Leader humility and team creativity: The role of team creative efficacy and task interdependence

Abstract

Although research on leader humility is developing into a prominent literature, the majority of studies have focused on the dyadic or individual rather than collective outcomes of leader humility. Thus, our understanding of the influencing mechanisms and boundary conditions of leader humility remains limited, particularly on the collective work outcome of team creativity, which requires more voluntary effort from employees. Drawing on social cognitive theory and social interdependence theory, our study investigates how leader humility promotes team creativity through team creative efficacy, with the moderation of a contextual factor, task interdependence. We used a sample of 84 teams and 393 employees surveyed in two waves of data collection. Overall, our study yields a mediated moderation model in which the positive indirect effect of leader humility via team creative efficacy on team creativity is stronger when team task interdependence is low rather than high. This study extends our understanding of how leader humility may influence work teams collectively and how the effectiveness of such a leader characteristic may be influenced by a structural factor of the work team. Other theoretical contributions and practical implications are also discussed.

Keywords

leader humility social cognitive theory social interdependence theory task interdependence team creative efficacy

Introduction

Leader humility, generally considered to be an individual characteristic, is treated as a virtue in many organizational contexts (Morris et al., 2005; Ou et al., 2014). Leaders with high humility willingly admit their mistakes and weaknesses, tend to learn and maintain an open mind, and appreciate others’ strengths and contributions (Ou et al., 2018; Owens and Hekman, 2012). Despite the positive influence of leader humility on employee performance (Collins, 2001; Owens and Hekman, 2012; Rego et al., 2019) and creativity (Hu et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2017), the ways in which leader humility influences a work unit as a whole and the boundary conditions of them are underexplored. Considering that humble people may be perceived as less willing to use power proactively, leader humility may have limitations in certain collective work settings in which leader involvement and centralization is needed (Bunderson, 2003). Thus, the literature is lacking of a discussion on a more comprehensive interactive influence of leader humility and structural factors of the work team on collective outcomes. Such a limitation can be especially salient to work outcomes that require intrinsic motivation and confidence, such as creativity (Tierney and Farmer, 2002; Zhang and Bartol, 2010).

Compared to individual and organizational levels of investigation, the influence of leader humility and its mechanism at the team level can be more complex, although it has been less discussed in the literature. Despite Rego et al.’s (2019) findings that leader humility can enhance team processes, the motivational influence of leader humility on team characteristics as a whole has remained a black box. As the positive impact of leader humility comes from its motivational function in a work context, it is compelling to decipher the motivational process by investigating the shared psychological state that emerges on a work team under humble leadership (Ou et al., 2014; Rego et al., 2017). Employing social cognitive theory (SCT) and social interdependence theory (SIT), our study investigates the collective motivational influence of leader humility on team creativity through elevating a creativity-relevant collective confidence of the team—a.k.a. team creative efficacy.

According to the SCT, human behaviors can be induced by building up confidence toward certain tasks—that is, self-efficacy and collective efficacy—because confidence on completing the tasks would make one more persistent in overcoming difficulties and searching for better solutions (Bandura, 1991, 2015). As research on collective efficacy has shown, team leaders may play an important role motivating employees by enforcing the forming of team efficacy, a collective shared confidence (Chen and Bliese, 2002; Gully et al., 2002; Tasa et al., 2007; Walumbwa et al., 2004). Thus, we argue that as a leader characteristic, humility plays a unique role in forming team creative efficacy by recognizing employees’ creativity-related achievements, setting a role model for them to be more open to new ideas, and reducing fears of making mistakes so that new and useful ideas are delivered at the team level (Rego et al., 2019; Shin and Eom, 2014; Wang et al., 2017; Zhang and Kwan, 2018).

In addition, structural features may play an important role in order for leader humility to have a positive and effective influence on a work unit. Specifically, the SIT argues that the level of interdependence among team members has an influence on how they behave (De Jong et al., 2014; Tjosvold, 1985a). Such task interdependence reflects how much team members rely on each other to accomplish their tasks (Kiggundu, 1981; Saavedra et al., 1993). Thus, we propose that as a major structural feature, task interdependence is an important contextual factor for the positive influence of leader humility on team creative efficacy (Liu et al., 2017). That is, when task interdependence is high, leader humility might be perceived as lacking in sufficient involvement and efficiency in integrating team effort and forming team creative efficacy. At the same time, leader humility will facilitate team creative efficacy more efficiently when task interdependence is low, and there is less need for leader involvement (Li et al., 2016). By integrating the SCT with the SIT, we propose a mediated moderation model in which the indirect relationship between the interactive effect of leader humility and task interdependence and team creativity is mediated by team creative efficacy.

Our study makes three major contributions. First, the study enriches our understanding on the connotation of humility. A humble leader is not a leader with low self-esteem who may have a negative influence on followers’ confidence, but rather an individual with accurate self-evaluation (Morris et al., 2005; Tangney, 2000). Based on such a connotation, our study investigates the influence of leader humility on team shared cognition on their own collective entity. Our work provides the leader humility literature with a theoretical rationale and empirical evidence supporting the idea that leader humility has a positive influence on team shared confidence rather than a negative influence. By linking leader humility to team creative efficacy, our study reveals the important role a specific leader characteristic may play in shaping team characteristics through within-team social interactions between the leader and followers.

Second, this article extents our understanding of the SIT and the interactive influence of leader characteristics and team structural factors by recognizing task interdependence as a boundary condition for its positive prediction on team creative efficacy. Task interdependence serves as a substitute of leader humility, such that teams with high task interdependence rely less on their humble leader. Leaders with high humility emphasize less intervention and trust of self-management among team members, which is considered an inefficient approach when leaders are in charge of teams with high task interdependence. Our study answers the call for more research on the potential limitations of leader humility in certain organizational contexts (Ou et al., 2018; Tangney, 2009). In addition, most previous studies using the SIT have argued that a leader’s proactive participation, such as allocation of resources, has a stronger influence on team activities when members need to rely on each other (e.g., Barnett and McCormick, 2016; Hambrick et al., 2015; Liden et al., 2006). Our study extends such understanding by indicating that leader characteristics are important, but the influence of such characteristics varies in different team interaction contexts. We argue that the positive indirect effect of leader humility on team creativity via team creative efficacy can be influenced by the task attributes of task interdependence (Bruning and Campion, 2018; Herrmann and Felfe, 2013; Kiggundu, 1981).

Third, our research extends the SCT literature by studying the mediating effect of team creative efficacy on the relationship between leader humility and team creativity. At the individual level, previous literature has shown that leader humility can be an antecedent of employee self-efficacy (Mao et al., 2019; Owens et al., 2019). Nevertheless, at the team level, previous studies have merely focused on whether and how team composition (Cheng and Yang, 2014), team climate (Kim and Shin, 2015), and leader behaviors (e.g., Zhang and Kwan, 2018) influence the forming of shared team confidence. Our model demonstrates that leader characteristics, such as leader humility, not only can be important antecedents of individual self-efficacy but also antecedents of shared team confidence, such as team creative efficacy. The mediating effect of team creative efficacy reveals that the motivational impact of leader humility on the emerged team state is a major mechanism in how it influences team creativity.

