage these employees to develop high-quality relationship and cooperation with their leaders, which may make them feel more empowered, produce more taking charge behavior, and result in better creative performance (Marinova et al., 2010). This result suggests that it may be more effective to encourage longer tenured employees instead of shorter tenured employees to engage in creative behavior. Perhaps, longer tenured employees will exhibit greater performance benefits when engaging in performing creative tasks. In addition, older and long tenured employees may be less threatened by a failure in the course of performing their job creatively, and they also can take better position to utilize required organizational resources for creative performance. In this vein, the present study demonstrates that employees with relatively old age and longer organizational tenure may be better able to translate the benefits of coaching leadership and psychological empowerment into creative performance. Therefore, we suggest that organization may consider carefully the positive role of old and long tenured employees for enhancing creative performance.

5.3. Limitations and directions for future research

Despite the useful implications, this study also has the following limitations, so it is expected to be reflected in future studies. First, this study collected data utilizing a self-report questionnaire method, so there may be a problem of convenience in the same method (Spector, 2006). Therefore, in future studies, it is necessary to increase the reliability of the research results by diversifying the response time and the response sources. Second, this study employed a cross-sectional research method by collecting data through a questionnaire at a specific point in time. However, because the results may vary depending on the employee’s psychological state and environmental factors, it is expected that future research based on longitudinal data will help increase the reliability of the results and reveal the causal relationship. Third, this study used an analysis model at the individual level to analyze the relationship between coaching leadership and creative performance, but it did not consider all variables at the team and organizational levels. However, employees’ creative activities and performances are influenced by variables such as team atmosphere, innovative organizational culture, and team cohesion. Therefore, in future studies, more useful implications can be derived if a multiple-level analysis includes influencing variables at the team or organization level. Finally, although the data used in this study came from multiple job areas of Korean manufacturing industry, this study was conducted on samples drawn exclusively from South Korean workers in manufacturing industry. Therefore, future research should extend to other industry and other emerging and developed countries for useful implications and generalizability of research results.

Data availability statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Author contributions

CYH prepared the first draft of the manuscript. SBC supervised the study and refined the draft into a publishable manuscript. CYH and SBC collected the data and performed empirical analysis. In addition to motivating the publication of this manuscript, S-WK added valuable theoretical and methodological insights based on his knowledge and expertise regarding the topic. All authors read and agreed to the submitted version of the manuscript.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

