Artículo 02 - HR - Leader Creativity1-Main

Human Resource Management Review 28 (2018) 271–288
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Human Resource Management Review

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/hrmr
HR systems, attachment styles with leaders, and the

T
creativity–innovation nexus
⁎
Matej Černea, Saša Batističb, , Renata Kendac
a
University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Economics, Department of Management and Organization, Slovenia
b
Tilburg University, School of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Department of Human Resource Studies, The Netherlands
c
Tilburg University, School of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Department of Organization Studies, The Netherlands
AR TI CLE I NF O AB S T R A CT
Keywords: The aim of this paper is to bring together literature on strategic human resource management and
Leadership attachment styles leadership and theorize about their cross-level interplay. Specifically, we offer propositions in
HR systems relation to the interactive influence of attachment styles that followers perceive to have devel-
Creativity oped in their dyadic relationship with their leaders/supervisors and HR systems on individual
Innovation
innovation processes. We narrow in on three leadership attachment styles perceived by em-
ployees (secure, anxious, and avoidant) and two opposite HR systems in organizations (com-
pliance and commitment) in order to propose that their interactions have different roles in
predicting two different elements of employees' innovative work behavior: idea generation and
idea implementation behaviors. Our theorizing results in a conceptual model and a matrix of 12
specific propositions about potentially promoting (complementing or positively supplementing)
or inhibiting (in the case of no fit or negative supplement) multiple effects of different combi-
nations of attachment styles and HR systems. We conclude by discussing suggestions for future
research, methodological considerations, and practical implications.
1. Introduction
The innovation process at the individual (employee) level is complex, consisting of two major phases – idea generation and
implementation – with different demands related to resources, mindsets and required skills (cf. Baer, 2012; Montag, Maertz, & Baer,
2012; Škerlavaj, Černe, & Dysvik, 2014). The role of human resource (HR) management as a strategic partner in organizations has
been emphasized in the extant HR literature, and linked with innovation as well, albeit only recently, and is portrayed as a contextual
top-down catalyst for innovation (Shipton, Sanders, Bednall, Lin, & Escribá-Carda, 2016; Wang, Guidice, Tansky, & Wang, 2010). In
line with the devolution-to-the-line perspective in HR (Perry & Kulik, 2008), the role of immediate supervisors is becoming in-
creasingly important for work performance, with respect to shaping the context of work and immediately influencing it. We thus
know that we need both leaders and the HR system to work together in order to foster innovation. However, the existing literature
fails to clearly answer how leadership interacts with HR, which should act as a co-creator of how employees perceive their re-
lationships with their supervisors (Garavan, Watson, Carbery, & O'Brien, 2015; Gustafsson, Abbey, & Hope Hailey, 2016) and what
the outcomes of such interactions are.
We draw from attachment theory, which provides a dynamic and interpersonal perspective to leadership studies (Popper,
Mayseless, & Castelnovo, 2000). Attachment styles describe relational schemas that correspond to strategies of affect regulation,
⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: matej.cerne@ef.uni-lj.si (M. Černe), s.batistic@uvt.nl (S. Batistič), r.kenda@uvt.nl (R. Kenda).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2018.02.004
1053-4822/ © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

M. Černe et al. Human Resource Management Review 28 (2018) 271–288
which result from different patterns of interactions that followers have with their supervisors (Davidovitz, Mikulincer, Shaver, Izsak,
& Popper, 2007; Hinojosa, Davis McCauley, Randolph-Seng, & Gardner, 2014; Keller, 2003). Applied to leadership, attachment
theory is based on beliefs about both oneself and others (Manning, 2003) that help followers interpret their dyadic interactions with
leaders. Narrowing in on two opposite HR systems in organizations (compliance and commitment) and three leadership attachment
styles perceived by the employees (secure, anxious, and avoidant), we propose that their cross-level interactions have different roles
in predicting two different elements of employees' innovative work behavior: idea generation and idea implementation behaviors,
respectively.
We theorize about the potentially attenuating or accentuating effects of HR systems on the attachment style typology, proposing
either a complementary or a supplementary fit (Cable & Edwards, 2004; Muchinsky & Monahan, 1987) between the two, depending
on particular interactions. In other words, we conceptualize the interplay between followers' perceptions of the leadership attachment
style and HR system, either as supplementary (possessing similar or matching characteristics, which can lead to either a positive or a
negative joint effect) or complementary (when the weaknesses of the attachment style are offset by the strength of the context or vice
versa, making the effect enhancing) fit, or a situation of no fit when neither of the congruence types can be claimed. While the
traditional notion of person-environment fit would be in favor of supplementary fit, where leaders should be in line with the HR
systems in enacting HR policies, we argue that in some instances, linked with specific characteristics of each stage of the micro-
innovation process, models of complementary fit, and potential discordance, are more beneficial.
With our conceptual paper, we intend to contribute to the body of literature placed at the intersection between leadership and
HRM in three ways. Firstly, our study goes beyond either the traditional focus on transactional–transformational leadership, where
the focus is on the leader's behavior toward the followers (task or people oriented) or the concentration on specific leadership styles,
such as authentic, servant, or ethical leadership (Avolio, Walumbwa, & Weber, 2009), in stimulating innovative work behavior. The
processes of leadership influence can be captured through those perspectives, but are more one-way, leader-centric, and exclude the
follower from that perspective (Shamir, 2007) and thus do not reflect both parties involved in an exchange relationship. Rather, we
look into attachment styles, which enable us to look at the dyadic relationships between leaders and others by accounting for
interpersonal premises about oneself and others at the same time (Manning, 2003; Popper et al., 2000), specifically narrowing in on
how followers make sense and interpret these dyadic interactions in order to co-construct leadership. Attachment styles thus describe
a unique array of understanding relations at work by simultaneously accounting for both relational dynamics and individual dif-
ferences (Davidovitz et al., 2007; Popper & Amit, 2009). Such an approach not only enables us to understand a full spectrum of
leadership approaches but also predominantly focuses on how immediate supervisors are connected with their employees, thus
looking at the leadership process, leader–follower relations and reactions, and follower perceptions of these associations simulta-
neously.
Because of this relational nature of leadership attachment styles, followers' perceptions of leader–member exchange (Graen &
Cashman, 1975; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995) are similar to the interactive logic of long-term bonds that develop between supervisors and
their employees. Although secure attachment style and LMX or social LMX (Kuvaas, Buch, Dysvik, & Haerem, 2012) share similar
characteristics of mutual trust, long-term orientation, and collegial relations based on caring and development, attachment theory
provides two more styles that cannot be seen as mere opposites of low levels of LMX. Anxious and avoidant attachment styles include
specific elements of followers perceiving leaders as prioritizing their own emotions and needs and seeking attention and appreciation
(in the case of anxious attachment), or to be insensitive and uncaring, thereby ignoring followers' and others' attachment needs (in the
case of avoidant attachment). Such perceptions may or may not be present when the dyadic leader–follower relationship is char-
acterized only by low LMX, which is why anxious and avoidant attachment styles provide a more nuanced and specific antithesis to
LMX.
The choice of leadership attachment styles is particularly relevant when considering creativity and innovation as our outcomes
because both have been deemed to be heavily influenced by immediate supervisors and the followers' personal characteristics
(Škerlavaj et al., 2014; Zhou, 2003). Leadership attachment framework enables us to account for both simultaneously. We focus on
the context (boundary conditions) of leadership attachment styles (in line with Hansbrough, 2012) with regard to HR systems.
Namely, we look into how the effects of leadership attachment styles on specific elements of innovative work behavior might be
shaped and molded by compliance and commitment HR systems, which activate internal interpretative models of explaining, un-
derstanding, and co-creating attachment styles in the supervisor–employee dyads. This enables us to account for the dyadic re-
lationship, followers' sense making of this association, and its outcomes within different cross-level contextual influences.
Secondly, the investigation of HR systems within the proposed interplay with followers' perceptions of leadership attachment
styles represents an important addition to the extant literature. High Performance Work Systems (HPWS), specific functional HR
practices, or commitment-based HR (e.g., Chuang, Jackson, & Jiang, 2016; Klaas, Semadeni, Klimchak, & Ward, 2012; Zhu, Chew, &
Spangler, 2005) have been examined in connection with leadership in predicting either creativity (idea generation) or innovation
(idea implementation) (Ceylan, 2012; Chang, Jia, Takeuchi, & Cai, 2014). Existing research has also advocated for further ex-
amination of the joint influences of social and contextual forces on the innovation processes (Dul, Ceylan, & Jaspers, 2011). This
represents a more explicit approach, which accounts for the fact that HR systems might be suitable for one organization but not for
another (Lepak & Snell, 1999). In examining how HR systems can represent cross-level contextual conditions for the individual-level
relationship between followers' perceptions of leadership attachment styles and micro innovation, we also apply a multi-level per-
spective (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000; Wright & Nishii, 2013; Yammarino & Dansereau, 2008).
Thirdly, based on the notion described above, we derive from the most recent findings of the micro innovation literature that idea
generation entails crucially different characteristics than idea implementation (Baer, 2012; Perry-Smith & Mannucci, 2017; Škerlavaj
et al., 2014) as well as how dyadic leadership–followership relationships within the contextual conditions of organizational systems
272
HR systems:
COMMITMENT
COMPLIANCE
Level 2:
Organizational level
Level 1:
Individual level
Followers' perceptions of
SECURE
Innovative work behavior:
LEADER - FOLLOWER ANXIOUS IDEA GENERATION
IDEA IMPLEMENTATION
AVOIDANT
dyadic attachment style
Predictor Moderator Outcome

