Journal of Business Research 65 (2012) 429–437

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

Authentic leadership promoting employees' psychological capital and creativity☆

Arménio Rego a,⁎, Filipa Sousa b, 1, Carla Marques c, 2, Miguel Pina e Cunha d, 3
a
Universidade de Aveiro, Portugal
b
Escola Superior de Educação e Ciências Sociais, Instituto Politécnico de Leiria, Morro do Lena, Alto do Vieiro, 2411-901 Leiria, Portugal
c
Departamento de Economia, Sociologia e Gestão, Universidade de Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro, Av. Almeida de Lucena, 1, 5000-660 Vila Real, Portugal
d
Nova School of Business and Economics, Rua Marquês de Fronteira, 20, 1099-038 Lisboa, Portugal

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Two hundred and one employees report their psychological capital, as well as their supervisors' authentic lead-
Received 1 December 2009 ership. Supervisors describe the employees' creativity. The main findings show that authentic leadership predicts
Received in revised form 1 April 2010 employees' creativity, both directly and through the mediating role of employees' psychological capital. The
Accepted 1 September 2011
study empirically validates theoretical arguments that suggest integrating authentic leadership and psychologi-
Available online 28 October 2011
cal capital in research, and indicates that both may foster employees' creativity, a crucial resource for helping or-
Keywords:
ganizations to face competitive challenges, take advantage of business opportunities, and improve organizational
Psychological capital effectiveness.
Creativity © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Authentic leadership

1. Introduction psychological state of development characterized by: “(1) having

Authentic leadership (AL) is “as a pattern of leader behavior that
draws upon and promotes both positive psychological capacities
and a positive ethical climate, to foster greater self-awareness, an in-
ternalized moral perspective, balanced processing of information, and
relational transparency on the part of leaders working with followers,
fostering positive self-development” (Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner,
Wernsing, & Peterson, 2008: 94). In recent years, the topic is a target
of great interest both among scholars (e.g., Avolio & Gardner, 2005;
Walumbwa et al., 2008) and practitioners (e.g., George, 2003). Both
argue that AL promotes positive employees' attitudes and behaviors
and contributes to organizational performance. More empirical re-
search is necessary for continuing to test this premise.
This paper merges the AL, psychological capital (PsyCap; Luthans,
Youssef, & Avolio, 2007), and creativity literatures, and shows how
AL predicts employees' creativity both directly and through the medi-
ating role of PsyCap (Fig. 1). PsyCap is an individual's positive
☆ The authors are grateful to Bruce J. Avolio, William L. Gardner, and Fred O.
Walumba for their permission to use the Authentic Leadership Questionnaire. They
are also grateful to Fred Luthans, Bruce J. Avolio, and Carolyn M. Youssef for their per-
mission to use the PsyCap questionnaire. Miguel Cunha acknowledges support from
Nova Forum.
⁎ Corresponding author at: Departamento de Economia, Gestão e Engenharia Indus-
trial, Universidade de Aveiro, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal. Tel.: + 351 234 370 024;
fax: + 351 234 370 215.
E-mail addresses: armenio.rego@ua.pt (A. Rego), msousa@esel.ipleiria.pt (F. Sousa),
smarques@utad.pt (C. Marques), mpc@novasbe.pt (M.P. Cunha).
1
Tel.: + 351 244 820 300; fax: + 351 244 820 310.
2
Tel.: + 351 259 302 200; fax: + 351 259 302 249.
3
Tel.: + 351 212 822 725; fax: + 351 213 873 973.
confidence (self-efficacy) to take on and put in the necessary effort
to succeed at challenging tasks; (2) making a positive attribution (op-
timism) about succeeding now and in the future; (3) persevering to-
ward goals and, when necessary, redirecting paths to goals (hope) in
order to succeed; and (4) when beset by problems and adversity, sus-
taining and bouncing back and even beyond (resilience) to attain suc-
cess” (Luthans, Youssef, & Avolio, 2007: 3). The study answers calls to
integrate AL and PsyCap literatures (Gardner, Avolio, Luthans, May, &
Walumbwa, 2005; Yammarino, Dionne, Schriesheim, & Dansereau,
2008) and helps to understand the process through which AL contrib-
utes to employees' creativity.
Studying the antecedents of employees' creativity is important be-
cause, to survive and prosper, organizations need to take full advantage
of their employees' creative potential, so that innovation, change, learn-
ing, performance, and competitiveness can be sustained. Creativity in
the workplace represents the production of novel and useful ideas or
solutions concerning products, services, processes, and procedures
(Amabile, 1988, 1997; Oldham & Cummings, 1997). The goal of creative
performance is to solve problems, to roll out new products and services,
to take advantage of business opportunities, and to improve organiza-
tional effectiveness.
Individual creativity is a function of individual and social/contextual
factors (Egan, 2005; Oldham & Cummings, 1997; Shalley & Gilson,
2004). One of the most relevant contextual factors is leadership. Several
researchers focus on identifying the role of specific leadership behaviors
and leaders' characteristics in supporting, suppressing, facilitating, or inhi-
biting creativity (e.g., Hirst, van Dick, & van Knippenberg, 2009; Mumford,
Scott, Gaddis, & Strange, 2002; Oldham & Cummings, 1997; Rego, Sousa,
Cunha, Correia, & Saur, 2007; Reiter-Palmon and Illies, 2004; Shalley &