Theory and hypotheses

Leader humility

Based on philosophical and humanistic roots, management scholars have made a substantial effort to expand the construct of humility into the organizational context (Davis et al., 2011; Morris et al., 2005; Ou et al., 2014; Owens et al., 2011, 2013). Individuals with humility feel less entitled but more self-transcendent (Ashton and Lee, 2005; Kesebir, 2014; Morris et al., 2005; Tangney, 2002). They are aware of their own limitations, recognize the value of others without reluctance, and continuously seek self-improvement (Ou et al., 2018). In this way, humble individuals influence others by easing their anxieties, assuring their self-confidence, and encouraging them to share (Choi, 2004; Hu et al., 2017; Lin et al., 2017; Rego et al., 2019). Because of the positive influence that humble individuals make on other people, an increasing amount of research has focused on the impact of such leaders in the workplace (e.g., Rego et al., 2018; Nielsen and Marrone, 2018; Ou et al., 2018).

Humble leaders have a transcendent self-view and think more of collective interests (Grenberg, 2005; Ou et al., 2014, 2018). Compared to other leaders, humble leaders recognize the dignity and equality of employees as well as their own limitations, and thus tend to have accurate self-evaluations (Owens et al., 2013; Richards, 1988, 1992). They do not feel the need to show superiority (Owens and Hekman, 2012) and are willing to share credit with all contributors (Exline and Geyer, 2004). Humble leaders are able to appreciate employees’ accomplishments without feeling threatened (Exline et al., 2004; King and Hicks, 2007), and when employees make mistakes, humble leaders are more likely to forgive them (Davis et al., 2010). Literature on leader humility has recognized its influence in facilitating employee outcomes such as employee voice, work engagement, job satisfaction, job performance (Basford et al., 2014; Lin et al., 2017; Owens et al., 2013), and collective outcomes, such as team effectiveness, team creativity, team performance, and firm performance (e.g., Chiu et al., 2016; Hu et al., 2017; Owens and Hekman, 2016; Ou et al., 2018; Rego et al., 2018).

Leader humility and team creative efficacy

The construct of team creative efficacy—a core variable demonstrating the motivational mechanism of leader humility in our model—is rooted in and developed by the SCT. According to Bandura’s (1977a, 1977b) major arguments on the SCT, one’s belief in specific tasks—a.k.a. self-efficacy—is predictive of individual performance. On the basis of this principle, Tierney and Farmer (2002) developed the construct of creative self-efficacy, which has been positively associated with individual creative performance (Gong et al., 2009; Tierney and Farmer, 2002, 2011). Along with a personal belief in one’s specific capacity, the SCT’s collective mode of agency further posits that a work team may also form a shared belief in their collective capability to successfully perform a specific task, which Lindsley et al. (1995) refer to as team efficacy. Team efficacy is a work team’s shared perception of its capability to successfully perform a specific task (Bandura, 1997). In this sense, team creative efficacy is a form of collective efficacy in which team members hold a belief in their shared ability to generate creative ideas (Shin and Eom, 2014; Shin and Zhou, 2007).

Like other types of collective efficacy, team creative efficacy is not simply the sum of individual creative self-efficacy (Bandura, 2000; Gully et al., 2002). Believing that “We can create” is different from believing “I can create” (Prussia and Kinicki, 1996). Compared to individual creative self-efficacy—primarily developed by one’s judgment derived from an individual’s concept of the ability to create—team creative efficacy is a judgment on team ability to generate creativity as a collective work outcome (Klein and Kozlowski, 2000; Taggar and Seijts, 2003). To form team creative efficacy, members need to develop a perception through social interaction in which they form a shared understanding of the team’s effectiveness, efficiency, and ability to come up with novel and useful ideas (Chen and Bliese, 2002; Liao et al., 2010). With a shared perception of high creative ability, the work team may reach high synchronization in the production of team creativity (Bandura, 2002a; Gully et al., 2002).

Given that humility is effectively beneficial when a leader possesses it (e.g., Collins, 2001; Ou et al., 2014, 2018; Owens and Hekman, 2012), we propose that humble leaders are capable of promoting collective creative efficacy. First, compared to self-focused leaders, humble leaders are more likely to recognize the novelty and usefulness of employees’ ideas (Wang et al., 2017). Humble leaders display appreciation of employees’ voice, feedback, and new ideas (Lin et al., 2017; Owens et al., 2013). They recognize and embrace employees’ unique knowledge and skill sets and encourage them to speak up and share ideas (Hu et al., 2017; Lin et al., 2017). Such encouragement and positive feedback carry a message of potency, persuades employees to believe in their capacity to create, enhances a shared confidence in creativity, and regulates the persistence to overcome obstacles during completion of creativity relevant tasks (Dimotakis et al., 2017). A humble leader’s acknowledgment and encouragement could help employees find a shared purpose and value from their efforts to create novel and useful ideas as a team, recognize their creativity-relevant accomplishments, and strengthen their confidence in creativity (Drazin et al., 1999; Van Der Vegt and Bunderson, 2005).

Second, drawing on the SCT, a team can learn from a humble leader’s openness through a modeling process (Ou et al., 2018; Rego et al., 2019). By expressing an appreciation of new ideas, a humble leader recognizes team effort on creativity and provides an example for team members (Baer and Oldham, 2006). Encouraged by such openness, the work team is more likely to form a shared value of openness and a knowledge-sharing climate (Dewett, 2006; Gilson et al., 2013). Exposure of more shared information among members will promote team creativity efficacy (Choi, 2004; Gong et al., 2013; Grosser et al., 2017; Richter et al., 2012).

Third, creativity comes with uncertainty, risks, and challenges to the status quo (Dewett, 2006; George, 2007). Admitting his or her own mistakes and weaknesses, a humble leader reduces team anxiety by taking responsibility of final work outcomes, thus sending signals to team members indicating that it is acceptable to make mistakes and makes members feel psychologically safe to create (Gonçalves and Brandão, 2017; Hu et al., 2017). By admitting mistakes, leader humility may also help avoid intra-team tension to shirk blame and increase team cohesion when facing failures in producing collective creativity. Additionally, when others make mistakes, humble people are more likely to forgive and express positive other-oriented emotions, such as empathy, compassion, and love (Davis et al., 2010). Thus, leader humility strengthens team creative efficacy and promotes creativity by reducing anxiety in the environment and promoting a positive emotional state in which employees feel safe and have the psychological fortitude to face the challenges of collective creativity (Bandura, 2012; Hu et al., 2017).

Compared to self-focused leaders, humble leaders embrace a collective vision rather than mere concern for personal good (House and Aditya, 1997). They inspire team members with such a vision in social interactions. Such leaders not only influence employees individually but also create shared understanding and collective creative efficacy. Thus, we hypothesize,

Hypothesis 1: Leader humility is positively related to team creative efficacy.

The moderating effect of task interdependence

On a work team, conflicts and incongruities may exist among individual objectives, as well among collective and individual goals (Chen et al., 1998; Greer et al., 2011; Wu et al., 2015). Therefore, tasks are structured interdependently or independently to determine how individuals interact, which in turn creates different work outcomes (Jia et al., 2014; Johnson and Johnson, 2005). As an important structural-task feature, task interdependence refers to the degree to which team members rely on and interact with each other to accomplish tasks (Kiggundu, 1981; Saavedra et al., 1993).