Fig. 1. Conceptual model of the cross-level interplay between followers' perception of leadership attachment styles and HR systems.
influence both facets. An overwhelming belief among HR as well as leadership scholars and practitioners has been to focus on how to
encourage employees to become and remain creative in the workplace. However, a less prevailing belief, yet a profoundly important
reality, is that creative ideas need to be implemented in order to have business value. We thus propose that particular types of social-
contextual conditions, such as interactions between leadership attachment styles as perceived by followers and types of HR systems
are beneficial for one aspect of the individual innovation processes (i.e., idea generation), and different conditions are favorable for
stimulating other aspects (i.e., idea implementation). In other words, our framework taps into how leaders and HR can work together
(or oppose each other) in fostering these sometimes seemingly paradoxically different facets of innovative work behavior.
2. Theoretical perspective
In developing a theoretical foundation for this article, we have primarily drawn from leadership attachment styles (Harms, 2011)
and the HR (Lepak & Snell, 1999, 2002) literature to discuss their implications for creativity and innovation at the individual level.
Taken apart, each set of theories offers only part of the underlying logic of how organizations can effectively manage their employees
to achieve and maintain a competitive advantage; yet, applied together, they provide further insight into how the desirable outcomes
of creativity and innovation unfold. The broader conceptual model is presented in Fig. 1, which demonstrates the direct effect of
leadership attachment styles that followers perceive through dyadic interactions with their leaders, and the contextual boundary
conditions of HR systems on two different facets of innovative work behavior. From the model, it is evident that attachment styles, as
perceived by the followers, are proposed to directly influence innovative work behavior. This is in line with the leadership-for-
innovation literature, which suggests that innovative behavior is strongly linked to the leader-follower relationship quality (Harms,
2011; Scott & Bruce, 1994; Scott & Bruce, 1998).
However, these direct effects are moderated by HR systems at levels above an individual at work. The multi-level nature of HR
systems, where they can be perceived and enacted differently at different levels (enacted at the organizational level and perceived at
the individual level), indicates that HR systems have a contextual role in helping to shape how followers' perceptions of relevant
work-related factors, phenomena and output (Chang et al., 2014; Ostroff & Bowen, 2016). Specifically, HR systems shape the sense
making of the outcomes of leadership attachment styles perceived by followers. HR systems act as situational cues into what is valued
as beneficial in one context but not desirable by another (Arefin, Arif, & Raquib, 2015; Hempel, 2014; Searle, Bachmann, & Zaheer,
2013). Based on specific HR practices of performance appraisal, rewarding, training, and so on, stemming from either a compliance-
or commitment-based HR philosophy, employees can make sense of cues received from their dyadic interaction with leaders. This
helps them to understand the aspects of innovative work behavior that are more valued in their work setting.
Deriving from the logic presented above, we develop a set of 12 propositions for specific cross-level interactions of leadership
attachment styles perceived by subordinates and HR systems in predicting idea generation and idea implementation behaviors,
respectively.
2.1. Leadership, attachment theory, and followers' perceptions of leadership attachment styles
Leadership has received vast attention in the literature focused on promoting followers' creativity and innovation (Gumusluoglu &
273
Ilsev, 2009; Gupta & Singh, 2015). Both the social perspective of creativity (Shalley & Gilson, 2004) and literature on the micro-
foundations of innovation implementation (Baer, 2012; Škerlavaj et al., 2014) speak about the link between intra- and interpersonal
characteristics in influencing innovative work behavior. Leadership attachment styles include both and account for followers' per-
sonal characteristics and the dyadic relationship they perceive to have with their supervisors, considering a more complex account of
leadership conditions for innovation.
Attachment theory (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978; Ainsworth & Parkes, 1991; Bowlby, 1958) traditionally builds on
the concepts of evolution and developmental psychology, looking at the relationship of an infant and his or her primary caretaker. It
argues that a person builds an attachment style (secure, anxious, avoidant) toward primary caregivers in childhood to survive and
that this style also constitutes to this person's interactions in future relationships (Ainsworth & Parkes, 1991). Although the intensity
of the attachment behavior reduces with age and shifts to other people besides parents (e.g., siblings, friends, companions)
(Ainsworth, 1989), research on attachment theory can also be applied to adult relationships (Ainsworth & Parkes, 1991) and is
extendable to the workplace environment (Scrima, Di Stefano, Guarnaccia, & Lorito, 2015). As suggested by Richards and Schat
(2011), individual attachment can potentially explain how individuals function at work, as their attachment style reflects how they
see themselves and others simultaneously, providing a unique insight in understanding a dyadic relationship (Manning, 2003; Popper
et al., 2000).
Several authors have also investigated attachment theory and styles in connection to leadership (Hinojosa et al., 2014; Kafetsios,
Athanasiadou, & Dimou, 2014) (i.e., they considered leaders as attachment figures in order to provide a more nuanced understanding
of the leader–follower relationship). Mayseless (2010) described the characteristics of leadership dyads with different attachment
styles. In leadership dyads with secure attachment style, leaders are perceived to trust others and be self-confident, empathic, and
more relational, with a capacity for sensitive care toward others. Such dyads are perceived to incorporate a pro-social orientation
toward the followers, generally promoting followers' personal growth, confidence, commitment and feelings of being appreciated
(Mikulincer & Shaver, 2010). This may result in followers' increased confidence, empowerment, devotion and consequently pro-
ductivity (Davidovitz et al., 2007; Popper & Mayseless, 2003). On the other hand, in leadership dyads characterized by an anxious
attachment style, leaders are perceived to be insensitive, prioritizing their own emotions and needs and seeking to be noticed and
appreciated. Such dyads may involve less sensitive and effective leadership, possibly indicating the self-focused needs of a leader.
Similarly, in dyads with avoidant attachment style, leaders are perceived to be very insensitive and uncaring toward other people,
and they ignore their own as well as other peoples' attachment needs. Dyads, in which anxious and avoidant attachment styles are
perceived, are associated with less pro-social and sensitive caregiving and thus fail to provide security, leading to followers' insecurity
and demoralization. This consequently boosts followers' distress, resulting in self-doubts, psychological defense, diminished per-
formance and growth. Such leader-follower relationships may be consequently malfunctional, conflicting and unfavorable
(Davidovitz et al., 2007).
Attachment theory can be applied to the leadership field because the leader–follower relationship is comparable to the par-
ent–child connection, in which the leader—like a mother or father—guides, directs, and takes care of the followers who depend on
him or her (Popper & Mayseless, 2003). Moreover, Freud (2004) had already introduced the idea of a leader as a father long ago.
Leaders are also often expected to provide a so-called “secure base” (to provide safety and promote creativity and personal growth
when employees are not distressed) and a “safe haven” (to provide comfort and encouragement in times of distress) (Mayseless,
2010). It is important to note that, in this paper, we specifically focus on followers' perception of the leader, who plays the role of the
attachment figure—meaning that the followers' interpretation of the leader's behavior impacts their relationship (dyadic interaction).
This consequently relates to the followers' individual innovative work behavior, which is one of the focal interests of this paper.
2.2. HR systems: organizational context shaping Individuals' attitudes and behaviors
The HR literature suggests that one of the most salient factors of achieving competitive advantage (Barney, 1991) is represented
by organizations' employees. Not all employees generate outstanding value in order to achieve or maintain competitive advantage;
however, every organization has some critical “core” workers, while other individuals are more peripheral (Purcell, 1999), which is
in most cases referred to with the term “human resource advantage” (Boxall, 1998). Based on these ideas, transaction cost economics
and human capital theory, Lepak and Snell (1999) proposed an HR system architecture model that groups employees in organizations
into four categories based on two dimensions: the extent to which the particular form of human capital represents a valuable resource
for the organization and the extent to which it is unique or specific for the organization. These four groups of HR systems are:
commitment-, productivity-, collaborative-, and compliance-based.
HR systems characterize properties of an organizational context that affects individuals' attitudes and behaviors through carefully
designed policies and practices for managing individuals, as well as through the expectations and obligations of the employment
relationship (e.g., relational vs. transactional). Even if different combinations of HR systems can be used for the same cohort of
employees, much like Lepak and Snell (2002), we argue that one dominant system may always be more protruded. We selected the
two diametrically opposing HR systems based on two key criteria. The first is the reinvigorating focus on permanent versus temporal
workforce, which the two systems reflect (De Cuyper et al., 2008). The second is the fact that authors have suggested that more
research needs to be done comparing different systems, not just one (e.g., HPWS) (Su, Wright, & Ulrich, 2015). This would allow a
clearer picture of which systems may be best or if the mixture of the two may also lead to better outcomes. Thus, it seems timely and
warranted to follow the recent line of strategic HR research and explore two opposing HR configurations (Batistič, Černe, Kaše, &
Zupic, 2016; Su et al., 2015): commitment- and compliance-based. Using the two furthest opposed HR systems will allow for clearer
theoretical theorizing about both extremes.
274
On one extreme, a commitment HR system relies on heavily investing in the motivation, empowerment, and development of those
who hold vital knowledge for the organization. These “core” employees are perceived as being especially valuable for the organi-
zation's strategy, and organizations make extra efforts to motivate and retain them, as they are not readily available on the labor
marketplace (Lepak & Snell, 1999). Typical examples of HR practices used in such systems would cover empowerment, job rotation,
360 performance appraisals, frequent training, and benefits packages. The HR activities in such systems are intended to develop a
long-term, trusting relationship between the organization and the employees. Since the psychological link between them is strong
(Rousseau, 1995), the need for control is minimal and employees are given considerable discretion. Work is structured to allow
flexibility and change, as well as to enable employees' participation in decision making, and it also strongly emphasizes training and
development to increase the employees' knowledge and skills, particularly if they are firm-specific (Lepak & Snell, 2002).
On the other end of the continuum, a compliance HR system is considered to be purely transactional and short-term oriented, and
it strives to ensure worker compliance with preset rules, regulations, and/or procedures (Lepak & Snell, 2002). Examples of such HR
practices would be performance appraisals based on preset standards, hourly pay, and very specific job designs. Organizations that
adopt this system suppose that employees are externally motivated and therefore must be extensively monitored and controlled
(Boxall & Macky, 2009). They also do not put effort into developing long-term relationships because they assume that their human
capital is neither highly valuable nor specific and that such employees are readily available on the labor market. Finally, a compliance
HR configuration usually features an explicit statement of economic exchange, low discretion at work, limited training concentrated
on enforcing rules and complying with work protocols, and hourly wages for accomplishing specific tasks (Lepak & Snell, 2002).
Adopting such an approach allows us to go beyond studies that only look at certain sets of HR practices and their effects on
innovation (Ceylan, 2012; Chang et al., 2014), in which effectively managing individuals, in order to influence creativity and in-
novation, has already been acknowledged as an important factor. However, looking at this narrow linkage has at least two major
problems. Firstly, such literature does not tackle more nuanced scenarios, in which not all employees are equally strategically
important for innovation and the creative process. For example, some individuals have greater potential for, or derive greater
satisfaction from, producing creative outcomes at work than others (Cummings & Oldham, 1997). Secondly, in only looking at one
possible HR system, we neglect the fact that the one-size-fits-all approach might not be the best in some cases. As noted before, not all
individuals need the same sets of practices to show innovative behavior, thus acknowledging that different HR systems can coexist in
an organization, which seems to be an intriguing proposition worth exploring (Lepak & Snell, 1999; Purcell, 1999).
In this paper, we focus on general HR systems rather than specific HR systems/activities aimed explicitly at intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation to foster idea generation and implementation (Amabile & Pratt, 2016). Looking at broader HR systems provides some
important conceptual advantages. First, it allows generalization to a broader employees' workforce as idea generation and im-
plementation are important processes regardless of the department/business unit. Second, general HR systems are more aligned with