0148-2963/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.10.003
430 A. Rego et al. / Journal of Business Research 65 (2012) 429–437
Authentic Employees’ Employees’
leadership PsyCap creativity
Fig. 1. Hypothesized model.
Gilson, 2004; Shin & Zhou, 2003; Tierney, Farmer, & Graen, 1999; Zhou,
2003; Zhang & Bartol, 2010; Zhou & George, 2003; Wang and Cheng,
2010). These behaviors include transformational leadership, emotional
intelligence, close monitoring, developmental feedback, supportive su-
pervision, controlling supervision, benevolent leadership, leader encour-
agement of creativity, leader inspirational motivation, and empowering
leadership.
Studies also focus on employees' characteristics and attitudes that
make them more creative. For example, Amabile (1983) suggests
domain-relevant skills (knowledge and expertise), creativity-relevant
processes (including cognitive styles, cognitive strategies, and personal-
ity variables), and task motivation (attitudes and motivation, such as in-
trinsic motivation) as predictors of creativity. Woodman, Sawyer, and
Griffin (1993) model includes personality variables, cognitive factors,
intrinsic motivation, and knowledge. Ford (1996) includes sense mak-
ing, motivation, knowledge and ability. According to Egan (2005), the
studies identify a consistent number of individual factors associated
with individual creativity, including esthetic sensitivity, attraction to
complexity, broad interests, intuition, and tolerance of ambiguity.
This paper adds to such lines of research, answering to a call of
Shalley and Gilson (2004) for more research focusing on the interaction
between personal characteristics and work context. The study focuses
on how AL (a contextual factor) predicts employees' creativity, both di-
rectly and through the mediating role of employees' PsyCap (a personal
strength). The paper hypothesizes that AL promotes employees' crea-
tivity because authentic leaders encourage employees' PsyCap (Avolio,
Gardner, Walumbwa, Luthans, & May, 2004; Yammarino et al., 2008),
with employees with higher PsyCap being more creative (Avolio et al.,
2004; Bandura, 1997; Rego, Machado, Leal, & Cunha, 2009). The study
also posits direct relationships between AL and creativity because au-
thentic leaders may promote employees' creativity through mecha-
nisms other than PsyCap. For example, AL may improve the quality of
leader–member exchange, thus increasing employees' trust and the
sense of freedom to propose unconventional ideas, and introduce con-
flicting opinions without fear (Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Avolio et al.,
2004; Brower, Schoormanb, & Tan, 2000; Ilies, Morgeson, & Nahrgang,
2005; Liden, Sparrowe, & Wayne, 1997; Prati, Douglas, Ferris, Ammeter,
& Buckley, 2003; Scott & Bruce, 1994). Employees may also feel psycho-
logically safer, thus taking initiative for facing problems and opportuni-
ties in creative ways (Edmondson, 1999; Prati et al., 2003).
The remainder of the paper structures as follows. The second section
discusses arguments leading to the hypotheses. The third and fourth
sections present the method and results, respectively. The final section
discusses the main findings, the limitations of the research, and some
avenues for future research. The study seeks to contribute to enriching
a research stream that is in an early stage of development and to a liter-
ature that is still short on empirical studies (Walumbwa et al., 2008;
Yammarino et al., 2008). Considering that most studies about leader-
ship come from the USA (House & Aditya, 1997), the paper also re-
sponds to a call for research in more culturally diverse samples
(Gelfand, Erez, & Aycan, 2007; Walumbwa et al., 2008).
2. Theory and hypotheses
2.1. The authentic leadership construct
The AL construct comprises four dimensions: (1) Self-awareness is
the degree to which the leader demonstrates an understanding of
how (s)he derives and makes sense of the world and is aware of his
or her strengths, limitations, how others see him or her, and how
(s)he impacts others (Kernis, 2003; Walumbwa et al., 2008); (2) Bal-
anced processing is the degree to which the leader shows that (s)he
objectively analyzes the relevant data before coming to a decision
and solicits views that challenge deeply held positions (Gardner et
al., 2005; Walumbwa et al., 2008); (3) Internalized moral perspective
refers to the degree to which the leader sets a high standard for
moral and ethical conduct, guides actions by internal moral standards
and values (versus group, organizational, and societal pressures), and
expresses decision making and behaviors that are consistent with
such internalized values (Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Gardner et al.,
2005; Walumbwa et al., 2008); (4) Relational transparency is the de-
gree to which the leader presents his/her authentic self (as opposed
to a false or distorted self) to others, openly shares information, and
expresses his/her true thoughts and feelings, reinforcing a level of
openness with others that provides them with an opportunity to be
forthcoming with their ideas, challenges, and opinions.
Empirical evidence (e.g., Kernis & Goldman, 2005; Walumbwa et
al., 2008, forthcoming) shows that a core AL factor can emerge from
the relationships among the four dimensions. Walumbwa et al.
(2008, forthcoming) finds that individual factors do not add any
meaningful incremental validity beyond the common core higher fac-
tor, thus suggesting that the variance attributable to overall AL is
more important than the variance imputable to each individual di-
mension of the AL construct. Considering AL as a core construct is
also conceptually plausible, the literature proposing that the four AL
dimensions are self-regulatory processes governed, partially, through
leaders' internal standards and their evaluations of their own behav-
ior (Gardner et al., 2005).
Therefore, the study hypothesizes considerable overlap among the
four dimensions, and that the higher order AL construct will help to ex-
plain the conceptual and empirical overlap discussed above. Some re-
search (Walumbwa, Luthans, Avey, & Oke, 2009; Walumbwa et al.,
2008) also finds effects of AL on important work attitudes and behav-
iors, after controlling the effects of ethical and transformational leader-
ship. Although the present study cannot include these latter constructs
(because some organizations that participate in the study require ap-
plying a short survey), evidence suggests that the construct has incre-
mental validity regarding those “older” leadership constructs.
2.2. The PsyCap construct
The PsyCap construct comprises four dimensions: self-efficacy, opti-
mism, hope, and resilience. PsyCap meets conceptual and empirical cri-
teria of being distinct from other constructs (Luthans, Avolio, Avey, &
Norman, 2007; Youssef & Luthans, 2007). While Peterson and Seligman's
(2004) character strengths and virtues are “trait-like” (relatively stable
and difficult to change), the PsyCap is “state-like,” and thus relatively mal-
leable and open to development. Both theory-building and prior research
on hope, resilience, optimism, and efficacy indicate that such personal
strengths are amenable to development (Luthans, Avey, Avolio, Norman,
& Combs, 2006; Luthans, Avolio, Avey, & Norman, 2007; Luthans, Youssef,
& Avolio, 2007). Such a state-like nature also differentiates PsyCap from
positively-oriented organizational behavior trait-like constructs, such as
“Big Five” personality dimensions or core self-evaluations (Judge, Bono,
Erez, & Thoresen, 2003).
Earlier research suggests that commonalities among the four dimen-
sions allow considering PsyCap as a core construct (Luthans, Avey, &
Patera, 2008; Luthans, Avolio, Avey, & Norman, 2007). This higher-
order core construct has both conceptual (Luthans & Youssef, 2004;
Luthans, Youssef et al., 2007) and empirical (Luthans, Norman, Avolio,
& Avey, 2008; Luthans, Youssef, & Avolio, 2007) support. As a core con-
struct, PsyCap represents “one's positive appraisal of circumstances and
probability for success based on motivated effort and perseverance”
(Luthans, Avolio, Avey, & Norman, 2007: 550).
 A. Rego et al. / Journal of Business Research 65 (2012) 429–437
Empirical findings show that PsyCap predicts variables such as job
satisfaction, organizational commitment, and work performance
(Larson & Luthans, 2006; Luthans, Avolio, Avey, & Norman, 2007;
Luthans, Norman, Avolio, & Avey, 2008; Youssef & Luthans, 2007).
Next, the paper discusses how employees' PsyCap may work as par-
tial mediator in the relationship between AL and employees'
creativity.
2.3. PsyCap as predictor of creativity
2.3.1. Self-efficacy
Self-efficacious people believe in their abilities to mobilize the mo-
tivation, cognitive resources, and courses of action necessary to suc-
cessfully perform a specific task within a given context (Stajkovic &
Luthans, 1998). Those individuals are likely to choose challenging
tasks and endeavors, apply their efforts and motivational resources
to accomplish their goals, and persevere in the face of obstacles and
difficulties (Bandura, 1997; Luthans, 2002; Luthans & Youssef,
2004). This combination of challenging goals, motivational energy,
and perseverance motivates individuals to propose new and useful
ideas for reaching goals. Self-efficacy is a generative capability, with
Bandura (1997) suggesting that this psychological strength is essen-
tial for creative productivity. Several studies reveal positive relation-
ships between self-efficacy and creativity (e.g., Choi, 2004; Prabhu,
Sutton, & Sauser, 2008; Tierney & Farmer, 2004).
2.3.2. Hope
Being resolute in pursuing goals, hopeful employees tend to be
risk-takers and look for alternative pathways when the old ones are
blocked (Snyder, 1994, 2002). Most hopeful individuals enjoy goal
pursuit, being more intrinsically motivated and looking for creative
ways when implementing their “agency energy” (Amabile, 1988,
1997; Oldham & Cummings, 1997; Shalley & Gilson, 2004; Snyder,
2002). When hopeful individuals do not attain goals, they use the
feedback to improve goal pursuit thoughts and strategies, thus
being more energetic and prone to look for alternative and creative
ways to overcome obstacles (Rego et al., 2009). In short, hope feeds
creativity (Rego et al., 2009).
2.3.3. Optimism
Optimists take credit for favorable events in their lives, strengthen-
ing their self-esteem and morale, which in turn may lead to greater cre-
ativity (Goldsmith & Matherly, 2000; Lyubomirsky, Tkach, & DiMatteo,
2006). Optimists distance themselves from unfavorable life events,
thus diminishing the likelihood of experiencing depression, guilt, self-
blame, and despair. Thus, optimists are less likely to give up and more
likely to have a more positive outlook on stressful situations, to experi-
ence positive emotions, to persevere when facing difficulties, and to
look for creative ways to solve problems and take advantage of oppor-
tunities (Fredrickson, 2001; Youssef & Luthans, 2007).
2.3.4. Resilience
Resilient people are able “to overcome, steer through, bounce back
and reach out to pursue new knowledge and experiences, deeper rela-
tionships with others and [find] meaning in life” (Luthans, Youssef, &
Avolio, 2007: 123). Research suggests that resilience relates to creativity
(Cohler, 1987; Helson, 1999). Resilient employees have zestful and en-
ergetic approaches to life, are curious and open to new experiences
(Tugade, Fredrickson, & Barrett, 2004), and improvise in situations pre-
dominantly characterized by change and uncertainty (Youssef &
Luthans, 2007). As such, resilient employees are likely to develop new
ways of doing things when facing difficulties, failures, and opportuni-
ties. They are more able to recover from negative emotional experiences
and more prone to experience positive emotions in the midst of stress-