References

  1. Abbas A., Ekowati D., Suhariadi F. (2022). “Social perspective: Leadership in changing society,” in Social morphology, human welfare, and sustainability, eds Hassan M. I., Roy S. S., Chatterjee U., Chakraborty S., Singh U. (Cham: Springer; ), 89–107. 10.1007/978-3-030-96760-4_4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Ahmad I., Donia M. B., Shahzad K. (2019). Impact of corporate social responsibility attributions on employees’ creative performance: The mediating role of psychological safety. Ethics Behav. 29 490–509. 10.1080/10508422.2018.1501566 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Amabile T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Res. Organ. Behav. 10 123–167. [Google Scholar]
  4. Avey J. B., Wernsing T. S., Palanski M. E. (2012). Exploring the process of ethical leadership: The mediating role of employee voice and psychological ownership. J. Bus. Ethics 107 21–34. 10.1007/s10551-012-1298-2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bandura A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 247. [Google Scholar]
  6. Baron L., Morin L. (2010). The impact of executive coaching on self-efficacy related to management soft-skills. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 31 18–38. 10.1108/01437731011010362 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Baumeister R. F., Leary M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychol. Bull. 117 497–529. 10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Brislin R. W. (1980). “Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials,” in Methodology, eds Triandis H. C., Berry J. W. (Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon; ), 389–444. 10.3390/healthcare6030093 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Chen Y. S., Chang C. H., Lin Y. H. (2014). Green transformational leadership and green performance: The mediation effects of green mindfulness and green self-efficacy. Sustainability 6 6604–6621. 10.3390/su6106604 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Chegini Z., Kakemam E., Asghari Jafarabadi M., Janati A. (2020). The impact of patient safety culture and the leader coaching behavior of nurses on the intention to report errors: A cross-sectional survey. BMC Nurs. 19:89. 10.1186/s12912-020-00472-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Choi S. B., Tran T. B. H., Park B. I. (2015). Inclusive leadership and work engagement: Mediating roles of affective organizational commitment and creativity. Soc. Behav. Pers. 43 931–943. 10.2224/sbp.2015.43.6.931 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Choi S. B., Ullah S. E., Kang S. W. (2021). Proactive personality and creative performance: Mediating roles of creative self-efficacy and moderated mediation role of psychological safety. Sustainability 13:12517. 10.3390/su132212517 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Corsun D. L., Enz C. A. (1999). Predicting psychological empowerment among service workers: The effect of support-based relationships. Hum. Relat. 52 205–224. 10.1177/001872679905200202 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Cropanzano R., Mitchell M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. J. Manag. 31 874–900. 10.1177/0149206305279602 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Cui Z., Wang H., Nanyangwe C. N. (2022). How does coaching leadership promote employees’ constructive deviance? affective events perspective. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 2022 279–290. 10.1108/LODJ-04-2020-0153 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Dahling J. J., Taylor S. R., Chau S. L., Dwight S. A. (2016). Does coaching matter? A multilevel model linking managerial coaching skill and frequency to sales goal attainment. Pers. Psychol. 69 863–894. 10.1111/peps.12123 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Eccles T. (1993). The deceptive allure of empowerment. Long Range Plann. 26 13–21. 10.1016/0024-6301(93)90203-R [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Eden D. (1992). Leadership and expectations: Pygmalion effects and other self-fulfilling prophecies in organizations. Leadersh. Q. 3 271–305. 10.1016/1048-9843(92)90018-B [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Edmondson A. C., Kramer R. M., Cook K. S. (2004). “Psychological safety, trust, and learning in organizations: A group-level lens,” in Trust and distrust in organizations: Dilemmas and approaches, Vol. 12 eds Kramer R. M., Cook K. S. (Manhattan, NY: Russell Sage Foundation; ), 239–272. [Google Scholar]
  20. Fenitra R. M., Abbas A., Ekowati D., Suhairidi F. (2022). “Strategic intent and strategic leadership: A review perspective for post-COVID-19 tourism and hospitality industry recovery,” in The Emerald handbook of destination recovery in tourism and hospitality, eds Mohanty P., Sharma A., Kennell J., Hassan A. (Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited; ), 23–44. 10.1108/978-1-80262-073-320221003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Fornell C., Larcker D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. J. Mark. Res. 18 382–388. 10.1177/002224378101800313 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Fredrickson B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. Am. Psychol. 56 218–226. 10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.218 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Gilley A., Gilley J. W., Kouider E. (2010). Characteristics of managerial coaching. Perform. Improv. Q. 23 53–70. 10.1002/piq.20075 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Gilson L. L., Shalley C. E. (2004). A little creativity goes a long way: An examination of teams’ engagement in creative processes. J. Manag. 30 453–470. 10.1016/j.jm.2003.07.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Hagen M., Aguilar M. G. (2012). The impact of managerial coaching on learning outcomes within the team context: An analysis. Hum. Resour. Dev. Q. 23 363–388. 10.1002/hrdq.21140 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Hair J. F., Black W. C., Anderson R. E., Babin B. J. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective, Vol. 7. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 661–699. [Google Scholar]