According to the SIT, social interdependence exists when task interdependence exists and the outcomes of individuals are affected by each other’s actions (Johnson et al., 1989). In teams with high task interdependence, task completion relies highly on within-team cooperation that often causes less autonomy (Langfred, 2005). On such teams, tasks require leaders’ frequent participation with resource allocation to facilitate the team process to achieve and strengthen desirable interactions, such as cooperation (Hu and Liden, 2011; Liden et al., 2006). Thus, drawing on the SIT and the leadership literature, in teams with high task interdependence, effective leaders are supposed to promote positive work outcomes by facilitating cooperative behaviors among employees (Tjosvold, 1985b; Vidyarthi et al., 2014). However, since leader humility may demonstrate encouragement for employee initiation and a decentralized leader role, the efficiency of leader humility in facilitating positive work outcomes will be limited in teams with high task interdependence.

According to the SCT, a leader’s influence on team efficacy development relies on his or her ability to enhance group processes (Chen and Bliese, 2002; Kim and Shin, 2015; Mulvey and Klein, 1998). High task interdependence requires employees to initiate or to receive task interactions for and from coworkers (Kiggundu, 1981). On such teams, leaders are expected to play more of an integrator role that facilitates collaboration and information processing by setting goals and allocating resources (Crawford and LePine, 2013; Kozlowski, 1999). When a humble leader admits his or her own weaknesses, accepts employees’ ideas, and puts employees under the spotlight instead of himself or herself, such behaviors may be interpreted as withdrawing from involvement and partially undermines the leader’s role in integrating team processes (Sedikides and Jackson, 1990).

In teams with low task interdependence, employees can exert specified knowledge in creativity-relevant activities independently and work with less leader intervention (Longfred, 2005). On such teams, employees are supposed to complete tasks more independently. As Wong and Giessner (2018) argued, employees’ interpretation of leader behaviors may depend on whether such behaviors meet their expectations. When leaders express humility on less interdependent teams, employees are less likely to interpret it as withdrawing from necessary involvement and more likely to interpret it as encouragement of an autonomous climate as expected and thus develop collective efficacy on creativity more efficiently (Van Der Vegt and Janssen, 2003; Zhang and Bartol, 2010). Therefore, we argue that when task interdependence is high, leader humility would still be functional but less efficient in facilitating a collaborating climate in which employees create new ideas together (Černe et al., 2014). Conversely, when task interdependence is low, the assuring and encouraging effect of leader humility is more likely to form a consistent and larger influence on the shared confidence of the ability to create out of team work. In other words, compared to high task interdependent teams, leader humility is more in need in teams with low task interdependence.

Hypothesis 2: Task interdependence moderates the positive relationship between leader humility and team creative efficacy such that the relationship is stronger in teams with low rather than high task interdependence.

The mediating effect of team creative efficacy

Although previous studies argue that leader humility may promote employee confidence in creative tasks, its influence on team creativity may differ from individual creativity. Distinct from individual creativity, team creativity is more influenced by collective characteristics, such as team efficacy, but not members’ individual self-efficacy (Paulus and Dzindolet, 2008; Taggar, 2002). Specifically, as the SCT argues, team efficacy represents a shared belief in team outcomes produced by members’ collective actions and influences the amount and direction of collective effort rather than individual engagement (Bandura, 2002b; Cheung et al., 2020). With higher collective efficacy, team members will be more persistent in overcoming obstacles and have a larger range of information searching so that their work outcomes will be improved accordingly (Tierney and Farmer, 2002). Focusing on creativity, elevated team creative efficacy will promote the collective effort of a work unit in completing creativity-relevant tasks (Shin and Eom, 2014). For example, Ford (2000) argued the important motivational influence that shared belief may play in predicting collective outcomes of creativity.

We contend that team creative efficacy mediates the interactive effect of leader humility and task interdependence as a motivational process. As previously noted, leader humility can enhance a team environment to embrace openness, make employees feel safer when proposing new ideas, and encourage members to challenge the status quo (Lin et al., 2017). Based on the SCT, leader humility sends information cues to facilitate a shared confidence on creativity among team members (Hu et al., 2017). However, whether leader humility could effectively influence team creative efficacy depends on the structure of the task (e.g., task interdependence). According to the SIT, leader humility is less effective in promoting team creative efficacy in teams with high task independence in which more leader involvement is needed to strengthen positive interactions and prevent negative interactions.

With team creative efficacy promoted, the collective motivation of employees to create is also promoted (Ford, 2000). In such teams, members are motivated to interact more positively and proactively (Shin and Eom, 2014) and share information more willingly and effectively (Shin and Eom, 2014). With more frequently exchanged information and exposure to new ideas, elevated team creative efficacy increases the opportunity of team creativity (Shin et al., 2012). Thus, we propose,

Hypothesis 3: Team creative efficacy mediates the interactive effects of leader humility and task interdependence on team creativity.

Figure 1 demonstrates the overall theoretical framework of the study.

Figure 1.

Theoretical framework. Leader humility is reported by employees in wave 1; team creativity is reported by leaders in wave 2; the rest of the variables are reported by employees in wave 2; task interdependence, team creative efficacy, and leader humility are aggregated variables.

Method

Participants and procedure

Study participants came from eight companies in a major city in Northeast China. The industries included telecommunication services, real estate, financial services, and pharmaceutical. We surveyed at least one work team from each company in the following departments: R&D, marketing, finance, administration, and IT. In addition, we surveyed at least 10 work teams in each company. Introduced by the CEO or human resource management department, we focused on work teams that had demanded at least a certain level of creativity as well as the expectation that all team leaders work with their followers in the same workplace. Altogether, our sample yielded 100 work teams with at least one leader and three employees each.

Variables were rated from different sources and surveyed in two waves. In the first wave, employees evaluated leader humility. Two weeks later, in the second wave, leaders evaluated the teams as a whole, as well as the employee creativity of each team member. Team members reported task interdependence and team creative efficacy in the second wave. Leader humility, task interdependence, and team creative efficacy was later aggregated to the team level.

We initially distributed 100 leader questionnaires and 600 employee questionnaires. After two waves of data collection, we received 476 usable questionnaires, with 84 from leaders and 393 from employees (the final response rate was 84% for leaders and 65.5% for employees). The average team size was 5.68. Of the leaders, 59 (70.2%) were male and 25 (29.8%) were female. Of the employees, 250 (63.6%) were male and 143 (36.4%) were female. The average age of the leaders was 45.3 years (SD = 6.2); the average age of the employees was 36.1 years (SD = 9.2). The average education of the team leaders was 15.8 years (SD = 1.5) while the average education of the employees was 15.6 years (SD = 1.2).

Measure

Using 7-point Likert-type scales ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), we measured leader humility, task interdependence, team creative efficacy, and team creativity. All measures were translated into Chinese and revised by three bilingual students that studied management following a standard procedure of translation and back translation (Brislin, 1980).