ful events. Literature suggests that positive emotions relate to creativity
431
(Fredrickson, 2001; Philippe, Lecours, & Beaulieu-Pelletier, 2009;
Tugade et al., 2004).
2.3.5. PsyCap
As discussed above, theoretical and empirical reasons allow con-
sidering self-efficacy, optimism, hope, and resilience as important
facets of a core PsyCap construct, rather than focusing on any one in-
dividual dimension in particular. One can expect that the combined
motivational effects of the four dimensions will be broader and
more influential than any one of the constructs individually (Luthans,
Avolio, Avey, & Norman, 2007). Synergistic effects among the four
components may occur. Resilience allows employees to re-establish
self-efficacy after experiencing a failure in trying to creatively solve
a problem or taking advantage of an opportunity. Optimism allows
employees to keep their self-efficacy intact after realizing that a crea-
tive proposal did not work. Optimistic, hopeful, and self-efficacious
people are potentially more resilient to adversity (Bandura, 1997;
Luthans, Youssef, & Avolio, 2007). If a self-efficacious employee is
more creative because (s)he accepts significant challenges and carries
out cognitive and creative efforts to achieve goals, such a propensity
is stronger if (s)he also has high hope (Luthans, Avolio, Avey, & Nor-
man, 2007): (s)he does not only accept challenges and make an effort
to achieve goals, but also identifies subgoals and creative pathways to
achieve those goals, and overcomes such obstacles by pursuing mul-
tiple and creative pathways. As Luthans, Avolio, Avey, and Norman,
(2007: 551) point out, “employees who embody high levels of overall
PsyCap may be stronger performers because of the number and level
of positive psychological constructs manifested through their cogni-
tions, motivation, and ultimately their behavior than would those
who only exhibit hope, or resilience, or optimism, or self-efficacy in
a given situation”. Hence: H1: employees with higher PsyCap are
more creative.
2.4. AL as predictor of PsyCap
Several reasons support the prediction that AL influences em-
ployees' PsyCap. Gardner et al. (2005: 345) argue that authentic
leaders “draw from the positive psychological states that accompany
optimal self-esteem and psychological well-being, such as confidence,
optimism, hope and resilience, to model and promote the develop-
ment of these states in others”.
2.4.1. Self-efficacy
Observing exemplary behaviors and psychological strengths in au-
thentic leaders (i.e., through vicarious learning), and receiving con-
structive criticism and feedback in a respectful and developmental
manner from them, employees may develop more confidence in
their abilities to pursue goals (Ilies et al., 2005; Luthans & Youssef,
2004; Luthans, Youssef, & Avolio, 2007). When authentic leaders so-
licit views that challenge deeply held positions and openly share in-
formation with employees, one may expect that employees become
more self-confident (Kirkman & Rosen, 1999; Walumbwa et al.,
2008). Considering that authentic leaders focus on followers'
strengths, unleash their potential (Gardner & Schermerhorn, 2004),
and constantly emphasize their growth, employees' self-efficacy po-
tentially develops through the effect of the self-fulfilling prophecy
(Avolio et al., 2004; Gardner et al., 2005; Luthans, Youssef, & Avolio,
2007).
2.4.2. Hope
Avolio et al. (2004: 809) observe: “Because authentic leaders have
the ability to remain realistically hopeful and trustworthy, such
leaders can enhance followers' hope by establishing not only their
willpower, but also by including in their comments positive aspects
of the waypower or directions to pursue that enhance a follower's
sense of self-efficacy”. Authentic leaders provide senses of self-
432 A. Rego et al. / Journal of Business Research 65 (2012) 429–437
determination, security, and trust, which enable followers to focus
their energies on goal-related endeavors and on finding different
pathways for solving problems and benefitting from opportunities
(Avolio et al., 2004; Edmondson, 1999; Ilies et al., 2005). Over time,
because authentic leaders are viewed as more credible sources of
input and feedback (Walumbwa et al., 2008), employees likely perse-
vere toward goals and, when necessary, redirect paths to goals in
order to succeed. Positive emotions and self-efficacy that employees
develop when led by authentic leaders may also make them more
able to sustain their willpower and to develop waypower for reaching
challenging goals (Avolio et al., 2004; Gardner & Schermerhorn, 2004;
Luthans, Youssef, & Avolio, 2007).
2.4.3. Optimism
Several authors suggest that AL fosters employees' optimism
(Avolio et al., 2004; De Hoogh & Den Hartog, 2008; Gardner & Scher-
merhorn, 2004; McColl-Kennedy & Anderson, 2002). For example,
Gardner and Schermerhorn (2004: 275) note that one “task of the au-
thentic leaders is to raise optimism”. Avolio et al. (2004) stress that
authentic leaders influence employees' optimism by increasing their
identification with the leaders and encouraging their positive emo-
tions. De Hoogh and Den Hartog (2008) reveal that ethical leadership
(an authentic-like leadership; Avolio et al., 2004) relates significantly
with employees' optimism about their future. In their view, by being
fair, caring about followers' feelings, promoting transparent and open
communication, rewarding ethical conduct, and investing followers
with voice, such leaders make employees more positive and optimis-
tic about their organization and work situation, and more willing to
remain and contribute to its success. In short, because authentic
leaders tend to use more active, adaptive, and positive approaches to-
ward problem solving, they are more likely to motivate and challenge
employees to do the same (Peterson, 2000; Walumbwa et al., 2009).
2.4.4. Resilience
Gardner and Schermerhorn (2004: 277) argue that one “task of
the authentic leaders is strengthening resilience”. These leaders may
carry out such a task through several routes (Gardner et al., 2005;
Luthans & Youssef, 2004; Luthans, Youssef, & Avolio, 2007), includ-
ing: (a) promoting good interpersonal relationships, thus developing
conditions so that employees receive social support in adverse times,
this support being important for sustaining resilience; (b) increasing
employees' self-confidence and psychological safety, which makes
them more able to face problems and adversities with resilience; (c)
promoting employees' positive emotions, these emotions helping to
develop resilience (Tugade et al., 2004). As the authors argue (p.
278), “[a]uthentic leaders capitalize on individual resilience by ensur-
ing that others have the support they need to (1) recover from adver-
sity, and (2) not only withstand but thrive when faced with high
levels of positive change. They anticipate potential adversity or
strains, make contingency plans to support and help employees
cope with them, and are available and responsive when such persons
reach out to them.”
2.4.5. PsyCap
Due to the reasons explained above, synergistic effects upon the
several PsyCap capabilities may occur when leaders are authentic.
For example, when developing the employees' self-efficacy, hope,
and optimism, authentic leaders also increase the employees' psycho-
logical resources that help them to bounce back when facing difficul-
ties, drawbacks, and failures. Resilience and optimism encouraged by
an authentic leader may allow employees to keep their self-efficacy
intact or re-establish self-efficacy after experiencing a failure. Opti-
mistic, hopeful, and self-efficacious people are potentially more resil-
ient. Through contagion effects (Ilies et al., 2005; Norman, Luthans, &
Luthans, 2005), the psychological strengths of authentic leaders may
promote the employees' overall PsyCap. In short, as Yammarino et al.
(2008) suggest, AL potentially influences positive psychological capa-
bilities such as PsyCap. Hence: H2. Stronger authentic leadership asso-
ciates with higher employees' PsyCap.
2.5. PsyCap as partial mediator of the relationship between AL and em-
ployees' creativity
The arguments above suggest that employees led by authentic
leaders develop higher PsyCap and that this psychological resource
drives them to be more creative. However, other mechanisms explain
why authentic leaders may nurture employees' creativity. Being self-
aware, transparent with employees, guided by internal ethical stan-
dards, and able to analyze objectively all relevant data (including em-
ployees' dissenting opinions and proposals), authentic leaders
promote employees' trust and respect (Avolio et al., 2004; Deluga,
1994; Dirks & Ferrin, 2002; Gardner et al., 2005; Ilies et al., 2005;
Walumbwa et al., 2008). Trust and respect are important because
people experience greater emotional safety and feel free to propose
unconventional ideas and introduce conflicting opinions without
fear (Avolio et al., 2004; Edmondson, 1999; Prati et al., 2003; Rego
et al., 2007). Considering their balanced processing and relational
transparency, authentic leaders feel less threatened by the changes
that employees' ideas may imply, and are more inclined to welcome
their creative suggestions (Michie & Gooty, 2005). Their self-
awareness and balanced processing make them more cautious when
evaluating employees' ideas (Zhou & George, 2003) and more able
to understand how they are biased toward some people's ideas.
Due to their ethical self-guidance, relational transparency, and ca-
pacity for processing data in an unbiased way, authentic leaders are
able to provide constructive criticism and feedback in a fair, respect-
ful, informational, and developmental (rather than controlling) man-
ner (Avolio et al., 2004; Michie & Gooty, 2005; Zhou, 2003; Zhou &
George, 2003). These informational practices provide employees
with relevant information to improve their performance without
pressure for a particular outcome, and they are thus more inclined
to search for and propose creative ideas to face problems and oppor-
tunities. Authentic leaders also promote employees' intrinsic motiva-
tion (Ilies et al., 2005), which can act as a trigger of creativity
(Amabile, 1997; Deci & Ryan, 1985; Kernis, 2003; Oldham & Cum-
mings, 1997; Tierney et al., 1999). Intrinsic motivation is crucial for
creativity because an intrinsically motivated person tends to be (a)
curious and learning oriented, (b) cognitively flexible, (c) willing to
take risks, and (d) persistent when facing obstacles, challenges, and
opportunities (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Zhou, 2003).
Through positive social exchanges with their followers, authentic
leaders may also inspire them to work with more enthusiasm and ex-
citement and to experience other positive emotions (Avolio et al.,
2004; Ilies et al., 2005; Prati et al., 2003; Zhou & George, 2003).
These positive emotions can broaden the employees' scope of atten-
tion (increasing the number of cognitive elements available for asso-
ciation) and the scope of cognition (increasing the breadth of those
elements that are treated as relevant to the problem), thus increasing
the probability of creative activities (Fredrickson, 2001). The follow-
ing two hypotheses follow from this discussion: H3. Stronger authen-
tic leadership associates with higher employees' creativity. H4.
Employees' PsyCap partially mediates the effect of AL on employees'
creativity.
3. Method
3.1. Sample and procedures
Participants in the study are 201 employees, working in 33 com-
merce organizations operating in Portugal. Organizations compete
in several sectors (e.g., food, clothing, appliances, sports, toys, foot-
wear, and office materials, furniture, and equipment). All participants
 A. Rego et al. / Journal of Business Research 65 (2012) 429–437 433