a reality where the idea generation and implementation process is more common and important, such as in smaller organizations
(Gallego, Rubalcaba, & Hipp, 2013). In these organizations, introduction of specific HR systems (e.g., only aimed at R&D workers) is
more difficult and problematic compared to the institution of general HR systems.
2.3. Idea generation and implementation: outcomes of the cross-level interplay between followers' perceptions of leadership attachment styles
and HR systems
Creativity (understood in our study as a synonym of idea generation) is defined as the generation of novel and useful ideas
(Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby, & Herron, 1996; Škerlavaj et al., 2014). It is thus a necessary yet insufficient antecedent to in-
novation, which also includes the implementation of creative ideas (Scott & Bruce, 1994). Innovation at the micro- (individual) level
thus encompasses two different and at times conflicting processes: creativity and implementation. Creative ideas must not only be
new but also useful (Rosing, Frese, & Bausch, 2011). Idea generation and idea implementation are thus rather distinct activities (Baer,
2012) and are related to different behaviors in terms of exploration and exploitation (Miron-Spektor, Erez, & Naveh, 2011).
Therefore, these two integral parts of the micro innovation process require different resources, settings, or contextual circumstances
that may be mutually exclusive or difficult to combine. A strong focus on one of those activities may in fact prevent the other from
being executed successfully (Škerlavaj et al., 2014).
Cross-level influences are critical in identifying and understanding group factors that can facilitate or stifle creative or innovative
behavior in a complex social system (Shalley & Zhou, 2008). This is why our propositions stemming from theorizing about the
interactive influence between HR systems and leadership attachment styles on idea generation and idea implementation, respec-
tively, will ultimately follow a multilevel logic. By focusing on the HR systems in organizations, as well as on individual perceptions
of leadership attachment styles between employees and immediate supervisors/line managers/team leaders, we thoroughly con-
ceptualize the influence of work context on the individual-level innovation components. Such an approach accounts for evaluative
information about dyadic occurrences and perceptions of leadership as well as for the higher-level context of HR systems (which co-
shapes these perceptions). This is crucial for understanding which combination of contextual factors leads to the highest levels of idea
generation and implementation, respectively.
3. The interactive roles of followers' perceptions of the leadership attachment styles and HR systems
3.1. Interactions between followers' perceptions of the leadership attachment styles and a compliance HR system
Employees' perceptions of having developed a secure leadership attachment style in their dyadic relationships with immediate
275
supervisors provide higher levels of psychological safety (Collins & Feeney, 2000). This is because a secure attachment style enables
the capacity for autonomous action as situationally appropriate (Bowlby, 1988; Simmons, Gooty, Nelson, & Little, 2009). In turn, this
generally results in higher levels of perceived creative autonomy and generally higher levels of creative behavior (Baer & Frese, 2003;
Kark & Carmeli, 2009; West, 2002). We thus assume that followers' perceptions of the existence of a secure leadership attachment
style would promote idea generation.
However, we argue that this is not the case within the conditions of a compliance HR system. This is because this system presumes
structure, following rules, obeying them, and being punished for not executing them (Lepak & Snell, 2002). In such a context, idea
generation might be seen as an extra-role endeavor that does not directly contribute to the company's immediate, preset, and
standardized performance. The higher-level compliance context would either stifle the secure leadership attachment style, leading to
the prevailing influence of the company's general context of obedience to the strict rules, or the two would act in contrast. In other
words, there would be a situation of “no fit” (Cable & Edwards, 2004). This situation would result in conflicting instructions (O'Hara
& Sternberg, 2001) or a trade-off for employees regarding how they should go about their work behavior—whether they should
follow the stringent agendas and guidelines or think outside the box to spawn creative ideas. As a consequence, the goals to achieve
the outcome of creative behavior are not clear.
The creativity literature—which has adopted the goal-setting view (cf. Lee, Locke, & Latham, 1989) stating that clear outcome
goals generally act as a crucial contingency for unleashing creative output (Aleksić, Černe, Dysvik, & Škerlavaj, 2016)—informs us
that we should not expect high levels of creativity under such conditions. Individuals without clear goals and signals about their
expected outcome cannot direct all their attention and effort toward generating creative and appropriate responses (Shalley, 1995).
We propose that this is the case within the interactive setting of no fit between a compliance HR system and a secure leadership
attachment style. Psychological safety promoted by a secure attachment style would not be complemented by appropriate contextual
cues provided by a compliance HR system. A compliance HR system would thus moderate the positive relationship between followers'
perceptions of a secure leadership attachment style and employee idea generation, making the relationship less positive:
Proposition 1. The interaction between a compliance HR system and followers' perceptions of a secure leadership attachment style
generally inhibits employee idea generation.
On the other hand, idea implementation is much more based on the exploitation mindset than idea generation is (Baer, 2012; He
& Wong, 2004), and the secure leadership attachment style should act as an important catalyst for the implementation process.
Namely, the literature on creative-idea implementation suggests that perceived supervisor support acts as a crucial contingency that
helps employees to implement their own or others' creative ideas (Škerlavaj et al., 2014). Supervisors who are perceived as sup-
portive, which can be associated with the secure attachment style (Simmons et al., 2009), assist in providing the employees with
access to resources as well as stimulate their perceptions of competence and relatedness, yielding superior work functioning at the
individual level and leading to higher levels of idea implementation (Škerlavaj et al., 2014). We thus assume that followers' per-
ceptions of the existence of a secure leadership attachment style would also promote idea implementation.
This might be further strengthened by rules and structure, which are, in contrast to fostering idea generation, important for
stimulating an exploitation mindset needed for implementation. A compliance HR system provides this context when individuals
perceive themselves to be in a secure attachment relationship since it delivers preset expectations and a structure regarding what
should be done and how (Lepak & Snell, 2002). Such a goal- and performance-oriented focus is aligned with the view of innovation as
performance, which is a rather highly accepted premise in the contemporary dynamic and quickly changing environment. Idea
implementation contributes to the business case by providing immediate tangible benefit (Baer, 2012; Škerlavaj et al., 2014), which is
more likely to be valued in the compliance HR system's conditions. Therefore, compliance HR system characteristics and the secure
attachment style are in complementary fit to stimulate higher levels of individual-level idea implementation. The compliance HR
system should moderate the positive relationship between followers' perceptions of a secure attachment style and idea im-
plementation, enhancing the relationship and making it even more positive:
Proposition 2. The interaction between a compliance HR system and followers' perceptions of a secure leadership attachment style
generally promotes employee idea implementation.
The attachment literature reports on the dysfunctional nature of anxious attachment bonds, related to anger and distress while
dealing with unresolved problems (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2005). Moreover, when providing help, leaders in anxious dyadic con-
nections may be perceived as being too intrusive and controlling (Feeney & Collins, 2004). Followers perceive such leaders as
ambiguous in evaluations regarding expertise and competence, which can weaken followers' perceptions of competence and con-
sequently make them rely too much on the leader (Keller, 2003). All of this contradicts the qualities that promote idea generation,
which describe a leader as an enthusiastic role model who provides empowerment and clear direction without too much control
(Pieterse, Van Knippenberg, Schippers, & Stam, 2010). We thus assume that followers' perceptions of an anxious leadership at-
tachment style would inhibit idea generation.
A compliance HR system itself does not provide a creativity-stimulating working environment due to the transactional nature of
exchanges and the mechanistic context, in which any divergence from the prescribed rules is undesired (Lepak & Snell, 1999). In this
way, the moderator will not play an ameliorating role in the direct relationship between the followers' perceptions of the existence of
an anxious attachment style and their idea generation. A leader within an anxious attachment bond adheres to the communal norms
(Clark & Aragon, 2013), making a scenario where the HR system would shape the outcome toward a positive direction unlikely. Based
on the aforementioned arguments, we suggest there is a supplementary negative fit between followers' perceptions of an anxious
leadership attachment style and a compliance HR system. The compliance HR system would moderate the negative relationship
276
between followers' perceptions of an anxious attachment style and idea generation, inhibiting the relationship and making it even
more negative:
Proposition 3. The interaction between a compliance HR system and followers' perceptions of an anxious leadership attachment style
generally inhibits employee idea generation.
As noted by different authors, immediate supervisors play an important role in promoting innovation (Amabile, 1996; Mumford,
Scott, Gaddis, & Strange, 2002). They have control over formal decisions on resource allocation and prioritize tasks and assign them
to employees (Rank, Nelson, Allen, & Xu, 2009). Nonetheless, highly creative employees also need a suitable environment in which to
implement their ideas, which includes supportive leaders who provide instrumental and socioemotional support and care about their
opinions, well-being, goals, and values (Škerlavaj et al., 2014). This is not consistent with followers perceiving their leaders to possess
an anxious attachment style. In such dyads, employees would be inclined to perceive leaders as providing help but at the same time
exerting too much intrusion and control (Feeney & Collins, 2004), which is not desirable in such freedom- and autonomy-prone work
settings. Moreover, if employees perceive the leaders to doubt their work (Keller, 2003), this can hardly result in facilitating a suitable
environment of support, care, and well-being for idea generation. We thus assume that followers' perceptions of an anxious leadership
attachment style would also inhibit idea implementation.
Since a compliance HR system provides a more structural approach that emphasizes rules and regulations, it might in itself be
better suited for a setting that promotes idea implementation (Baer, 2012). However, the system's messages need to be accounted for
in an interaction with supervisors' actions (Zupan & Kaše, 2007), which the anxious attachment style does not seem to support.
Employees perceive an anxious leader to be too controlling, as such leaders doubt employees' genuine intentions. In this case, it is
very likely that the positive message of compliance HR systems for idea implementation will be lost, consequently providing too
structured and strict of an approach that will involve detailed procedures, which can have a detrimental impact (Mumford et al.,
2002) since the appropriate amount of freedom and autonomy to foster more innovation among employees (Amabile et al., 1996) will
not be present. Consequently, we suggest there is a supplementary negative fit between an anxious leadership attachment style and a
compliance HR system in promoting idea implementation. A compliance HR system would moderate the negative relationship be-
tween followers' perceptions of an anxious attachment style and idea implementation, inhibiting the relationship and making it even
more negative:
Proposition 4. The interaction between a compliance HR system and followers' perceptions of an anxious leadership attachment style
generally inhibits employee idea implementation.
A leader with an avoidant attachment style usually provides employees with low support, as individuals with high avoidance see
relationships as relatively unimportant while valuing their independence and self-reliance more (Collins & Feeney, 2000). Employees
may perceive that they cannot trust or depend on their leader, which in turn leads them to defensively suppress their attachment
needs (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003). Subsequently, this will result in a high level of uncertainty and unclearly communicated goals,
ultimately resulting in lower performance among individuals (Mayseless, 2010). This will most probably result in diminished idea
generation, whereas optimal results may be achieved with a more supportive leader (Škerlavaj et al., 2014). We thus assume that
followers' perceptions of the existence of an avoidant leadership attachment style would inhibit idea generation.
This negative influence could be attenuated by the strict HR system in place, resulting in a complementary fit situation, fostering
idea generation. Avoidant individuals might predominately communicate HR systems' messages for egoistic reasons and avoid any
other form of interaction that makes individuals' environments more predictable (Mayseless, 2010). Building on this notion,
avoidance has been found to be positively associated with self-reliance motives to lead (e.g., to decide alone) and negatively asso-
ciated with task-orientated motives (e.g., to help others perform better) (Davidovitz et al., 2007).
Differently than secure attachment, where leaders are supportive yet unable to counter the detrimental consequences of the