  27. Hamlin R. G., Ellinger A. D., Beattie R. S. (2009). Toward a profession of coaching? A definitional examination of ‘coaching,’‘organization development,’and ‘human resource development’. Int. J. Evid. Based Coach. Mentor. 7 13–38. [Google Scholar]
  28. Hoch J. E., Pearce C. L., Welzel L. (2010). Is the most effective team leadership shared? The impact of shared leadership, age diversity, and coordination on team performance. J. Pers. Psychol. 9, 105–116. 10.1027/1866-5888/a000020 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Kim S., Egan T. M., Kim W., Kim J. (2013). The impact of managerial coaching behavior on employee work-related reactions. J. Bus. Psychol. 28 315–330. 10.1007/s10869-013-9286-9 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Kim T. Y., Liu Z., Diefendorff J. M. (2015). Leader–member exchange and job performance: The effects of taking charge and organizational tenure. J. Organ. Behav. 36 216–231. 10.1002/job.1971 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Kovjanic S., Schuh S. C., Jonas K. (2013). Transformational leadership and performance: An experimental investigation of the mediating effects of basic needs satisfaction and work engagement. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 86 543–555. 10.1111/joop.12022 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Ko Y., Yu S. (2017). The relationships among perceived patients’ safety culture, intention to report errors, and leader coaching behavior of nurses in Korea: A pilot study. J. Patient Saf. 13 175–183. 10.1097/PTS.0000000000000224 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Lussier R. N., Achua C. F. (2004). Leadership, theory, application skill development, 2nd Edn. Eagan, MN: Thomoson/South-Western, 498. [Google Scholar]
  34. Malik M., Sarwar S., Orr S. (2021). Agile practices and performance: Examining the role of psychological empowerment. Int. J. Project Manag. 39 10–20. 10.1016/j.ijproman.2020.09.002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. Marinova S. V., Moon H., Van Dyne L. (2010). Are all good soldier behaviors the same? Supporting multidimensionality of organizational citizenship behaviors based on rewards and roles. Hum. Relat. 63 1463–1485. 10.1177/0018726709359432 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Morrison E. W. (2011). Employee voice behavior: Integration and directions for future research. Acad. Manag. Ann. 5 373–412. 10.5465/19416520.2011.574506 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Morrison E. W., Phelps C. C. (1999). Taking charge at work: Extrarole efforts to initiate workplace change. Acad. Manag. J. 42 403–419. 10.2307/257011 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. Mulki J. P., Jaramillo F., Locander W. B. (2006). Effects of ethical climate and supervisory trust on salesperson’s job attitudes and intentions to quit. J. Pers. Sell. Sales Manag. 26 19–26. 10.2753/PSS0885-3134260102 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  39. Oldham G. R., Cummings A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work. Acad. Manag. J. 39 607–634. 10.2307/256657 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. Organ D. W., Ryan K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Pers. Psychol. 48 775–802. 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1995.tb01781.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Owens B. P., Baker W. E., Sumpter D. M., Cameron K. S. (2015). Relational energy at work: Implications for job engagement and job performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 101 35–49. 10.1037/apl0000032 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Peng Z., Gao B., Zhao H. (2019). Coaching leadership and subordinates’ career success: The mediating role of leader–member exchange. Soc. Behav. Pers. 47 1–8. 10.2224/sbp.8406 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. Podsakoff P. M., MacKenzie S. B., Lee J. Y., Podsakoff N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 88 879–903. 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Raza B., Ali M., Ahmed S., Moueed A. (2017). Impact of managerial coaching on employee performance and organizational citizenship behavior: Intervening role of thriving at work. Pakistan J. Commer. Soc. Sci. 11 790–813. [Google Scholar]
  45. Redmond M. R., Mumford M. D., Teach R. (1993). Putting creativity to work: Effects of leader behavior on subordinate creativity. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 55 120–151. 10.1006/obhd.1993.1027 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  46. Rusbult C. E., Farrell D., Rogers G., Mainous A. G. (1988). Impact of exchange variables on exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect: An integrative model of responses to declining job satisfaction. Acad. Manag. J. 31 599–627. 10.2307/256461 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  47. Schilling J., Schyns B., May D. (2022). When your leader just does not make any sense: Conceptualizing inconsistent leadership. J. Bus. Ethics 1–13. 10.1007/s10551-022-05119-9 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  48. Shalley C. E. (1995). Effects of coaction, expected evaluation, and goal setting on creativity and productivity. Acad. Manag. J. 38 483–503. 10.2307/256689 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  49. 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. Leadersh. Q. 15 33–53. 10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.12.004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  50. Shalley C. E., Gilson L. L., Blum T. C. (2009). Interactive effects of growth need strength, work context, and job complexity on self-reported creative performance. Acad. Manag. J. 52 489–505. 10.5465/amj.2009.41330806 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  51. Shin Y., Kim M., Lee S. H. (2019). Positive group affective tone and team creative performance and change-oriented organizational citizenship behavior: A moderated mediation model. J. Creat. Behav. 