(68.0% female) are shop assistants. Mean age is 26.4 years (standard Table 1
deviation: 4.1), and mean organizational tenure is 3.2 years (SD: Employee-reported authentic leadership: Confirmatory factor analysis (completely
standardized solution).
2.0). 8.4% of the individuals have nine or fewer years of schooling,
41.8% have between 10 and 12 years, and 49.8% have at least an un- 1st-order 2nd-order Cronbach
dergraduate degree. The mean length of supervisor-employee contact factor model factor model alphas

is 2.8 years (SD: 1.7). Lambdas Fit indices Lambdas Fit indices
After obtaining the permission of the organizations' leaders, the Self-awareness 0.92
researchers approach the employees in their workplaces. Individuals Item # 13 0.79 0.79
report their supervisors' AL and their PsyCap. Supervisors rate the Item # 14 0.88 0.88
employees' creativity at work (each supervisor rating only one of Item # 15 0.89 0.89
Item # 16 0.92 0.92
their respective employees). Shalley and Gilson (2004: 35) argue Balanced processing 0.85
that “managers play a key role in that they are often the individuals Item # 11 0.89 0.88
best suited to make the determination of whether an employee's out- Item # 12 0.85 0.86
come should be regarded as creative.” To avoid any form of embar- Internalized moral 0.88
perspective
rassment, subordinates and supervisors fill in their questionnaires in
Item # 6 0.87 0.86
separate locations. To guarantee anonymity, the participants deliver Item # 8 0.85 0.85
their responses under sealed cover directly to the researchers. To re- Item # 9 0.82 0.82
duce common method bias (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, Relational transparency 0.86
2003), the study also uses different formats and/or ranges for the Item # 1 0.87 0.87
Item # 3 0.78 0.78
AL, PsyCap, and creativity measures (see the next sub-sections). Item # 4 0.82 0.82
Authentic leadership 0.91
Self-awareness 0.96
3.2. Authentic leadership measurement Relational transparency 0.88
Internalized moral 0.86
perspective
The study uses the 16 five-point items of the Authentic Leadership Balanced processing 0.89
Questionnaire (Copyright © 2007 Authentic Leadership Questionnaire Chi-square 92.96 93.64
(ALQ) by Bruce J. Avolio, William L. Gardner, and Fred O. Walumbwa. Degrees of freedom 48 50
All rights reserved in all media. Distributed by Mind Garden, Inc. Chi-square/degrees 1.9 1.9
of freedom
www.mindgarden.com) for measuring AL. The questionnaire measures
Root mean square error 0.07 0.07
four dimensions: self-awareness, relational transparency, internalized of approximation
moral perspective, and balanced processing. Sample items are: (a) Goodness of fit index 0.93 0.93
Seeks feedback to improve interactions with others (self-awareness); Adjusted goodness 0.88 0.88
of fit index
(b) Says exactly what he or she means (relational transparency); (c)
Comparative fit index 0.97 0.97
Demonstrates beliefs that are consistent with actions (internalized Incremental fit index 0.97 0.98
moral perspective); (d) Listens carefully to different points of view be- Relative fit index 0.93 0.94
fore coming to conclusions (balanced processing). A first translator In brackets and bold: Cronbach alphas.
translates the items from English to Portuguese, and a second translator Item numbers are those of ALQ.
independently back-translates them to English. Both translators discuss
discrepancies between the original and the back-translated versions.
Two bilingual Portuguese scholars again discuss the final version, and For testing the impact of removing items on the internalized moral
the authors make final adjustments. perspective, relational transparency, and balanced processing dimen-
Individuals report the frequency (0: “not at all”; 4: “frequently, if sions, the study correlates scores as computed with the final versus
not always”) with which their supervisors adopt the 16 behaviors/at- the original set of items. Correlations are, respectively, 0.99, 0.96
titudes. Confirmatory factor analysis (using LISREL with the maxi- and 0.95. For overall AL, the correlation between scores as computed
mum likelihood estimation method) tests the four-factor model. with the initial versus the final set of items is 0.99.
Because fit indices are unsatisfactory (e.g., RMSEA: 0.12; GFI: 0.82),
the study uses standardized residuals and modification indices for lo- 3.3. Psychological capital measurement
cating sources of misspecification (Bagozzi & Baumgartner, 1994).
After deliberation based on both techniques, the study discards four For measuring PsyCap, the study uses the questionnaire proposed by
items (one regarding internalized moral perspective, two regarding Luthans, Youssef, and Avolio (2007), comprising 24 six-point items (1:
relational transparency, and one regarding balanced processing). A “strongly disagree”; …; 6: “strongly agree”) and measuring self-efficacy,
well-fitted 12-item model emerges (Table 1). All Cronbach Alphas optimism, hope, and resilience (six items per dimension). Sample items
are higher than 0.70. A second-order factor model, where the four are: (a) I feel confident in representing my work area in meetings with
AL dimensions load on a higher AL factor, fit the data satisfactorily management (self-efficacy); (b) When things are uncertain for me at
(Table 1). Comparison of the first- and second-order models shows work, I usually expect the best (optimism); (c) I can think of many
no significant change in χ² relative to the difference in degrees of free- ways to reach my current work goals (hope); (d) I usually take stressful
dom (Δχ²(2) = 0.68; p = 0.71). The fit indices of the single latent fac- things at work in stride (resilience). Two bilingual individuals, working
tor (all 12 items loading on a single factor model) are unsatisfactory independently, translate the scales to the Portuguese language. Both in-
(e.g., RMSEA: 0.15). The comparison of this single latent factor with dividuals develop an iterative discussion for solving disagreements and
the second-order factor model shows a significant change in χ² rela- for reaching a single version. Two other bilingual individuals, working
tive to the difference in degrees of freedom (Δχ²(4) = 190.66; independently, back-translate the Portuguese version to English. The
p b 0.001). Taking these findings into account, the study considers first author compares these back-translated versions with the original,
AL as a core construct. To obtain a composite AL score: (1) the study and solves disagreements and discrepancies through an iterative dis-
averages the items for each of the four subscales to arrive at a com- cussion with both individuals. The first author also consults and dis-
posite average for each subscale; (2) then, the study averages the av- cusses the final version with three organizational members (Brislin,
erages for each of the four subscales. Cronbach Alpha is 0.91. Lonner, & Thorndike, 1973).
434 A. Rego et al. / Journal of Business Research 65 (2012) 429–437