Leader humility

The nine-item scale from Owens and Hekman (2012) was used to measure leaders’ humility. One typical item was, “My supervisor is willing to learn from others.” The Cronbach’s α for these questions was 0.89. Because leader humility was considered a group variable, R_wg, ICC(1), and ICC(2) were tested to verify its between-group variance. Two intra-class correlations (ICCs) were used, as ICC(1) indicated the extent of agreement among the members’ ratings of the same group and ICC(2) indicated whether groups could be differentiated based on the variables of interest (James, 1982). The R_wg mean for team creative efficacy was 0.90, ICC(1) was 0.50, and ICC(2) was 0.82. All indicators were within an acceptable range, demonstrating significant between-group variance.

Team creative efficacy

Team creative efficacy was measured by revising Tierney and Farmer’s (2002) three-item scale. The objectives of these items were revised from “my” into “our team.” A sample item was, “I have confidence in our team’s ability to solve problems creatively.” The Cronbach’s α was 0.92. R_wg mean for team creative efficacy was 0.89, ICC(1) was 0.41, and ICC(2) was 0.71. All indicators were within an acceptable range, demonstrating significant between-group variance.

Task interdependence

We used a five-item measure according to previous literature (Van der Vegt et al., 2000). An example item was, “I need information and advice from my colleagues to perform my job well.” The Cronbach’s α for these questions was 0.75. R_wg mean for team creative efficacy was 0.86, ICC(1) was 0.45, and ICC(2) was 0.81. All indicators were acceptable.

Team creativity

Farh et al.’s (2010) four-item scale measured team creativity. A sample item was, “The team output demonstrates that the team is capable of using existing information or resources creatively (in executing the project).” The Cronbach’s α was 0.95.

Control variables

Previous studies (e.g., Shalley et al., 2004; Shin and Zhou, 2007) have shown that demographic variables can be associated with both individual and team outcomes. Therefore, we controlled key variables such as leader age, leader sex, and leader education level (years of education received) (Shin and Zhou, 2007). Since organizational tenure (Ng and Feldman, 2010) and task types (Chang et al., 2012; Kim et al., 2010) has certain influence over employee creativity and team creativity—especially when R&D teams have more creativity-relevant tasks in their daily work—we controlled for team tenure and task types (R&D teams are coded as 1 while the rest teams are coded as 0) at the team-level analysis.

Analytic strategy

The data of our study were of a nested structure where one leader had more than one employee and the primary relationships were tested at the team level. First, we conducted a series of confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) to ensure the distinct factor structure of our research model variables. Second, to avoid a biased standard error estimate caused by a potentially shared variance derived from nonindependence with work teams, we tested our hypotheses with a multilevel structural equation model (MSEM) using Mplus 8.1. We computed 95% confidence intervals (CI) using parameter bootstrapping (20,000 replications) by R software based on the estimates and standard deviation (SD) of the regression coefficients from MSEM analyses (Preacher et al., 2010). The proposed indirect-effect hypotheses and moderation hypotheses were supported if the CI of the effect did not include zero.

Results

Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics, correlations, and scale reliabilities. Leader humility is significantly correlated with team creativity (γ = 0.38, p < 0.01), and team creative efficacy is significantly correlated with team creativity (γ = 0.46, p < 0.01).

Table 1.

Means, standard deviations, and correlations.

Variable	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1. Leader’s sex	0.76	0.43
2. Leader’s age	45.29	6.23	0.16**
3. Leader’s education	15.83	1.48	0.01	−0.22**
4. Leader org. tenure	154.09	98.48	−0.11*	0.04	−0.11*
5. R&D team	0.02	0.14	0.08	−0.10*	0.02	−0.15**
6. Leader humility	6.20	0.69	0.17**	−0.06	−0.10*	−0.29**	0.01	(0.96)
7. Team creative efficacy	6.11	0.61	0.13*	−0.19**	−0.15**	−0.14**	0.01	0.55**	(0.92)
8. Task interdependence	4.95	0.85	−0.01	0.14**	0.01	0.51**	0.01	−0.29**	−0.08	(0.75)
9. Team creativity	5.95	0.95	0.33**	0.15**	−0.22**	−0.24**	0.12*	0.38**	0.46**	0.00	(0.95)

Note: n = 84. Coefficient alpha reliabilities are reported on the diagonal. Sex (1 = Male, 0 = Female). Org. tenure (months). Age (years). Education (years). R&D team = research and development team (R&D teams are coded as 1 while the rest are coded as 0).

*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.

A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted using Amos 17.0 to establish the discriminant validity of measures. The results show that the hypothesized four-factor (Model 1) (leader humility, task interdependence, team creative efficacy, and team creativity) model fit the data well, χ² (186) = 298.84, CFI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.09, and show a significantly better fit than other three-factor models (Model 3) in which task interdependence and team creative efficacy is combined as one factor. As an example, the hypothesized four-factor model is significantly better than the three-factor model, χ² (187) = 436.11, CFI = 0.88, RMSEA = 0.13. The four-factor model also had a significantly better fit than a one-factor model in which all items were loaded onto one latent factor χ² (189) = 895.93, CFI = 0.65, RMSEA = 0.21. Overall, the results support the distinctiveness of our constructs. Table 2 presents our results.

Table 2.

CFA used to examine factor structure of the study scales.

Model	Description	χ ²	df	RMSEA (90% CI)	TLI	CFI	SRMR
Model 1	4 factors: LH, TCE, TkInt, and TmCrtv	298.84***	186	0.085 (0.067; 0.103)	0.94	0.94	0.106
Model 2	3 factors: LH, TCE (combined with TkInt), and TmCrtv	436.11***	187	0.127 (0.111; 0.142)	0.86	0.88	0.125
Model 3	3 factors: LH, TCE (combined with TmCrtv), and TkInt	504.21***	187	0.143 (0.128; 0.158)	0.82	0.84	0.153
Model 4	2 factors: LH (combined with TkInt) and TCE (combined with TmCrtv)	683.71***	188	0.178 (0.164; 0.193)	0.72	0.75	0.142
Model 5	1 factor: all items loading on the same factor	895.93***	189	0.212 (0.198; 0.226)	0.61	0.65	0.170

Note: N = 84. LH: leader humility; TCE: team creative efficacy; TmCrtv: team creativity; CFA: confirmatory factor analysis; TkInt: task interdependent.

***p < 0.001.

To test Hypotheses 1 and 2, we used a regression analysis to test the relationship of leader humility, team creative efficacy, and task interdependence. Table 3 presents the results. Hypothesis 1 proposed a positive relationship between leader humility and team creative efficacy. To test this hypothesis, we entered control variables in M1 and entered leader humility in M2. As shown in M2 of Table 3, the estimated parameter of leader humility on team creative efficacy is 0.45, p < 0.01. Thus, hypothesis 1 is supported.

Table 3.

Regression analyses results for leader humility, task interdependence, and team creative efficacy.

