Leadership is a key predictor of employee, team, and organizational creativity and innovation. Research in this area holds great promise for the development of intriguing theory and impactful policy implications, but only if empirical studies are conducted rigorously. In the current paper, we report a comprehensive review of a large number of empirical studies (N = 195) exploring leadership and workplace creativity and innovation. Using this article cache, we conducted a number of systematic analyses and built narrative arguments documenting observed trends in five areas. First, we review and offer improved definitions of creativity and innovation. Second, we conduct a systematic review of the main effects of leadership upon creativity and innovation and the variables assumed to moderate these effects. Third, we conduct a systematic review of mediating variables. Fourth, we examine whether the study designs commonly employed are suitable to estimate the causal models central to the field. Fifth, we conduct a critical review of the creativity and innovation measures used, noting that most are sub-optimal. Within these sections, we present a number of taxonomies that organize the extant research, highlight understudied areas, and serve as a guide for future variable selection. We conclude by highlighting key suggestions for future research that we hope will reorient the field and improve the rigour of future research such that we can build more reliable and useful theories and policy recommendations.

Summary The concept of empowering leadership (EL) has seen increasing scholarly interest in recent years. This study reports a meta‐analysis investigating the effects of EL on employee work behavior. On the basis of data from 105 samples, we found evidence for the positive effects of EL on performance, organizational citizenship behavior, and creativity at both the individual and team levels. We further examined these relationships by exploring potential boundary conditions and the incremental contribution of EL over transformational leadership and leader–member exchange. Furthermore, at the individual level, both trust in leader and psychological empowerment mediated the relationships of EL with task performance, organizational citizenship behavior, and creativity. We also found evidence that leader–member exchange was a significant mediator between EL and task performance. At the team level, empowerment mediated the effects of EL on team performance, whereas knowledge sharing showed no significant indirect effect. Our results have important theoretical and practical implications and suggest some areas that require further research.

The concept of psychological ownership (PO) reflects a state in which individuals feel as though the target of ownership (e.g., job or organization) is theirs. In recent years, there has been an expansion of research linking PO with a range of desirable employee attitudes and behaviors. However, the theoretical foundations of the construct, its measurement, the factors that influence its development, and when and how it influences outcomes are areas of continued debate in the literature. In this article, we provide a narrative review of extant PO literature with the aim of developing a research agenda that encourages scholars to target opportunities for future research. In particular, we highlight the need for continued refinement of the conceptualization and measurement of PO, and development of its nomological network. In addition, we call for greater investigation of PO towards different objects or foci; examination of possible multilevel applications of PO research; identification of potential boundary conditions of PO; and exploration of the influence of culture and individual differences on the development and influence of PO. We also introduce alternative theoretical approaches for understanding and investigating PO. In doing so, we provide a roadmap for scholars to progress the development of the field.

Research suggests that when leaders, as servant leaders, focus on their followers’ needs, this can have a positive effect on organizational functioning. Yet results are inconsistent in establishing the strength of the relationships, limiting understanding of the theoretical impact and practical reach of the servant leadership (SL) construct. Using a quantitative meta‐analysis based on 130 independent studies, the current research provides evidence that SL has incremental predictive validity over transformational, authentic, and ethical leadership. Further, the link between SL and a range of individual‐ and team‐level behavioural outcomes can be partially explained by trust in the leader, procedural justice, and leader–member exchange. The paper also explores moderators to better establish SL's criterion‐related validity and to clarify the magnitude of effects across boundary conditions, such as research design, national culture, and industry. Practitioner points Servant leadership has predictive validity over other leadership approaches, and therefore, organizations would benefit by developing their current leaders into SLs. Organizations should aim to select SLs into influential positions: Training programmes and selection profiles and processes would need to be aligned and developed to capture attitudes and behaviours associated with SL inside and outside the organization. Servant leaderships should seek to create a culture that positively promotes the development of trust, fairness, and high‐quality leader–follower relationships, as these conditions collectively enable the effects of SL to be transmitted onto desirable follower outcomes.

Summary Little research to date has focused on understanding employee motivation to share and hide knowledge. Using self‐determination theory, we tested the premise that knowledge sharing and hiding might be differentially motivated and that work design characteristics might influence the motivation to share knowledge with colleagues. In a panel survey of Australian knowledge workers and in a Chinese knowledge‐intensive organization, we asked knowledge workers, using time‐lagged designs, about perceptions of work design, motivation to share knowledge, and self‐reported knowledge sharing and hiding behaviors. Results, largely replicated across both samples, indicated that cognitive job demands and job autonomy were positively related to future reports of knowledge‐sharing frequency and usefulness via autonomous motivation to share knowledge. Unexpectedly, task interdependence was positively related to the three forms of knowledge hiding (evasive and rationalized hiding, and playing dumb) via external regulation to share knowledge. Implications for the design of jobs that motivate knowledge sharing and demotivate knowledge hiding are discussed.

Using 266 studies, this paper meta-analytically examines the link between thirteen leadership styles (transformational, transactional, ethical, humble, leader-member exchange (LMX), benevolent, authoritarian, entrepreneurial, authentic, servant, empowering, supportive, and destructive) and followers' creative and innovative performance. We address two main research aims: to examine the relative predictive utility of these different leadership styles and to explore boundary conditions of the link between leadership styles and both creativity and innovation. Our findings related to both the relative and moderating effects of leadership on creativity/innovation make a significant contribution to the literature. Our analyses demonstrate the fact that authentic, empowering, and entrepreneurial leadership show the most promise when it comes to predicting individual creativity. For innovation, both transactional (contingent reward) and supportive leadership appear particularly relevant. The current study synthesizes an important, rapidly growing and diverse body of research, and in doing so provides important evidence to help guide theoretical advancements, improve research designs, and practise regarding leadership, creativity, and innovation.

No abstract

This study investigates the role of intellectual capital (i.e., human, social and organization capital)