A confirmatory factor analysis (using LISREL with the maximum respectively, 0.99, 0.98, and 0.98. For overall PsyCap, the correlation
likelihood estimation method) tests how the four-factor model fits between scores as computed with the initial versus the final set of
the data. Although RMSEA is satisfactory (0.08), several other fit indi- items is 0.99.
ces are not (e.g., GFI: 0.82) and two Lambdas are lower than 0.50. The
study removes these two items and, after analyzing standardized re- 3.4. Employees' creativity measurement
siduals and modification indices for locating sources of misspecifica-
tion, removes a third one. A reasonably well-fitted 21-item model For measuring employees' creativity, the study uses four items
emerges (Table 2). All Lambdas are higher than 0.50. All reliabilities proposed by Zhou and George (2001), representing new and useful
are higher than 0.80. The fit indices of a second-order factor model, ideas. Sample items are: (1) “This employee comes up with new
with the four factors loading onto an overall PsyCap factor, are satis- and practical ideas to improve performance”; (2) “This employee sug-
factory (Table 2). Comparison of the first- and second-order shows no gests new ways to increase quality”. Rego et al.'s (2007) Portuguese
significant change in χ² relative to the difference in degrees of free- translation is used. Supervisors report how frequently the employee
dom (Δχ²(2) = 1.12; p = 0.56). The fit indices of a single latent factor adopts the five behaviors, on a scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (fre-
(all 21 items loading on a single factor) are unsatisfactory (e.g., quently). Cronbach Alpha is 0.90.
RMSEA: 0.11). The comparison of this single latent factor with the
second-order factor model shows a significant change in χ² relative 3.5. Confirmatory factor analyses for testing discriminant validity and
to the difference in degrees of freedom (Δχ²(4) = 227.67; p b 0.001). common source effects
Taking these findings into account, the study considers PsyCap as a
core construct. To obtain a composite PsyCap score: (1) the study av- The study carries out a series of dimension-level confirmatory fac-
erages the items for each of the four subscales to arrive at a composite tor analyses to examine whether the three variables of the study cap-
average for each subscale; (2) then, the study averages the averages ture distinct constructs versus common source effects. The three-
for each of the four subscales. Cronbach Alpha is 0.90. factor model fits the data well (e.g., RMSEA: 0.08; GFI: 0.91; NNFI:
For testing the impact of removing items on the hope, resilience, 0.95; CFI: 0.96; IFI: 0.96). The study tests three other models: (1) A
and optimism dimensions, the study correlates scores as computed two-factor model, where employees' PsyCap and creativity merge
with the final versus the original set of items. Correlations are, into a single factor, does not fit the data satisfactorily (e.g., RMSEA:
0.16; GFI: 0.78); (2) Another two-factor model, where AL and em-
Table 2 ployees' PsyCap merge into a single factor, also does not fit the data
Psychological capital: Confirmatory factor analysis (completely standardized solution). satisfactorily (e.g., RMSEA: 0.19; GFI: 0.74); (3) The single factor
model also does not fit the data satisfactorily (e.g., RMSEA: 0.22;
Four-factor 2nd-order Cronbach
model factor model alphas
GFI: 0.67). These findings provide support for the discriminant valid-
ity of AL, PsyCap, and creativity.
Lambdas Fit indices Lambdas Fit indices
Following Podsakoff et al. (2003), the study compares two models
Self-efficacy 0.87 for examining the extent to which the results are due to common
Item # 1 0.67 0.67
methods variance. The first model includes three factors: four indica-
Item # 2 0.76 0.76
Item # 3 0.78 0.78 tors loading on the AL factor, four indicators loading on the PsyCap
Item # 4 0.66 0.66 factor, and four items loading on the creativity factor. The second
Item # 5 0.78 0.78 model is identical to the first except for the addition of a latent meth-
Item # 6 0.74 0.74 od variance factor comprising the 12 items/indicators. No substantive
Hope 0.85
Item # 7 0.70 0.70
difference exists between the fit indices of either model (e.g., RMSEA
Item # 9 0.71 0.70 for both models is the same). These findings suggest that common
Item # 10 0.80 0.80 source bias does not constitute a serious threat to the validity of the
Item # 11 0.83 0.83 study.
Item # 12 0.74 0.74
Resilience 0.85
Item # 14 0.74 0.74 3.6. Controlling for clustering the data
Item # 15 0.75 0.73
Item # 16 0.77 0.77 For assessing if aggregating individual scores at the organizational
Item # 17 0.76 0.76 level is statistically justifiable, the study uses intraclass correlation
Item # 18 0.72 0.72
Optimism 0.82
(ICC). ICC is a measure of within-group consensus, the median value
Item # 19 0.64 0.64 in organizational research typically being 0.12 (James, 1982). For AL,
Item # 20 − 0.51 − 0.51 PsyCap, and creativity, ICC is lower than 0.01. These findings suggest
Item # 21 0.76 0.76 that aggregating scores is not justified.
Item # 22 0.85 0.85
Item # 24 0.75 0.75
PsyCap 0.90 4. Results
Self-efficacy 0.92
Hope 0.92 Table 3 presents means, standard deviations, and correlations.
Resilience 0.84 Several control variables intercorrelate, but none correlates signifi-
Optimism 0.89
Chi-square 378.11 379.26
cantly with AL, PsyCap, or creativity. AL relates positively with em-
Degrees of freedom 183 185 ployees' PsyCap and creativity. Employees' PsyCap and creativity
Chi-square/Degrees 2.1 2.1 intercorrelate positively. Therefore: (a) employees with higher Psy-
of freedom ratio Cap are more creative and (b) employees with higher PsyCap and cre-
Root mean square error 0.07 0.07
ativity are those whose leaders are more authentic.
of approximation
Goodness of fit index 0.85 0.85 Structural equation modeling (using LISREL with the maximum
Non-normed fit index 0.90 0.90 likelihood estimation method) tests the causal model, considering
Comparative fit index 0.91 0.91 both the final and the initial set of items for measuring AL and PsyCap.
Incremental fit index 0.91 0.91 The study uses employees' gender, age, schooling, tenure, and length
Item numbers are those of Luthans, Youssef, and Avolio (2007, pp. 237–238). of supervisor–subordinate contact as control. The findings (see Fig. 2,
 A. Rego et al. / Journal of Business Research 65 (2012) 429–437 435

