Impact of Transformational and Authentic Leadership on Employee Creativity in Malaysian Higher Education Sector: Mediating Effect of Organizational Citizenship Behaviour

Abstract

Although transformational and authentic leadership have received high attention in the earlier literature, it is hard to find a study that examined their effects on employee creativity and used organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB) as a mediator between them, particularly in higher learning institutions’ context. Therefore, this research aims to contribute to the empirical literature by testing the impact of authentic leadership and transformational leadership on employee creativity and verifying the mediating effect of OCB on the association between them. This research adopted the quantitative approach in which a survey method was utilized for gathering the data from a sample of 243 staff in higher education institutions in Malaysia. During data analysis, the partial least square method was used for checking the reliability in addition to the validity of the research instrument and verify the proposed hypotheses. The outcomes confirmed that OCB has a positive effect on employee creativity. Additionally, the findings indicated that authentic and transformational leadership have positive effects on OCB and employee creativity. Finally, the results revealed that OCB fully mediates the association between the selected leadership types and employee creativity.

Keywords

Authentic leadership employee creativity OCB transformational leadership

Introduction

These days, organizations are operating in a tremendously unstable environment that is characterized by quick growth in technology and market needs (Hanaysha et al., 2022). This has urged service providers to look for different means to respond to emerging challenges and safeguard their businesses in the long term. Prior research confirmed the importance of individual creativity in determining business growth and success (Faggian et al., 2017; Liu et al., 2020; Ogbeibu et al., 2020; Shafi et al., 2020; Shalley et al., 2009). They showed that stimulating the creativity among organizational personnel is a vital approach for maintaining an organization’s strengths and ensuring its continual growth. Numerous firms are also continuously searching for diverse means to motivate their staff to generate original or novel ideas and innovative solutions at the place of work (De Jong & Den Hartog, 2010; Gu et al., 2015). Accordingly, several researchers intended to understand the determinants of employee creativity, mainly, to identify the key aspects that nurture or hinder individual creativity (Feng et al., 2018; Jaiswal & Dhar, 2017; Javed et al., 2018; Yang et al., 2019). Leadership was widely regarded as one of the main factors that exerts an impact on organizational innovation (Keeton, 2018) and employees’ creative behaviours (Oldham & Cummings, 1996).

As organizations currently face intense competition and challenges, they need creative and dedicated staff to ensure their survival and growth. In the higher education context, creativity among employees can be apparently expressed in the fundamental functions of higher education that emphasize offering educational services that nurture students’ knowledge and skills (Ismayilova & Laksov, 2022). It also tends to be fostered through the ability to complete assigned jobs flexibly, adapt to change, and maintain a higher level of good work behaviour. Prior research outlined that authentic leadership plays an imperative role in increasing creativity (Ribeiro et al., 2020; Semedo et al., 2017) and organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB) among organizational personnel (Joo & Jo, 2017). Authentic leadership emphasizes on promoting positive managerial behaviours, for instance, greater self-awareness, ethical environment, and good morals. Such behaviours are indeed essential as they boost positive attitudes amongst the workforce (i.e., organizational commitment and creativity).

Certain scholars investigated the mediating effect of OCB between different types of leadership and employee performance outcomes (Jiang et al., 2017; Ribeiro et al., 2018). But it is rare to see an empirical study in the existing literature that verified if OCB mediates the association among authentic leadership and worker creativity—despite the fact that OCB is allied with greater organizational success. Semedo et al. (2017) also stated that most of the empirical researches on authentic leadership examined its effect on job satisfaction. It is also evident that the quantitative studies which were directed to test its impact on the creativity of employees and determine the possible mechanisms which may affect this relationship are limited. Therefore, this article focuses on making a key contribution to the social exchange theory that predicts the relationship amongst authentic leadership and worker creativity using a key mediating variable—OCB.

Prior literature also regarded transformational leadership as a key predictor of followers’ creativity (Jyoti & Dev, 2015; Krishna et al., 2022; Nguyen et al., 2022). It encompasses behaviours that inspire workforces to be enthusiastic in performing their job duties and accept the challenge of trying out new approaches to achieve a set of goals (Podsakoff et al., 1990). Furthermore, the transformational leadership approach has a momentous effect on the creativity of subordinates (Ma & Jiang, 2018) and is appropriate for detecting novel ideas that contribute to organizational efficiency. Transformational leaders have noteworthy roles in boosting confidence and instilling ethical values among their followers; consequently, their performance is likely to exceed expectations (Bushra et al., 2011). Despite the growing volume of empirical researches on transformational leadership association with employee creativity, the findings of earlier studies were inconsistent as certain scholars reported that the transformational leadership is negatively associated with followers’ creativity (Basu & Green, 1997), few found that a relationship between these constructs is positive (Gong et al., 2009; Qu et al., 2015; Shafi et al., 2020), while others concluded that there is no relationship between them (Ma & Jiang, 2018; Wang & Rode, 2010).

A large volume of research reveals that there are different organizational and managerial factors that altogether significantly contribute to maintaining and growing employee creativity (Drazin et al., 1999; Ford, 2000; Woodman et al., 1993) and that individual approaches are required for managing creativity; thus, authentic and transformational leadership can be modelled for finest psychological appeal. Although numerous previous studies investigated some construct that may mediate the link amongst leadership style and followers’ creativity (Henker et al., 2015; Shin & Zhou 2003), the core psychological processes that connect them is not examined yet. OCB was examined in prior research as a key mediating variable amongst certain leadership behaviours and job performance. Nevertheless, in the published literature, it is rare to find empirical studies that verified if OCB plays a significant role in mediating the association amongst transformational leadership type and employee creativity. Consequently, this article aims to address this gap.

In general, there has been a growing emphasis in the contemporary literature with regard to the role played by leaders in nurturing OCB among their followers (Bak et al., 2022; Elche et al., 2020; Newman et al., 2017). Nevertheless, the impact of leadership effectiveness on OCB can be determined by the perceptions of employees (Organ et al., 2006). Further, earlier research proved that OCB is essential for cultivating follower’s creativity and innovative job performance (Xerri & Brunetto, 2013), and a substantial amount of pertinent research confirms the importance of OCB in affecting individual creativity (Lofquist & Matthiesen, 2018; Turnipseed et al., 2013; Xerri & Brunetto, 2013). OCB can be measured according to employees’ actions and behaviours that exceed the call of duty; and it tends to be the outcome of healthy organizational environment. Organ et al. (2006) added that an employee’s OCB tends to be unveiled at the own discretion of an employee and is not allied with official rules and rewards in an organization. Despite its significance, there are very limited studies that tested and verified the mediating effect of OCB between the aforementioned leadership types and followers’ creativity, particularly, at higher learning institutions in Malaysia.

Malaysia is a culturally diverse country and regarded among the popular hubs of education in Southeast Asia (Ahmad & Buchanan, 2016; Ziguras & McBurnie, 2011). It has continuously contributed to achieving the aspirations of Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation in making higher prosperity for the Asia-Pacific region through supporting regional economic integration. The public higher education institutions in the country have more than 33,000 academic staff while private institutions have more than 2,500 staff (Da Wan et al., 2015; Ghasemy et al., 2018). Recently, the system of higher education in Malaysia has experienced a quick growth and increased challenges. Among these challenges was the absence of effective leadership in the higher education institutions, as this may potentially influence the performance and creativity of employees (Ghasemy et al., 2018). According to Ramjeawon and Rowley (2017), effective leadership is required for the Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in Malaysia to introduce appropriate policies and establish the right organizational climate for knowledge sharing and encouraging the creative behaviour among employees. Awang et al. (2020) also reported that Malaysian public institutions have to make investments in the training of transformational leaders and in the selection of capable administrators who possess leadership talents for encouraging the creativity and positive behaviours among employees. This research intends to make a noteworthy contribution to the current literature and social exchange theory through the exploration of the effects of authentic and transformational leadership on employee creativity in the higher education context. This article further contributes to the existing literature by addressing the following question: Does OCB mediate the relationship between authentic and transformational leadership and employee creativity? The subsequent sections provide a glimpse for the literature review of this paper, then; research method and analysis of results are presented. Finally, the article ends with a discussion, implications, conclusion, limitations, and suggestions for forthcoming studies.

