711891

research-article2017
JABXXX10.1177/0021886317711891The Journal of Applied Behavioral ScienceAfsar and Masood

Article
The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science
2018, Vol. 54(1) 36­–61
Transformational Leadership, © The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
Creative Self-Efficacy, Trust sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0021886317711891
https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886317711891
in Supervisor, Uncertainty journals.sagepub.com/home/jabs

Avoidance, and Innovative

Work Behavior of Nurses

Bilal Afsar1 and Mariam Masood1

Abstract
This study examines how nurse managers’ transformational leadership relates to
innovative work behavior of subordinate nurses through creative self-efficacy, trust
in supervisor, and uncertainty avoidance. On the basis of an interactional approach,
this study hypothesized that (a) there is an interaction between transformational
leadership, trust in supervisor, and uncertainty avoidance that affects innovative work
behavior, such that transformational leadership has the strongest positive relationship
with innovative work behavior when nurses have high levels of trust and uncertainty
avoidance; and (b) creative self-efficacy mediates the effect that this three-way
interaction between transformational leadership, trust in supervisor, and uncertainty
avoidance has on innovative work behavior. In Study 1, we used a time-lagged research
design, collecting multisource data from 322 nurses and their respective head nurses
(supervisors), working in public sector hospitals. The results of Study 1 supported our
hypotheses. In Study 2, we used a more temporally rigorous research design in which
data were collected in three stages, with a 3-month time interval separating Stages
1 and 2, and Stages 2 and 3. On the basis of the time-lagged and multisource data
from 371 nurses and their respective head nurses (supervisors), from private sector
hospitals, we found that Study 2 produced the same results as Study 1.

Keywords
transformational leadership, creative self-efficacy, trust in supervisor, uncertainty
avoidance, innovative work behavior

1Hazara University, Mansehra, Pakistan

Corresponding Author:
Bilal Afsar, Department of Management Science, Hazara University, Mansehra 22020, Pakistan.
Email: afsarbilalait@gmail.com
Afsar and Masood 37

Introduction
Effective leadership acts as a catalyst to develop and foster innovation within health
care workers (Gifford, Davies, Tourangeau, & Lefebre, 2011; Park, 1997; Rycroft-
Malone, 2008). Previous literature has identified various leadership theories that can
foster innovation process but far less attention has been given to transformational lead-
ership, despite theoretical reasoning (Bally, 2007). According to Bass (1985), a trans-
formational leader motivates, inspires, and stimulates followers to do more than they
are originally expected to do.
To effectively foster innovative work behavior in organizational setting, the super-
visors have to be informed through research evidence as to how individual differences
affect employee reactions to transformational leadership (Forrester, 2000). Piccolo
and Colquitt (2006) propose that the outcome of transformational leadership may not
be as positive as intended for all employees. One possible difference that may stand
out in this regard is levels of uncertainty avoidance and trust in supervisor, for the
reason that they are essentially related to both innovative work behavior and transfor-
mational leadership. This study undertakes the complex interaction mechanism
between transformational leadership, creative self-efficacy, trust in supervisor, and
uncertainty avoidance. Our results reveal an interesting phenomenon—transforma-
tional leadership may be especially effective at fostering innovative work behavior of
those nurses who have high levels of both trust in their nurse managers and uncertainty
avoidance. The burgeoning interest in understanding how transformational leadership
leads to an increase in nurses’ innovative work behavior through interaction effects is
the purpose of this study.
Uncertainty avoidance refers to the propensity of employees to avoid uncertain or
ambiguous situations due to feelings of uneasiness (Dorfman & Howell, 1988).
Employees with such feelings try to follow rules, regulations, organizational policies,
and simultaneously seek help and guidance from their supervisors to evade uncertain
situations. Fineman (2006) suggests that trust in leader is a critical condition when
considering the interactional perspective of innovative work behavior, especially for
employees who score high on uncertainty avoidance. According to Tierney (2008),
supervisors represent a critical factor in influencing innovative work behavior of
employees. Having trust in their supervisors is embedded in norm of reciprocity and
social exchange that can make employees to effectively manage risk and uncertainty
(Connelly, Miller, & Devers, 2012). This study focuses on affect-based trust which
refers to an employee’s adscription of supervisor motives and bonding between
employees and their supervisors on the basis of genuine concern, succor, care, and
psychological safety (McAllister, 1995).
An individual who has affect-based trust on his or her supervisor is more likely to
feel genuinely empowered by supervisor and find it relatively easy to work innova-
tively, because one does not have to be anxious or concerned about the supervisor’s
potential behavior. Therefore, uncertainty is expected to decrease with this affirmation
and confidence of employees to explore and implement new opportunities and to try
out new and novel ideas may increase. On the contrary, employees with high levels of
38 The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 54(1)