compliance HR system, individuals with an avoidant bond with their leader cannot make perfect sense of their surroundings. On one
hand, the leader's relationship avoidance will make their task more uncertain, yet on the other hand, some clear messages will come
through the strict compliance HR system. This uncertain situation might be just enough to stimulate individuals into starting some
risky behaviors, such as role innovation or task revision (Fuller, Marler, Hester, & Otondo, 2015; Griffin, Neal, & Parker, 2007), in
order to make the necessary changes to create a more predictable environment. As noted by Ilgen and Hollenbeck (1991), when
control cannot be (fully) executed—as it is impossible to anticipate all contingencies—it is more difficult to formalize task re-
quirements. When uncertainty is high due to poor communication, work roles might emerge dynamically in response to changing
conditions and demands (Katz & Kahn, 1978). However, as these risky behaviors are complemented by some strict rules, we expect an
increase in creative behavior that would mitigate the lack of leader-provided information for the accomplishment of a task. This
suggests that the compliance HR system and the perception of an avoidant attachment style work in a complementary fit to stimulate
higher levels of idea generation. Therefore, compliance systems will moderate the negative relationship between followers' per-
ception of an avoidant attachment style and idea generation, enhancing the relationship and making it cumulatively positive:
Proposition 5. The interaction between a compliance HR system and followers' perceptions of an avoidant leadership attachment
style generally promotes employee idea generation.
We have already established that the role of the supervisors is crucial for idea implementation (Perry-Smith & Mannucci, 2017;
Škerlavaj et al., 2014). Followers' perceptions of competence and relatedness that get fostered by supportive supervision are lacking
in dyads characterized by the avoidance attachment style. We thus assume that followers' perceptions of an avoidant leadership
attachment style would also inhibit idea implementation.
277
The moderation effect of the compliance HR system is not as straightforward as it seems. At first glance, a compliance HR system
may provide an ideal context for idea implementation, as its strict rules provide a very good structure—what should be done and how
it should be done—that is crucial for idea implementation (Baer, 2012). As such, this structure will potentially enhance idea im-
plementation by providing the organization with the necessary exploitation of creative ideas to implement them quickly, effectively
boosting innovation and performance (cf. Baer & Frese, 2003).
On the other hand, this structural approach can also yield negative consequences for idea implementation under particular
supervisory interactions. The lack of meaningful social relationships, as emphasized in this system, and the employees' perceptions of
an avoidant attachment style, will act negatively toward idea implementation, as this process is inherently embedded within social
contexts (Somech & Drach-Zahavy, 2013); individuals need to exchange, integrate, and disseminate their ideas in order to implement
them. Idea implementation is a political process and as such is heavily dependent on networking (Baer, 2012).
We believe that such a hindrance, boosted by the leader, will neutralize the partially beneficial effects spawning from the
compliance HR system. Such a situation will create a dysfunctional push–pull cycle in which the individual hoping to receive support
from the leader will try to achieve greater attachment, yet the leader will pull away to become more distant (Hinojosa et al., 2014).
Based on these arguments, we propose that the compliance HR system and the perception of an avoidant attachment style would lead
to a no-fit situation that provides a mixed message resulting from a negative effect emerging from the supervisor dyad and a positive
top-down effect from the HR systems. A compliance HR system would thus moderate the negative relationship between followers'
perceptions of an avoidant attachment style and idea implementation, buffering this negative relationship and making it less ne-
gative.
Proposition 6. The interaction between a compliance HR system and followers' perceptions of an avoidant leadership attachment
style generally inhibits employee idea implementation.
3.2. Interactions between followers' perceptions of the leadership attachment styles and a commitment HR system
A secure attachment style contributes to high levels of perceived creative autonomy, where employees perceive that their su-
pervisor does not expect them to base their work on strict rules and structure (Hinojosa et al., 2014; Lynch, 2013). This leads to
perceptions of higher capacity for autonomous and independent action (Bowlby, 1988). A commitment HR system is aligned with the
secure attachment style in stimulating psychological safety, a positive atmosphere, and an altogether safe environment (Collins &
Feeney, 2000; Lepak & Snell, 2002; Meyer & Maltin, 2010) for generating creative ideas. Such a setting produces a focus on learning,
mastery and development, and supports trial and error. Mistakes are not punished as often or as strictly as they would be in the
compliance HR system, and freedom is promoted.
Autonomy that stems from such an aligned secure/commitment setting is a critical element of creative thought because it gives
people the ability to focus on one idea for a long period of time, thus allowing them to step outside of their ordinary daily routines
and enabling creative ideas to become fully developed (Amabile et al., 1996). It provides the employees with the feeling of control
(Csikszentmihalyi, 1992) and participative safety that employees require to be creative (Choi, Anderson, & Veillette, 2009). As a
result, employees are likely to perceive their workplace as a safe place that is amenable to them and to the accomplishment of their
goals (Simmons et al., 2009). Therefore, the congruence (i.e., supplementary fit) between a commitment HR system and the secure
attachment leadership style described above should be conducive for stimulating idea generation. In other words, a commitment HR
system would moderate the positive relationship between followers' perceptions of a secure leadership attachment style and idea
generation, enhancing the relationship and making it even more positive:
Proposition 7. The interaction between a commitment HR system and followers' perceptions of a secure leadership attachment style
generally promotes employee idea generation.
In order to stimulate the highest levels of idea implementation, leaders should control and monitor employee work (Amabile,
Schatzel, Moneta, & Kramer, 2004; Krause, 2004) but also permit a degree of participation and involvement (Amabile et al., 2004).
Although autonomy is required for creative action, an adequate degree of structure that enables employees to implement creative
ideas is also necessary (Baer, 2012). Even if leaders should limit the extent to which they control the innovation process, some degree
of guidance and performance monitoring, as well as a strict stick-and-carrot arrangement, may be required for innovation im-
plementation to reach its potential (Paulus, 2008; Škerlavaj et al., 2014).
While attachment security is generally seen as a positive construct (Hinojosa et al., 2014; Simmons et al., 2009), it might not be
optimal in interactions with a commitment HR system. Such an environment might provide too loose of an arrangement (Batistič
et al., 2016; Lepak & Snell, 1999), in which a balance of constraint-guided, efficient implementation of creative ideas (Costello &
Keane, 2000) is lacking. Individuals would feel too secure; there would be too many “carrots” and not enough “sticks.” A perfor-
mance-oriented perception would also be lacking (Lepak & Snell, 2002), therefore not promoting speed and uptake of achievement
(i.e., idea implementation). In order to ensure high levels of idea implementation, employees need to keep channeling their per-
formance efforts toward the desired outcome.
The employees need imaginative freedom, on one end, but also a rooted sense of reality on the other. Too much freedom that
stems from employees' perception of having a secure attachment style with their supervisors, within the setting of a commitment HR
system, can lead to a lack of engagement (Byron, Khazanchi, & Nazarian, 2010). In turn, this can hinder performance in cognitively
demanding tasks, such as idea implementation. In this particular case, the secure attachment style and the commitment HR system
are aligned, i.e., in supplementary fit. However, this supplementary fit is in fact negative for idea implementation, where a
278
complementary fit offsetting the loose arrangement in the leadership dyad or the HR system would be more suitable. Thus, an
interaction between a commitment HR system and a secure leadership attachment style might be good for creating new ideas but not
for implementing them—this condition would be too loose on security and not focused on being conducive to the performance goals
of implementing creative ideas. A commitment HR system would moderate the otherwise positive relationship between followers'
perceptions of a secure leadership attachment style and idea implementation, buffering the relationship and making it less positive:
Proposition 8. The interaction between a commitment HR system and followers' perceptions of a secure leadership attachment style
generally inhibits employee idea implementation.
A leader should provide freedom and autonomy to boost subordinates' creative behavior (Amabile et al., 1996). Nevertheless,
anxious attachment bonds do not seem to be in line with this approach. In such dyads, leaders are perceived to be attentive (Keller,
2003) and enjoy working with others (Hazan & Shaver, 1990), which can have beneficial effects on followers and their idea gen-
eration. However, in dyads characterized by anxious attachment, leaders may also be perceived as excessively controlling (Feeney &
Collins, 2004), which presents a serious barrier to creativity (Kwaśniewska & Nȩcka, 2004). Moreover, leaders with an anxious
attachment style can be perceived to be ambiguous regarding their followers' expertise and competence (Keller, 2003), which can
hinder employees' creative behavior. This consequently suggests a negative direct effect between the followers' perception of the
existence of an anxious attachment style and idea generation.
On the other hand, we may expect that the positive working environment of a commitment HR system can alleviate the negative
perceptions of such leaders' behavior. A commitment HR system is based on nurturing the employees' involvement. This is reflected in
loosely defined jobs, investments in the training and development of employees' skills, sponsoring career development, promoting
mentoring programs, and encouraging employees' learning (Lepak & Snell, 1999). Organizations using a commitment HR system
showed positive relationships regarding climates of trust, cooperation, and knowledge sharing (Collins & Smith, 2006) since the
control is minimized (Mossholder, Richardson, & Settoon, 2011) and employees' behavior is shaped through the development of links
between the employees' and organizational goals (Arthur, 1994). This sort of work environment is especially appropriate for orga-
nizations that wish to promote idea generation, in which freedom and job autonomy are perceived as the most important qualities
(Amabile, 1988). Additionally, viewing work as challenging and urgent and encouragement from the supervisor are also valuable
(Shalley, Gilson, & Blum, 2000).
Therefore, the moderating effect of a commitment HR system can potentially lessen the leader's negative impact through com-
radely relations between employees and an overall positive working climate, as creativity does not occur in isolation and often results
from interactions with other coworkers (Shalley & Gilson, 2004). Taken together, dyads with an anxious attachment style generally
do not offer a stimulating climate to aid idea generation. However, the general working environment based on a commitment HR
system can provide support, suggesting a complementary fit. Consequently, we believe that a creativity-stimulating organizational
HR setting would provide a very strong base due to the strong psychological links between employees and the organization
(Mossholder et al., 2011):
Proposition 9. The interaction between a commitment HR system and followers' perceptions of an anxious leadership attachment
style generally promotes employee idea generation.
Innovative employees rely on the leader, expecting information, resources, and social support (Janssen & Van Yperen, 2004).
Leaders should show interest in employees' opinions, well-being, goals, and values and provide tangible (material) as well as in-
tangible (psychological) support (Škerlavaj et al., 2014). Contrariwise, leadership with an anxious attachment style does not seem to
fit in this scheme. Such leaders perhaps have the desire to do a good job, but their inner anxiety of not performing well and being
unappreciated and rejected affects their behavior to a great extent (Hazan & Shaver, 1990). Although literature reports that they are
attentive toward followers (Keller, 2003), their control can be perceived to be exaggerated, which also results in being intrusive
(Feeney & Collins, 2004), consequently inhibiting the idea implementation process.
A commitment HR system may likewise not be the best choice for the promotion of idea implementation because of too loosely
defined tasks as well as a lack of structure and formalization. Therefore, the moderating effect of a commitment HR system is believed
to promote the negative effects of a leader with an anxious attachment style. Despite the fact that whether a good idea is implemented
can also depend on management functioning within the broader organizational context (Amabile, 1988), a leader should be able to
induce structure and provide direction (Mumford et al., 2002).
Idea implementation thrives best when fostered by a supportive leader who provides structure (Škerlavaj et al., 2014) but still
gives employees some space, and neither of those is characteristic of dyads described by an anxious attachment style. Although a
commitment HR system may promote the idea generation process, it becomes too open and flexible for the idea implementation
process, for which a more structured approach would be beneficial (Baer, 2012). Therefore, when linking followers' perceptions of an
anxious leadership attachment style and a commitment HR system, the interaction is negative and no fit is expected:
Proposition 10. The interaction between a commitment HR system and followers' perceptions of an anxious leadership attachment