Literature Review

Employee Creativity

Creativity has been expressed earlier as an individual’s ability to generate novel and valuable ideas, and it differs from the concept of innovation which refers to the capability to implement creative ideas successfully (Amabile, 1996; Jaiswal & Dhar, 2017). Developing creative ideas is necessary for innovation and enables an organization to obtain a competitive advantage (Jyoti & Dev, 2015). These ideas can be associated with the creation of new processes, new tangible goods, or new services (Gilson & Shalley, 2004). The level of creativity ranges on a continuum from slight modifications in current ideas to radically new ones (Ribeiro et al., 2020). However, in most organizations, less creative ideas that include minor changes to existing products tend to be more common than those of highly creative ones. Prior research viewed creativity as the end result of a process that encompasses three phases: identification of a problem, searching for information and encoding, and generation of ideas (Gilson & Shalley, 2004). When employees involve in the process of creativity, they usually achieve creative outcomes and have better performance (Feng et al., 2018). Therefore, it is essential for organizations that continuously seek new challenges and attempt to reach a set of goals to engage their employees and encourage them to generate creative ideas.

Nowadays, the rivalry has grown substantially among businesses in different contexts, and therefore, it is expected from employees to exhibit creative behaviour at the workplace and be engaged in producing valuable and novel ideas to face emerging challenges (Zhou & Hoever, 2014). Creativity is essential for amplifying loyalty and satisfaction among customers, and in addition to that, it enables an organization to maintain and grow its business (Gumusluoglu & Ilsev, 2009; Yang et al., 2017). Consequently, successful companies regularly strive for adopting new policies that nurture employee creativity and reward positive performance (Gong et al., 2009). A favourable and pleasant organizational climate stimulates creativity among employees, so it is the responsibility of leaders to inspire their followers and develop a supportive work environment that is characterized by fairness, integrity, and positive behaviour (Javed et al., 2018; Jyoti & Dev, 2015; Ribeiro et al., 2020). Accordingly, employees develop a feeling of motivation to express their ideas and interact with their supervisors (Shafi et al., 2020).

Organizational Citizenship Behaviour

OCB comprises all of the activities done voluntarily by employees above and more than their job requirements and without linking these actions to a compensation system (Lee et al., 2018; Podsakoff et al., 2000). It is displayed at the discretion of a worker and is not allied with formal rewards or organizational rules (Organ et al., 2006; Yadav & Punia, 2021). OCB was also described by Organ (1997) as the voluntary contributions of an employee to the improvement and growth of the organization. The author added that OCB provides significant implications to the effectiveness of an organization where employees exhibit this behaviour at their own choice without linking it to formal job requirements or reward system. Over the earlier years, the concept has been defined more precisely and extended to include the engagement of employees in favourable behaviours, for instance, taking extra work roles and assisting peers at the workplace (Podsakoff et al., 2000; Xerri & Brunetto, 2013). In any organization, OCB exists when the staff perform activities greater and more than their prescribed job requirements. Therefore, it upsurges education level at the institution as it permits them to contribute to educational pedagogies and other administrative work (Dahleez & Aboramadan, 2022). It also encourages them to accept institutional changes and minimize tensions at the workplace (Aboramadan et al., 2022).

In earlier literature (Podsakoff et al., 2009), it was reported that OCB has a positive association with corporate effectiveness, and this provides some support that OCB could lead to the creativity of employees. Prior research also showed that OCB has a positive influence on the creativity of employees (Javed et al., 2017; Öğretmenoğlu et al., 2021). With reference to the review of the existing research, it can be observed that there is limited evidence with regard to the empirical linkages between OCB and followers’ creativity. Thus, this article suggests that a corporate culture which encourages organizational members to regularly help each other and share their knowledge with their co-workers should be associated positively with creativity. Consequently, the following hypothesis is projected:

H₁: OCB has a positive impact on employee creativity.

Authentic Leadership

Authentic leadership theory has emerged as a new theory in leadership research and attracted the attention of several scholars in the past decades. Despite the well-established volume of research on this theory, numerous areas have not been explored yet. Authentic leadership is exemplified through the moral character and integrity of a leader, and the consistency between his or her principles, words, and behaviour. Luthans and Avolio (2003) described authentic leadership and stated that it can be differentiated by the distinct behavioural capabilities to set a clear vision and mission for the organization, which result in the higher self-awareness of a leader and positively influence subordinates’ behaviours. Luthans and Avolio (2003) employed the authenticity concept to integrate positive psychology and current leadership theories, hence describing authentic leaders as optimistic, confident, resilient, and hopeful. Walumbwa et al. (2007) also conceptualized authentic leadership as

‘a pattern of leader behaviour that draws upon and promotes both positive psychological capacities and a positive ethical climate, to foster greater self-awareness, an internalized moral perspective, balanced processing of information, and relational transparency on the part of leaders working with followers, fostering positive self-development’ (p. 94).

This form of leadership comprises several positive attributes, for instance, self-confidence, ambitions, positive emotions, and goal fulfilment for social and psychological well-being.

Authentic leadership stimulates employees’ critical thinking skills to the level that the authenticity of a supervisor has a significant effect on shaping and supporting creativity at the workplace (Imam et al., 2020; Sengupta et al., 2021). Throughout the literature, certain scholars regarded authentic leaders as effective organizational members who possess unique attributes, for instance, putting words into actions, acting upon their values and beliefs, and ability to foster social relationships with organizational personnel for the purpose of creating an organizational climate that focuses on nurturing and rewarding creativity (Rego et al., 2013). Accordingly, the innovative spirit and motivation of authentic leaders are presumed to be important for encouraging creative behaviour in the organization (Jaskyte & Kisieliene, 2006; Sengupta et al., 2021). According to Gavin and Mason (2004), authentic leadership arouses positive emotions of employees, which as a result, proliferates creative work behaviour. Furthermore, Zheng et al. (2022) indicated that the followers of authentic supervisors tend to have more intrinsic motivation because of the provided support from their leaders to improve self-determination, and this motivation ultimately promotes creativity at the workplace. Earlier studies found that authentic leadership is a significant predictor of employee creativity at the workplace (Imam et al., 2020; Lei, 2021; Sengupta et al., 2021; Walumbwa et al., 2008; Yıkılmaz & Sürücü, 2021), including more contemporary studies which reported that it is positively associated with creativity outcomes (Phuong & Takahashi, 2021).

Luthans and Avolio (2003, p. 243) described authentic leadership ‘as a process that draws from both positive psychological capacities and a highly developed organizational context, which results in both greater self-awareness and self-regulated positive behaviors on the part of leaders and associates, fostering positive self-development’. The conceptual roots of authentic leadership are therefore reflected in the positive psychology that put a more positive focus on what establishes authentic leadership attributes. Consistent with the social exchange theory, when organizational employees are treated fairly by their leaders, they tend to perform more than their required tasks by demonstrating behaviours that eventually add value to the entire organization. According to Avolio and Gardner (2005), authentic leaders focus on creating an innovative and fair organizational climate for the purpose of inducing their followers’ enthusiasm and engagement. They also attempt to facilitate citizenship behaviours among employees by increasing their awareness about the value and significance of assisting each other at the workplace (Mubarak & Noor, 2018). In line with some prior research, authentic leadership was found as a significant determinant of OCB (Ribeiro et al., 2021; Shie & Chang, 2022; Walumbwa et al., 2010). Other scholars also stated that engaged employees at the workplace are likely to display a higher degree of OCB, and this would ultimately improve the effectiveness, efficiency, and performance of the organization (Anitha, 2014; Milon & Shapira-Lishchinsky, 2021). Previous researches also showed that OCB has a positive impact on employee creativity (Javed et al., 2017) and could mediate the relationship amongst leadership types and individual performance. Sugianingrat et al. (2019) added that OCB is an important factor that mediates the relationship between ethical leadership and worker performance. However, based on a thorough review of published studies in this field, one would notice that it is difficult to cross a paper that verified if OCB really mediates the linkages between authentic leadership style and employee creativity. Therefore, this study proposes the following hypotheses:

H₂: Authentic leadership has a positive impact on employee creativity

H₃: Authentic leadership has a positive impact on OCB.

H₄: OCB mediates the association between authentic leadership and employee creativity.

