Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection logoLink to Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection
. 2022 Jun 17;35(2):247–265. doi: 10.1007/s10672-022-09414-5

Chameleon Leadership and Innovative Behavior in the Health Sector: The Mediation Role of Job Security

Omar Durrah 1,✉, Ahmad Kahwaji 1
PMCID: PMC9203145  PMID: 40477989

Abstract

The primary aim of the current study is to identify the effect of chameleon leadership behaviors on the innovative behavior of staff in the health sector in the Sultanate of Oman, and examining if job security plays a mediating role in the relationship between chameleon leadership and innovative behavior. Data were collected using a questionnaire consisting of 282 employees working in healthcare organizations in Oman. The PLS-SEM methodology was performed used to test the proposed hypotheses. The results indicated that chameleon leadership behaviors (external control, and relativistic beliefs) have no effect on innovative behavior but have a positive effect of external control on job security. Moreover, job security has a direct positive impact on innovative behavior. In addition, the results showed that job security is not a factor in the relationship between chameleon leadership behaviors and innovative behavior. The study contributes to providing a deferent perspective to explore the behaviors of chameleon leadership in the Omani health sector to provide security and accelerating innovative systems to support a stable work environment.

Keywords: Chameleon leadership, External control, Relativistic beliefs, Innovative behavior, Job security, Health sector, Sultanate of Oman

Introduction

Today's business world is constantly exposed to turbulence and unprecedented change, as the business environment suffers from ambiguity, volatility, accelerating complexity, uncertainty thus instability (Attar & Abdul-Kareem, 2020). Most organizations face inevitable changes in competitive environments and need an adaptive leadership mechanism to survive (Aldrich & Pfeffer, 1976). Leadership is one of the key determinants associated with the success and failure of any organization. Leadership style is the manner in which people are directed and motivated by a leader to achieve organizational goals (Al Khajeh, 2018). Thygeson et al. (2010) posited that effective leadership should increase the ability of people or a team to handle complex and adaptive problems. Vassolo and Weisz (2022) provide a framework to address and respond to these critical issues by identifying them, describing the inner tensions. In healthcare sector, different leadership styles are applied to achieve higher goals generated by the urgent need for activities to provide an advantage over competitors, essential for organizational survival. Hersey and Blanchard (1996) stated that leadership is not a direct science and successful leaders can change their leadership style according to their tasks. Furthermore, leadership style is influenced by the group of people being led, entrusting the leader with various responsibilities. This leadership direction is adequate for challenges and situations that require different leadership techniques, and although chameleon leadership has rigid guidelines, it is not applicable in all situations (Alvesson & Einola, 2019).

Chameleon leadership behavior has been introduced in healthcare facilities as a hands-on strategy to identify efficient practices and utilize them to solve immediate problems (Nicolaides et al., 2014). According to Graeff (2000), highly professional healthcare individuals significantly influence the adoption of chameleon leadership behavior in this sector. The study also indicated that chameleon leadership behavior could influence leaders in healthcare facilities not to involve themselves in specific situations to prevent change. Moreover, Linsky and Heifetz (2002) indicated that chameleon leadership behavior is avoided to prevent conflict between leaders and their working teams. Whereas study (Sung & Choi, 2021). confirmed that the behavior of the leader affects the interaction between members in the organization. Likewise, Terrazas-Carrillo et al., (2021) explored that significantly, highly experienced healthcare workers influence chameleon leadership behaviors in healthcare facilities. These behaviors prevent conflicts between team members or between team members and their leader that could negatively influence the performance and working environment in the healthcare facility.

Phillips et al. (2020) indicated that the adoption of chameleon leadership behaviors is necessary for some situations in the healthcare sector, especially during a situation that requires immediate action. The healthcare sector deals with patients from different backgrounds and with various diseases. The relationship between healthcare facility staff and patients, requires different types of adaptive measures, sometimes requiring leaders to ask staff to offer services outside of the hospital, especially during a public campaign like mass vaccination, and for public education (Barasa et al., 2017). Mahajan et al. (2017) asserted that leaders in the healthcare sector need to radically change their department structures to offer improved and updated services to patients. However, this task may be complex to implement. Furthermore, chameleon leadership behavior is revealed when launching a new health specialty when, to obtain approval and financial support, leaders must convince the health department of the specialty’s importance (Kozlowski, 2012). Also there needs to be a cultural and behavioral transformation, led by committed and empowered leaders (Tan et al., 2019). Ballard et al. (2020) used their study on prioritizing the role of community health workers in the COVID-19 response to show the adoption of chameleon leadership behavior among healthcare workers.

According to Paulsen et al. (2009), a reconceptualization of the perception of leadership is required to create, implement, and measure innovation in an organization. Organizational leadership needs to change from its embodied form. Change can only be achieved through interaction between leaders and their team members (Brown & Osborne, 2012; Gordon & Cleland, 2021). Organizations are relying on their leaders to demonstrate effective leadership behavior that positively affects employee innovation (Sehgal et al., 2021). Poole and Ven (2004) stated that innovation is required to transform healthcare organizations and increase the quality of their products and services. Chameleon leadership behavior articulates a clear vision of healthcare organizations to employees (Menges et al., 2011). Leaders in these organizations communicate a vision that aligns the company's values to employees' values, creating a shared sense of purpose that motivates workers to strive towards their objectives, and motivates them to work hard as they perceive their job is secure (Schwartz & Cohn, 2002).

This study focused on adopting the concept of “Chameleon Leadership”, the capacity to be able to amend your tactics, much as a chameleon does to improve innovative behavior in the health sector. This study contributes to explaining the interrelationships between these variables. We theoretically examine the cognitive psychological mechanisms that may relate to the effects of external control, relativistic beliefs, and job security on innovative behavior.

Theoretical Framework

Chameleon Leadership Behaviors

With new, diverse, and complicated challenges facing contemporary leaders in today’s changing and distinct environment, it is essential for organizations to move away from old and traditional leadership practices and embrace new ones (Massoudi, 2022) l such as chameleon leadership as recommended by (Alabadi, 2018). According to Uhl-Bien et.al. (2007), chameleon leadership behavior is one of the most efficient leadership methods for organizations working in a strategically uncertain environment. Uhl-Bien and Arena (2018) argued that the adoption of chameleon leadership behavior is aimed at avoiding the consequences of strategic risks associated with a lack of competitiveness, and thus, is aimed to win competitive positions. Kahwaji et al. (2020) argued for the characteristics of strategic leadership which aims to link the organization’s value system with its vision, mission, and environment and support the solidarity of organizational structure systems and processes, employing creative personnel who have positive thinking to accomplish the organization’s mission and vision.

Chameleon leadership is a camouflaging behavior with a set of traits and characteristics that allow individuals to blend in with their surroundings to ensure their survival (Williams et al., 2011). Chameleon behavior is characterized by the ability of individuals to change their behavior and adapt to different environments to achieve their desired goals (Ruiz-Palomino & Banon-Gomis, 2017). Bahrami and Evans (2014) defined chameleon leadership as a strategy used by leaders of an organization to flexibly adapt to the need at hand. In most cases, managers create the environment for their survival without considering the survival of others. This behavior influences managers to impose their personality style on their staff. In traditional leadership, chameleon behavior is ignored, and it is assumed that managers make decisions favoring themselves and their staff (Terrazas-Carrillo et al., 2021; Williams et al., 2011). According to Earley and Peterson (2004), chameleon leadership behavior allows managers to adapt to their reports.