Avoidant leaders will respond to idea generation with attachment-related avoidance, associated with expectations of failure and
aversion to commitment (Birnie, Joy McClure, Lydon, & Holmberg, 2009), which can be negatively interpreted by individuals. This
typical response may in turn also reduce the likelihood of moving toward a long-term relationship. Even if some literature suggests
that idea generation is more or less a solitary process and journey that is most effective when relationships between individuals are
weak in order to prevent redundant information (Baer, 2010) and that avoidant leaders can even boost job commitment (Kafetsios
279
et al., 2014), we believe that individuals' perceptions of leaders' attachment have an important motivational role. For example,
studies have shown that idea generation can be enhanced by leaders' emotional intelligence (Zhou & George, 2003) or unconven-
tional leadership (Jaussi & Dionne, 2003).
Avoidant leaders are unable to show and provide the key processes discussed above, as they are far from supportive. Studies have
shown that avoidant individuals show a mixture of suppressed anger and high levels of hostility, especially if the counterpart's
behavior is seen as threatening and negative (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2005), which is often the case for idea generation. Even if idea
generation and other behaviors are seen as positive, avoidant leaders can still interpret them in a negative way, for they tend not to
believe in individual goodwill and prefer not to depend on others (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003). We also believe that avoidant leaders
will not be perceived as role models or that they will engage in unconventional behavior, as they do not want to stand out or attract
undesired attention beyond what is necessary because of their fear of relations (Collins & Feeney, 2000; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003).
We thus assume that followers' perceptions of the avoidant leadership attachment style inhibit idea generation.
The commitment HR system focuses on building long-term, lasting relationships between the individual and organization and
building a secure environment where ideas can be safely shared (Lepak & Snell, 2002). As such, it seems to be the most appropriate
for drastically out-of-the-box ideas that are risky in nature. In the end, the interplay between the positive commitment HR system and
avoidant leadership will yield unfavorable outcomes, given our belief—following the literature emphasizing the role of supervisors
(Wright & Nishii, 2013; Zupan & Kaše, 2007)—that the positive effect of the HR system alone is not enough to counteract the
detrimental attachment bond perceived by followers.
This would lead to a no-fit situation, in which negative messages provided through the avoidant attachment style and partially
positively signaled from the commitment HR system are in a mismatch. Looking at the interaction, we speculate that commitment HR
system would moderate the negative relationship between followers' perceptions of the avoidant attachment style and employee idea
generation, making the relationship more negative:
Proposition 11. The interaction between a commitment HR system and followers' perceptions of an avoidant leadership attachment
style generally inhibits employee idea generation.
Leaders who are perceived to be avoidant will likely elude from acting as idea-implementation champions, leaving followers
without proper guidance (Kafetsios et al., 2014). However, findings suggest that although leaders should limit their control over the
innovation process, they still need to maintain some degree of guidance (Paulus, 2008; Škerlavaj et al., 2014). Even if individuals take
initiative and try to create constructive change to implement ideas, such efforts will often fail without the support of supervisors
(Grant, Gino, & Hofmann, 2011).
As championing can be seen as a process of building stronger relationships, this goes against the characteristic of avoidant
attachment style of being more or less isolated. This lack of engagement from supervisors may lead individuals to feel as if they lack
control. Such feelings are likely to prevent innate psychological needs, such as the need for autonomy and competence (Byron et al.,
2010). In such conditions, autonomy and competence are the basis for self-motivated or intrinsically motivated behaviors (Ryan &
Deci, 2000). Thus, avoidance can increase uncontrollability and, in turn, hinder self-determination, which can diminish intrinsic
motivation and cause negative creative performance and innovation, as creative performance and innovation are believed to depend
more on intrinsic motivation than other types of performance (Byron et al., 2010). We thus assume that followers' perceptions of the
avoidant leadership attachment style will inhibit idea implementation.
Commitment HR system seems to be an ideal candidate for idea generation; however, it hinders idea implementation, as in-
dividuals with loosely defined jobs and tasks need to keep their performance efforts aimed at a desired outcome. Such unconstrained
systems need more control where individuals are willing to work harder and to overcome obstacles during the implementation
process to translate idea generation into sizable improvements in products or processes (Anderson & West, 1998; Eisenbeiss, van
Knippenberg, & Boerner, 2008). However, this is not the case with commitment HR systems when exclusively targeting the im-
plementation of creative ideas.
A work situation based on dyadic leader-follower exchange that is already hindered by the avoidant attachment style would thus
not be complemented by appropriate contextual cues provided by a commitment HR system, leading to a no-fit situation. Thus, a
commitment HR system would moderate the negative relationship between followers' perceptions of the avoidant attachment style
and employee idea implementation, making the relationship even more negative:
Proposition 12. The interaction between a commitment HR system and followers' perceptions of an avoidant leadership attachment
We present a summary of our propositions in Table 1.
4. Discussion
Combining ideas from the literature on leadership attachment styles (Hinojosa et al., 2014), HR systems (Lepak & Snell, 1999,
2002), and micro innovation (Montag et al., 2012), we propose a summarizing set of propositions aimed at exploring the cross-level
interplay between three leadership attachment styles as perceived by followers (secure, anxious, and avoidant) and two formal HR
systems (compliance and commitment) in influencing idea generation and implementation. Our integrative framework suggests that
the commitment HR system may be the most beneficial for idea generation when accompanied by a secure or anxious supervisor.
However, a compliance HR system works for both idea generation when combined with an avoidant supervisor and idea im-
plementation when paired with a secure supervisor.
280
M. Černe et al.
Table 1
Interactive effects of followers' perception of leadership attachment style and HR system in predicting either individual idea generation or idea implementation.
281
Note:
Direct – Expected direct effect of followers' perceptions of leadership attachment style on idea generation or implementation. The direct effect can be positive (+) and promote idea generation or implementation or negative
(−) and inhibit idea generation or implementation.
Moderation – Expected moderating effects of HR systems. The moderating effect can be enhancing, making it more negative or positive (↑), or buffering, making it less negative or positive (↓).
Fit – Potential fit between followers' perceptions of the leadership attachment style and HR systems. The fit can be complementary (C) – the negativity of the individual's perception of leadership attachment style or the HR system
is offset by the positivity of the individual's perception of leadership attachment style or the HR system; supplementary (S) – the positivity or negativity of the individual's perception is conceptually aligned with the positivity or
negativity of the HR system; or no fit (N) – possible combinations with characteristics in conceptual mismatch (for example, an individual's perception is stronger and different than the context of HR system).
Human Resource Management Review 28 (2018) 271–288
4.1. Theoretical contributions
The theoretical contributions of this study to the literature placed at the intersection between leadership and HRM are three-fold.
First, in proposing our interplay propositions, we went beyond the well-explored traditional transformational and transactional
leadership or other specific leadership facets (Anderson & Sun, 2015; Avolio et al., 2009; Batistič, Černe, & Vogel, 2017). Instead, we
embraced one of the more comprehensive conceptualizations of leadership and use attachment styles. In so doing, our proposal
entails a simultaneous acknowledgement of relational dynamics and individual differences (Davidovitz et al., 2007; Popper & Amit,
2009). Both properties are taken into consideration and reflect a follower-centric perspective on the matter. This includes followers'
sense-making concerning the interactions with leaders, which is a manifestation of followers' and leaders' characteristics and their
relations (Uhl-Bien, Riggio, Lowe, & Carsten, 2014).
We build on the notion that the innovation process is by nature a social phenomenon (e.g. Obstfeld, 2005) and that to foster
employee idea generation and implementation, followers' perceptions of the dyadic relationship they develop with their supervisors
act as a salient predictor of their own effort and behavior. Exploring attachments enabled us to look the way work relationships
unfold as a consequence of leaders' behaviors, followers' characteristics, and consequent followers' perceptions of attachment types;
our analysis of these three dimensions resulted in a clearer picture of how leaders foster or stifle innovation by means of their
relationships with subordinates. Furthermore, we examined the boundary conditions of direct effects of the perception of leadership
attachment styles on innovative work behavior by looking at the contextual side of the formal practices in place, namely HR systems.
There has been scant theorizing on how HR systems can be co-shaped by supervisors, how their message can be translated into action,
and how they help interpret other workplace cues (Nishii, Lepak, & Schneider, 2008; Wright & Nishii, 2013; Zupan & Kaše, 2007),
such as leadership.
Our framework suggests that there is no perfect solution regarding the leadership attachment styles that organizations should
promote. Similarly, as in the previous point, multilevel theories clearly need to be embraced because what matters is the interplay
between the micro-context and the macro-context (Ostroff & Bowen, 2000). We argued that leadership attachment styles can be
complemented or their effects changed by the context in place (Jackson, Schuler, & Rivero, 1989). Thus, our model offers a con-
ceptualization that reveals the most beneficial combinations of leadership attachment styles within a specific context of HR systems
for either idea generation or implementation.
Second, we departed from established views on the interaction between HR, leadership, and creativity/innovation; in traditional
views, specific functional practices, such as job design or training (Dorenbosch, Engen, & Verhagen, 2005) or best-practice ap-
proaches, such as high-commitment work systems (Ceylan, 2012; Chang et al., 2014), are considered. The current reality facing many
organizations is that different groups of employees may provide different strategic values; thus, organizations need tailored practices
to retain their employees (Lepak & Snell, 1999). Therefore, we applied two diametrically opposing HR systems—compliance and
commitment—to explore this issue. Such differentiation, which has been neglected in most previous research, may be especially
important when looking at the two quite different parts of the micro-innovation process: idea-generation behaviors and idea-im-
plementation behaviors.
Our proposed conceptual model indicates that the contextual influence of HR systems is not as straightforward as expected. We
suggest that what really matters for idea generation and implementation is the interplay between the formal HR system in place and
the leadership attachment style, as a conduit for the HR systems (Jiang, Hu, Liu, & Lepak, in press; Nishii et al., 2008). Reflecting
either complementary, supplementary, or no-fit situations (Cable & Edwards, 2004; Muchinsky & Monahan, 1987), depending on the
particular instances discussed in the proposition-development section, such an interplay may occasionally lead to counterintuitive
scenarios. For example, a commitment HR system, generally favorable for idea generation, may have negative effects when ac-
companied by avoidant attachment styles. This highlights the importance of the leader for creative and innovative behavior
(Škerlavaj et al., 2014) as well as the importance of a close working context and working relationships built between team members
and beyond (Ferris et al., 2009). We thereby extend the literature of perceived HR practices by supervisors and suggest that what may
really matter is the interplay between the supervisors or leaders' individual differences as perceived by followers and relational
dynamics in place with the formal HR systems. Indeed, supervisors are the vessels through which HR practices and systems are
communicated to employees (Nishii et al., 2008; Wright & Nishii, 2013; Zupan & Kaše, 2007), yet it seems that communication
outcomes may be related to employee differences in perceptions and how they build their relationships with other team members.
Thus, organizations need to carefully align their HR systems and appoint appropriate leaders to foster or stifle creativity and idea
implementation.
Thus, we contribute to previous research that has bolstered advocates of a joint examination of social and contextual influences
with regard to the process of idea generation (Dul et al., 2011) as well as an examination of their interplay with regard to predicting
idea-implementation behavior. By accounting for the interaction between perceived leadership attachment styles and HR systems, we
shift the direction of the majority of the HR-innovation literature into the effects of different functional HR practices, activities, or
solutions, such as training, job design, or performance management, toward a more holistic, strategy-oriented view, which never-
theless accounts for the most crucial variable in developing and implementing creative ideas (Škerlavaj et al., 2014): immediate
supervisors and their direct influence. We provide a more comprehensive view of HR-related organizational contextual contingencies