Transformational Leadership

Khalili (2017) regarded transformational leadership as an effective form of leadership that exists through structuring organizational relationships to attain a mutual purpose by transforming, motivating, and improving the behaviours of subordinates and their moral aspirations. Transformational leaders emphasize on developing employees’ potentials, organizational schemes, career growth, ethics, and aspirations (Bass & Avolio, 1994; Ma & Jiang, 2018). These aspects encourage the subordinates to have a unity among each other, change their beliefs (Rafferty & Griffin, 2004), and place organizational interests over those of their own. Prior literature established that transformational leadership contains four distinct behaviours: articulation of an inspirational vision, intellectual stimulation, idealized influence, and individualized consideration (Bass, 1985). As stated by Gumusluoglu and Ilsev (2009), they represent the key driver of creative work behaviour. Specifically, transformational leadership is likely to be fostered through giving an individualized consideration to the followers by demonstrating care and compassion towards their concerns and becoming open to new suggestions or novel thoughts from them (Qu et al., 2015; Shin & Zhou, 2003). Accordingly, subordinates may be encouraged to develop creative behaviours, perform greater than the expectations, and think creatively to ensure organizational growth (Frese et al., 1999; Shin & Zhou, 2007). Likewise, intellectual stimulation is likely to increase the creativity of subordinates by motivating them to question significant assertions concerning the developed model of thoughts and routine activities and to delve into previous problems and circumstances in new means (Jung, 2001). Moreover, through exhibiting a charismatic behaviour (idealized influence) and the articulation of an inspirational vision, leaders influence employees to achieve more than the expectations and encourage them to put additional efforts to generate creative solutions for issues that emerge at workplace (Pradhan & Jena, 2019).

Due to the capabilities of transformational leaders in inspiring their subordinates to perform greater than their job responsibilities and challenge the existing situation (Bass & Avolio, 1990; Murphy & Anderson, 2020), they can enlarge their efforts in daily works for cultivating OCB at workplace (Podsakoff et al., 1990). According to Purvanova et al. (2006), ‘transformational leaders influence the way employees think about their work, leading them to view it as more rewarding, challenging, and meaningful, which affects the extent to which they engage in citizenship performance’ (p. 3). Moreover, followers of the transformational leaders are likely to have strong identification to their supervisors and demonstrate greater motives towards achieving superior performance (Boerner et al., 2008). In the prior literature, Podsakoff et al. (1990) found that OCB was positively associated with transformational leadership components. Other studies (Khan & Khan, 2022; Pattnaik & Sahoo, 2021; Purvanova et al., 2006) confirmed that transformational leadership affects workers’ OCB positively. However, despite the substantial examination of transformational leadership and organizational members’ OCB (Hur et al., 2011; Khalili, 2017; Khaola & Rambe, 2020; Lee et al., 2018), the existing studies on these concepts in developing nations are limited.

According to social exchange theory, transformational leadership attributes are vital for inspiring organizational personnel and stimulating their creative work behaviours, especially when leaders demonstrate courtesy and individualized consideration. Accordingly, the subordinates tend to exhibit better inner motivation, hence leading to greater creativity among them (Amabile et al., 1996). Sarros et al. (2008) indicated that transformational leaders build a supportive environment for creativity. Through this environment, employees get the chance to suggest creative methods without any fear. Transformational leaders motivate their subordinates to try different methods for the accomplishment of tasks, which improve creative behaviour at workplace (Howell & Avolio, 1993). Similarly, Jyoti and Dev (2015) outlined that effective leaders inspire their followers to learn and look for fresh as well as new ways of assignments’ completion. Numerous previous studies also proved the positive influence of this leadership type on staff creativity (Chaubey et al., 2019; Gelaidan et al., 2022; Jyoti & Dev, 2015; Krishna et al., 2022; Ma & Jiang, 2018; Qu et al., 2015). Furthermore, there are different factors that could mediate the association among transformational leadership and creativity. In previous literature, OCB was examined as a key mediator in the association among diverse types of leadership and job performance. Jiang et al. (2017) also found that OCB has a significant role in strengthening the relationship between transformational leadership and worker sustainable performance. However, it is difficult to see in the literature a study that proved if OCB really acts as a mediator amongst the transformational leadership and creativity of organizational members. In order to cover this gap, OCB is used in the current study as mediating variable between both variables. Therefore, the subsequent hypotheses are projected:

H₅: Transformational leadership has a positive impact on employee creativity

H₆: Transformational leadership has a positive impact on organizational citizenship behaviour.

H₇: OCB mediates the association between transformational leadership and employee creativity.

In line with the literature presented earlier along with underpinning theories, and existing gaps concerning the linkages between chosen constructs, the conceptual model for this study is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Source: The author.

Methodology

Sample and Procedures

Required data for this article were obtained via a survey tool from the employees of public HEIs in Malaysia over the period from April to July 2021. The designed survey was in English because it is the formal language of instruction at higher education institutions in Malaysia. To assure and verify the reliability of the chosen scales, a pilot test of 50 samples from the selected institutions was conducted, and minor amendments were made based on the suggestions and feedback of a few experts. Furthermore, to minimize the bias for social desirability, a direct communication with the respondents instead of relying on their organizations was done by the researchers and ascertained that their responses will be kept confidential. Overall, 1,304 questionnaires were sent online to employees serving in the public higher education institutions across the country, because it was difficult to meet them personally. The respondents are comprised of the administrative and academic staff at selected institutions because they are the right personnel to evaluate the leadership styles of their supervisors. They can also express the extent to which they involve in creative behaviour and have a sense of OCB at the workplace. However, only 243 of the questionnaires were filled and completed by the respondents. The total number of items for the constructs of this study was 40. Therefore, with reference to the suggestions of Nunnally (1967), the sample size is considered acceptable. Certain scholars also used similar sample sizes in data collection for these variables from employees’ perspective (Ausar et al., 2016; Javed et al., 2021; Mubarak & Noor, 2018; Rao & Abdul, 2015). A convenience sampling technique was employed to facilitate data collection process and obtain the desired responses. Specifically, the respondents were approached for participating in this study through email after obtaining the addresses of their emails from the websites of their institutions. In addition to the advantages of convenience sampling, for instance ease of usage and lower cost pressure, it was suitable for data collection without facing any complexities in reaching the respondents. Past studies also used convenience sampling procedures for collecting data from similar respondents at higher learning institutions.

Based on the recommendations of Armstrong and Overton’s (1977), the nonresponse bias was checked. This occurred through a comparison between the first 15% of responses with those of the latest 15% of completed surveys. The findings of independent sample t tests indicated that there are no significant differences among the means of early and latter responses, and this means that nonresponse bias does not cause any issue

Measures

Employee Creativity: It was measured according to a 4-item scale of Yang et al. (2017). The selected items were adapted in earlier research to a self-rating approach (Carmeli & Schaubroeck 2007; Henker et al., 2015). Moreover, Shalley et al. (2009, p.495) stated that ‘employees are best suited to self-report creativity because they are the ones who are aware of the subtle things they do in their jobs that make them creative’. Janssen (2000) added that minor creative methods may not be noticed by the external raters, while they can be captured only via self-report ratings. Thus, the participants were requested to specify which of their creative approaches have been shown at work within the previous four weeks based on a five-point Likert scale. An example of the items includes ‘During my work I tried out new ideas and approaches to problems’.

Organizational Citizenship Behaviour

It was measured in this study using four self-report items being taken from the study of Cardona et al. (2004). According to Van Dyne and Lepine (1998), OCB tends to be captured in a different way by self-evaluation, supervisors, and peers. The authors suggested that dissimilar sources of rating may be relevant for diverse purposes. Precisely, they recommended that

self-reports would be appropriate for studies involving self-conceptualization, self-image, self-representation, or self-development, but observer reports would be appropriate for research on behavior in organizational settings, where perceptions of others are critical determinants of feedback, promotions, transfers, and merit increases. (p. 118)

In general, a measure of self-report for OCB is considered suitable for this research for the reason that we are mainly concerned with OCB’s subjective development based on subjective attachments and perceptions. To avoid the likely desirability bias, the items were edited; therefore, it is easier to understand the intended meaning of each of them. For instance, the item ‘Makes innovative suggestions to improve department’ was modified to ‘I frequently suggest new ideas to improve my department.’

Although this measurement scale comprises items that represent compliance and the altruism dimensions of OCB, the exploratory factor analysis which was conducted through SPSS verified that only a single factor exists when the selected items were collectively analysed with the remaining items. Accordingly, as this research focuses on exploring the impact of authentic and transformational leadership characteristics on OCB, the items of OCB were treated as one factor and measured via a five-point Likert scale.

Authentic Leadership

The scale for measuring this construct was taken from Walumbwa et al. (2008). In total, there are 16 items being used to measure this construct. The 16 items measured four components: self-awareness which included 4 items, internalized moral perspective included 4 items, relational transparency included 5 items, and balanced processing (3 items). The respondents were requested to indicate their perceptions towards the behaviour of their supervisors via a five-point Likert-type scale (5 corresponds to ‘strongly agree’ while 1 corresponds to ‘strongly disagree’). A sample of the items include ‘My supervisor has a clear sense of how others perceive his/her ability’.