Two dimensions of chameleon leadership have been identified; external control and relativistic beliefs (Alabadi & Al-Khakani, 2021). They are two personality traits that can lead employees to use chameleon-like approaches in making decisions. External control suggests the need for decisions dependent on context (Alabadi, 2018; Solar & Bruehl, 1971), and relativistic beliefs are not anchored in any universal ethical principles (Bright et al., 2011). Thus, these personality traits are compatible with chameleon-like styles (Hample & Dallinger, 1987; Johnson, 1990). The personal traits of chameleon leadership can increase employees' susceptibility to external influences (Casali, 2008) that may hinder their adherence to chosen moral values. Simply perceiving or thinking about other people's behaviors, traits, or values ​​creates a strong tendency to unconsciously engage in similar or related behaviors (Chartrand & Bargh, 1999). Using the chameleon approach involves analyzing the immediate environment to make the most appropriate decision (Tang, 2021; Williamson, 1975). This approach encourages decision-making patterns that reflect practical and calculated adaptations in the context of meeting the expectations of others (Bright et al., 2011).

External Control

Control locus relates to how individuals believe they can control the events and outcomes affecting their lives (Alabadi & Al-Khakani, 2021; Rotter, 1966). People with internal control traits believe they control their lives through their own decisions and actions; those with external control traits believe that fate, luck, and destiny define their decision-making and its consequences (Adams et al., 2008). These individuals avoid taking responsibility for their decisions and rely on situational cues rather than their values to determine the correct course of action (Beu et al., 2003), showing little concern about how their behavior affects others and fueling self-interest behaviors (De Dreu & Nauta, 2009; Piff et al., 2012).

Relativistic Beliefs

Relativists consider moral standards to be related to their society and culture. Thus, they believe that moral judgments and actions arise from traditions, social and cultural norms, personal preferences, and customs (Napal, 2005). Furthermore, they believe that moral choices are driven by the environmental conditions surrounding events (Kish-Gephart et al., 2010) and may adhere to moral references that favor their self-interest over the rights of others (Woodbine et al., 2013). As a result, they often display deceptive traits and tend to seek gain at the expense of others due to a lack of morality (Al-Khatib et al., 2011). Accordingly, relativists are likely to make unethical choices (O'Fallon & Butterfield, 2005).

Hypotheses Development

Chameleon Leadership and Innovative Behavior

Anderson et al. (2014) suggested that innovation is the process and outcome of developing and introducing new and improved ways of working, while (Ellen et al., 2012) viewed innovation as behavior that generates useful ideas for organizational development. Durrah et al. (2021) mentioned that innovation can occur at an individual, collective, or organizational level, or more than one of these levels combined. The culture of innovative behavior depends on many factors, such as management practice, personality traits, and structural characteristics (Ee et al., 2007), proactive behavior (Segarra-Cipres et al., 2019), paternalistic leadership (Hou et al., 2019), positive mindset (Tien et al., 2019), and leader-member exchanges (Saeed et al., 2019).

A study conducted by Lotrecchiano (2010) on the impact of chameleon leadership behavior on innovation showed that leadership methods like leader-centric decision making, command-and-control, and standardized management styles negatively associate with the implementation of innovation and acceptance of changes. Moreover, the study found that progressive leadership behaviors, such as proactive innovation-seeking and engaging organizational networks, positively influence the implementation of innovation. Howell and Avolio (1993) indicated that leadership behavior has a significant effect on implementing innovation in an organization. They also posited that traditional leadership behaviors limit acceptance to change and innovation in an organization. Purwanto and colleagues (2021) found that leadership style has a positive effect on innovative work behavior. Rosing et al. (2011) posited that it is vital to share innovation competence with healthcare workers. This study was based on leadership theory and found that traditional leadership behaviors, such as autocratic, standardization, and command-and-control tactics, are incompatible with the complex, emergent, and social characteristics of innovation.

In a study conducted by Burns (2001), healthcare leaders were required to accept chameleon leadership to create a successful organization. According to the findings of this study, most healthcare leaders supported this strategy but were uncomfortable with the concept and losing control over processes. The study concluded that although chameleon leadership behavior fosters innovation in an organization, it challenges healthcare leaders to accept the loss of direct control that accompanies chameleon leadership behaviors. Moreover, Donovan et al. (2020) found that chameleon leadership promotes innovation. The study of (Alrawahi et al., 2020) revealed that the adoption of chameleon leadership behavior in healthcare centers allows employers to be innovative through a created conducive environment. Thus, the following hypotheses are proposed:

  • H1: External control (EC) and innovative behavior (IB) are significantly related.

  • H2: Relativistic beliefs (RB) and innovative behavior (IB) are significantly related.

Chameleon Leadership and Job Security

According to Clark and Postel-Vinay, (2009) organizations that have adopted chameleon leadership behaviors influence their employees to upskill as they are sure of an extended relationship with the organization. Moreover, adaptive leadership allows employees to grow their careers and learn new skills to work at a higher level. The study of Jauslin et al. (2021) that quantitative assessment of COVID-19 mimics and chameleons showed a high prevalence of mimics and prevalence of chameleons was low. The study of Kelly et al. (2018) revealed that chameleon leadership behaviors allowed nurses to grow their careers and learn new skills to resolve emergent issues. In addition, the study indicated that nurses from the health organizations that employ chameleon leadership behaviors work in environments that ensure job security. Kiely (2004) found a positive and important relationship between chameleon leadership and job security in healthcare organizations. This study recommended establishing external factors influencing chameleon leadership techniques and their influence on job security in these organizations. De Guzman and Malik (2020) revealed that chameleon leadership positively and significantly influences job security. Most of the participants posited that this type of leadership also enhanced the association between team members and their departmental leader.

In another study by Moeuf et al. (2020), It was found that adaptive leadership is one of the critical factors influencing the success of SMEs. The researchers argued that most companies using chameleon leadership performed better than companies that use a hierarchy leadership structure. In addition, the study asserted that high performance increases employment opportunities and enhances job security for existing employees. The findings of this study were consistent with the study by Gadolin and Wikstrom (2016), because of chameleon leadership, the company expanded, created more departments, required more employees, and secured jobs for existing healthcare workers. As such, the following hypotheses are proposed:

  • H3: External control (EC) and job security (JS) are significantly related.

  • H4: Relativistic beliefs (RB) and job security (JS) are significantly related.

Chameleon Leadership, Innovative Behavior and Job Security

Naserkhani et al. (2015) indicated that job security has a significant relationship with employee innovation. Job security is challenging in many organizations, particularly for staff in medical companies. Job security can have a significant impact on maintaining employee innovation. However, innovation requires the full use of an individual’s mental capabilities to create new ideas, concepts, or solutions. Alboqami (2014) investigated the effect of job security on enhancing staff innovation. Innovation is considered an essential requirement in contemporary organizations because of its relationship to the survival, continuity, and development of organizations. Job security enables employees to attain a high level of creativity and innovation in their work. Several studies revealed that job insecurity has detrimental effects on employee innovation (De Spiegelaere et al., 2014; Pech, 2001; Probst et al., 2007). However, Niesen et al. (2018) did not directly associate job insecurity and innovative work behavior.