53 52–68. 10.1002/jocb.166 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  52. Spector P. E. (2006). Method variance in organizational research: Truth or urban legend? Organ. Res. Methods 9 221–232. 10.1177/1094428105284955 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  53. Spreitzer G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Acad. Manag. J. 38 1442–1465. 10.1111/jonm.12045 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Srivastava A., Bartol K. M., Locke E. A. (2006). Empowering leadership in management teams: Effects on knowledge sharing, efficacy, and performance. Acad. Manag. J. 49 1239–1251. 10.5465/amj.2006.23478718 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  55. Stowell S. J. (1986). Leadership and coaching. Ph. D. Dissertation. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah. [Google Scholar]
  56. Thomas K. W., Velthouse B. A. (1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment: An “interpretive” model of intrinsic task motivation. Acad. Manag. Rev. 15 666–681. 10.5465/amr.1990.4310926 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  57. Tierney P., Farmer S. M. (2011). Creative self-efficacy development and creative performance over time. J. Appl. Psychol. 96 277–293. 10.1037/a0020952 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Titrek O., Çelik Ö. (2011). Relations between self-awareness and transformational leadership skills of schools managers. N. Educ. Rev. 23 355–370. [Google Scholar]
  59. Titrek O. (2016). Relations between trust in principal and shared leadership. Anthropologist 24 300–308. 10.1080/09720073.2016.11892019 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  60. Van Dyne L., LePine J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Acad. Manag. J. 41 108–119. 10.2307/256902 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  61. Wang J., Gu Y., Luo Y., Huang Y., Liao L. (2022). The mechanism of the influence of coaching leadership behavior on subordinate’s sense of gain at work. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 43 638–652. 10.1108/LODJ-07-2021-0342 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  62. Wang W., Kang S. W., Choi S. B. (2021). Effects of employee well-being and self-efficacy on the relationship between coaching leadership and knowledge sharing intention: A study of UK and US employees. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 18 10638–10653. 10.3390/ijerph182010638 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Wang Y., Yuan C., Zhu Y. (2017). Coaching leadership and employee voice behavior: A multilevel study. Soc. Behav. Pers. 45 1655–1664. 10.2224/sbp.6593 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  64. Whitmore J. (2010). Coaching for performance: Growing human potential and purpose: The principles and practice of coaching and leadership. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing, 232. [Google Scholar]
  65. Wiklund J., Shepherd D. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation and small business performance: A configurational approach. J. Bus. Ventur. 20 71–91. 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2004.01.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  66. Withey M. J., Cooper W. H. (1989). Predicting exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect. Adm. Sci. Q. 34 521–539. 10.1111/j.1467-9450.2007.00620.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Yang C., Yang F., Ding C. (2021). Linking leader humor to employee creativity: The roles of relational energy and traditionality. J. Manag. Psychol. 36 548–561. 10.1108/JMP-06-2020-0300 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  68. Yang J., Gu J., Liu H. (2019). Servant leadership and employee creativity: The roles of psychological empowerment and work–family conflict. Curr. Psychol. 38 1417–1427. 10.1007/s12144-019-0161-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  69. Ye B. H., Tung V. W. S., Li J. J., Zhu H. (2020). Leader humility, team humility and employee creative performance: The moderating roles of task dependence and competitive climate. Tour. Manag. 81 104170–104182. 10.1016/j.tourman.2020.104170 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  70. Yuan C., Wang Y., Huang W., Zhu Y. (2019). Can coaching leadership encourage subordinates to speak up? Dual Perspective of cognition-affection. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 40 485–498. 10.1108/LODJ-01-2018-0009 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  71. Zhang X., Bartol K. M. (2010). Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: The influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process engagement. Acad. Manag. J. 53 107–128. 10.5465/amj.2010.48037118 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  72. Zhou H., Long L.-R. (2012). The influence of transformational leadership on voice behavior: Mediating effect of psychological ownership for the organization and moderating effect of traditionality. Acta Psychol. Sin. 44 388–399. 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2012.00388 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  73. Zhou J. (2003). When the presence of creative coworkers is related to creativity: Role of supervisor close monitoring, developmental feedback, and creative personality. J. Appl. Psychol. 88 413–422. 10.1037/0021-9010.88.3.413 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  74. Zhou J., George J. M. (2001). When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: Encouraging the expression of voice. Acad. Manag. J. 44 682–696. 10.2307/3069410 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  75. Zhou J., Shalley C. E. (2003). Research on employee creativity: A critical review and directions for future research. Res. Pers. Hum. Resour. Manag. 22 165–217. 10.1097/00006216-199802240-00023 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Articles from Frontiers in Psychology are provided here courtesy of Frontiers Media SA

RESOURCES