Variable	Team creative efficacy
Variable	M1	M2	M3	M4
Constant	6.12** (0.03)	6.12** (0.03)	6.12** (0.03)	6.10** (0.03)
Control variables
Leader sex	0.23** (0.07)	0.11 (0.06)	0.10 (0.06)	0.07 (0.06)
Leader age	−0.03** (0.01)	−0.02** (0.00)	−0.02** (0.00)	−0.02** (0.00)
Leader education	−0.09** (0.02)	−0.06** (0.02)	−0.06** (0.02)	−0.06** (0.02)
Leader org. tenure	−0.00** (0.00)	0.00 (0.00)	0.00 (0.00)	−0.00 (0.00)
R&D team	−0.19 (0.21)	−0.07 (0.18)	−0.13 (0.18)	−0.13 (0.18)
Independent variable
Leader humility		0.45** (0.04)	0.47** (0.04)	0.48** (0.04)
Moderator
Task interdependence			0.10** (0.04)	0.12** (0.04)
Interaction term
Leader humility × Task interdependence				−0.11* (0.05)
ΔR²		0.22**	0.01**	0.10*

Note: N = 84. Sex (1 = Male, 0 = Female). Org. tenure (months). Age (years). Education (years). R&D team = research development team.

*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.

Hypothesis 2 proposed that task interdependence moderates the positive relationship between leader humility and team creative efficacy such that the positive relationship becomes stronger when task interdependence is low rather than high. Leader humility, task interdependence, the interactive term, and control variables were mean centered. Since the moderating effect of task interdependence is on the team level, we first tested it by testing the null model with control variables (Table 3, M1). Second, we entered the independent variable, leader humility (Table 3, M2). We then entered moderator, task interdependence (Table 3, M3), and last, the interaction term (Table 3, M4). As Table 3 M4 shows, the estimated parameter of the interaction term is −0.11, p < 0.05. Figure 2 shows the results of a simple slope test. As illustrated in Figure 2, the relationship between leader humility and team creative efficacy is positive when task interdependence is low (b = 0.69, p < 0.01), with the slope becoming increasingly less steep when task interdependence is high (b = 0.49, p < 0.01). The findings show that task interdependence buffered the positive effect of leader humility on team creative efficacy, which supports hypothesis 2.

Figure 2.

Interactive effects of leader humility and task interdependence on team creative efficacy.

To test the mediated moderation model proposed by hypothesis 3, we compared differences between the conditional indirect effects under different levels of task interdependence. As Table 4 shows, the difference between the conditional indirect effects of the path (Leader humility → Team creative efficacy → Team creativity) under high task interdependence (1 SD above average) and low task interdependence (1 SD below average) is significant (difference = −0.01, SE = 0.05, p = 0.045; 95% CI = [−0.21, −0.01]), thus hypothesis 3 is supported.

Table 4.

Summary of conditional indirect effects.

Paths and effects	Point estimates (SE)	Lower (95% CI)	Upper (95% CI)
Leader humility → Team creative efficacy → Team creativity
Indirect effect	0.28** (0.05)	0.18	0.37
High Task Interdependence	0.23** (0.05)	0.15	0.33
Low Task Interdependence	0.33** (0.07)	0.21	0.47
Difference	−0.10* (0.05)	−0.21	−0.01

Note: N = 84. Two-tailed tests. 95% CI is computed by the parameter bootstrapping (20,000 times). Bold type indicates significant indirect effects.

*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.

Discussion

We examined the mediated moderation effect of leader humility on team creativity. The findings indicate that leader humility is positively associated with team creative efficacy. Moreover, the positive effect of leader humility on team creative efficacy is buffered by task interdependence, such that the slope of a positive relationship between leader humility and team creative efficacy is steeper when task interdependence is at lower levels. Finally, team creative efficacy mediates the interactive effects of leader humility and task interdependence on team creativity. In other words, we provide empirical evidence to support the mediating effect of team creative efficacy on the interactive effects of leader humility and task interdependence on team creativity.

Theoretical contributions

The findings of this research provide some theoretical contributions and managerial implications. First, our study further demonstrates that the connotation of humility implies accurate rather than low self-evaluation (Morris et al., 2005; Rego et al., 2018; Tangney, 2000). Employing the SCT, our theoretical framework supports an understanding of humility that advances the argument that leader humility promotes, rather than undermines, team creative efficacy. In spite of the general consensus that leader humility is a nonaggressive personal characteristic, such humility produces a positive impact on collective efficacy by comforting, assuring, and encouraging employees that through social interactions, they can better integrate shared common goals and make efforts toward these goals. This mechanism may be particularly essential when the task is creativity relevant, because suggesting novel ideas is often risky and requires intrinsic motivation (Amabile, 1983). However, the mechanism is not limited to the team work outcome of creativity and may also be applied to any other task with high uncertainty. Future studies can look into the influence of leader humility on such collective outcomes.

Second, the moderating effect of task interdependence in our research model extends both the leadership literature and the SIT literature. The interactive effect of leader humility and task interdependence has shown that the outcomes of intra-team interactions are not determined merely by the strength of leadership but also by leader characteristics. As a personal characteristic, leader humility indicates a tendency of less leader involvement or leader initiation. With such a tendency, although the relationship between leader humility and team creative efficacy is positive, humble leaders become less efficient when task interdependence is high rather than low. Our findings further indicate that the influence of leader characteristics in integrating collective goals and coordinating collective actions may vary under different team social-interdependent settings. The buffering effect of task interdependence in our findings extends our understanding of leader humility and, as such, calls more attention to its limitation (Ou et al., 2018; Tangney, 2009).

Third, by studying the mediating effect of team creative efficacy, our study extends the SCT and indicates that collective efficacy can be influenced by a specific leader characteristic, such as humility. The majority of previous studies investigating antecedents of collective efficacy at the team level have focused on either team attributes, such as team knowledge, size, leadership climate, and group norms (Chen and Bliese, 2002; Cheng and Yang, 2014; Kim and Shin, 2015; Watson et al., 2001), or leader behaviors, such as leader empowerment, initiating-structure behavior, and the presence of servant leadership (Hu and Liden, 2011; Jung and Sosik, 2002; Taggar and Seijts, 2003). Nevertheless, our findings on the motivation influence of leader humility over team creative efficacy imply that a leader’s personal traits may play a more fundamental role in the formation of shared team confidence.

Practical implications

Both the processes and outcomes of activities that aim for creativity are associated with uncertainty. Such uncertainty might not only intimidate individual employees, it could also stop them from working together toward new ideas. According to our findings, leader humility can increase team creativity by elevating team creative efficacy. Therefore, it is better to appoint humble leaders to teams in which the collective confidence of employees on creativity needs boosting—for instance, a newly formed R&D project team. However, humility is not a panacea for collective confidence on creativity-related tasks. It is more productive to appoint a humble leader to teams with less task interdependence so that leader humility increases team creativity more efficiently. For instance, to appoint a humble editor in an environment where journalists can work independently most of the time, or a dean where faculty members only occasionally cooperate, could increase their shared belief in team creativity as opposed to appointing a humble leader to a marketing team or a consulting project where members must work closely to deliver the outcome.

Additionally, management could, if possible, redesign the task structure and make team members’ job less interdependent to maximize the positive influence of a humble leader on team creativity. A humble leader can maximize team creative efficacy and creativity-related work outcomes of the team as a whole by breaking a collective task into individual ones. For example, when a humble leader is organizing followers to design a new car, rather than working on the design as a whole from the start, the leader could ask one follower to work on the internal design and another to conduct mode design so that both employees have confidence that the ultimate product design can be creative inside and out and their collective creativity has been used most productively.