According to a study by Jensen et al. (2020), organizations that have adopted chameleon leadership behaviors assure their employees that their jobs are secure. According to this study, leaders in these organizations are close to their team members and have specific ways to address issues within the team, providing a conducive working atmosphere and an environment to grow their careers and learn new skills helping them to progress at work. Similarly, Sinclair (1995) found that involving employees in decision-making responsibilities and autonomy in their duties achieves the security more than employees governed by top-down leadership behaviors. Furthermore, Chen and Aryee (2007) found that chameleon leadership has a direct connection with innovation. Additionally, the study revealed that through innovation, employees in organizations with chameleon leadership could work in different departments to advance their knowledge, and can find work in different organizations. In contrast the study (Appelgren, 2022) stressed the difficulty of being an inspiring leader in a remote setting and the challenge of motivating creativity. Thus, chameleon leadership is a critical factor influencing the growth and expansion of organizations through innovation. Given the above, the following hypotheses are proposed:

  • H5: Job security (JS) and innovative behavior (IB) are significantly related.

  • H6: External control (EC) and innovative behavior (IB) is mediated by job security (JS).

  • H7: Relativistic beliefs (RB) and innovative behavior (IB) is mediated by job security (JS).

Research Methodology

Design

Research methodology is a significant element to achieve the study’s aims. The choice of appropriate analysis technique should correspond with the nature of the study (Hameed et al., 2017). Therefore, a quantitative approach was chosen by looking at the study’s subject, objectives, and hypotheses. The study was designed to test a structural model consisting of three latent variables made up of two sides, an inner model, and an outer model.

Participants

The study is based on the Omani health sector, and administrative personnel in this sector were chosen as participants in the study. Administrative employees occupy managerial positions and influence leadership activities. According to Comrey and Lee (1992), a sample size of 100 respondents is poor, 200 sufficient, 300 good, 500 very good, and 1000 excellent. Therefore, a sample size of three hundred (300) respondents was selected.

Procedure

The survey was undertaken between September and December 2020. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, a web-based questionnaire and adherence to social distancing rules were followed. Responses were collected from 300 employees representing various healthcare institutes across Oman. As 282 subjects responded, the questionnaire yielded a response rate of 94%. A 5-point Likert scale ranging from “(5) strongly agree” to “(1) strongly disagree” was employed for data collection in this study. Smart PLS 3.3.3 (SEM) was performed to analyze the collected data.

Instrument

A three-section survey was designed to investigate the variables in this empirical study. The chameleon leadership scale developed by Ruiz-Palomino and Banon-Gomis (2017) was used. The instrument contained four items related to the two constructs (external control and relativistic beliefs). We used the two-item external control scale provided by Zahra (1989), and adapted the Peterson et al. (2001) two-item scale to assess relativistic beliefs. Innovative behavior was measured on a scale of three items developed by Yang and Zhang (2012). Job security was assessed with the 4-item scale developed by Clark and Postel-Vinay (2009).

Characteristics

Among 282 respondents, 65.7% were male and 34.3% were female; 57.4% of the sample were in their thirties; 51.8% had a bachelor’s degree; 51.1% of participants had more than 10 years’ experience; 38.6% were first-line management, 43.1% were middle management, and 18.3% were senior management.

Data Analysis and Findings

The study’s analysis was based on a two-step approach for reporting PLS-SEM results using Smart PLS 3.3.3 (measurement model assessment and structural model assessment), according to Henseler et al. (2009). The analysis consisted of testing the study model (Fig. 1) with chameleon leadership behaviors. External control, and relativistic beliefs, were used as exogenous constructs, and innovative behavior and job security were used as endogenous constructs. All construct indicators were reflective; the items were generated by underlying or latent variables (Hair et al., 2017).

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

Structural model assessment

Measurement Model Assessment

The measurement model was analyzed based on PLS-SEM (Alkhalaf et al., 2022; Ringle et al., 2015). For the measurement model assessment, outer loading, Cronbach’s alpha (α), composite reliability (CR), average extracted variance (AVE), and discriminant validity were examined as shown in Fig. 1 and Tables 1 and 2.

Table 1.

Measurement model assessment

Construct Outer Loading Convergent Validity
α CR AVE
External Control (EC) (x̅ = 3.86 & σ = 0.792)
EC1 0.899 0.726 0.879 0.785
EC2 0.872
Relativistic Beliefs (RB) (x̅ = 3.29 & σ = 0.972)
RB1 0.774 0.638 0.809 0.681
RB2 0.874
Job Security (JS) (x̅ = 3.54 & σ = 0.680)
JS1 0.642 0.704 0.810 0.531
JS2 0.695
JS3 0.786
JS1 0.781
Innovative Behavior (IB) (x̅ = 3.94 & σ = 0.610)
IB1 0.792 0.653 0.818 0.587
IB2 0.813
IB3 0.689
Open in a new tab

Note: α Cronbach’s alpha, CR Composite Reliability, AVE Average Variance Extracted

Table 2.

Discriminant validity and multi-collinearity

Construct EC RB JS IB Tolerance VIF
EC 0.886 .932 1.073
RB 0.185 0.825 .945 1.059
JS 0.239 0.180 0.728 .931 1.074
IB -0.107 -0.038 -0.209 0.766 - -
Open in a new tab

The values in the boldface are the square root of AVE

Figure 1 and Table 1 show that the outer loading values of all the study constructs were greater than 0.6 (Hair et al., 2010). The internal consistency method was used to estimate the reliability of the items, to determine the relationship degree of a group of items. Two coefficients were used for this purpose, Cronbach’s alpha (α) and composite reliability (CR) (Dijkstra & Henseler, 2015). George and Mallery (2003) mentioned that a Cronbach’s alpha value above 0.6 is adequate. All the values exceeded the assumed criterion, ranging from 0.638–0.753. Raykov (1997) recommended that the composite reliability value should be more than 0.7. In the study, all the composite reliability values were greater than the cut-off, ranging from 0.810–0.879. Consequently, these results possessed appropriate levels of reliability in the studied sample. Moreover, the AVE should be higher than 0.5 (Hair & Lukas, 2014). The study results showed that the average variance values extracted (AVE) exceeded the cut-off of 0.50, ranging from 0.53–0.785. Therefore, convergent validity was fulfilled. However, Table 1 illustrates the mean and standard deviation of the study constructs. The results showed that the construct means were moderate, ranging between 3.29–3.94, and standard deviation values were of low dispersion.

In establishing the degree of difference between constructs, the discriminant validity was implemented. We used the Fornell and Larcker (1981) criterion that compares the correlations between the square root of the AVE and the constructs. The findings in Table 2 indicate that all constructs (EC, RB, JS, and IB) had values (in boldface) greater than the other construct correlation values. Consequently, these results confirm adequate discriminant validity (Chavali et al., 2022; Gye-Soo, 2016). Also, a multi-collinearity test was employed among independent variables as shown in Table 2. The tolerance values exceeded 0.05, and the variance inflation factor (VIF) values were less than 10. Hence, the multi-collinearity condition was achieved according to (Ghouse et al., 2021; Hair et al., 2017).