Table 3
Means, standard deviations, and correlations.

Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Employees' gender (a) – – –

2. Employees' age 26.4 4.12 0.16⁎ –
3. Employees' schooling (b) 2.4 0.64 0.36⁎⁎⁎ 0.45⁎⁎⁎ –
4. Employees' tenure 3.2 2.06 − 0.03 0.55⁎⁎⁎ − 0.04 –
5. Subordinate-supervisor length of contact (years) 2.8 1.71 − 0.03 0.44⁎⁎⁎ 0.08 0.72⁎⁎⁎ –
6. Authentic leadership 2.9 0.72 − 0.02 − 0.03 − 0.01 − 0.02 0.04 (0.91)
7. Employees' overall PsyCap 3.7 0.63 0.07 0.00 0.12 − 0.01 0.03 0.65⁎⁎⁎ (0.90)
8. Employees' creativity 3.0 0.81 − 0.01 − 0.01 0.09 0.04 0.13 0.65⁎⁎⁎ 0.71⁎⁎⁎ (0.90)

In brackets: Cronbach alphas.

(a) 0: female; 1: male.
(b) 1: nine or fewer years of schooling; 2: 10–12 years; 3: at least an undergraduate degree.
In brackets: Cronbach alphas.
⁎ p b 0.05.
⁎⁎⁎ p b 0.001.

depicting standardized path coefficients) show that all predicted
paths are significant, for both models. The model is saturated, and
the fit is perfect, also for both models.
The fit indices of a full mediated model, without the path between
AL and employees' creativity, are unsatisfactory (e.g., RMSEA is 0.36
and 0.38, respectively, when the study considers the final and the
original set of items for measuring AL and PsyCap). The findings sup-
port the four hypotheses, suggesting that AL predicts employees' cre-
ativity both directly and through the mediating role of employees'
PsyCap.
5. Discussion and conclusions
5.1. Main findings
intrinsically motivated, and develop greater commitment toward
their leaders?
The predictive value of AL for employees' PsyCap is also important
because PsyCap relates with variables such as job satisfaction, organiza-
tional commitment, happiness at work, and in-role and extra-role per-
formance (Avey, Wernsing, & Luthans, 2008; Luthans, Avolio, Avey, &
Norman, 2007; Luthans, Norman, Avolio, & Avey, 2008; Youssef &
Luthans, 2007). Therefore, the study indirectly corroborates theoretical
and empirical evidence showing that authentic leaders may be able to
foster employee flourishing and performance (Gardner et al., 2005;
Walumbwa et al., 2008). This is a contribution to a field where empirical
studies remain scarce (Walumbwa et al., 2008; Yammarino et al., 2008),
mainly regarding the mediating variables that explain the impact of AL
in outcomes with organizational relevance.