Transformational Leadership

Finally, the measurement scale of transformational leadership was taken from Bass and Avolio (1995). In line with Qu et al. (2015), charisma items were not included as they have received criticism for representing the impact of leadership instead of the behaviour of leaders. The respondents rated the behaviours of their supervisors through 16 items using a 5-point response scale (5 corresponds to ‘strongly agree’ while 1 corresponds to ‘strongly disagree’). A sample of the items include ‘My supervisor inspires us with his/her plans for the future’.

Analysis of Results

The current research relied on PLS-SEM to assess both the measurement and structural models. Additionally, the SPSS version 22 was utilized for conducting the descriptive analysis of respondents.

Respondents’ Profile

Out of 1,304 questionnaires being distributed to the participants, only 243 were filled and received, representing 18.6% of the response rate. As displayed in Table 1, the descriptive statistics revealed that 138 (56.8%) of those who took part in answering the survey are females and 105 (43.2%) are males. On the age profile, it was found that 9.9% were aged from 18 to 25 years, 39.5% were aged from 26 to 35 years, 40.3% were aged from 36 to 45 years, while only 10.3% were aged 46 years or above. Thus, a large portion of the sample’s participants were 36 to 45 years old. In terms of academic qualification, 66.7% had a postgraduate qualification, 27.2% had a bachelor’s degree, 4.1% had a diploma certificate, whereas only 2% had a high school certificate. With regard to work experience, it was found that most of the participants (62.5%) possess more than 5 years at their current academic institutions. Furthermore, most of the participants (73.7%) hold academic positions in their current institutions while non-academics represented 26.3% of overall response. Finally, all of the participants in the survey were full-time employees.

Table 1.

Respondents’ Profile.

	Category	%
Gender	Male	56.8
Gender	Female	43.2
Age	18 to 25 years	9.9
	26 to 35 years	39.5
	36 to 45 years	40.3
	46 years or above	10.3
Experience	<2 years	4.3
	2 to 5 years	21.8
	6 to 10 years	61.3
	More than 10 years	12.6
Highest qualification	High school certificate	2
	Diploma	4.1
	Undergraduate	27.2
	Postgraduate	66.7
Job role	Academic	73.7
	None-academic	26.3

Source: The author.

Common Method Bias and Collinearity Test

As the research approach followed the cross-sectional method and a self-reported technique was employed for collecting the data in the same survey, there is a likelihood for common method variance that may possibly lead to systematic measurement error and then cause biasness to the estimates of the associations between the four constructs of the study. Following the suggestions of Harman’s (1960) single-factor test, the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and full collinearity test which was proposed by Podsakoff et al. (2003) were checked to assess if there is any common method bias. While constraining the 40 measurement items of the selected constructs for loading on a single common variable, it was found that the variance explained by the common latent variable did not surpass the lowest acceptable value of 50%, and this means that the estimated model does not suffer from the issue of common method bias (Harman, 1960). Furthermore, all of the variance inflation factors (VIFs) were registered at a lower than 3.7 value in the full collinearity test, which indicates that there is no pathological collinearity.

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

The descriptive analysis (mean and standard deviations) in addition to the correlations amongst selected constructs were conducted (see Table 2). The Table 2 shows that the mean values came in the range from 3.79 to 4.15. The results also displayed that the minimum value for standard deviation is equal to 0.413 whereas the greatest value is 0.684. The analysis further indicated that the correlation between authentic leadership and employee creativity (r = 0.531, p < 0.01) as well as OCB (r = 0.551, p < 0.01) is positive. Moreover, Pearson Correlation results as displayed in the table confirmed the positive linkages between transformational leadership and OCB (r = 0.493, p < 0.01) as well as employee creativity (r = 0.558, p < 0.01). Further to that, OCB is positively and significantly correlated with employee creativity (r = 0.384, p < 0.01). Lastly, the analysis confirmed the positive correlation among authentic leadership and transformational leadership (r = 0.731, p < 0.01). According to these results, it can be said that there exists a positive association between all of the variables.

Table 2.

Correlations and Descriptive.

Variable	Mean	SD	Authentic Leadership	Transformational Leadership	OCB	Employee Creativity
Authentic leadership	4.15	0.413	1
Transformational leadership	3.87	0.471	0.731**	1
OCB	3.79	0.683	0.551**	0.493**	1
Employee creativity	3.90	0.684	0.531**	0.558**	0.384**	1

Note: **p < .01.

Measurement Model

In this research, PLS-SEM approach was employed for performing the analysis of data. At first, the measurement model was drawn for checking factor loadings, calculating the reliability and validity of measurement scales, and conducting CFA. Overall, the results (see Table 3) indicated that all factor loading values for the residual measurement items ranged from 0.500 to 0.918, which means they are acceptable as suggested by Hair et al. (2010). Accordingly, convergent validity is achieved. The Average Variance Extracted (AVE) is another test that was calculated in accordance with the suggestions of Fornell and Larcker (1981) to measure convergent validity. The authors specified that convergent validity can be achieved when the value of AVE for every construct surpasses 0.5. Generally, the statistical analysis depicted that convergent validity is maintained among all constructs. Moreover, Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability were used to measure the reliability of measurement scales. Hair et al. (2010) reported that the minimum tolerable value for both composite reliability and Cronbach’s alpha is 0.7. Based on the findings presented in Table 3, it can be noticed that all of the composite reliability and Cronbach’s alpha values for the constructs surpassed 0.70; hence, reliability assumptions are fulfilled.

Table 3.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis.

Construct	Item	Factor Loadings	Cronbach’s Alpha	Composite Reliability	AVE
Employee creativity	EC1	0.790	0.849	.898	0.689
	EC2	0.874
	EC3	0.899
	EC4	0.749
OCB	OCB1	0.500	0.737	.830	0.559
	OCB2	0.846
	OCB3	0.853
	OCB4	0.738
Authentic leadership
Self-awareness	SA1	0.769	0.786	.863	0.613
	SA2	0.892
	SA3	0.775
	SA4	0.681
Relational transparency	RT1	0.734	0.747	.841	0.571
	RT2	0.804
	RT3	0.811
	RT4	0.665
Moral internal perspective	MIP1	0.712	0.801	.869	0.625
	MIP2	0.860
	MIP3	0.820
	MIP4	0.762
Balanced processing	BP1	0.918	0.879	.925	0.805
	BP2	0.899
	BP3	0.874
Transformational leadership
Idealized influence	IIF1	0.650	0.733	.849	0.656
	IIF2	0.844
	IIF3	0.912
Intellectual stimulation	IS1	0.831	0.835	.890	0.670
	IS2	0.834
	IS3	0.842
	IS4	0.764
Individualized consideration	IC1	0.787	0.780	.859	0.606
	IC2	0.768
	IC3	0.803
	IC4	0.836
Inspirational motivation	IM1	0.828	0.799	.882	0.713
	IM2	0.872
	IM3	0.832

Source: The author.

The software of PLS-SEM also offers a unique approach to assess and test discriminant validity amongst the selected constructs according to the recommendations of Henseler et al. (2015). The authors proposed the heterotrait–monotrait (HTMT) ratio of correlations to estimate the disattenuated construct correlations. Through HTMT, the indicator correlations are contrasted among the constructs with the correlations within groups of indicators of the same constructs. The discriminant validity assumptions can be attained when the correlation value among any pair of constructs does not exceed 0.90. The analysis shown in Table 4 indicated that the correlation values among each pair of constructs did not exceed 0.90. Consequently, these findings show that an acceptable discriminate validity is achieved for the designed instrument.

Table 4.

Analysis of Discriminant Validity.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1. Balanced processing
2. Employee creativity	0.189
3. idealized influence	0.090	0.343
4. Intellectual stimulation	0.025	0.430	0.563
5. Moral internal perspective	0.088	0.506	0.449	0.752
6. OCB	0.175	0.489	0.533	0.605	0.449
7. Relational transparency	0.329	0.586	0.516	0.685	0.500	0.676
8. Self-awareness	0.271	0.572	0.355	0.660	0.407	0.718	0.760
9. Inspirational motivation	0.092	0.430	0.410	0.351	0.283	0.477	0.469	0.457
10. Individualized consideration	0.134	0.583	0.654	0.717	0.476	0.625	0.683	0.549	0.543

Source: The author.