Harman’s single factor test was used to reduce concerns regarding the effect of common method bias (CMB) on the results (Jordan & Troth, 2019). All items from each of the study constructs were loaded onto a single factor using exploratory factor analysis EFA by SPSS software (Fuller et al., 2016). The total variance was 24.500% as shown in Table 3, below the 50% cut-off (Podsakoff et al., 2012). Hence, bias was not found in the collected data in this research.

Table 3.

Common method bias (CMB)

Components Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative %
1 2.695 24.500 24.500 2.695 24.500 24.500
2 1.653 15.032 39.532
11 .264 2.401 100.000
Open in a new tab

Structural Model Assessment

To know the direct and indirect effect of study variables, structural equation modelling (SEM) was conducted by Smart PLS. To estimate the significance of the path coefficients, bootstrapping was implemented through Smart PLS, as shown in Table 4, showing that most of the path coefficient absolute values were greater than 0.1, indicating the impact of the independent variable predictor on the dependent variable (Nasaruddin et al., 2018).

Table 4.

Structural model assessment results (direct effect)

Hypothesis Path Coefficient T-Statistic P-Value Decision f2 R2 Q2 predict GoF
H1: (EC → IB) -0.102 0.907 0.365 Not Supported 0.004 0.076 0.020 0.197
H2: (RB → IB) -0.043 0.243 0.220 Not Supported 0.001
H3: (EC → JS) 0.213 1.995 0.047 Supported* 0.047
H4: (RB → JS) 0.141 1.334 0.183 Not Supported 0.020
H5: (JS → IB) 0.209 2.617 0.009 Supported** 0.046 0.044 0.024
Open in a new tab

Significant at P* < 0.05, P** < 0.01

Detailing the results in Table 4, external control was positively related to job security (T-Statistic = 1.995, P-value = 0.047), and job security was negatively related to innovative behavior (T-Statistic = 2.617, P-value = 0.009). regarding effect size f2, H3 and H5 had a small effect (0.047 & 0.047) respectively according to (Cohen, 1988). Thus, H3 and H5 are supported. while the hypotheses H1, H2, and H4 are not supported by the results. Moreover, the coefficients of determination (R2) indicate that there is a small interpretive ability as explained by Falk and Miller (1992).

Additionally, the predictive capacity of the model was analyzed to interpret the Q2predict values in this study. The predictive relevance of chameleon leadership behaviors (external control and relativistic beliefs) and job security were greater than zero (0.020 & 0.024), supporting the claim that this study model has adequate ability to predict (Fornell & Cha, 1994; Hair et al., 2019). Furthermore, the model fit value was (GoF = 0.197). Thus, we can conclude that the GoF model is adequate for considering model viability (Wetzels et al., 2009).

PLS (SEM) bootstrapping procedure was chosen to observe the effect of mediation (indirect effect) as shown in Table 5. It was found that the association between external control and innovative behavior was not mediated by job security. Also, job security did not mediate the relationship between relativistic beliefs (RB) and innovative behavior. Consequently, the hypotheses H6 and H7 are not supported.

Table 5.

Structural model assessment results (indirect effect)

Hypothesis Path Coefficient T-Statistic P-Value Decision
H6: (EC → JS → IB) -0.044 1.454 0.146 No-Mediation
H7: (RB → JS → IB) -0.029 1.053 0.293 No-Mediation
Open in a new tab

Research Findings and Discussion

The issue of health and safety in the healthcare sector is of primary importance, especially considering the global COVID-19 pandemic that led to a fluctuation in job security for leaders and workers in many hospitals and health centers in the Sultanate of Oman; a developing country that is vulnerable to the effect of the crisis. In overcoming these challenges and obstacles, health organizations must adopt leadership methods appropriate to the circumstances, as leadership is a significant factor determining the success of organizations. An organization’s success or failure to achieve its goals is often due to the efficiency of the administrative leadership. Chameleon leadership encourages balancing leadership and achieving organizational and employees’ goals. It urges leaders to prioritize employee growth and development.

Chameleon leadership enables organizations to take advantage of external opportunities in their sector, driving performance in a way that reflects on employees and their sense of stability and job security. This study proved external control directly affecting job security. The administrative leaders in health institutions believe that they have control and decide the organizational and employees’ positions at work by offering reassurance and psychological comfort that the health institution will not dispense with them, and provide employees with a sense of stability and continuity. This is consistent with the study (De Guzman and Malik 2020) which showed that the chameleon leadership style has a positive effect on job security. The adoption of chameleon leadership behaviors leads to company expansion, more departments, employee recruitment, and enhanced job security (Gadolin & Wikstrom, 2016). In contrast, relativistic beliefs yielded no effect on job security. The relativistic outcome can be explained in terms of society’s ethical standards. In health organizations, the culture’s relativistic concepts and belief that societal ethics are driven by the circumstances surrounding the events differ between workplaces and may be characterized by instability. The current result differs from Moeuf et al. (2020) who reported that most companies using chameleon behavior leadership techniques, outperformed their competition and enhanced employees’ job security.

However, the results showed that job security has a significant impact on innovative behavior. This is because a secure and stable work environment motivates employee innovation. When employees are not concerned about their career path or financial reimbursement, they focus their intellectual and physical energy on the work tasks entrusted to them and develop innovative ways to perform their job duties, stressing the importance of providing employees in the health sector organizations with job security. Moreover, employees feel reassured and satisfied with their organization and consider themselves a part of it. Job security is the basis for personal growth, career progress, and the future. This finding was supported by several studies confirming that job security positively affects innovative behavior at work. Hashemi and Khani (2017) suggested that job security has a significant relationship with employee innovation. A sense of job security in an organization can have a significant impact on reinstating employee innovation. In addition, Alboqami (2014) believed that job security enables employees to reach a higher level of creativity and innovation in their work.

Chameleon leadership did not affect the innovative behavior of healthcare workers. The reason may be that chameleon leadership behaviors change rapidly and continuously with the effects of the environment to suit and adapt to the circumstances surrounding the organization, causing individuals to focus away from contributing work that leads to innovation. These results are somewhat consistent with the Burns (2001) study, concluding that chameleon leadership behaviors enhance innovation implementation in an organization but present a problem for healthcare leaders in the loss of direct control that accompanies chameleon leadership behaviors. Furthermore, the current study disagreed with the Donovan et al. (2020) study that found chameleon leadership promoted innovation in surveyed hospitals. In addition, the Alrawahi et al. (2020) study, revealed that adopting chameleon leadership behaviors in healthcare centers allows employers to innovate through the enabling environment that is created.