(Wang et al., 2010) in the form of HR systems and their interactions with followers' perceptions of leadership attachment styles, and
either complementary or supplementary fit between them in stimulating creativity/innovation.
Third, we depart from the majority of micro-innovation literature and differentiate between idea generation and idea im-
plementation, suggesting that the latter is a logical enactment of the first. There has been a dearth of research tackling how contextual
influences affect such processes (Dul et al., 2011); thus, we aimed to explore this gap by looking at the interaction between followers'
282
perceptions of leadership attachment styles and HR systems to validate the importance of organizational contextual contingencies
(Wang et al., 2010). We suggest that these two processes are inherently connected; idea generation without implementation provides
low business value and may not be enough to maintain an organization's competitive advantage in the long term (Baer, 2012).
Therefore, we explored how the interaction between the formal context in organizations, namely HR systems, and leadership at-
tachment styles perceived by followers influence both processes.
The literature suggests that idea generation and implementation require different resources, settings, or even contextual cir-
cumstances, and these differences may lead to mutual exclusion (Baer, 2012). It is clear from our summarizing table of proposed
interactive effects (Table 1) that such interplays can lead to complex scenarios, in that, on one hand, interactions between HR systems
and attachment styles perceived by followers can lead to beneficial results for idea generation but not for idea implementation (e.g.,
the interplay of commitment HR systems and a secure attachment style with respect to idea implementation and idea generation).
Specifically, positive interplay (supplementary fit) may be problematic to achieve. This highlights the notion that looking at specific
contextual mechanisms with regard to only the creativity or the implementation process (Ceylan, 2012; Chang et al., 2014) may
obscure the big picture. Overall, we suggest that organizations strike a tricky balance between freedom and compliance and that such
a context supports appropriate attachment that followers perceive from their leaders. Consequently, context may be a key factor for a
successful innovation process; we need to expand the holistic view that only one HR system can lead to the best results. Behaviors can
be changed by the HR system in place (Jackson et al., 1989), and e.g. compliance HR system can indeed be viewed as a trigger of
extrinsic motivation, which is not necessarily a bad thing when attributed to innovation (Amabile & Pratt, 2016). This is specifically
true for the final phase of micro innovation, i.e., idea implementation, but not for creativity/idea generation (Amabile, 1993; Muñoz-
Pascual, Muñoz-Pascual, Galende, & Galende, 2017; Škerlavaj et al., 2014). Thus, the bottleneck of this process seems to be the
appropriate design of HR systems that support each stage of the innovation process, or both stages simultaneously. The literature
suggests that HR systems not only influence the general relational climates in organizations (Mossholder et al., 2011) but also help
build effective relationships between employees, help make sense of those relations, and influence their outcomes (Lengnick-Hall &
Lengnick-Hall, 2003). Mixing and matching a leader–follower dyad that has developed a particular attachment style with the ap-
propriate higher level HR system becomes a key strategic decision. This points to further multilevel issues, which we tried to embrace
in our theoretical model when exploring the cross-level interplay between HR systems and followers' perceptions of leaders' at-
tachment styles.
4.2. Practical implications
Our paper also offers important practical implications for managers in organizations that are pressed to innovate in today's rapidly
changing business environment and who, as a result, strive to increase the levels of individual-level innovation behaviors (either
exploratory idea generation or exploitative idea implementation). The practical implications first speak to the role of HR systems in
stimulating innovative work behavior. Our study emphasizes the need for HR managers to calibrate their HR systems toward both
idea-generation and idea-implementation behaviors. However, when the HR system in place proves to be unfavorable toward sti-
mulating either idea generation or implementation (whichever of the two is needed in an organization or a work unit at a particular
time), interactions with leadership attachment styles come into play. A compliance HR system may not work well for idea generation,
for it is too structured and too focused on rules. However, this may not hold when followers perceive an avoidant attachment style
with their leader, as this type of leader–follower dyad can provide a more uncertain and less strict working environment. A com-
mitment HR system is more open and relaxed, providing an ideal working environment for idea generation when followers develop
secure or anxious attachment styles with leaders. In this case, an avoidant leadership attachment style does not fit because followers
within such an attachment dyad perceive the leader as not showing enough support to subordinates, which hinders idea generation.
This suggests that, in some situations, it is easier to change the attachment style that individuals have with their leaders (Manning,
2003) than to change the HR system, either by influencing the leader on the attachment patterns he or she stimulates with his or her
subordinates, the dynamic exchange patterns that employees develop with their leaders, or both simultaneously. However, this may
not work in all situations; therefore, a more comprehensive and multilevel approach should be acknowledged, and this approach
should simultaneously account for both attachment-style dyads and HR systems.
The HR function can be responsible for extending a hand to supervisors to support innovation processes in general (Collins &
Smith, 2006), specifically creative idea-generation and idea-implementation initiatives. In turn, such consideration can support the
company's overall business case and help establish HR as a strategic partner in delivering bottom-line organizational performance
(Paauwe, 2009). Yet, idea generation without idea implementation may represent sunk costs for companies (Baer, 2012). Accord-
ingly, if managers develop their HR systems and interact with particular attachment styles to produce idea generation, they also need
to invest in the implementation of those ideas, depending on the current goals. Generating numerous creative ideas but failing to
implement any or few of them can leave an organization worse than simply not spending resources on generating creative ideas in the
first place. Therefore, selecting the most appropriate HR system in relation to leadership attachment style can yield the most fa-
vorable results in certain situations (idea generation or idea implementation).
4.3. Future research directions and limitations
Our theoretical model provides one initial answer to the question of how the formal organizational context (i.e., HR systems) can
complement or undermine the perception of leaders' behavior while also generating additional testable questions. First, the con-
ceptualization of different HR systems in the same organization seems to be a promising avenue for research. The notion that not all
283
employees are equally strategically important (Lepak & Snell, 1999) for an organization's enactment of a strategy is also interesting.
This leads to two possible expansions of our theoretical model. It suggests that each HR system might be synched with different
“strengths” to lead to the most beneficial results, in terms of idea generation and implementation. We suggest that, in particular,
commitment HR systems may not represent the best scenario for idea implementation, for they lack rules and control; however, per
the logic of strength, a low-commitment HR system's strength may lead to beneficial results in that regard (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004).
Yet, it also suggests that firms may adopt risky organizational designs and try to change HR systems rapidly to achieve better results.
Even if it is very difficult to achieve practically, combining different HR systems for different phases of the innovation process may
yield beneficial results (e.g., opting for a weak commitment system for idea generation and weak compliance for idea im-
plementation).
Second, although we portray a theory-based conceptual idea of the direction of each specific interaction based on supplementary
or complementary fit between a particular attachment style and HR system, alternative explanations may also exist. For example, in
the case of interaction between secure attachment and compliance HR system, we based our theorizing on goal clarity (or lack
thereof), which was deemed to be detrimental for idea generation. However, one could argue that a strong secure bond in the
leader–follower dyad, employees may still feel free to converse despite the compliance-based HR system. In this respect, the logical
result is that secure leaders enhance employee idea generation, and HR system proves more influential for idea implementation.
These alternative explanations and mechanisms need to be tested in future research.
Third, an interesting avenue for future research is the exploration of additional HR systems, such as a market-based HR system. In
this system, employees and organizations display a symbiotic relationship that continues as long as both parties benefit from the
relationship (Lepak & Snell, 1999). Thus, it may be the HR systems may mitigate this negativity with various HR practices (e.g.,
rewards). This may lead to employees who are motivated to implement ideas even if they do not have support from their immediate
leaders. More research is indeed warranted in this case to further elucidate how such complex relationships operate in practice.
Fourth, the mutuality of relationships in the work environment merits exploration. On one hand, when negative relationships are
emphasized by leaders, this may result in a general stiffing of the innovation process; however, this may be counterbalanced by other
employees' differences, such as proactive behavior (Grant & Ashford, 2008) or preference for creativity (Aleksić et al., 2016). On the
other hand, how leaders perceive their relationship with followers and the congruence of this perception with how followers perceive
their relationship with leaders is also worth exploring.
Fifth, while our theorizing is based on a several underlying mechanisms that stem from either leadership, HR or creativity/
innovation literatures, such as trust, dyadic interpretations and sense making, or motivation, the psychological safety climate could
represent a particularly valuable underlying mechanism of the effect of our proposed interactions. In specific, the interaction between
HR systems and attachment styles as perceived by the followers has the potential to develop perceptions of a psychological safety
climate characterized by valuing autonomous action and promoting trusting, supportive relational bonds at work, which has been
shown to be conducive to both idea generation and implementation (Baer & Frese, 2003; Kark & Carmeli, 2009). This is so because
the perceptions of a psychological safety climate both emerge bottom up, as influenced by individuals, their characteristics, and their
perceptions of their relational bonds (Schulte, Cohen, & Klein, 2012; Wallace & Chen, 2006; Zohar & Tenne-Gazit, 2008), which are
developed through followers' perceptions of leadership attachment styles, as well as is influenced top-down by the formal situational
cues provided by a system in an organization (Batistič et al., 2016; Neal, Griffin, & Hart, 2000), signaled through HR systems. Indeed,
recent research (Edmondson & Lei, 2014; Newman, Donohue, & Eva, 2017) suggests that psychological safety is not just crafted
within the leader-follower relationship but is a function of multi-level influences that require both trust and letting go from the leader
as well as a clear structure (potentially stemming from a compliance system). Future research should add further theorizing on the
matter, and potentially test these links using complex cross-level moderated-mediation models.
4.4. Methodological considerations
The model that we have conceptualized is complex and multilevel in nature, which is why some discussion on the methodological
considerations is warranted. The propositions reflect a cross-level moderated model: the direct effect of leadership attachment styles
on two facets of innovative work behavior at the individual level and a cross-level moderating role of HR systems at the group (unit or
firm) level. This logic follows the statistical appropriateness of estimating such models (LoPilato & Vandenberg, 2015) instead of
cross-level direct effects of level-2 variables on level-1 outcomes. Testing the proposed model would assume further capitalization of
the multilevel perspective as well as the collection of nested two-level data from the appropriate number (Heck & Thomas, 2015;
Tonidandel, Williams, & LeBreton, 2015) of level-2 firms, units, or groups.
HR systems can be assessed by gathering data from HR managers or from employees, reflecting the logic of intended versus
perceived HR systems or practices (Paauwe & Boselie, 2005); in the latter case, it would need to be gathered at level 1 and measured
so as to enable appropriate emergence (aggregation) for the level of the firm or unit, likely with a composition referent-shift approach
(Chan, 1998; Kozlowski, Chao, Grand, Braun, & Kuljanin, 2013), as in the case of asking questions about the HR system in employees'
firm or unit instead of general perceptions of HR practices experienced in respective positions. An alternative approach may entail the
identification of two larger firms with opposing HR systems (commitment and compliance) and having this variable as a binary
moderator for the direct effects of leadership attachment styles on idea generation and idea implementation, with everything
measured at the individual level. Both approaches would assume objective or at least supervisory ratings of followers' idea generation
and implementation. This is particularly true for idea implementation, as self-reported idea-generation ratings may potentially
contain information only available to the people who generate ideas, whereas idea implementation involves more tangible output-
oriented behaviors that are visible to others (Aleksić et al., 2016; Baer, 2012).
284
References
Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1989). Attachments beyond infancy. American Psychologist, 44(4), 709.

Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associated.
Ainsworth, M. D. S., & Parkes, C. M. (1991). Attachments and other affectional bonds across the life cycle. In C. M. Parkes, J. Stevenson-Hinde, & P. Marris (Eds.).
Attachment across the life cycle (pp. 33–51). London: Routledge.
Aleksić, D., Černe, M., Dysvik, A., & Škerlavaj, M. (2016). I want to be creative, but… preference for creativity, perceived clear outcome goals, work enjoyment, and
creative performance. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 25(3), 363–383.
Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10, 123–167.
Amabile, T. M. (1993). Motivational synergy: Toward new conceptualizations of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in the workplace. Human Resource Management
Review, 3(3), 185–201.
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity and innovation in organizations. Harvard Business School background note (396–239).
Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5),
1154–1184.
Amabile, T. M., & Pratt, M. G. (2016). The dynamic componential model of creativity and innovation in organizations: Making progress, making meaning. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 36, 157–183.
Amabile, T. M., Schatzel, E. A., Moneta, G. B., & Kramer, S. J. (2004). Leader behaviors and the work environment for creativity: Perceived leader support. The
Leadership Quarterly, 15(1), 5–32.
Anderson, M. H., & Sun, P. Y. T. (2015). Reviewing leadership styles: Overlaps and the need for a new ‘full-range’ theory. International Journal of Management Reviews.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12082 (n/a-n/a).
Anderson, N. R., & West, M. A. (1998). Measuring climate for work group innovation: Development and validation of the team climate inventory. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 19(3), 235–258. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199805)19:3<235::AID-JOB837>3.0.CO;2-C.
Arefin, M. S., Arif, I., & Raquib, M. (2015). High-performance work systems and proactive behavior: The mediating role of psychological empowerment. International
Journal of Business and Management, 10(3), 132–140.
Arthur, J. B. (1994). Effects of human-resource systems on manufacturing performance and turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 670–687.
Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. (2009). Leadership: Current theories, research, and future directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 421–449.
Baer, M. (2010). The strength-of-weak-ties perspective on creativity: A comprehensive examination and extension. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(3), 592–601.
Baer, M. (2012). Putting creativity to work: The implementation of creative ideas in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 55(5), 1102–1119.
Baer, M., & Frese, M. (2003). Innovation is not enough: Climates for initiative and psychological safety, process innovations, and firm performance. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 24(1), 45–68.
Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–121.
Batistič, S., Černe, M., Kaše, R., & Zupic, I. (2016). The role of organizational context in fostering employee proactive behavior: The interplay between HR system
configurations and relational climates. European Management Journal, 34(5), 579–588. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2016.01.008.
Batistič, S., Černe, M., & Vogel, B. (2017). Just how multi-level is leadership research? A document co-citation analysis 1980–2013 on leadership constructs and
outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 28(1), 86–103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.10.007.
Birnie, C., Joy McClure, M., Lydon, J. E., & Holmberg, D. (2009). Attachment avoidance and commitment aversion: A script for relationship failure. Personal
Relationships, 16(1), 79–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2009.01211.x.
Bowen, D. E., & Ostroff, C. (2004). Understanding HRM–firm performance linkages: The role of the “strength” of the HRM system. Academy of Management Review,
29(2), 203–221.
Bowlby, J. (1958). The nature of the child's tie to his mother. The International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 39.
Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base.
Boxall, P. (1998). Achieving competitive advantage through human resource strategy: Towards a theory of industry dynamics. Human Resource Management Review,
8(3), 265–288. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1053-4822(98)90005-5.
Boxall, P., & Macky, K. (2009). Research and theory on high-performance work systems: Progressing the high-involvement stream. Human Resource Management
Journal, 19(1), 3–23.
Byron, K., Khazanchi, S., & Nazarian, D. (2010). The relationship between stressors and creativity: A meta-analysis examining competing theoretical models. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 95(1), 201–212.
Cable, D. M., & Edwards, J. R. (2004). Complementary and supplementary fit: A theoretical and empirical integration. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 822–834.
Ceylan, C. (2012). Commitment-based HR practices, different types of innovation activities and firm innovation performance. International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 24(1), 208–226. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2012.680601.
Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 83(2), 234.
Chang, S., Jia, L., Takeuchi, R., & Cai, Y. (2014). Do high-commitment work systems affect creativity? A multilevel combinational approach to employee creativity.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(4), 665–680.
Choi, J. N., Anderson, T. A., & Veillette, A. (2009). Contextual inhibitors of employee creativity in organizations: The insulating role of creative ability. Group &
Organization Management, 34(3), 330–357.
Chuang, C.-H., Jackson, S. E., & Jiang, Y. (2016). Can knowledge-intensive teamwork be managed? Examining the roles of HRM systems, leadership, and tacit
knowledge. Journal of Management, 42(2), 524–554. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206313478189.
Clark, M. S., & Aragon, O. (2013). Communal (and other) relationships: History, theory development, recent findings, and future directions. In J. A. Simpson, & L.
Campbell (Eds.). The Oxford handbook of close relationships (pp. 255–280). New York: Oxford University Press.
Collins, C. J., & Smith, K. G. (2006). Knowledge exchange and combination: The role of human resource practices in the performance of high-technology firms.
Academy of Management Journal, 49(3), 544–560.
Collins, N. L., & Feeney, B. C. (2000). A safe haven: An attachment theory perspective on support seeking and caregiving in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 78(6), 1053.
Costello, F. J., & Keane, M. T. (2000). Efficient creativity: Constraint-guided conceptual combination. Cognitive Science, 24(2), 299–349.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1992). Optimal experience: Psychological studies of flow in consciousness. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Cummings, A., & Oldham, G. R. (1997). Enhancing creativity: Managing work contexts for the high potential employee. California Management Review, 40(1), 22–38.
Davidovitz, R., Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., Izsak, R., & Popper, M. (2007). Leaders as attachment figures: leaders' attachment orientations predict leadership-related
mental representations and followers' performance and mental health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(4), 632.
De Cuyper, N., de Jong, J., De Witte, H., Isaksson, K., Rigotti, T., & Schalk, R. (2008). Literature review of theory and research on the psychological impact of
temporary employment: Towards a conceptual model. International Journal of Management Reviews, 10(1), 25–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2007.
00221.x.
Dorenbosch, L., Engen, M. L.v., & Verhagen, M. (2005). On-the-job innovation: The impact of job design and human resource management through production
ownership. Creativity and Innovation Management, 14(2), 129–141. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1476-8691.2005.00333.x.
Dul, J., Ceylan, C., & Jaspers, F. (2011). Knowledge workers' creativity and the role of the physical work environment. Human Resource Management, 50(6), 715–734.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20454.
Edmondson, A. C., & Lei, Z. (2014). Psychological safety: The history, renaissance, and future of an interpersonal construct. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology
and Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 23–43.
285
Eisenbeiss, S. A., van Knippenberg, D., & Boerner, S. (2008). Transformational leadership and team innovation: Integrating team climate principles. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 93(6), 1438–1446. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0012716.
Feeney, B. C., & Collins, N. L. (2004). Interpersonal safe haven and secure base caregiving processes in adulthood. In W. S. Rholes, & J. A. Simpson (Eds.). Adult
attachment: Theory, research, and clinical implications (pp. 300–338). New York: Guilford Publications.
Ferris, G. R., Liden, R. C., Munyon, T. P., Summers, J. K., Basik, K. J., & Buckley, M. R. (2009). Relationships at work: Toward a multidimensional conceptualization of
dyadic work relationships. Journal of Management, 35(6), 1379–1403.
Freud, S. (2004). Mass psychology and other writings. London: Penguin books.
Fuller, B., Marler, L. E., Hester, K., & Otondo, R. F. (2015). Leader reactions to follower proactive behavior: Giving credit when credit is due. Human Relations, 68(6),
879–898. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0018726714548235.
Gallego, J., Rubalcaba, L., & Hipp, C. (2013). Organizational innovation in small European firms: A multidimensional approach. International Small Business Journal,
31(5), 563–579. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0266242611430100.
Garavan, T., Watson, S., Carbery, R., & O'Brien, F. (2015). The antecedents of leadership development practices in SMEs: The influence of HRM strategy and practice.
International Small Business Journal, 34(6), 870–890. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0266242615594215 (0266242615594215).
Graen, G., & Cashman, J. (1975). A role-making model of leadership in formal organizations: A developmental approach. In J. G. Hunt, & L. L. Larson (Eds.). Leadership
frontiers (pp. 143–165). Kent, OH: Kent State University Press.
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years:
Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219–247.
Grant, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 3–34 (0).
Grant, A. M., Gino, F., & Hofmann, D. A. (2011). Reversing the extraverted leadership advantage: The role of employee proactivity. Academy of Management Journal,
54(3), 528–550.
Griffin, M. A., Neal, A., & Parker, S. K. (2007). A new model of work role performance: Positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts. Academy of
Management Journal, 50(2), 327–347.
Gumusluoglu, L., & Ilsev, A. (2009). Transformational leadership, creativity, and organizational innovation. Journal of Business Research, 62(4), 461–473.
Gupta, V., & Singh, S. (2015). Leadership and creative performance behaviors in R&D laboratories examining the mediating role of justice perceptions. Journal of
Leadership and Organizational Studies, 22(1), 21–36.
Gustafsson, S., Abbey, G., & Hope Hailey, V. (2016). Developing trustworthy leadership: The role of HRM. In S. Kempster, & B. Carroll (Eds.). Responsible leadership (pp.
133–148). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Hansbrough, T. K. (2012). The construction of a transformational leader: Follower attachment and leadership perceptions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(6),
1533–1549.
Harms, P. D. (2011). Adult attachment styles in the workplace. Human Resource Management Review, 21(4), 285–296. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2010.10.006.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1990). Love and work: An attachment-theoretical perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(2), 270.
He, Z.-L., & Wong, P.-K. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15(4), 481–494.
Heck, R. H., & Thomas, S. L. (2015). An introduction to multilevel modeling techniques: MLM and SEM approaches using Mplus. Routledge.
Hempel, P. S. (2014). The developmental reviewer. Management and Organization Review, 10(2), 175–181.
Hinojosa, A. S., Davis McCauley, K., Randolph-Seng, B., & Gardner, W. L. (2014). Leader and follower attachment styles: Implications for authentic leader–follower
relationships. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(3), 595–610. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.12.002.
Ilgen, D. R., & Hollenbeck, J. R. (1991). The structure of work: Job design and roles. In M. D. Dunnette, & L. M. Hough (Eds.). Handbook of industrial and organisational
psychology (pp. 165–207). (2nd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychology Press.
Jackson, S. E., Schuler, R. S., & Rivero, J. C. (1989). Organizational characteristics as predictors of personnel practices. Personnel Psychology, 42(4), 727–786.
Janssen, O., & Van Yperen, N. W. (2004). Employees' goal orientations, the quality of leader-member exchange, and the outcomes of job performance and job
satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 47(3), 368–384.
Jaussi, K. S., & Dionne, S. D. (2003). Leading for creativity: The role of unconventional leader behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(4–5), 475–498. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/S1048-9843(03)00048-1.
Jiang, K., Hu, J., Liu, S., & Lepak, D. P. (2018). Understanding employees' perceptions of human resource practices: Effects of demographic dissimilarity to managers
and coworkers. Human Resource Management. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21771 (n/a-n/a, in press).
Kafetsios, K., Athanasiadou, M., & Dimou, N. (2014). Leaders' and subordinates' attachment orientations, emotion regulation capabilities and affect at work: A
multilevel analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(3), 512–527. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.010.
Kark, R., & Carmeli, A. (2009). Alive and creating: The mediating role of vitality and aliveness in the relationship between psychological safety and creative work
involvement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(6), 785–804.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
Keller, T. (2003). Parental images as a guide to leadership sensemaking: An attachment perspective on implicit leadership theories. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(2),
141–160. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(03)00007-9.
Klaas, B. S., Semadeni, M., Klimchak, M., & Ward, A.-K. (2012). High-performance work system implementation in small and medium enterprises: A knowledge-
creation perspective. Human Resource Management, 51(4), 487–510. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21485.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., Chao, G. T., Grand, J. A., Braun, M. T., & Kuljanin, G. (2013). Advancing multilevel research design capturing the dynamics of emergence.
Organizational Research Methods, 16(4), 581–615.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal and emergent processes. In K. J. Klein, &
S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.). Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.
Krause, D. E. (2004). Influence-based leadership as a determinant of the inclination to innovate and of innovation-related behaviors: An empirical investigation. The
Leadership Quarterly, 15(1), 79–102.