Structural Model

The structural model for this study was generated (see Figure 2) after testing the reliability and validity among measurement scales and achieving acceptable values for them. Based on the final model, the proposed hypotheses were checked. The results displayed in Table 5 show that OCB is a significant predictor of employee creativity (β = 0.423, t-value = 5.198, p < 0.05), therefore, H₁ is accepted. The results further verified that authentic leadership had a positive influence on employee creativity (β = 0.169, t-value = 2.196, p < 0.05) and OCB (β = 0.400, t-value = 2.927, p < 0.05); thus, H₂ and H₃ are supported. Moreover, the results exhibited that transformational leadership has a positive impact on employee creativity (β = 0.137, t-value = 2.338, p < 0.05) and OCB (β = 0.324, t-value = 2.579, p < 0.05); thus, H₅ and H₆ are confirmed. Overall, authentic and transformational leadership explain 44.5% of the variance in OCB. Similarly, OCB explains 17.9% of variance in employee creativity.

Figure 2.

Source: The author.

Table 5.

Results of Hypotheses.

	Hypotheses		Original Sample	Sample Mean	t-value	p value
H ₁	OCB	→ Employee creativity	0.423	0.435	5.198	.000
H ₂	Authentic leadership	→ Employee creativity	0.169	0.176	2.196	.014
H ₃	Authentic leadership	→ OCB	0.400	0.396	2.927	.002
H ₅	Transformational leadership	→ Employee creativity	0.137	0.139	2.338	.010
H ₆	Transformational leadership	→ OCB	0.324	0.323	2.579	.005

Source: The author.

Further, the mediating role of OCB between the two leadership styles and employee creativity was estimated in accordance with the bootstrapping method. The procedure of bootstrapping was proposed earlier by Preacher and Hayes (2008) for testing the indirect/ mediating effect of a variable between the independent as well as a dependent variable. According to these authors, bootstrapping procedure is characterized by the ability to produce accurate statistical results through the calculation of confidence intervals (CI) for indirect hypotheses. As shown in Table 6, authentic leadership has a significant positive indirect effect on employee’s creativity (β = 0.169, p < 0.05). Lower bound’s value is registered at 0.018, while the value of upper bound is equal to 0.320. Apparently, zero value does not fall between them. In accordance with this finding, H₄ which projected that OCB has a mediating role amongst authentic leadership style and employee creativity is supported. Finally, the findings established that transformational leadership has a positive indirect effect on employee creativity via OCB (β = 0.137, p < 0.001). The analysis in Table 6 also displays that the value lower bound is equal to 0.021, whereas the upper bound is registered at 0.253. This means that the mediating effect of OCB amongst transformational leadership style and followers’ creativity is confirmed; consequently, H₇ is supported.

Table 6.

Results of Mediating Hypotheses.

	Hypotheses	Indirect Effect	SE	t-value	p value	95% LL	95% UL	Decision
H ₄	AL→OCB→EC	0.169	0.077	2.197	.000	0.018	0.320	Supported
H ₇	TL→OCB→EC	0.137	0.059	2.323	.001	0.021	0.253	Supported

Source: The author.

Discussion

This article focuses on exploring the direct as well as indirect effects of authentic and transformational leadership on employee creativity and verifying if OCB could mediate the link among the stated factors. The findings confirmed that in line with earlier literature (Öğretmenoğlu et al., 2021) OCB has a positive effect on the creativity of employees. More support can be seen in the study of Podsakoff et al. (2009) who verified the positive impact of OCB on organizational effectiveness, and this may provide some evidence for the significant association amongst OCB and the creativity of employees. Carmeli and Spreitzer (2009) added that the innovative behaviour of employees can be affected by enhancing their knowledge and skills via training programs or knowledge transfer, and therefore, organizational leaders should emphasize encouraging their subordinates to help and cooperate with each other. Throughout the review of published literature, it has been observed that there is scarce research that tested the empirical effect of OCB on worker creativity. Accordingly, this article contributes to the empirical research on both variables through its findings which showed that employee creativity can be positively affected by OCB.

Furthermore, the positive impact of authentic leadership on both OCB and employee creativity was confirmed in this study. These outcomes are in line with previous studies which reported that the perceptions of employees towards the authenticity of their leaders affect OCB (Iqbal et al., 2018; Joo & Jo, 2017; Quraishi & Aziz, 2018), as well as creativity at the workplace (Lei et al., 2021; Malik et al., 2016; Semedo et al., 2017). Specifically, authentic leaders are likely to behave in an honest and transparent manner while interacting with their subordinates, and as a result this fosters a truthful relationship among them and a favourable organizational climate (Černe et al., 2013). Accordingly, authentic leaders develop a favourable organizational culture in which OCB and employee creativity are built and encouraged. Moreover, the findings of this article established that OCB is a full mediator in the association among authentic leadership and followers’ creativity. The result indicates that authentic leadership can arouse the affective attachment of employees to the organization, which will ultimately stimulate their creativity. Ribeiro et al. (2018) added that certain attributes of authentic leaders are vital for creating favourable interactions with organizational personal owing to the fact that such leaders can instil confidence, develop optimistic feelings, and foster encouraging behaviour among them on hope they will reciprocate in the same way with better OCB. Hence, employees should have a psychological comfort in order to exhibit a creative behaviour (West & Altink, 1996).

Similarly, the findings of this research revealed that employee creativity can be positively influenced by transformational leadership. Earlier studies also provided evidence for the significant impact of transformational leadership on determining employee creativity (Henker et al., 2015; Liu & Huang, 2020; Nguyen et al., 2022). According to Shin and Zhou (2003), organizational commitment among employees can be nurtured when their leaders encourage and support them for adopting new work methods. Such behaviour can be reinforced when organizational leaders concentrate on improving the abilities of their followers in brainstorming original ideas and changing the present status quo (Bass & Avolio, 1990). In addition to that, transformational leaders tend to demonstrate empathy, individualized consideration and provide support for their followers. Such qualities could enable employees to challenge the current status quo without any fear, which subsequently leads to a greater creativity at the workplace. Moreover, the findings confirmed the positive impact of transformational leadership characteristics on OCB. This result matches those of previous empirical studies (Khalili, 2017; Lofquist & Matthiesen, 2018; Majeed & Jamshed, 2021) which confirmed the positive relationship between both constructs. This means that transformational leaders are influential in establishing a positive organizational culture and motivating their followers to exceed performance expectations, particularly, when reward policies are implemented. Finally, the results verified that OCB is a significant mediator in the association among transformational leadership and workers’ creativity. Therefore, it can be said that the views of employees toward their superiors who possess transformational leadership characteristics can stimulate their commitment, which as a result promotes their creativity at the workplace.

Practical Implications

The main aim of this article was to examine the effects of authentic and transformational leadership on employee creativity via the mediating role of OCB in a higher education context. The findings showed that authentic leadership positively influences employee creativity and OCB. Furthermore, the findings indicated that this effect is mediated by OCB. These outcomes reveal that decision makers at higher learning institutions should emphasize on establishing an organizational culture that encourages participation, values respect, and improves employees’ involvement, that will ultimately foster their creativity and commitment. Thus, it is important for higher education institutes to be vigilant while selecting their managers who could adopt authentic leadership and invest in their training and skills through various organizational programs. The results further indicate that managers at higher learning institutions who possess authentic attributes should be regularly trained for improving their coaching and supervising skills. Such activities tend to have a positive impact on the attitudes and creative behaviours of employees.

The positive impact of transformational leadership on OCB as well as employee creativity was confirmed in this study. OCB was further examined as a key mediating variable between transformational leadership and creativity, and the results supported its role in strengthening the relationship between both constructs. As leaders who have transformational attributes inculcate OCB among their subordinates, this tends to motivate them to improve their creativity at workplace and their ability to brainstorm novel ideas. This ultimately reinforces the competitiveness of the organization. According to these findings, it can be said that the characteristics of transformational leaders can be prolonged to deal with various needs of employees who reveal a creative behaviour in the higher education sector. Higher learning institutes are also recommended to provide a pleasant organizational climate to increase employees’ motivation. It is the duty of the management to ensure that employees get enough time for balancing their own and family life with institutional work. Besides that, leaders have to demonstrate truthfulness, honesty, respectfulness and courtesy at the workplace to foster their credibility, hence improving creativity behaviour and OCB among their subordinates.

Theoretical Implications

In this article, the key contribution to existing theory and literature appears through the exploration of the impact of both authentic and transformational leadership styles on employee creativity and verifying whether OCB mediates the relationship between them in the higher education context. This article answers to the call for conducting additional empirical studies with regard to the examination of how authentic and transformational leadership attributes affect individual creativity, and which mechanisms could mediate such relationships. It further aimed to expand both authentic leadership theory and social exchange theory through the assessment of their validity by bringing new insights from Malaysia. Particularly, the mediating effect of OCB in the association between the chosen leadership types (authentic and transformational leadership) and individual creativity has not been explored yet in the empirical literature. Therefore, the present article was sought to integrate all of these variables collectively in a single research framework. It is one of the earliest studies which tested the mediating role of OCB between these variables. The analysis showed that the creativity of employees could be influenced positively by the attributes of authentic and transformational leaders. Nevertheless, such impact can be nurtured efficiently through OCB which is provided by both types of leadership. Additionally, the results of this study were generated based on a rigorous research method that included data collection from a single source and thus minimized the potential risk of having a common method bias.