Regarding the mediating role of innovative behavior on the relationship between chameleon leadership and job security, the results revealed the absence of any influential role of innovative behavior on the relationship, whether between external control and job security or the relationship between relativistic beliefs and job security., According to Chen and Aryee (2007), the adoption of chameleon leadership affects the relationship between leaders and employees. It creates a favorable work environment that matches the surrounding changes but does not guarantee the organization’s continuity of employment and survival, threatening employees’ job security. The Jansen et al. (2009) study showed that chameleon leadership in organizations is a critical factor influencing organizational growth and distinction. However, they found that innovation also caused job losses, as one person completed the work of five employees due to innovation.

Theoretical Contributions

This study revealed vital implications to indicate its importance. There is no comprehensive chameleon leadership model in literature. Much emphasis has been placed on the need to better understand chameleon leadership and elucidate the drivers that link external control, and relativistic beliefs to innovative behavior, and job security, as few studies have sought to explain the mechanisms between these variables (Chen & Aryee, 2007). To fill this gap, this study provides an in-depth analysis of the relationships of external control, and relativistic beliefs with innovative behavior, and job security. Previous studies identified various indicators of innovative behavior and job security (Yang and Zhang (2012). However, little research has reported that chameleon leadership provides an environment conducive to innovation and job security (Jansen et al., 2009; Sinclair, 1995). The development of leadership skills and the use of chameleon leadership methods in health organizations, and adapting to changes to achieve organizational goals paint a bright image of organizations and is reflected by providing outstanding performance for their employees.

Another contribution of this study is that it defines the chameleon leadership aspects, where understanding its determinants is vital and essential to the innovative behavior in organizations. Many studies have identified chameleon leadership as a univariate (Derler et al., 2019; Jordan, 2020; Terrazas-Carrillo et al., 2021). In this study, two aspects of chameleon leadership were identified: External control, and Relativistic beliefs, neither of which have received sufficient empirical attention as yet (Ruiz-Palomino & Banon-Gomis, 2017). Therefore, these results can help health sector to better understand how chameleon leadership constructs can be used to develop innovation services and processes. The current article expands the existing literature on chameleon leadership in the context of the healthcare sector. It contributes not only to strengthening the link between chameleon leadership, Job Security, and innovative behavior, but it also highlights a unique combination of chameleon leadership facets to achieve innovative behavior from employees. This study is one of the first in the Omani context that investigated the behavior of chameleon leadership in the health sector. This research is novel to verifying the mediation role of innovative behavior in the relationship between chameleon leadership and job security.

Managerial and Practical Implications

This study offers some practical implications for policymakers in health institutions, it helps to train and qualify administrative leaders in chameleon leadership styles, and offers employees opportunities for professional growth to provide a sense of job security. The existence of job security creates an attractive and stable environment and overcomes many challenges in the health sector. Therefore, it is an important consideration for health institutions to achieve and progress the motivation and ideas of employees. Furthermore, a stable work environment will motivate employees to innovate and excel at work and achieve their desired objectives, so responsible have to pay close attention to the providing a safe work environment for employees because of its vital role in encouraging innovative behavior and providing innovative services to beneficiaries in health organizations (Naserkhani et al., 2015).

Chameleon leadership provides employees with an opportunity to work with different leaders and teams, enabling a favorable working environment (Lazear, 1990) where chameleon leadership allows healthcare workers to work in diverse medical groups and throughout medical health organizations (Carney, 2011). Accordingly; Health leaders must have sufficient flexibility and adaptability. The importance of a chameleon leader in the health sector stems from his ability to “change color” according to the situation (adaptable to the surrounding conditions) (Bahrami & Evans, 2014). The chameleon leader relies on teamwork, open communication, and collaboration rather than the traditional one-on-one presentation style. This change will require a shift in mind, vision, willingness to collaborate, and the motivation to contribute and innovate (Weberg, 2016), so Leaders in healthy organizations must reduce their tendency toward self-interest while promoting a stronger commitment to high ethical standards to prevent unethical behaviors of employees in interpersonal relationships (Ruiz-Palomino et al., 2013). Management should also select service leaders for supervisory positions; This form of leadership promotes the personal and moral growth of employees (Van Dierendock, 2011).

Limitations and Future Study Directions

Despite the novelty of the research in its contextual field, the present study has some limitations that should be highlighted. One of the most important limitations was that the study sample was limited to the Sultanate of Oman’s health sector and did not provide enough variability. Future research may cover several hospitals and health centers in the Gulf Cooperation Council countries (GCC). Moreover, this research is based on self-report measures of worker behavior, and its outcomes may be a potential for method bias. Another limitation is that the study was applied to the health sector only, which may be insufficient for academic generalization. Therefore, future researchers could study the effect in other sectors, such as banking, industry, education, media, and hospitality. Also, chameleon leadership and job security are still discreet and sensitive topics in Omani culture, so we suggest using self-report surveys to assess these topics in future studies, in addition to behavioral observational methods. Although this study may help health organizations make many changes in their leadership, the study indicates that future researchers consider dominant leadership a significant link in the chain of relationships between the same variables, or variables similar to those in the current research. Future researchers could also expand the current study by adding other variables and correlating them with chameleon leadership, such as cultural intelligence, employee advocacy, and high-performance work teams.

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due [DATA ARE NOT PUBLIC] but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Declarations