Creativity is the first step in innovation, and innovation is crucial
for long-term organizational success (Amabile, 1997). Thus, organiza-
tions need to take advantage of and facilitate the creativity of their
employees. This study may help organizations and researchers to
identify ways to address these needs. The findings suggest that AL is
an important predictor of employees' creativity and help to under-
stand the processes through which the relationship operates. Authen-
tic leaders promote employees' creativity because employees develop
higher PsyCap, thus being more creative. The findings also show di-
rect relationships between AL and employees' creativity, suggesting
that other variables/mechanisms than PsyCap operate in the process
that makes the employees led by authentic leaders more creative. Fu-
ture studies may explore the influence of variables such as identifica-
tion with the supervisor, psychological empowerment, work
engagement, trust, feelings of meaningful work, intrinsic motivation,
positive emotions, leader–member exchange, and followers' authen-
ticity. For example, do authentic leaders promote employees' creativ-
ity because the employees feel empowered, engaged, happier,
Employees’
PsyCap 0.49***
0.67***
(0.68***) R2: 0.45 (0.47) (0.46***)
Authentic
0.34***
leadership
(0.37***)
R2: 0.04 (0.03)
Fig. 2. Structural equation modeling for predicting employees' creativity (standardized
path coefficients). ***p b 0.001. The paths related to the control variables (gender, age,
schooling, tenure, and the length of supervisor–subordinate contact) are not shown.
Numbers outside (in) brackets represent the model as estimated with the final (initial)
set of items of the authentic leadership and the PsyCap measures.
5.2. Limitations and future studies
The study is not without its limitations and future studies are neces-
sary for a better understanding of why authentic leaders impact em-
ployees' creativity. First: the data do not allow an unquestionable
determination of the hypothesized causality, other causal links and ex-
planations being plausible. For example, employees with higher PsyCap
and creativity levels may motivate leaders to reciprocate and to be more
transparent with them and to solicit views that challenge deeply held
positions. Leaders may feel free to behave more authentically if they
perceive high levels of psychological and creative resources in their em-
ployees. Performing creativity acts may induce positive emotions of
pride and achievement in employees (Fredrickson, 2003), making
them more prone to describe their leaders positively (Brief & Weiss,
2002). Such employees' positive emotions may also influence the
leaders' emotions through emotional contagion (Barsade, 2002), thus
motivating leaders to behave more authentically toward subordinates
(Ilies et al., 2005). A supervisor may report more creativity in his/her
subordinates, not because subordinates are necessarily more creative,
but because the subordinates' PsyCap improves the quality of leader–
member exchange, and creates a halo effect that induces the supervisor
to be more benevolent when reporting the employees' creativity. The
relationship between employee PsyCap and creativity may emerge be-
cause creative employees develop solutions and make proposals that
Employees’
make them feel more optimistic and self-efficacious. Authentic leaders
creativity
may experience more positive emotions, thus being more benevolent
R2: 0.59 (0.59)
while describing the employees' creativity, regardless of the real crea-
tive behaviors. Future studies may use longitudinal and experimental
or quasi-experimental methods for having a clearer picture of the cau-
sality nexus.
Second: the study uses a convenience sample, including only em-
ployees working in commerce. Future studies may test the
436 A. Rego et al. / Journal of Business Research 65 (2012) 429–437
hypothesized model with employees from other types of organizations
and industries. Third: only one mediating variable is included. Future
studies may include other mediating variables for explaining why au-
thentic leaders tend to promote their employee's creativity. Fourth: fu-
ture studies may also test the degree to which some personal
characteristics (e.g., propensity to trust, positive and negative affect, in-
dividualistic/collectivistic values, and personal virtues and strengths
such as gratitude, forgiveness, compassion, love, kindness, and honesty)
moderate the relationships between AL and employees' creativity. For
example, are employees with higher scores on gratitude, compassion,
and forgiveness more/less sensitive to AL? Are in-group collectivistic
employees more sensitive to perceptions of AL than individualistic
ones? Do employees with higher positive affect respond more positive-
ly to leader authenticity? Fifth: future studies may adopt team and/or
organizational levels of analysis and test if the collective phenomena
identified by Walumbwa et al. (2009) also perform when studying col-
lective creativity. Sixth: Studying a single culture may produce some id-
iosyncratic findings. For example, does the feminine and highly in-
group collectivistic features of the Portuguese culture (Hofstede, 1991;
House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004) make Portuguese em-
ployees more sensitive to authentic leaders than the employees from
masculine and low in-group collectivistic cultures? Future studies may
use a cross-cultural research method for testing if culture moderates
the relationship between AL and dependent variables.
5.3. Implications for management and concluding remarks
In spite of the above-mentioned limitations, the study suggests that
the AL and PsyCap constructs interrelate, and that both may help em-
ployees to be more creative. Indirectly, the study suggests that (a) select-
ing leaders with authentic features and (b) implementing training and
development actions aimed at increasing AL (Avolio & Gardner, 2005;
Gardner et al., 2005; Luthans & Avolio, 2003) and PsyCap (Luthans et al.,
2006; Luthans, Youssef, & Avolio, 2007; Luthans, Avey, & Patera, 2008)
may have a positive impact on employees' psychological resources and
performance. Developing employees' PsyCap through processes other
than AL may also pay off in terms of employees' creativity. Through
these PsyCap enhancing tools, managers and organizations may also stim-
ulate other positive consequences of this psychological strength, includ-
ing workplace performance, job satisfaction, work happiness, and
organizational commitment (Luthans et al., 2005; Luthans, Youssef, &
Avolio, 2007; Luthans, Avey, & Patera, 2008; Youssef & Luthans, 2007;
Walumbwa et al., 2009). Luthans and Youssef (2004) suggest that organi-
zations need to invest not only in human and social capital, but also in
psychological capital; and George (2003: 9) argues: “we need leaders
who lead with purpose, values, and integrity; leaders who build enduring
organizations, motivate their employees to provide superior customer
service, and create long-term value for shareholders”. This study suggests
that both claims make sense, not only from a theoretical point of view, but
also from an empirical one.
References
Amabile TM. The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1983;45:357–76.
Amabile TM. A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In: Staw BM, Cummings
LL, editors. Research in organizational behavior, vol. 10. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press; 1988.
p. 123–67.
Amabile TM. Motivating creativity in organizations: On doing what you love and loving
what you do. California Management Review 1997;40(1):39–58.
Avey HB, Wernsing TS, Luthans F. Can positive employees help positive organizational
change? Impact of psychological capital and emotions on relevant attitudes and
behaviors. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 2008;44(1):48–70.
Avolio BJ, Gardner WL. Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of pos-
itive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly 2005;16:315–38.
Avolio BJ, Gardner WL, Walumbwa FO, Luthans F, May DR. Unlocking the mask: A look
at the process by which authentic leaders impact follower attitudes and behaviors.
The Leadership Quarterly 2004;15:801–23.
Bagozzi RP, Baumgartner H. The evaluation of structural equation models and hypoth-
esis testing. In: Bagozzi RP, editor. Principles of marketing research. Oxford: Black-
well; 1994. p. 386–422.
Bandura A. Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman; 1997.
Barsade SG. The ripple effect: Emotional contagion and its influence on group behavior.
Administrative Science Quarterly 2002;47(4):644–75.
Brief AB, Weiss HM. Organizational behavior: Affect in the workplace. Annual Review
of Psychology 2002;53:279–307.
Brislin RW, Lonner W, Thorndike RM. Cross-cultural research methods. New York: John
Wiley and Sons; 1973.
Brower HH, Schoormanb FD, Tan HH. A model of relational leadership: The integration of
trust and leader–member exchange. The Leadership Quarterly 2000;11(2):227–50.
Choi JM. Individual and contextual predictors of creative performance: The mediating
role of psychological processes. Creativity Research Journal 2004;16(2/3):187–99.
Cohler BJ. Adversity, resilience, and the study of lives. In: Anthony EJ, Cohler BJ, editors.
The invulnerable child. New York: Guilford; 1987. p. 363–404.
De Hoogh AHB, Den Hartog DN. Ethical and despotic leadership, relationships with lea-
der's social responsibility, top management team effectiveness and subordinates'
optimism: A multi-method study. The Leadership Quarterly 2008;19:297–311.
Deci EL, Ryan RM. Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New
York: Plenum; 1985.
Deluga RJ. Supervisor trust building, leader-member exchange and organizational citizenship
behavior. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 1994;67:315–26.
Dirks KT, Ferrin DL. Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for re-
search and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology 2002;87(4):611–28.
Edmondson A. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administra-
tive Science Quarterly 1999;44:350–83.
Egan TM. Factors influencing individual creativity in the workplace: An examination of
quantitative empirical research. Advances in Developing Human Resources 2005;7
(2):160–81.