Kuvaas, B., Buch, R., Dysvik, A., & Haerem, T. (2012). Economic and social leader–member exchange relationships and follower performance. The Leadership Quarterly,
23(5), 756–765. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.12.013.
Kwaśniewska, J., & Nȩcka, E. (2004). Perception of the climate for creativity in the workplace: The role of the level in the organization and gender. Creativity and
Innovation Management, 13(3), 187–196. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-1690.2004.00308.x.
Lee, T. W., Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1989). Goal setting theory and job performance. In L. Pervin (Ed.). Goal concepts in personality and social psychology. Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lengnick-Hall, M. L., & Lengnick-Hall, C. A. (2003). HR's role in building relationship networks. The Academy of Management Executive, 17(4), 53–63.
Lepak, D. P., & Snell, S. A. (1999). The human resource architecture: Toward a theory of human capital allocation and development. Academy of Management Review,
24(1), 31–48.
Lepak, D. P., & Snell, S. A. (2002). Examining the human resource architecture: The relationships among human capital, employment, and human resource config-
urations. Journal of Management, 28(4), 517–543.
LoPilato, A. C., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2015). The not-so-direct cross-level direct effect. In C. E. Lance, & R. J. Vandenberg (Eds.). More statistical and methodological myths
and urban legends (pp. 292–310). New York: Routledge.
Lynch, M. F. (2013). Attachment, autonomy, and emotional reliance: A multilevel model. Journal of Counseling & Development, 91(3), 301–312.
Manning, T. T. (2003). Leadership across cultures: Attachment style influences. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 9(3), 20–30.
Mayseless, O. (2010). Attachment and the leader—Follower relationship. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27(2), 271–280. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0265407509360904.
Meyer, J. P., & Maltin, E. R. (2010). Employee commitment and well-being: A critical review, theoretical framework and research agenda. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 77(2), 323–337.
286
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2003). The attachment behavioral system in adulthood: Activation, psychodynamics, and interpersonal processes. In M. P. Zanna (Vol.
Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology. Vol. 35. Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 53–152). San Diego, CA, US: Elsevier Academic Press.
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2005). Attachment theory and emotions in close relationships: Exploring the attachment-related dynamics of emotional reactions to
relational events. Personal Relationships, 12(2), 149–168. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1350-4126.2005.00108.x.
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2010). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change. London, UK: Guilford Press.
Miron-Spektor, E., Erez, M., & Naveh, E. (2011). The effect of conformist and attentive-to-detail members on team innovation: Reconciling the innovation paradox.
Academy of Management Journal, 54(4), 740–760.
Montag, T., Maertz, C. P., & Baer, M. (2012). A critical analysis of the workplace creativity criterion space. Journal of Management, 38(4), 1362–1386.
Mossholder, K. W., Richardson, H. A., & Settoon, R. P. (2011). Human resource systems and helping in organizations: A relational perspective. Academy of Management
Review, 36(1), 33–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2011.55662500.
Muchinsky, P. M., & Monahan, C. J. (1987). What is person-environment congruence? Supplementary versus complementary models of fit. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 31(3), 268–277.
Mumford, M. D., Scott, G. M., Gaddis, B., & Strange, J. M. (2002). Leading creative people: Orchestrating expertise and relationships. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(6),
705–750. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(02)00158-3.
Muñoz-Pascual, L., Muñoz-Pascual, L., Galende, J., & Galende, J. (2017). The impact of knowledge and motivation management on creativity: Employees of innovative
Spanish companies. Employee relations, 39(5), 732–752.
Neal, A., Griffin, M. A., & Hart, P. M. (2000). The impact of organizational climate on safety climate and individual behavior. Safety Science, 34(1), 99–109.
Newman, A., Donohue, R., & Eva, N. (2017). Psychological safety: A systematic review of the literature. Human Resource Management Review, 27(3), 521–535.
Nishii, L. H., Lepak, D. P., & Schneider, B. (2008). Employee attributions of the “why” of HR practices: Their effects on employee attitudes and behaviors, and customer
satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 61(3), 503–545.
Obstfeld, D. (2005). Social networks, the Tertius Iungens orientation, and involvement in innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(1), 100–130.
O'Hara, L. A., & Sternberg, R. J. (2001). It doesn't hurt to ask: Effects of instructions to be creative, practical, or analytical on essay-writing performance and their
interaction with students' thinking styles. Creativity Research Journal, 13(2), 197–210.
Ostroff, C., & Bowen, D. E. (2000). Moving HR to a higher level: HR practices and organizational effectiveness. In K. J. Klein, & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.). Multilevel
theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ostroff, C., & Bowen, D. E. (2016). Reflections on the 2014 decade award: Is there strength in the construct of HR system strength? Academy of Management Review,
41(2), 196–214. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amr.2015.0323.
Paauwe, J. (2009). HRM and performance: Achievements, methodological issues and prospects. Journal of Management Studies, 46(1), 129–142.
Paauwe, J., & Boselie, P. (2005). HRM and performance: What next? Human Resource Management Journal, 15(4), 68–83.
Paulus, P. B. (2008). Fostering creativity in groups and teams. In J. Zhou, & C. E. Shalley (Eds.). Handbook of organizational creativity (pp. 165–188). New York, NY:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Perry, E. L., & Kulik, C. T. (2008). The devolution of HR to the line: Implications for perceptions of people management effectiveness. International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 19(2), 262–273. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585190701799838.
Perry-Smith, J. E., & Mannucci, P. V. (2017). From creativity to innovation: The social network drivers of the four phases of the idea journey. Academy of Management
Review, 42(1), 53–79. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amr.2014.0462.
Pieterse, A. N., Van Knippenberg, D., Schippers, M., & Stam, D. (2010). Transformational and transactional leadership and innovative behavior: The moderating role of
psychological empowerment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(4), 609–623.
Popper, M., & Amit, K. (2009). Attachment and leader's development via experiences. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(5), 749–763. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.
2009.06.005.
Popper, M., & Mayseless, O. (2003). Back to basics: Applying a parenting perspective to transformational leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(1), 41–65. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(02)00183-2.
Popper, M., Mayseless, O., & Castelnovo, O. (2000). Transformational leadership and attachment. The Leadership Quarterly, 11(2), 267–289. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/S1048-9843(00)00038-2.
Purcell, J. (1999). Best practice and best fit: Chimera or cul-de-sac? Human Resource Management Journal, 9(3), 26–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-8583.1999.
tb00201.x.
Rank, J., Nelson, N. E., Allen, T. D., & Xu, X. (2009). Leadership predictors of innovation and task performance: Subordinates' self-esteem and self-presentation as
moderators. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82(3), 465–489. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/096317908X371547.
Richards, D. A., & Schat, A. C. (2011). Attachment at (not to) work: Applying attachment theory to explain individual behavior in organizations. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 96(1), 169.
Rosing, K., Frese, M., & Bausch, A. (2011). Explaining the heterogeneity of the leadership-innovation relationship: Ambidextrous leadership. The Leadership Quarterly,
22(5), 956–974.
Rousseau, D. M. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations: Understanding written and unwritten agreements. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist,
55(1), 68–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68.
Schulte, M., Cohen, N. A., & Klein, K. J. (2012). The coevolution of network ties and perceptions of team psychological safety. Organization Science, 23(2), 564–581.
Scott, S., & Bruce, R. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3),
580–607.
Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1998). Following the leader in R&D: The joint effect of subordinate problem-solving style and leader-member relations on innovative
behavior. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 45(1), 3–10.
Scrima, F., Di Stefano, G., Guarnaccia, C., & Lorito, L. (2015). The impact of adult attachment style on organizational commitment and adult attachment in the
workplace. Personality and Individual Differences, 86, 432–437. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.07.013.
Searle, R. H., Bachmann, R., & Zaheer, A. (2013). HRM and trust, or trust and HRM? An underdeveloped context for trust research. In R. Bachmann, & A. Zaheer (Eds.).
Handbook of advances in trust research (pp. 9–28). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Shalley, C., & Zhou, J. (2008). Organizational creativity research: A historical overview. In J. Zhou, & C. Shalley (Eds.). Handbook of organizational creativity (pp. 3–31).
New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Shalley, C. E. (1995). Effects of coaction, expected evaluation, and goal setting on creativity and productivity. Academy of Management Journal, 38(2), 483–503.
Shalley, C. E., & Gilson, L. L. (2004). What leaders need to know: A review of social and contextual factors that can foster or hinder creativity. The Leadership Quarterly,
15(1), 33–53.
Shalley, C. E., Gilson, L. L., & Blum, T. C. (2000). Matching creativity requirements and the work environment: Effects on satisfaction and intentions to leave. The
Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 215–223. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1556378.
Shamir, B. (2007). From passive recipients to active co-producers: Followers' roles in the leadership process. In B. Shamir, R. Pillai, M. Bligh, & M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.).
Follower-centered perspectives on leadership: A tribute to the memory of James R. Meindl (pp. ix-xxxix). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishers.
Shipton, H., Sanders, K., Bednall, T., Lin, V. C.-H., & Escribá-Carda, N. (2016). Beyond creativity: Implementing innovative ideas through human resource man-
agement. In M. Škerlavaj, M. Černe, A. Dysvik, & A. Carlsen (Eds.). Capitalizing on creativity at work: Fostering the implementation of creative ideas in organizations.
Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Simmons, B. L., Gooty, J., Nelson, D. L., & Little, L. M. (2009). Secure attachment: Implications for hope, trust, burnout, and performance. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 30(2), 233–247.
Škerlavaj, M., Černe, M., & Dysvik, A. (2014). I get by with a little help from my supervisor: Creative-idea generation, idea implementation, and perceived supervisor
support. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(5), 987–1000.
287
Somech, A., & Drach-Zahavy, A. (2013). Translating team creativity to innovation implementation: The role of team composition and climate for innovation. Journal of
Management, 39(3), 684–708. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206310394187.
Su, Z.-X., Wright, P. M., & Ulrich, M. D. (2015). Going beyond the SHRM paradigm: Examining four approaches to governing employees. Journal of Management.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206315618011.
Tonidandel, S., Williams, E. B., & LeBreton, J. M. (2015). Size matters… just not in the way that you think: Myths surrounding sample size requirements for statistical
analyses. In C. E. Lance, & R. J. Vandenberg (Eds.). More statistical and methodological myths and urban legends. New York: Routledge.
Uhl-Bien, M., Riggio, R. E., Lowe, K. B., & Carsten, M. K. (2014). Followership theory: A review and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 83–104. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.007.
Wallace, C., & Chen, G. (2006). A multilevel integration of personality, climate, self-regulation, and performance. Personnel Psychology, 59(3), 529–557.
Wang, S., Guidice, R. M., Tansky, J. W., & Wang, Z. M. (2010). When R&D spending is not enough: The critical role of culture when you really want to innovate. Human
Resource Management, 49(4), 767–792.
West, M. A. (2002). Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model of creativity and innovation implementation in work groups. Applied Psychology. An
International Review, 51(3), 355–386.
Wright, P. M., & Nishii, L. H. (2013). Strategic HRM and organizational behavior: Integration multiple leves of analysis. In J. Paauwe, D. Guest, & P. M. Wright (Eds.).
HRM and performance: Achievements and challenges (pp. 97–110). Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley.
Yammarino, F. J., & Dansereau, F. (2008). Multi-level nature of and multi-level approaches to leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(2), 135–141.
Zhou, J. (2003). When the presence of creative coworkers is related to creativity: Role of supervisor close monitoring, developmental feedback, and creative per-
sonality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 413–422. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.3.413.
Zhou, J., & George, J. M. (2003). Awakening employee creativity: The role of leader emotional intelligence. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(4–5), 545–568. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/S1048-9843(03)00051-1.
Zhu, W., Chew, I. K. H., & Spangler, W. D. (2005). CEO transformational leadership and organizational outcomes: The mediating role of human–capital-enhancing
human resource management. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(1), 39–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.06.001.
Zohar, D., & Tenne-Gazit, O. (2008). Transformational leadership and group interaction as climate antecedents: A social network analysis. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 93(4), 744–757.
Zupan, N., & Kaše, R. (2007). The role of HR actors in knowledge networks. International Journal of Manpower, 28(3/4), 243–259.
288

Artículo 02 - HR - Leader Creativity1-Main

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Artículo 02 - HR - Leader Creativity1-Main

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Human Resource Management Review 28 (2018) 271–288

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Human Resource Management Review

HR systems, attachment styles with leaders, and the

1053-4822/ © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Predictor Moderator Outcome

2.2. HR systems: organizational context shaping Individuals' attitudes and behaviors

4.1. Theoretical contributions

4.2. Practical implications

4.3. Future research directions and limitations

4.4. Methodological considerations

Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1989). Attachments beyond infancy. American Psychologist, 44(4), 709.

You might also like