Conflict of Interest

The corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Footnotes

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  1. Adams, R., Kalliny, M., De los Santos, G., & Wang, Y. (2008). Marketing implications of locus of control orientation among college students: comparisons of Hispanic and Anglo students in the United States. Marketing Management Journal,18(1), 109–120. [Google Scholar]
  2. Al Khajeh, E. H. (2018). Impact of leadership styles on organizational performance. Journal of Human Resources Management Research,2018, 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  3. Alabadi, H. (2018). Adopting chameleon leadership behaviors based on strategic uncertainty - applied study in the Department of State Real Estate Najaf Branch. University of Kufa / Faculty of Management and Economics. Iraq.
  4. Alabadi, H., & Al-Khakani, D. (2021). The role of strategic uncertainty in the adoption of behavior chameleon leadership - an applied study in the department of real estate state Najaf branch. IUG Journal of Economics and Business,28(1), 96–113. [Google Scholar]
  5. Alboqami, S. M. (2014). The Impact of Job Security on Promoting Creativity for Administrative Employees at King Abdulaziz University. Master thesis, King Abdulaziz University, KSA.
  6. Aldrich, H. E., & Pfeffer, J. (1976). Environments of organizations. Annual Review of Sociology,2(1), 79–105. [Google Scholar]
  7. Alkhalaf, T., Durrah, O., Almohammad, D., & Ahmed, F. (2022). Can entrepreneurial knowledge boost the entrepreneurial intent of French students? The Mediation Role of Behavioral Antecedents. Management Research Review. 10.1108/MRR-06-2021-0432 in Press.
  8. Al-Khatib, J. A., Malshe, A., Sailors, J. J., & Clark, I., III (2011). The impact of deceitful tendencies, relativism and opportunism on negotiation tactics: a comparative study of US and Belgian managers. European Journal Marketing, 45, (1/2), 133e152.
  9. Alrawahi, S., Sellgren, S. F., Altouby, S., Alwahaibi, N., & Brommels, M. (2020). The application of Herzberg’s two-factor theory of motivation to job satisfaction in clinical laboratories in Omani hospitals. Heliyon,6(9), 1–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Alvesson, M., & Einola, K. (2019). Warning for excessive positivity: Authentic leadership and other traps in leadership studies. The Leadership Quarterly,30(4), 383–395. [Google Scholar]
  11. Anderson, N., Potocnik, K., & Zhou, J. (2014). Innovation and creativity in organizations: A state-ofthe-science review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework. Journal of Management,40(5), 1297–1333. [Google Scholar]
  12. Appelgren, E. (2022). Media management during COVID-19: Behavior of Swedish media leaders in times of crisis. Journalism Studies,23(5–6), 722–739. [Google Scholar]
  13. Attar, M. & Abdul-Kareem, A. (2020). The role of agile leadership in organisational agility. In Akkaya, B. (Ed.) Agile Business Leadership Methods for Industry 4.0 (pp 171–191). Emerald Publishing Limited, Bingley.
  14. Bahrami, H., & Evans, S. (2014). Super-flexibility for knowledge enterprises: A toolkit fordynamic adaptation. Springer. [Google Scholar]
  15. Ballard, M., Bancroft, E., Nesbit, J., Johnson, A., Holeman, I., Foth, J., ... & Palazuelos, D. (2020). Prioritizing the role of community health workers in the COVID-19 response. BMJ Global Health, 5(6), 1–7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  16. Barasa, E. W., Molyneux, S., English, M., & Cleary, S. (2017). Hospitals as complex adaptive systems: A case study of factors influencing priority setting practices at the hospital level in Kenya. Social Science & Medicine,174, 104–112. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Beu, D. S., Buckley, M. R., & Harvey, M. G. (2003). Ethical decision-making: A multidimensional construct. Business Ethics: A European Review,12(1), 88–107. [Google Scholar]
  18. Bright, D. S., Alzola, M., Stansbury, J., & Stavros, J. M. (2011). Virtue ethics in positive organizational scholarship: an integrative perspective. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 28, (3), 231e243.
  19. Brown, K., & Osborne, S. P. (2012). Managing change and innovation in public service organizations. Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  20. Burns, J. P. (2001). Complexity science and leadership in healthcare. National Library of Medicine Journal of Advanced Nursing,31(10), 474–482. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Carney, M. (2011). Influence of organizational culture on quality healthcare delivery. International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance,24(7), 523–539. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Casali, G. L. (2008). Creating managerial ethical profiles: An exploratory cluster analysis. Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Studies,13(2), 27–34. [Google Scholar]
  23. Chartrand, T. L., & Bargh, J. A. (1999). The chameleon effect: The perception-behavior link and social interaction. Journal of Applied Psychology,76(6), 893–910. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Chavali, K., Mavuri, S., & Durrah, O. (2022). Factors affecting social entrepreneurial intent: Significance of student engagement initiatives in higher education institutions. World Journal of Entrepreneurship Management and Sustainable Development,18(2), 1–15. [Google Scholar]
  25. Chen, Z. X., & Aryee, S. (2007). Delegation and employee work outcomes: An examination of the cultural context of mediating processes in China. Academy of Management Journal,50, 226–238. [Google Scholar]
  26. Clark, A., & Postel-Vinay, F. (2009). Job security and job protection. Oxford Economic Papers,61(2), 207–239. [Google Scholar]
  27. Cohen, J. (1988). Set correlation and contingency tables. Applied Psychological Measurement,12(4), 425–434. [Google Scholar]
  28. Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis (2nd ed.). Erlbaum. [Google Scholar]
  29. De Dreu, C. K. W., & Nauta, A. (2009). Self-interest and other-orientation in organizational behavior: Implications for job performance, prosocial behavior and personal initiative. Journal of Applied PsYchology,94(4), 913–926. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. De Guzman, R., & Malik, M. (2020). Dual Challenge of Cancer and COVID-19: Impact on Health Care and Socioeconomic Systems in Asia Pacific. JCO Glob Oncol.,6, 906–12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. De Spiegelaere, S., Van Gyes, G., De Witte, H., Niesen, W., & Van Hootegem, G. (2014). On the relation of job insecurity, job autonomy, innovative work behaviour and the mediating effect of work engagement. Creativity and Innovation Management,23(3), 318–330. [Google Scholar]
  32. Derler, D., Samelin, K. Slamanig, D., & Striecks, C. (2019). Fine-grained and controlled rewriting in block chains: Chameleon-hashing gone attribute-based. 26th Annual Network and Distributed System Security Symposium. San Diego, California, USA.
  33. Dijkstra, T. K., & Henseler, J. (2015). Consistent partial least squares path modelling. MIS Quarterly,39(2), 297–316. [Google Scholar]
  34. Donovan, G., Ong, S. K., Song, S., Ndefru, N., Leang, C., Sek, S., & Perrone, L. A. (2020). Remote mentorship using video conferencing as an effective tool to strengthen laboratory quality management in clinical laboratories: Lessons from Cambodia. Global Health: Science and Practice,8(4), 689–698. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Durrah, O., Allil, K., Gharib, M., & Hannawi, S. (2021). Organizational pride as an antecedent of employee creativity in the petrochemical industry. European Journal of Innovation Management,24(2), 572–588. [Google Scholar]
  36. Earley, P. C., & Peterson, R. S. (2004). The elusive cultural chameleon: Cultural intelligence as a new approach to intercultural training for the global manager. Academy of Management Learning & Education,3(1), 100–115. [Google Scholar]
  37. Ee, J., Seng, T., & Kwang, N. (2007). Styles of creativity: Adaptors and innovators in a Singapore context. Asia Pacific Education Review,8(3), 364–373. [Google Scholar]
  38. Ellen, M. G., Einarsen, S., & Mykletun, R. (2012). Creative leaders promote creative organizations. International Journal of Manpower,33(4), 367–382. [Google Scholar]