Limitations and future research directions

In spite of our contributions, this study should note a few limitations. First, although this article discusses the influence of leader humility on creativity, it is extremely limited to a meso-perspective within the context of a work team. The conclusion reached from this study might not be generalized to a higher managerial level (Kline and Boyd, 1991; Klein and Kozlowski, 2000). In our research paradigm, leader humility is often measured by the aggregation of employee perception; yet, employees may have different expectations of leader humility for managers at different levels. Thus, the influence of leader humility may vary according to employees’ shared schema for managers in different positions. For instance, frontline employees may be more motivated when their CEO is humble than when their team leader is humble. Meanwhile, a higher-level manager’s humility may influence an employee’s perception of lower-level managers as well. If a higher-level manager is humbler than the employees’ direct supervisor, it may undermine the supervisor’s effectiveness in forming team creative efficacy. With an enlarged study sample, the multilevel impact of leader humility could be tested at other managerial levels. In addition to the aforementioned research questions, future studies can answer the question of whether humility of top management has a positive influence on organizational creativity and if so, could such an influence cascade to lower levels.

Second, our data are collected from China, a nation of high collectivism and high-power distance, where humility is considered a more salient personal merit (Chung and Mallery, 1999; Earley, 1989; Ou et al., 2014). However, the relationship between leader humility and team creative efficacy may not be positive in certain cultures. For example, in an individualistic culture in which people are more egocentric and performance-oriented, humility may be interpreted as incompetence. Thus, future studies could either look into the possible “too-much-of-a-good-thing” effect of leader humility with data collected from a high collectivism culture or the possible negative effect of leader humility on team creative efficacy in a high individualistic culture. Additionally, preference for social interdependence may vary in different cultures and therefore, the buffering effect may also be attenuated in a culture where people are more self-sufficient.

Third, in our study, we only examined the moderating effect of task interdependence. Given that task interdependence is at most a fundamental contextual factor, future research is encouraged to explore other boundary conditions to enrich the literature with a better understanding of the potential limitations of leader humility. For example, dispersion of employee humility on a team, over an organizational culture, or within income gaps of a country could be investigated. In addition, the influence of leader humility and the contextual influence of task interdependence may not be static in a work team. As Wellman (2017) argued, groups form different patterns of interaction and schema of leadership influence early in the life of a group. With a longitudinal design, future study could also investigate the changes of our main effects and moderating effects on a work team over time.

Conclusion

Our study found that leader humility was positively associated with team creative efficacy. Task interdependence was found to decrease the slope of positive relationship between leader humility and team creative efficacy. Team creative efficacy mediated the interactive effect of leader humility and task interdependence on team creativity. Our study contributes to the literature of leader humility, the SCT, and the SIT. We call for more research on the effects of leader characteristics on collective creativity and boundary conditions of the effects during social interaction processes.

Footnotes

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Ran Li

References

Amabile

(1983) The Social Psychology of Creativity. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

Ashton

Lee

(2005) Honesty-humility, the Big Five, and the five-factor model. Journal of Personality 73(5): 1321–1354.

Baer

Oldham

(2006) The curvilinear relation between experienced creative time pressure and creativity: moderating effects of openness to experience and support for creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology 91(4): 963–970.

Bandura

(1977a) Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review 84: 191–215.

Bandura

(1977b) Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura

(1991) Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50(2): 248–287.

Bandura

(1997) Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York, NY: Freeman.

Bandura

(2000) Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in Psychological Science 9: 75–78.

Bandura

(2002a) Social cognitive theory in cultural context. Applied Psychology 51: 269–290.

10.

Bandura

(2002b) Social cognitive theory of mass communication. In: Bryant

Oliver

(eds) Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 94–124.

11.

Bandura

(2012) On the functional properties of perceived self-efficacy revisited. Journal of Management 38(1): 9–44.

12.

Bandura

(2015) On deconstructing commentaries regarding alternative theories of self-regulation. Journal of Management 41(4): 1025–1044.

13.

Barnett

McCormick

(2016) Perceptions of task interdependence and functional leadership in schools. Small Group Research 47(3): 279–302.

14.

Basford

Offermann

Behrend

(2014) Please accept my sincerest apologies: examining follower reactions to leader apology. Journal of Business Ethics 119(1): 99–117.

15.

Brislin

(1980) Cross-Cultural Research Methods. Environment and Culture. New York, NY: Springer US.

16.

Bruning

Campion

(2018) A role-resource approach-avoidance model of job crafting: a multimethod integration and extension of job crafting theory. Academy of Management Journal 61(2): 499–522.

17.

Bunderson

(2003) Team member functional background and involvement in management teams: direct effects and the moderating role of power centralization. Academy of Management Journal 46(4): 458–474.

18.

Černe

Nerstad

CGL

Dysvik

, et al. (2014) What goes around comes around: knowledge hiding, perceived motivational climate, and creativity. Academy of Management Journal 57: 172–192.

19.

Chang

Huang

Choi

(2012) Is task autonomy beneficial for creativity? Prior task experience and self-control as boundary conditions. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal 40(5): 705–724.

20.

Chen

Bliese

(2002) The role of different levels of leadership in predicting self-and collective efficacy: evidence for discontinuity. Journal of Applied Psychology 87(3): 549–556.

21.

Chen

Meindl

(1998) How can cooperation be fostered? The cultural effects of individualism-collectivism. Academy of Management Review 23(2): 285–304.

22.

Cheng

Yang

(2014) The antecedents of collective creative efficacy for information system development teams. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 33: 1–17.

23.

Cheung

Huang

Chang

, et al. (2020) Does being mindful make people more creative at work? The role of creative process engagement and perceived leader humility. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 159: 39–48.

24.

Chiu

CYC

Owens

Tesluk

(2016) Initiating and utilizing shared leadership in teams: the role of leader humility, team proactive personality, and team performance capability. Journal of Applied Psychology 101(12): 1705.

25.

Choi

(2004) Individual and contextual predictors of creative performance: the mediating role of psychological processes. Creativity Research Journal 16: 187–199.

26.

Chung

Mallery

(1999) Social comparison, individualism-collectivism, and self-esteem in China and the United States. Current Psychology 18(4): 340–352.

27.

Collins

(2001) Level 5 leadership: the triumph of humility and fierce resolve. Harvard Business Review 79(1): 67–76.

28.

Crawford

LePine

(2013) A configural theory of team processes: accounting for the structure of taskwork and teamwork. Academy of Management Review 38(1): 32–48.

29.

Davis

Hook

Worthington

Jr , et al. (2011) Relational humility: conceptualizing and measuring humility as a personality judgment. Journal of Personality Assessment 93(3): 225–234.

30.

Davis

Worthington

Jr Hook

(2010) Humility: review of measurement strategies and conceptualization as personality judgment. The Journal of Positive Psychology 5(4): 243–252.

31.

De Jong

Curşeu

Leenders

RTA

(2014) When do bad apples not spoil the barrel? Negative relationships in teams, team performance, and buffering mechanisms. Journal of Applied Psychology 99(3): 514.