Ford CM. A theory of individual creative action in multiple social domains. Academy of
Management Review 1996;21:1112–42.
Fredrickson BL. The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-
build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist 2001;56(3):218–26.
Fredrickson BL. Positive emotions and upward spirals in organizational settings. In:
Cameron KS, Dutton JE, Quinn RE, editors. Positive organizational scholarship.
San Francisco: Berrett Koehler; 2003. p. 163–75.
Gardner WL, Schermerhorn Jr JR. Unleashing individual potential: Performance gains
through positive organizational behavior and authentic leadership. Organizational
Dynamics 2004;33(3):270–9.
Gardner WL, Avolio BJ, Luthans F, May DR, Walumbwa FO. Can you see the real me? A
self-based model of authentic leader and follower development. The Leadership
Quarterly 2005;16:343–72.
Gelfand MJ, Erez M, Aycan Z. Cross-cultural organizational behavior. Annual Review of
Psychology 2007;58:479–514.
George B. Authentic leadership: Rediscovering the secrets to creating lasting value. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass; 2003.
Goldsmith RE, Matherly TA. Creativity and self-esteem: A multiple operationalization
validity study. Journal of Psychology 2000;122(1):47–56.
Helson R. A longitudinal study of creative personality in women. Creativity Research
Journal 1999;12(2):89-101.
Hirst G, van Dick R, van Knippenberg D. A social identity perspective on leadership and
employee creativity. Journal of Organizational Behavior 2009;30(7):963–82.
Hofstede G. Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London: McGraw-Hill; 1991.
House RJ, Aditya RN. The social scientific study of leadership: Quo vadis? Journal of
Management 1997;23:409–73.
House R, Hanges P, Javidan M, Dorfman P, Gupta V, editors. Culture, leadership, and or-
ganizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2004.
Ilies R, Morgeson FP, Nahrgang JD. Authentic leadership and eudaemonic well-being:
Understanding leader–follower outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly 2005;16:
373–94.
James LR. Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual measures. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology 1982;67:219–29.
Judge TA, Bono JE, Erez A, Thoresen CJ. The core self-evaluations scale (CSES): Develop-
ment of a measure. Personnel Psychology 2003;56(2):303–31.
Kernis MH. Toward a conceptualization of optimal self-esteem. Psychological Inquiry
2003;14:1-26.
Kernis MH, Goldman BM. From thought and experience to behavior and interpersonal
relationships: A multicomponent conceptualization of authenticity. In: Tesser A,
Wood JV, Stapel D, editors. On building, defending and regulating the self: A psy-
chological perspective. New York: Psychology Press; 2005. p. 31–52.
Kirkman BL, Rosen B. Beyond self-management: Antecedents and consequences of
team empowerment. Academy of Management Journal 1999;42:58–74.
Larson M, Luthans F. Potential added value of psychological capital in predicting work
attitudes. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies 2006;13(1):45–62.
Liden RC, Sparrowe RT, Wayne SJ. Leader–member exchange theory: the past and po-
tential for the future. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management
1997;15:47-119.
Luthans F. Positive organizational behavior: Developing and managing psychological
strengths. The Academy of Management Executive 2002;16(1):57–72.
Luthans F, Avolio BJ. Authentic leadership: A positive developmental approach. In:
Cameron KS, Dutton JE, Quinn RE, editors. Positive organizational scholarship.
San Francisco, CA: Barrett-Koehler; 2003. p. 241–61.
Luthans F, Youssef CM. Human, social, and now positive psychological capital manage-
ment: Investing in people for competitive advantage. Organizational Dynamics
2004;33:143–60.
 A. Rego et al. / Journal of Business Research 65 (2012) 429–437
Luthans F, Avolio BJ, Walumbwa FO, Li W. The psychological capital of Chinese
workers: exploring the relationship with performance. Management and Organi-
zation Review 2005;1:249–71.
Luthans F, Avey JB, Avolio BJ, Norman SM, Combs GM. Psychological capital development:
Toward a micro-intervention. Journal of Organizational Behavior 2006;27(3):387–93.
Luthans F, Avolio BJ, Avey JB, Norman SM. Positive psychological capital: Measurement
and relationship with performance and satisfaction. Personnel Psychology 2007;60
(3):541–72.
Luthans F, Youssef CM, Avolio BJ. Psychological capital. Oxford: Oxford University Press;
2007.
Luthans F, Avey JB, Patera JL. Experimental analysis of a web-based intervention to de-
velop positive psychological capital. The Academy of Management Learning and
Education 2008;7(2):209–21.
Luthans F, Norman SM, Avolio BJ, Avey JA. The mediating role of psychological capital
in the supportive organizational climate — employee performance relationship.
Journal of Organizational Behavior 2008;29(2):219–38.
Lyubomirsky S, Tkach C, DiMatteo MR. What are the differences between happiness
and self-esteem. Social Indicators Research 2006;78(3):363–404.
McColl-Kennedy JR, Anderson RD. Impact of leadership style and emotions on subordi-
nate performance. The Leadership Quarterly 2002;13:545–59.
Michie S, Gooty J. Values, emotions, and authenticity: Will the real leader please stand
up? The Leadership Quarterly 2005;16:441–57.
Mumford MD, Scott GM, Gaddis B, Strange JM. Leading creative people: Orchestrating
expertise and relationships. The Leadership Quarterly 2002;13:705–50.
Norman S, Luthans B, Luthans K. The proposed contagion effect of hopeful leaders on
the resiliency of employees and organizations. Journal of Leadership & Organiza-
tional Studies 2005;12(2):55–64.
Oldham GR, Cummings A. Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at
work. Academy of Management Journal 1997;39:607–34.
Peterson C. The future of optimism. American Psychologist 2000;55:44–55.
Peterson C, Seligman MEP. Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association and Oxford University Press; 2004.
Philippe FL, Lecours S, Beaulieu-Pelletier G. Resilience and positive emotions: Examin-
ing the role of emotional memories. Journal of Personality 2009;77(1):139–76.
Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee J, Podsakoff NP. Common method biases in behavioral
research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of
Applied Psychology 2003;88(5):879–903.
Prabhu V, Sutton C, Sauser W. Creativity and certain personality traits: Understanding the
mediating effect of intrinsic motivation. Creativity Research Journal 2008;20(1):53–66.
Prati LM, Douglas C, Ferris GR, Ammeter AP, Buckley MR. Emotional intelligence, lead-
ership effectiveness, and team outcomes. International Journal of Organizational
Analysis 2003;11(1):21–40.
Rego A, Sousa F, Cunha MP, Correia A, Saur I. Leader self-reported emotional intelli-
gence and perceived employee creativity: An exploratory study. Creativity and In-
novation Management 2007;16(3):250–64.
Rego A, Machado F, Leal S, Cunha MP. Are hopeful employees more creative? An empir-
ical study. Creativity Research Journal 2009;21(2/3):223–31.
Reiter-Palmon R, Illies JJ. Leadership and creativity: Understanding leadership from a
creative problem-solving perspective. Leadership Quarterly 2004;15:55–77.
437
Scott SG, Bruce RA. Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual inno-
vation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal 1994;37(3):580–607.
Shalley CE, Gilson LL. What leaders need to know: A review of social and contextual
factors that can foster or hinder creativity. The Leadership Quarterly 2004;15(1):
33–53.
Shin SJ, Zhou J. Transformational leadership, conservation, and creativity: Evidence
from Korea. Academy of Management Journal 2003;46(6):703–14.
Snyder CR. The psychology of hope: You can get there from here. New York: Free Press; 1994.
Snyder CR. Hope theory: Rainbows in the mind. Psychological Inquiry 2002;13:249–75.
Stajkovic A, Luthans F. Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin 1998;124:240–61.
Tierney P, Farmer SM. The Pygmalion process and employee creativity. Journal of Man-
agement 2004;30(3):413–32.
Tierney P, Farmer SM, Graen GB. An examination of leadership and employee creativ-
ity: The relevance of traits and relationships. Personnel Psychology 1999;52:
591–620.
Tugade MM, Fredrickson BL, Barrett LM. Psychological resilience and positive emotion-
al granularity: Examining the benefits of positive emotions on coping and health.
Journal of Personality 2004;72(6):1161–90.
Walumbwa FO, Avolio BJ, Gardner WL, Wernsing TS, Peterson SJ. Authentic leadership:
Development and validation of a theory-based measure. Journal of Management
2008;34(1):89-126.
Walumbwa FO, Wang P, Wang H, Schaubroeck J, Avolio BJ. Psychological processes
linking authentic leadership to follower behaviors. Leadership Quarterly 2010;21
(5):901–14.
Wang A, Cheng B. When does benevolent leadership lead to creativity? The moderating
role of creative role identity and job autonomy. Journal of Organizational Behavior
2010;31(1):106–21.
Walumbwa FO, Wang P, Wang H, Schaubroeck J, Avolio BJ. Psychological processes linking
authentic leadership to follower behaviors. Leadership Quarterly (forthcoming).
Woodman RW, Sawyer JE, Griffin RW. Toward a theory of organizational creativity.
Academy of Management Review 1993;18:292–321.
Yammarino FJ, Dionne SD, Schriesheim CA, Dansereau F. Authentic leadership and pos-
itive organizational behavior: A meso, multi-level perspective. The Leadership
Quarterly 2008;19(6):693–707.
Youssef CM, Luthans F. Positive organizational behavior in the workplace: The impact
of hope, optimism, and resilience. Journal of Management 2007;33(5):774–800.
Zhang X, Bartol K. Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: The influ-
ence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process en-
gagement. Academy of Management Journal 2010;53(1):107–28.
Zhou J. When the presence of creative coworkers is related to creativity: Role of super-
visor close monitoring, developmental feedback, and creative personality. Journal
of Applied Psychology 2003;88(3):413–22.
Zhou J, George JM. When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: Encouraging the ex-
pression of voice. Academy of Management Journal 2001;44(4):682–96.
Zhou J, George JM. Awakening employee creativity: The role of leader emotional intel-
ligence. The Leadership Quarterly 2003;14:545–68.