  39. Falk, R. F., and Miller, N. B. (1992). A Primer for soft modelling. University of Akron Press.
  40. Fornell, C., & Cha, J. (1994). Partial least squares. Advanced Methods of Marketing Research,407, 52–78. [Google Scholar]
  41. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research,18(1), 39–50. [Google Scholar]
  42. Fuller, C., Simmering, M., Atinc, G., Atinc, Y., & Babin, B. (2016). Common methods variance detection in business research. Journal of Business Research,69(8), 3192–3198. [Google Scholar]
  43. Gadolin, C., & Wikström, E. (2016). Organizing healthcare with multi-professional teams: Activity coordination as a logistical flow. Scandinavian Journal of Public Administration,20(4), 53–72. [Google Scholar]
  44. George, D., & Mallery, M. (2003). Using SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. Allyn & Bacon. [Google Scholar]
  45. Ghouse, S., Durrah, O., & McElwee, G. (2021). Rural women entrepreneurs in Oman: Problems and opportunities. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research,27(7), 1674–1695. [Google Scholar]
  46. Gordon, L., & Cleland, J. A. (2021). Change is never easy: How management theories can help operationalise change in medical education. Medical Education,55(1), 55–64. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Graeff, C. A. (2000). Thorny issues impacting leadership development activities. American Society of Business and Behavioral Science Conference,7(3), 320–330. [Google Scholar]
  48. Gye-Soo, K. (2016). Partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM): An application in customer satisfaction research. International Journal of u-and e-Service, Science and Technology,9(4), 61–68. [Google Scholar]
  49. Hair J. F., & Lukas, B. (2014). Marketing research. Australia: McGraw-Hill Education.
  50. Hair, J., Black, W., & Babin, B. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective. London: Pearson Education.
  51. Hair, J. F., Hult, G. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (2nd ed.). Sage Publications. [Google Scholar]
  52. Hair, J., Risher, J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review,31(1), 2–24. [Google Scholar]
  53. Hameed, W. U., Azeem, M., Ali, M., Nadeem, S., & Amjad, T. (2017). The role of distribution channels and educational level towards insurance awareness among the general public. International Journal of Supply Chain Management,6(4), 308–318. [Google Scholar]
  54. Hample, D., & Dallinger, J. M. (1987). Individual differences in cognitive editing standards. Human Communication Research,14(2), 123–144. [Google Scholar]
  55. Hashemi, N., & Khani, N. (2017). Recognizing factors affecting manpower productivity based on Kano model. International Journal of Asian Business and Information Management,8(3), 1–13. [Google Scholar]
  56. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sinkovics, R. R. (2009). The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. [Google Scholar]
  57. Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. (1996). Great ideas revisited: Revisiting the life-cycle theory of leadership. Training and Development,50(1), 42–47. [Google Scholar]
  58. Hou, B., Hong, J., Zhu, K., & Zhou, Y. (2019). Paternalistic leadership and innovation: The moderating effect of environmental dynamism. European Journal of Innovation Management,22(3), 562–582. [Google Scholar]
  59. Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, locus of control, and support for innovation: Key predictors of consolidated-business-unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,78(6), 891–902. [Google Scholar]
  60. Jansen, J. J., Vera, D., & Crossan, M. (2009). Strategic leadership for exploration and exploitation: The moderating role of environmental dynamism. The Leadership Quarterly,20(1), 5–18. [Google Scholar]
  61. Jauslin, A. S., Simon, N. R., Giudici, N. L., Rueegg, M., Zimmermann, T., Diebold, M., ... & Bingisser, R. (2021). Mimics and chameleons of COVID-19: patient presentation and accuracy of triage during the first wave. Swiss medical weekly, 151, 1-12. [DOI] [PubMed]
  62. Jensen, U. T., An, S. H., Bro, L. L., Andersen, L. B., Ladenburg, J., Meier, K. J., & Salomonsen, H. H. (2020). Seeing eye to eye: can leadership training align perceptions of leadership? International Public Management Journal, 1–125.
  63. Johnson, D. P. (1990). Indecisiveness: A dynamic, integrative approach. Career Development Journal,39(1), 34–39. [Google Scholar]
  64. Jordan, P., & Troth, A. (2019). Common method bias in applied settings: The dilemma of researching in organizations. Australian Journal of Management, 45, (1), 3-14.
  65. Jordan, Z. (2020). The chameleon effect: Adapting, advancing and aligning. International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare,18(2), 157–158. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Kahwaji, A., Eddin, H., & Palalic, R. (2020). Strategic leadership, strategic performance and core competencies in Lebanon’s education. Periodicals of Engineering and Natural Sciences,8(4), 1968–1980. [Google Scholar]
  67. Kelly, M. A., Nixon, L., McClurg, C., Scherpbier, A., King, N., & Dornan, T. (2018). Experience of touch in health care: A meta-ethnography across the health care professions. Qualitative Health Research,28(2), 200–212. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Kiely, R. (2004). A chameleon with a complex: Searching for transformation in international service-learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning,10(2), 5–20. [Google Scholar]
  69. Kish-Gephart, J. J., Harrison, D. A., & Trevino, L. K. (2010). Bad apples, bad cases, and bad barrels: Meta-analytic evidence about sources of unethical decisions at work. Journal of Applied Psychology,95(1), 1–31. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Kozlowski, S. (2012). The Oxford handbook of organizational psychology. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  71. Lazear, E. P. (1990). Job security provisions and employment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics,105(3), 699–726. [Google Scholar]
  72. Linsky, M., & Heifetz, R. A. (2002). Leadership on the line: Staying alive through the dangers of leading. Harvard Business School Press. [Google Scholar]
  73. Lotrecchiano, G. R. (2010). Complexity Leadership in Transdisciplinary (TD) Learning environments: A knowledge feedback loop. The International Journal of Transdisciplinary Research,5(1), 29–63. [Google Scholar]
  74. Mahajan, A., Islam, S. D., Schwartz, M. J., & Cannesson, M. (2017). A hospital is not just a factory, but a complex adaptive system—implications for perioperative care. Anesthesia & Analgesia,125(1), 333–341. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  75. Massoudi, A. (2022). Reviving performance by adopting chameleon style of leadership. Journal of Management and Business Education,5(1), 1–19. [Google Scholar]
  76. Menges, J. I., Walter, F., Vogel, B., & Bruch, H. (2011). Transformational leadership climate: Performance linkages, mechanisms, and boundary conditions at the organizational level. The Leadership Quarterly,22(5), 893–909. [Google Scholar]
  77. Moeuf, A., Lamouri, S., Pellerin, R., Tamayo-Giraldo, S., Tobon-Valencia, E., & Eburdy, R. (2020). Identification of critical success factors, risks, and opportunities of Industry 4.0 in SMEs. International Journal of Production Research, 58(5), 1384–1400.
  78. Napal, G. (2005). An assessment of power abuse under ethics philosophies. Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Studies,10(1), 29–34. [Google Scholar]
  79. Nasaruddin, N., Abdul Rahman, I., & Jaber, M. (2018). PLS-SEM model of leadership characteristics facing challenges in Malaysia construction industry. International Journal of Engineering & Technology,7(3), 620–624. [Google Scholar]
  80. Naserkhani, P., Khaksefidi, H. R., & Keshtehgar, A. A. (2015). Examine the relationship between job security and employee creativity in Zahedan university of medical sciences. International Journal of Applied Business and Economic Research,13(5), 2671–2680. [Google Scholar]
  81. Nicolaides, C., LaPort, K., Chen, T., Tomassetti, A., Weis, E., Zaccaro, S., & Cortina, J. (2014). The shared leadership of teams: A meta-analysis of proximal, distal, and moderating relationships. The Leadership Quarterly,25(5), 923–942. [Google Scholar]