Conclusion

This study represents one of the early attempts for linking the selected types of leadership with employee creativity through OCB at higher learning institutions. The outcomes confirmed that authentic and transformational leadership behaviours influence creativity among employees, and this can be reinforced when employees exhibit positive OCB. Therefore, organizations should devise strategies that could assist them to develop effective leaders who can nurture creativity and OCB among their personnel. Such types of leadership are vital for encouraging employees in higher learning institutions to generate creative ideas at the workplace and suggest innovative solutions for prominent issues. Besides that, authentic as well as transformational leadership are necessary for motivating employees to display greater OCB and thus improving their creativity at the workplace. In the findings, there is clear evidence with regard to the importance of OCB in mediating the relationship amongst the selected forms of leadership and the creativity of organizational personnel at the higher education sector. These results also provide theoretical as well as practical suggestions that might be valuable for several researchers and business practitioners at higher education institutions when they are formulating human resource strategies.

Limitations and Forthcoming Research

Some limitations exist in this article and can be considered in forthcoming studies. Most importantly, the adoption of the cross-sectional survey may possibly bind our ability to establish some conclusive inferences on the causality. The positive linkages verified in this research may be considered correlational rather than causal. For instance, the significant relationships amongst authentic leadership, transformational leadership, employee creativity, and OCB would become complex because they may vary in different times. Therefore, a longitudinal design can be adopted in the future to verify the statistical linkages reported in the analysis. Future research can also employ larger sample sizes to strengthen the results. Another limitation exists due to the usage of self-reported data for verifying the hypotheses without involving the supervisors in evaluating their employees. Although the results did not prove the existence of any common method bias in the collected data, obtaining the responses from more than one level in the organization tends to increase its possibility. Consequently, forthcoming research may encompass the responses of participants at different levels in organizations for making comparisons between the variables to avoid any biases and attain objectivity. Moreover, the data were collected from employees in the Malaysian higher education sector; thus, the results may not be generalizable to other contexts without further testing. Finally, in this article, OCB was merely used as a key mediator for determining the indirect effect of selected leadership forms on employee creativity. Therefore, it is recommended for upcoming studies to test other mediating variables to improve our understanding with regard to the mechanisms through which both authentic and transformational leadership affect employee creativity at higher learning institutions.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

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

References

Aboramadan

, Hamid

, Kundi

Y. M.

, & El Hamalawi

(2022). The effect of servant leadership on employees’ extra-role behaviors in NPOs: The role of work engagement. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 33(1), 109-129. 10.1002/nml.21505

Ahmad

S. Z.

, & Buchanan

F. R.

(2016). Choices of destination for transnational higher education: ‘Pull’ factors in an Asia Pacific market. Educational Studies, 42(2), 163–180.

Amabile

T. M.

, Conti

, Coon

, Lazenby

, & Herron

(1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1154–1184.

Anitha

(2014). Determinants of employee engagement and their impact on employee performance. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 63(3), 308–323.

Armstrong

J. S.

, & Overton

T. S.

(1977). Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14(3), 396–402.

Ausar

, Kang

H. J. A.

, & Kim

J. S.

(2016). The effects of authentic leadership and organizational commitment on turnover intention. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 37(2), 181–199.

Avolio

B. J.

, & Gardner

W. L.

(2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 315–338.

Awang

A. H.

, Haron

, Zainuddin Rela

, & Saad

(2020). Formation of civil servants’ creativity through transformative leadership. Journal of Management Development, 39(4), 499–515.

Bak

, Jin

M. H.

, & McDonald III

B. D.

(2022). Unpacking the transformational leadership-innovative work behavior relationship: The mediating role of psychological capital. Public Performance & Management Review, 45(1), 80–105.

10.

Bass

B. M.

(1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectation. Free Press.

11.

Bass

B. M.

, & Avolio

B. J.

(1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. SAGE Publications.

12.

Bass

B. M.

, & Avolio

B. J.

(1990). The implications of transactional and transformational leadership for individual, team, and organizational development. Research in Organizational Change and Development, 4(1), 231–272.

13.

Basu

, & Green

S. G.

(1997). Leader-member exchange and transformational leadership: an empirical examination of innovative behaviors in leader-member dyads. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27(6), 477–499.

14.

Boerner

, Dütschke

, & Wied

(2008). Charismatic leadership and organizational citizenship behaviour: examining the role of stressors and strain. Human Resource Development International, 11(5), 507–521.

15.

Bushra

, Ahmad

, & Naveed

(2011). Effect of transformational leadership on employees’ job satisfaction and organizational commitment in banking sector of Lahore (Pakistan). International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(18), 261–267.

16.

Cardona

, Lawrence

B. S.

, & Bentler

P. M.

(2004). The influence of social and work exchange relationships on organizational citizenship behavior. Group & Organization Management, 29(2), 219–247.

17.

Carmeli

, & Schaubroeck

(2007). The influence of leaders’ and other referents’ normative expectations on individual involvement in creative work. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(1), 35–48.

18.

Černe

, Jaklič, M., & Škerlavaj

(2013). Authentic leadership, creativity, and innovation: A multilevel perspective. Leadership, 9(1), 63–85.

19.

Chaubey

, Sahoo

C. K.

, & Khatri

(2019). Relationship of transformational leadership with employee creativity and organizational innovation: A study of mediating and moderating influences. Journal of Strategy and Management, 12(1), 61–82.

20.

Da Wan

, Chapman

D. W.

, Zain

A. N. M.

, Hutcheson

, Lee

, & Austin

A. E.

(2015). Academic culture in Malaysia: Sources of satisfaction and frustration. Asia Pacific Education Review, 16(4), 517–526.

21.

Dahleez

K. A.

, Aboramadan

, & Sharikh

N. A.

(2022). Empowering leadership and healthcare workers performance outcomes in times of crisis: the mediating role of safety climate. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, 9(3), 401–421. 10.1108/JOEPP-03-2021-0080

22.

De Jong

, & Den Hartog

(2010). Measuring innovative work behaviour. Creativity and Innovation Management, 19(1), 23–36.

23.

Drazin

, Glynn

M. A.

, & Kazanjian

R. K.

(1999). Multilevel theorizing about creativity in organizations: A sensemaking perspective. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 286–307.

24.

Elche

, Ruiz-Palomino

, & Linuesa-Langreo

(2020). Servant leadership and organizational citizenship behavior: The mediating effect of empathy and service climate. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 32(6), 2035–2053.

25.

Faggian

, Partridge

, & Malecki

E. J.

(2017). Creating an environment for economic growth: creativity, entrepreneurship or human capital? International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 41(6), 997–1009.

26.

Feng

, Zhang

, Liu

, Zhang

, & Han

(2018). Just the right amount of ethics inspires creativity: A cross-level investigation of ethical leadership, intrinsic motivation, and employee creativity. Journal of Business Ethics, 153(3), 645–658.

27.

Ford

C. M.

(2000). Creative developments in creativity theory. Academy of Management Review, 25(2), 284–285.

28.

Fornell

, & Larcker

D. F.

(1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.

29.

Frese

, Teng

, & Wijnen

C. J.

(1999). Helping to improve suggestion systems: Predictors of making suggestions in companies. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20(7), 1139–1155.

30.

Gavin

J. H.

, & Mason

R. O.

(2004). The Virtuous organization: The value of happiness in the workplace. Organizational Dynamics, 33(4), 379–392.

31.

Gelaidan

H. M.

, Houtgraaf

, & Al-kwifi

O. S.

(2022). Creativity and innovation in rapidly developing Qatar: the impact of leadership and the mediation of psychological empowerment amidst rapid growth. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 35(3), 257–275.

32.

Gilson

L. L.

, & Shalley

C. E.

(2004). A little creativity goes a long way: An examination of teams’ engagement in creative processes. Journal of Management, 30(4), 453–470.

33.

Ghasemy

, Hussin

, Megat Daud

M. A. K.

, Md Nor

, Ghavifekr

, & Kenayathulla

H. B.

(2018). Issues in Malaysian higher education: A quantitative representation of the top five priorities, values, challenges, and solutions from the viewpoints of academic leaders. SAGE Open, 8(1), 1–15.

34.