32.

Dewett

(2006) Exploring the role of risk in employee creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior 40(1): 27–45.

33.

Dimotakis

Mitchell

Maurer

(2017) Positive and negative assessment center feedback in relation to development self-efficacy, feedback seeking, and promotion. Journal of Applied Psychology 102(11): 1514.

34.

Drazin

Glynn

Kazanjian

(1999) Multilevel theorizing about creativity in organizations: a sense-making perspective. Academy of Management Review 24(2): 286–307.

35.

Earley

(1989) Social loafing and collectivism: a comparison of the United States and the People’s Republic of China. Administrative Science Quarterly 34: 565–581.

36.

Exline

Baumeister

Bushman

, et al. (2004) Too proud to let go: narcissistic entitlement as a barrier to forgiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 87(6): 894.

37.

Exline

Geyer

(2004) Perceptions of humility: A preliminary study. Self and Identity 3(2): 95–114.

38.

Farh

Lee

Farh

(2010) Task conflict and team creativity: a question of how much and when. Journal of Applied Psychology 95: 1173–1180.

39.

Ford

(2000) Creative developments in creativity theory. The Academy of Management Review 25(2): 284.

40.

George

(2007) Creativity in organizations. The Academy of Management Annals 1: 439–477.

41.

Gilson

Lim

Luciano

, et al. (2013) Unpacking the cross-level effects of tenure diversity, explicit knowledge, and knowledge sharing on individual creativity. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 86(2): 203–222.

42.

Gonçalves

Brandão

(2017) The relation between leader’s humility and team creativity: the mediating effect of psychological safety and psychological capital. International Journal of Organizational Analysis 25(4): 687–702.

43.

Gong

Huang

Farh

(2009) Employee learning orientation, transformational leadership, and employee creativity: the mediating role of employee creative self-efficacy. Academy of Management Journal 52: 765–778.

44.

Gong

Kim

Lee

, et al. (2013) A multilevel model of team goal orientation, information exchange, and creativity. Academy of Management Journal 56(3): 827–851.

45.

Greer

Caruso

Jehn

(2011) The bigger they are, the harder they fall: linking team power, team conflict, and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 116(1): 116–128.

46.

Grenberg

(2005) Kant and the ethics of humility: A story of dependence, corruption and virtue. Cambridge University Press.

47.

Grosser

Venkataramani

Labianca

(2017) An alter-centric perspective on employee innovation: the importance of alters’ creative self-efficacy and network structure. Journal of Applied Psychology 102(9): 1360.

48.

Gully

Incalcaterra

Joshi

, et al. (2002) A meta-analysis of team-efficacy, potency, and performance: interdependence and level of analysis as moderators of observed relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology 87: 819–832.

49.

Hambrick

Humphrey

Gupta

(2015) Structural interdependence within top management teams: a key moderator of upper echelons predictions. Strategic Management Journal 36(3): 449–461.

50.

Herrmann

Felfe

(2013) Moderators of the relationship between leadership style and employee creativity: the role of task novelty and personal initiative. Creativity Research Journal 25: 172–181.

51.

House

Aditya

(1997) The social scientific study of leadership: Quo vadis? Journal of Management 23(3): 409–473.

52.

Erdogan

Jiang

, et al. (2017) Leader humility and team creativity: the role of team information sharing, psychological safety, and power distance. Journal of Applied Psychology 103(3): 313.

53.

Liden

(2011) Antecedents of team potency and team effectiveness: an examination of goal and process clarity and servant leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology 96(4): 851.

54.

James

(1982) Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology 67: 219–229.

55.

Jia

Shaw

Tsui

, et al. (2014) A social-structural perspective on employee-organization relationships and team creativity. Academy of Management Journal 57(3): 869–891.

56.

Johnson

(2005) New developments in social interdependence theory. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs 131(4): 285–358.

57.

Johnson

Stanne

(1989) Impact of goal and resource interdependence on problem-solving success. The Journal of Social Psychology 129(5): 621–629.

58.

Jung

Sosik

(2002) Transformational leadership in work groups: the role of empowerment, cohesiveness, and collective-efficacy on perceived group performance. Small Group Research 33(3): 313–336.

59.

Kesebir

(2014) A quiet ego quiets death anxiety: humility as an existential anxiety buffer. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 106(4): 610.

60.

Kiggundu

(1981) Task interdependence and the theory of job design. Academy of Management Review 6(3): 499–508.

61.

Kim

Hon

Lee

(2010) Proactive personality and employee creativity: the effects of job creativity requirement and supervisor support for creativity. Creativity Research Journal 22(1): 37–45.

62.

Kim

Shin

(2015) Collective efficacy as a mediator between cooperative group norms and group positive affect and team creativity. Asia Pacific Journal of Management 32(3): 693–716.

63.

King

Hicks

(2007) Whatever happened to “What might have been”? Regrets, happiness, and maturity. American Psychologist 62(7): 625.

64.

Klein

Kozlowski

SWJ

(2000) From micro to meso: critical steps in conceptualizing and conducting multilevel research. Organizational Research Methods 3(3): 211–236.

65.

Kline

Boyd

(1991) Organizational structure, context, and climate: their relationships to job satisfaction at three managerial levels. The Journal of General Psychology 118(4): 305–316.

66.

Kozlowski

Gully

Nason

, et al. (1999) Developing adaptive teams: a theory of compilation and performance across levels and time. In: Pulakos

(ed), The Changing Nature of Work Performance: Implications for Staffing, Personnel Actions, and Development. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, pp. 240–292.

67.

Langfred

(2005) Autonomy and performance in teams: the multilevel moderating effect of task interdependence. Journal of Management 31(4): 513–529.

68.

Sun

, et al. (2016) Leader-member exchange differentiation and team creativity: an investigation of nonlinearity. Human Relations 69(5): 1121–1138.

69.

Liao

Liu

Loi

(2010) Looking at both sides of the social exchange coin: a social cognitive perspective on the joint effects of relationship quality and differentiation on creativity. Academy of Management Journal 53: 1090–1109.

70.

Liden

Erdogan

Wayne

, et al. (2006) Leader-member exchange, differentiation, and task interdependence: implications for individual and group performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior 27(6): 723–746.

71.

Lin

Chen

Herman

, et al. (2017) Why and when employees like to speak up more under humble leaders? The roles of personal sense of power and power distance. Journal of Business Ethics 158(4): 937–950.

72.

Lindsley

Brass

Thomas

(1995) Efficacy-performing spirals: a multilevel perspective. Academy of Management Review 20: 645–678.

73.

Liu

Mao

Chen

(2017) Leader humility and team innovation: investigating the substituting role of task interdependence and the mediating role of team voice climate. Frontiers in Psychology 8: 1115.

74.

Mao

Chiu

Owens

, et al. (2019) Growing followers: exploring the effects of leader humility on follower self-expansion, self-efficacy, and performance. Journal of Management Studies 56(2): 343–371.

75.

Morris

Brotheridge

Urbanski

(2005) Bringing humility to leadership: antecedents and consequences of leader humility. Human Relations 58(10): 1323–1350.

76.