  82. Niesen, W., Van Hootegem, A., Elst, T., Battistelli, A., & De Witte, H. (2018). Job Insecurity and Innovative Work Behaviour: A Psychological Contract Perspective. Psychologica Belgica,57(4), 174–189. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  83. O'Fallon, M. J., & Butterfield, K. D. (2005). A review of the empirical ethical decision-making literature: 1996e2003. Journal of Business Ethics, 59(4), 375e413.
  84. Paulsen, N., Maldonado, D., Callan, V., & Ayoko, O. (2009). Charismatic leadership, change and innovation in an R&D organization. Journal of Organizational Change Management,22(5), 511–523. [Google Scholar]
  85. Pech, R. J. (2001). Reflections: Termites, group behavior, and the loss of innovation: Conformity rules. Journal of Managerial Psychology,16(7), 559–574. [Google Scholar]
  86. Peterson, D. K., Rhoads, A., & Vaught, B. C. (2001). Belief in universal ethics: Gender differences, influence of referent others and ethical beliefs of business professionals. Business & Professional Ethics Journal,20(2), 47–62. [Google Scholar]
  87. Phillips, A., Caldas, A., Cleetus, R., Dahl, K., Declet-Barreto, J., Licker, R., … & Carlson, C. (2020). Compound climate risks in the COVID-19 pandemic. Natural Climate. Change,10, 586–588.
  88. Piff, P. K., Stancato, D. M., Cote, S., Mendoza-Denton, R., & Keltner, D. (2012). Higher social class predicts increased unethical behavior. PNAS,109(11), 4086–4091. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  89. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology,63, 539–569. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  90. Poole, M. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. (2004). Handbook of organizational change and innovation. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  91. Probst, T., Stewart, S., Gruys, M., & Tierney, B. (2007). Productivity, counter productivity and creativity: The ups and downs of job insecurity. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,80(3), 479–497. [Google Scholar]
  92. Purwanto, A., Asbari, M., Hartuti, H., Setiana, Y. N., & Fahmi, K. (2021). Effect of psychological capital and authentic leadership on innovation work behavior. International Journal of Social and Management Studies,2(1), 1–13. [Google Scholar]
  93. Raykov, T. (1997). Estimation of composite reliability for congeneric measures. Applied Psychological Measurement,21(2), 173–184. [Google Scholar]
  94. Ringle, C.M., Wende, S. and Becker, J.M. (2015) Smart PLS. GmbH, Boenningstedt.
  95. Rosing, K., Frese, M., & Bausch, A. (2011). Explaining the heterogeneity of the leadership-innovation relationship: Ambidextrous leadership. The Leadership Quarterly,22(5), 956–974. [Google Scholar]
  96. Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs,80(1), 1–28. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  97. Ruiz-Palomino, P., & Banon-Gomis, A. (2017). The Negative Impact of chameleon-inducing personalities on employees’ ethical work intentions: The mediating role of Machiavellianism. European Management Journal,35(1), 102–115. [Google Scholar]
  98. Ruiz-Palomino, P., Martinez-Ruiz, M. P., & Martinez-Ca~nas, R. (2013). Assessing ethical behaviours in the Spanish banking and insurance industries: Evidence and challenges. International Journal of Human Resource Management,24(11), 2173–2196. [Google Scholar]
  99. Saeed, B., Afsar, B., Cheema, S., & Javed, F. (2019). Leader-member exchange and innovative work behavior: The role of creative process engagement, core self-evaluation, and domain knowledge. European Journal of Innovation Management,22(1), 105–124. [Google Scholar]
  100. Schwartz, R., & Cohn, K. (2002). The necessity for physician involvement in strategic planning in healthcare organizations. The American Journal of Surgery,184(3), 269–278. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  101. Segarra-Cipres, M., Escrig-Tena, A., & Garcıa-Juan, B. (2019). Employees’ proactive behavior and innovation performance: Examining the moderating role of informal and formal controls. European Journal of Innovation Management,22(5), 866–888. [Google Scholar]
  102. Sehgal, R., Balasubramanian, S., Sreejith, S., & Chanchaichujit, J. (2021). Transformational leadership and employee innovation: Examining the congruence of leader and follower perceptions. Journal of General Management,47(1), 18–30. [Google Scholar]
  103. Sinclair, A. (1995). The chameleon of accountability: Forms and discourses. Accounting, Organizations and Society,20(2–3), 219–237. [Google Scholar]
  104. Solar, D., & Bruehl, D. (1971). Machiavellianism and locus of control: Two conceptions of interpersonal power. Psychological Reports,29(3), 1079–1082. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  105. Sung, S. Y., & Choi, J. N. (2021). Leader status behaviors and team creativity: The role of collective interactions and status conflict among members. Journal of Organizational Behavior,42(8), 1120–1133. [Google Scholar]
  106. Tan, W. S., Car, J., Lall, P., Low, C. K., & Ho, A. H. Y. (2019). Implementing advance care planning in acute hospitals: Leading the transformation of norms. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society,67(6), 1278–1285. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  107. Tang, L (2021). The chameleon-like usage of social media and acculturative stress. A qualitative study among Chinese students in Spain. Master thesis, UPF, 2021.
  108. Terrazas-Carrillo, E., Garcia, E., & Rodriguez, A. S. (2021). “I’m like a chameleon”: An exploration of the experiences of Mexican American women who are group psychotherapists-in-training. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy,71(3), 116–143. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  109. Thygeson, M., Morrissey, L., & Ulstad, V. (2010). Adaptive leadership and the practice of medicine: A complexity-based approach to reframing the doctor-patient relationship. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice,16(5), 1009–1015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  110. Tien, H., Chang, B., & Kuo, Y. (2019). Does experience stimulate or stifle creativity? European Journal of Innovation Management,22(3), 422–445. [Google Scholar]
  111. Uhl-Bien, M., & Arena, M. (2018). Leadership for organizational adaptability: A theoretical synthesis and integrative framework. The Leadership Quarterly,29(1), 89–104. [Google Scholar]
  112. Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., & McKelvey, B. (2007). Complexity leadership theory: Shifting leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. The Leadership Quarterly,18(4), 298–318. [Google Scholar]
  113. Van Dierendock, D. (2011). Servant leadership: A review and synthesis. Journal of Management,37(4), 1228–1261. [Google Scholar]
  114. Vassolo, R. S., & Weisz, N. (2022). Strategy as leadership: Facing Adaptive challenges in organizations. Stanford University Press.
  115. Weberg, D. (2016). Innovation leadership behaviors: Starting the complexity journey. Leadership for Evidence-Based Innovation in Nursing and Health Professions,43, 43–76. [Google Scholar]
  116. Wetzels, M., Odekerken-Schroder, G., & Van Oppen, C. (2009). Using PLS path modeling for assessing hierarchical construct models: Guidelines and Empirical Illustration. MIS Quarterly,33(1), 177–195. [Google Scholar]
  117. Williams, J. A., Roberts, C., & Bosselman, R. (2011). Youth sports and the emergence ofchameleon leadership. Journal of Leadership Studies,5(3), 6–12. [Google Scholar]
  118. Williamson, O. E. (1975). Markets and hierarchies: Analysis and antitrust implications. Free Press. [Google Scholar]
  119. Woodbine, G. F., Fan, Y. H., & Scully, G. (2013). How Chinese auditors’ relativistic ethical orientations influence their love of money. Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Studies,18(2), 20–29. [Google Scholar]
  120. Yang, F., & Zhang, L. (2012). The impact of cognitive style on innovative behavior: The moderating role of team psychological safety and work unit structure. Nankai Business Review,15(5), 13–25. [Google Scholar]
  121. Zahra, S. A. (1989). Executive values and the ethics of company politics: Some preliminary findings. Journal of Business Ethics,8(1), 15–29. [Google Scholar]

Articles from Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal are provided here courtesy of Nature Publishing Group

RESOURCES