Gong

, Huang

J. C.

, & Farh

J. L.

(2009). Employee learning orientation, transformational leadership, and employee creativity: The mediating role of employee creative self-efficacy. Academy of Management Journal, 52(4), 765–778.

35.

, Tang

T. L. P.

, & Jiang

(2015). Does moral leadership enhance employee creativity? Employee identification with leader and leader–member exchange (LMX) in the Chinese context. Journal of Business Ethics, 126(3), 513–529.

36.

Gumusluoglu

, & Ilsev

(2009). Transformational leadership, creativity, and organizational innovation. Journal of Business Research, 62(4), 461–473.

37.

Hair

J. F.

Jr. , Black

W. C.

, Babin

B. J.

, Anderson

R. E.

, & Tatham

R. L.

(2010). Multivariate data analyisis (7th ed.). Pearson Prentice Hall.

38.

Hanaysha

J. R.

, Al-Shaikh

M. E.

, Joghee

, & Alzoubi

H. M.

(2022). Impact of innovation capabilities on business sustainability in small and medium enterprises. FIIB Business Review, 11(1), 67–78.

39.

Harman

H. H.

(1960) Modern factor analysis. University of Chicago Press.

40.

Henker

, Sonnentag

, & Unger

(2015). Transformational leadership and employee creativity: The mediating role of promotion focus and creative process engagement. Journal of Business and Psychology, 30(2), 235–247.

41.

Henseler

, Ringle

C. M.

, & Sarstedt

(2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135.

42.

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.

43.

Hur

, Van Den Berg

P. T.

, & Wilderom

C. P.

(2011). Transformational leadership as a mediator between emotional intelligence and team outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(4), 591–603.

44.

Imam

, Naqvi

M. B.

, Naqvi

S. A.

, & Chambel

M. J.

(2020). Authentic leadership: unleashing employee creativity through empowerment and commitment to the supervisor. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 41(6), 847–864.

45.

Iqbal

, Farid

, Ma

, Khattak

, & Nurunnabi

(2018). The impact of authentic leadership on organizational citizenship behaviours and the mediating role of corporate social responsibility in the banking sector of Pakistan. Sustainability, 10(7), 2170.

46.

Ismayilova

, & Laksov

K. B.

(2022). Teaching creatively in higher education: The roles of personal attributes and environment. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 1–13.

47.

Jaiswal

N. K.

, & Dhar

R. L.

(2017). The influence of servant leadership, trust in leader and thriving on employee creativity. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 38(1), 2–21.

48.

Janssen

(2000). Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fairness and innovative work behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73(3), 287–302.

49.

Jaskyte

, & Kisieliene

(2006). Determinants of employee creativity: A survey of Lithuanian nonprofit organizations. International Society for Third-Sector Research and The Johns Hopkins University, 17, 133–141.

50.

Javed

, Iqbal

S. M. J.

, & Imran

(2021). Sustainable leadership and employee innovative behavior: Discussing the mediating role of creative self-efficacy. Journal of Public Affairs, 21(3), e2547.

51.

Javed

, Khan

A. A.

, Bashir

, & Arjoon

(2017). Impact of ethical leadership on creativity: The role of psychological empowerment. Current Issues in Tourism, 20(8), 839–851.

52.

Javed

, Rawwas

M. Y.

, Khandai

, Shahid

, & Tayyeb

H. H.

(2018). Ethical leadership, trust in leader and creativity: The mediated mechanism and an interacting effect. Journal of Management & Organization, 24(3), 388–405.

53.

Jiang

, Zhao

, & Ni

(2017). The impact of transformational leadership on employee sustainable performance: The mediating role of organizational citizenship behavior. Sustainability, 9(9), 1567.

54.

Joo

B. K.

, & Jo

S. J.

(2017). The effects of perceived authentic leadership and core self-evaluations on organizational citizenship behavior: The role of psychological empowerment as a partial mediator. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 38(3), 463–481.

55.

Jung

D. I.

(2001). Transformational and transactional leadership and their effects on creativity in groups. Creativity Research Journal, 13(2), 185–195.

56.

Jyoti

, & Dev

(2015). The impact of transformational leadership on employee creativity: the role of learning orientation. Journal of Asia Business Studies, 9(1), 78–98.

57.

Keeton

(2018). Command, leadership, intelligence and management (CLIM): A proposed theory for improved strategic leadership. FIIB Business Review, 7(2), 146–151.

58.

Khalili

(2017). Transformational leadership and organizational citizenship behavior: The moderating role of emotional intelligence. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 38(7), 1004–1015.

59.

Khan

A. N.

, & Khan

N. A.

(2022). The nexuses between transformational leadership and employee green organisational citizenship behaviour: Role of environmental attitude and green dedication. Business Strategy and the Environment, 31(3), 921–933.

60.

Khaola

, & Rambe

(2020). The effects of transformational leadership on organisational citizenship behaviour: The role of organisational justice and affective commitment. Management Research Review, 44(3), 381–398.

61.

Krishna

, Upadhyay

R. K.

, Ansari

K. R.

, & Babu

(2022). Transformational leadership and employee retention: a moderated mediation model of intrinsic motivation and perceived organisational support. International Journal of Learning and Intellectual Capital, 19(2), 135–153.

62.

Lee

Y. H.

, Woo

, & Kim

(2018). Transformational leadership and organizational citizenship behavior: Mediating role of affective commitment. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 13(3), 373–382.

63.

Lei

, Qin

, Ali

, Freeman

, & Shi-Jie

(2021). The impact of authentic leadership on individual and team creativity: A multilevel perspective. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 42(4), 644–662.

64.

Liu

C. H. S.

, & Huang

Y. C.

(2020). The influence of transformational leadership on subordinate creative behaviour development process. Tourism Management Perspectives, 36, 100742.

65.

Liu

, Zhu

, Liu

, & Fu

(2020). The influence of leader empowerment behaviour on employee creativity. Management Decision, 58(12), 2681–2703.

66.

Lofquist

E. A.

, & Matthiesen

S. B.

(2018). Viking leadership: How Norwegian transformational leadership style effects creativity and change through organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 18(3), 309–325.

67.

Luthans

, & Avolio

B. J.

(2003). Authentic leadership development. In Cameron

K. S.

, Dutton

J. E.

& Quinn

R. E.

(Eds), Positive organizational scholarship (pp. 241–258). Berrett-Koehler.

68.

, & Jiang

(2018). Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, and employee creativity in entrepreneurial firms. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 54(3), 302–324.

69.

Majeed

, & Jamshed

(2021). Heightening citizenship behaviours of academicians through transformational leadership: Evidence based interventions. Quality & Quantity, 1–32.

70.

Malik

, Dhar

R. L.

, & Handa

S. C.

(2016). Authentic leadership and its impact on creativity of nursing staff: A cross sectional questionnaire survey of Indian nurses and their supervisors. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 63, 28–36.

71.

Milon

, & Shapira-Lishchinsky

(2021). Authentic leadership as a mediator between professional identity, ethical climate, citizenship behavior and political behavior. International Journal of Educational Management, 35(4), 741–753.

72.

Mittal

, & Dhar

R. L.

(2015). Transformational leadership and employee creativity: mediating role of creative self-efficacy and moderating role of knowledge sharing. Management Decision, 53(5), 894–910.

73.

Mubarak

, & Noor

(2018). Effect of authentic leadership on employee creativity in project-based organizations with the mediating roles of work engagement and psychological empowerment. Cogent Business & Management, 5(1), 1–14.

74.

Murphy

W. H.

, & Anderson

R. E.

(2020). Transformational leadership effects on salespeople’s attitudes, striving, and performance. Journal of Business Research, 110, 237–245.

75.

Newman

, Schwarz

, Cooper

, & Sendjaya

(2017). How servant leadership influences organizational citizenship behavior: The roles of LMX, empowerment, and proactive personality. Journal of Business Ethics, 145(1), 49–62.

76.

Newman

, Neesham

, Manville

, & Tse

H. H.

(2018). Examining the influence of servant and entrepreneurial leadership on the work outcomes of employees in social enterprises. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 29(20), 2905–2926.

77.

Nguyen

T. P. L.

, Nguyen

T. T.

, Duong

C. D.

, & Doan

X. H.

(2022). The effects of transformational leadership on employee creativity in Vietnam telecommunications enterprises. Management Decision, 60(3), 837–857.

78.

Nunnally

J. C.

(1967). Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill.

79.

Organ

D. W.

(1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It’s construct clean-up time. Human Performance, 10(2), 85-97.

80.