Mulvey

Klein

(1998) The impact of perceived loafing and collective efficacy on group goal processes and group performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 74(1): 62–87.

77.

Feldman

(2010) Organizational tenure and job performance. Journal of Management 36(5): 1220–1250.

78.

Nielsen

Marrone

(2018) Humility: our current understanding of the construct and its role in organizations. International Journal of Management Reviews 20(4): 805–824.

79.

Tsui

Kinicki

, et al. (2014) Humble chief executive officers’ connections to top management team integration and middle managers’ responses. Administrative Science Quarterly 59(1): 34–72.

80.

Waldman

Peterson

(2018) Do humble CEOs matter? An examination of CEO humility and firm outcomes. Journal of Management 44(3): 1147–1173.

81.

Owens

Hekman

(2012) Modeling how to grow: an inductive examination of humble leader behaviors, contingencies, and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal 55(4): 787–818.

82.

Owens

Hekman

(2016) How does leader humility influence team performance? Exploring the mechanisms of contagion and collective promotion focus. Academy of Management Journal 59(3): 1088–1111.

83.

Owens

Johnson

Mitchell

(2013) Expressed humility in organizations: implications for performance, teams, and leadership. Organization Science 24(5): 1517–1538.

84.

Owens

Rowatt

Wilkins

(2011) Exploring the relevance and implications of humility in organizations. In: Cameron

Spreitzer

(eds) Handbook of Positive Organizational Scholarship. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 260–272.

85.

Owens

Yam

Bednar

, et al. (2019) The impact of leader moral humility on follower moral self-efficacy and behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology 104(1): 146.

86.

Paulus

Dzindolet

(2008) Social influence, creativity and innovation. Social Influence 3(4): 228–247.

87.

Preacher

Zyphur

Zhang

(2010) A general multilevel SEM framework for assessing multilevel mediation. Psychological Methods 15: 209–233.

88.

Prussia

Kinicki

(1996) A motivational investigation of group effectiveness using social-cognitive theory. Journal of Applied Psychology 81: 187–198.

89.

Rego

Cunha

Simpson

(2018) The perceived impact of leaders’ humility on team effectiveness: an empirical study. Journal of Business Ethics 148: 205–218.

90.

Rego

Owens

Leal

, et al. (2017) How leader humility helps teams to be humbler, psychologically stronger, and more effective: a moderated mediation model. The Leadership Quarterly 28(5): 639–658.

91.

Rego

Owens

Yam

, et al. (2019) Leader humility and team performance: exploring the mediating mechanisms of team PsyCap and task allocation effectiveness. Journal of Management 45(3): 1009–1033.

92.

Richards

(1988) Is humility a virtue? American Philosophical Quarterly 25(3): 253–259.

93.

Richards

(1992) Humility. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

94.

Richter

Hirst

Van Knippenberg

, et al. (2012) Creative self-efficacy and individual creativity in team contexts: cross-level interactions with team informational resources. Journal of Applied Psychology 97: 1282–1290.

95.

Saavedra

Earley

Van Dyne

(1993) Complex interdependence in task-performing groups. Journal of Applied Psychology 78(1): 61–72.

96.

Sedikides

Jackson

(1990) Social impact theory: a field test of source strength, source immediacy and number of targets. Basic and Applied Social Psychology 11(3): 273–281.

97.

Shalley

Zhou

Oldham

(2004) The effects of personal and contextual characteristics on creativity: Where should we go from here? Journal of Management 30: 933–958.

98.

Shin

Zhou

(2007) When is educational specialization heterogeneity related to creativity in research and development teams? Transformational leadership as a moderator. Journal of Applied Psychology 92: 1709–1721.

99.

Shin

Kim

Lee

, et al. (2012) Cognitive team diversity and individual team member creativity: a cross-level interaction. Academy of Management Journal 55: 197–212.

100.

Shin

Eom

(2014) Team proactivity as a linking mechanism between team creative efficacy, transformational leadership, and risk-taking norms and team creative performance. Journal of Creative Behavior 48: 89–114.

101.

Taggar

(2002) Individual creativity and group ability to utilize individual creative resources: a multilevel model. Academy of Management Journal 45: 315–330.

102.

Taggar

Seijts

(2003) Leader and staff role-efficacy as antecedents of collective-efficacy and team performance. Human Performance 16(2): 131–156.

103.

Tasa

Taggar

Seijts

(2007) The development of collective efficacy in teams: a multilevel and longitudinal perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology 92(1): 17–27.

104.

Tangney

(2000) Humility: theoretical perspectives, empirical findings and directions for future research. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 19(1): 70–82.

105.

Tangney

(2009) Humility. In: Lopez

Snyder

(eds) Oxford Handbook of Positive Psychology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, pp. 483–490.

106.

Tjosvold

(1985a) Power and social context in superior-subordinate interaction. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 35(3): 281–293.

107.

Tjosvold

(1985b) The effects of attribution and social context on superiors’ influence and interaction with low performing subordinates. Personnel Psychology 38(2): 361–376.

108.

Tierney

Farmer

(2002) Creative self-efficacy: its potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance. Academy of Management Journal 45: 1137–1148.

109.

Tierney

Farmer

(2011) Creative self-efficacy development and creative performance over time. Journal of Applied Psychology 96: 277–293.

110.

Van Der Vegt

Bunderson

(2005) Learning and performance in multidisciplinary teams: the importance of collective team identification. Academy of Management Journal 48: 532–547.

111.

Van Der Vegt

Emans

Van De Vliert

(2000) Team members' affective responses to patterns of intragroup interdependence and job complexity. Journal of Management 26(4): 633–655.

112.

Van Der Vegt

Janssen

(2003) Joint impact of interdependence and group diversity on innovation. Journal of Management 29(5): 729–751.

113.

Vidyarthi

Anand

Liden

(2014) Do emotionally perceptive leaders motivate higher employee performance? The moderating role of task interdependence and power distance. Leadership Quarterly 25(2): 232–244.

114.

Walumbwa

Wang

Lawler

, et al. (2004) The role of collective efficacy in the relations between transformational leadership and work outcomes. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 77(4): 515–530.

115.

Wang

Zhang

Jia

(2017) Understanding how leader humility enhances employee creativity: the roles of perspective taking and cognitive reappraisal. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 53(1): 5–31.

116.

Watson

Chemers

Preiser

(2001) Collective efficacy: a multilevel analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulleti, 27(8): 1057–1068.

117.

Wellman

(2017) Authority or community? A relational model’s theory of group-level leadership emergence. Academy of Management Review 42(4): 596–617.

118.

Wong

Giessner

(2018) The thin line between empowering and laissez-faire leadership: an expectancy-match perspective. Journal of Management 44(2): 757–783.

119.

Ferris

Kwan

, et al. (2015) Breaking (or making) the silence: how goal interdependence and social skill predict being ostracized. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 131: 51–66.

120.

Zhang

Bartol

(2010) Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: the influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process engagement. Academy of Management Journal 53: 107–128.

121.

Zhang

Kwan

(2018) Empowering leadership and team creativity: the roles of team learning behavior, team creative efficacy, and team task complexity. In: Epitropaki

Kark

(eds) Creative Leadership. London: Routledge, pp. 95–121.