Ogbeibu

, Senadjki

, Emelifeonwu

, & Vohra

P. S.

(2020). Inspiring creativity in diverse organizational cultures: An expatriate integrity dilemma. FIIB Business Review, 9(1), 28–41.

81.

Öğretmenoğlu

, Akova

, & Göktepe

(2021). The mediating effects of green organizational citizenship on the relationship between green transformational leadership and green creativity: Evidence from hotels. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Insights, 5(4), 734–751.

82.

Oldham

G. R.

, & Cummings

(1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39(3), 607–634.

83.

Organ

D. W.

, Podsakoff

P. M.

, & Mackenzie

S. B.

2006, Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature, antecedents, and consequences. SAGE Publications.

84.

Pattnaik

S. C.

, & Sahoo

(2021). Transformational leadership and organizational citizenship behaviour: the role of job autonomy and supportive management. Management Research Review, 44(10), 1409–1426.

85.

Phuong

T. H.

, & Takahashi

(2021). The impact of authentic leadership on employee creativity in Vietnam: a mediating effect of psychological contract and moderating effects of subcultures. Asia Pacific Business Review, 27(1), 77–100.

86.

Podsakoff

N. P.

, Whiting

S. W.

, Podsakoff

P. M.

, & Blume

B. D.

(2009). Individual-and organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 122.

87.

Podsakoff

, MacKenzie

, Lee

, & Podsakoff

(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.

88.

Podsakoff

P. M.

, MacKenzie

S. B.

, Paine

J. B.

, & Bachrach

D. G.

(2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26(3), 513–563.

89.

Podsakoff

P. M.

, MacKenzie

S. B.

, Moorman

R. H.

, & Fetter

(1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), 107–142.

90.

Pradhan

, & Jena

L. K.

(2019). Does meaningful work explains the relationship between transformational leadership and innovative work behaviour? Vikalpa, 44(1), 30–40.

91.

Preacher

K. J.

, & Hayes

A. F.

(2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891.

92.

Purvanova

R. K.

, Bono

J. E.

, & Dzieweczynski

(2006). Transformational leadership, job characteristics, and organizational citizenship performance. Human Performance, 19(1), 1–22.

93.

Ramjeawon

P. V.

, & Rowley

(2017). Knowledge management in higher education institutions: enablers and barriers in Mauritius. The Learning Organization, 24(5), 366–377.

94.

Rao

A. S.

, & Abdul

W. K.

(2015). Impact of transformational leadership on team performance: An empirical study in UAE. Measuring Business Excellence, 19(4), 30–56.

95.

Rego

, Vitória

, Magalhães

, Ribeiro

, & Cunha

M. P.

(2013). Are authentic leaders associated with more virtuous, committed and potent teams? The Leadership Quarterly, 24(1), 61–79.

96.

, Janssen

, & Shi

(2015). Transformational leadership and follower creativity: The mediating role of follower relational identification and the moderating role of leader creativity expectations. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(2), 286–299.

97.

Quraishi

, & Aziz

(2018). An investigation of authentic leadership and teachers’ organizational citizenship behavior in secondary schools of Pakistan. Cogent Education, 5(1), 1437670.

98.

Rafferty

A. E.

, & Griffin

M. A.

(2004). Dimensions of transformational leadership: Conceptual and empirical extensions. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(3), 329–354.

99.

Ribeiro

, Duarte

A. P.

, Filipe

, & David

(2021). Does authentic leadership stimulate organizational citizenship behaviors? The importance of affective commitment as a mediator. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 13(2), 320–340.

100.

Ribeiro

, Duarte

A. P.

, Filipe

, & de Oliveira

R. T.

(2020). How authentic leadership promotes individual creativity: The mediating role of affective commitment. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 27(2), 189–202.

101.

Ribeiro

, Duarte

A. P.

, & Filipe

(2018). How authentic leadership promotes individual performance: mediating role of organizational citizenship behavior and creativity. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 67(9), 1585–1607

102.

Sarros

J. C.

, Cooper

B. K.

, & Santora

J. C.

(2008). Building a climate for innovation through transformational leadership and organizational culture. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 15(2), 145–158.

103.

Semedo

A. S. D.

, Coelho

A. F. M.

, & Ribeiro

N. M. P.

(2017). Authentic leadership and creativity: The mediating role of happiness. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 25(3), 395–412.

104.

Sengupta

, Sharma

, & Singh

(2021). Authentic leadership fostering creativity in start-ups: Mediating role of work engagement and employee task proactivity. Business Perspectives and Research, 9(2), 235–251.

105.

Shafi

, Lei

, Song

, & Sarker

M. N. I.

(2020). The effects of transformational leadership on employee creativity: Moderating role of intrinsic motivation. Asia Pacific Management Review, 25(3), 166–176.

106.

Shalley

C. E.

, Gilson

L. L.

, & Blum

T. C.

(2009). Interactive effects of growth need strength, work context, and job complexity on self-reported creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 52(3), 489–505.

107.

Shie

E. H.

, & Chang

S. H.

(2022). Perceived principal’s authentic leadership impact on the organizational citizenship behavior and well-being of teachers. SAGE Open, 12(2), 1–14.

108.

Shin

S. J.

, & Zhou

(2003). Transformational leadership, conservation, and creativity: Evidence from Korea. Academy of Management Journal, 46(6), 703–714.

109.

Shin

S. J.

, & 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(6), 1709.

110.

Sugianingrat

I. A. P. W.

, Widyawati

S. R.

, da Costa

C. A. D. J.

, Ximenes

, Piedade

S. D. R.

, & Sarmawa

W. G.

(2019). The employee engagement and OCB as mediating on employee performance. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 68(2), 319–339.

111.

Turnipseed

P. H.

, & Turnipseed

D. L.

(2013). Testing the proposed linkage between organizational citizenship behaviours and an innovative organizational climate. Creativity and Innovation Management, 22(2), 209–216.

112.

Van Dyne

, & LePine

J. A.

(1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 108–119.

113.

Walumbwa

F. O.

, Avolio

B. J.

, Gardner

W. L.

, Wernsing

T. S.

, & Peterson

S. J.

(2008). Authentic leadership: Development and validation of a theory-based measure. Journal of Management, 34(1), 89–126.

114.

Walumbwa

F. O.

, Lawler

J. J.

, & Avolio

B. J.

(2007). Leadership, individual differences, and work-related attitudes: A cross-culture investigation. Applied Psychology, 56(2), 212–230.

115.

Walumbwa

F. O.

, Peterson

S. J.

, Avolio

B. J.

, & Hartnell

C. A.

(2010). An investigation of the relationships among leader and follower psychological capital, service climate, and job performance. Personnel Psychology, 63(4), 937–963.

116.

Wang

, & Rode

J. C.

(2010). Transformational leadership and follower creativity: The moderating effects of identification with leader and organizational climate. Human Relations, 63(8), 1105–1128.

117.

West

M. A.

, & Altink

W. M.

(1996). Innovation at work: Individual, group, organizational, and socio-historical perspectives. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5(1), 3–11.

118.

Woodman

R. W.

, Sawyer

J. E.

, & Griffin

R. W.

(1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18(2), 293–321.

119.

Xerri

M. J.

, & Brunetto

(2013). Fostering innovative behaviour: The importance of employee commitment and organisational citizenship behaviour. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(16), 3163–3177.

120.

Yadav

, & Punia

B. K.

(2021). A Paradigm for validating organisational citizenship behaviour scale in Indian context. FIIB Business Review. 10.1177/23197145211051166

121.

Yang

, Gu

, & Liu

(2019). Servant leadership and employee creativity: The roles of psychological empowerment and work–family conflict. Current Psychology, 38(6), 1417–1427.

122.

Yang

, Liu

, & Gu

(2017). A multi-level study of servant leadership on creativity. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 38(5), 610–629.

123.

Yıkılmaz

İ.

, & Sürücü

(2021). Leader–member exchange as a mediator of the relationship between authentic leadership and employee creativity. Journal of Management & Organization, 1–14.

124.

Yousef

D. A.

(2000). Organizational commitment: A mediator of the relationships of leadership behavior with job satisfaction and performance in a non-western country. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 15(1), 6–28.

125.

Zheng

, Liu

, Liao

, Qin

, & Ni

(2022). How and when top manager authentic leadership influences team voice: A moderated mediation model. Journal of Business Research, 145, 144–155.

126.

Zhou

, & Hoever

I. J.

(2014). Research on workplace creativity: A review and redirection. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 333–359.

127.

Ziguras

, & McBurnie

(2011). International student mobility in the Asia-Pacific: From globalization to regional integration? Higher education in the Asia-Pacific (pp. 123–140). Springer.