uncertainty avoidance but low on affect-based trust on supervisors undergo a distrust

loop and are unlikely to respond to transformational leadership with high levels of
engagement in creativity enhancement initiatives.
Overall, the purpose of this study is to examine how the complex interplay between
transformational leadership, creative self-efficacy, trust in supervisors, and uncertainty
avoidance explain nurses’ innovative work behavior. Following the interactional
approach of innovative work behavior (Rank, Pace, & Frese, 2004), this study proposes
that transformational leadership has the strongest positive relationship with nurses’
innovative work behavior when they have high levels of trust in their nurse managers
(supervisors), and uncertainty avoidance. The current study also reveals the psycho-
logical mechanism underlying the hypothesized interaction effects and further proposes
that creative self-efficacy, which refers to a set of core self-concepts conducive to cre-
ative endeavors and the degree to which employees believe they are capable to produce
creative outcomes (Tierney & Farmer, 2002), would mediate this relationship.
Two studies were conducted to test the hypotheses. In Study 1, we drew a sample
of nurses working in public sector hospitals, and used a time-lagged design in which
we collected data for our outcome variable—innovative work behavior 2 months after
we had collected data for the predictors (i.e., transformational leadership, creative self-
efficacy, trust in nurse managers or supervisors, and uncertainty avoidance). In Study
2, a more temporally rigorous design was used in which data collection was performed
in three stages with a sample of nurses working in private hospitals.

Theoretical Framework
Innovative work behavior—defined as the recognition of problems and initiation and
intentional introduction (within a work role, group, or organization) of novel and use-
ful ideas concerning products, services, and work methods, as well as set of behaviors
needed to develop, launch, and implement these ideas with an aim to enhance personal
and/or business (de Jong & Den Hartog, 2007). A plethora of academics and scholars
have found that transformational leadership is particularly effective in promoting
employee’s innovative work behavior but it has been suggested that the relationship
between transformational leadership and creative outcomes is dependent on a host of
factors and therefore is likely to be more complicated than previously thought (e.g.,
Afsar, Badir, & Bin Saeed, 2014; Pieterse, van Knippenberg, Schippers, & Stam,
2010; Reuvers, Van Engen, Vinkenburg, & Wilson-Evered, 2008).
Ahearne, Mathieu, and Rapp (2005) suggest that for individuals who are resistant
toward new ideas, conservative in their thoughts, and show low levels of propensity,
inclination, or readiness toward idea generation or idea implementation, transforma-
tional leadership’s individualized consideration may be particularly effective.
Extrapolating this insight to innovativeness, we propose that transformational leader-
ship may be especially beneficial in fostering innovative work behavior among indi-
viduals who are not inclined toward generating and implementing ideas in the
organizations. By further delving into the mechanism through which transformational
leadership affects innovative work behavior, a plausible argument is that employees
Afsar and Masood 39

who are not predisposed to be creative can display innovative work behavior under
transformational leadership if they have a trust on their supervisors (Fineman, 2006).
This study adapted uncertainty avoidance in individuals from a social perspective,
according to which, it is the degree to which individuals generally have psychological
comfort under ambiguous, uncontrollable, and uncertain situations at the societal
level. It defines that when faced with conflicting situations, unfamiliar risks, devant
ideas, or unexpected results, how society helps individuals avoid such situations by
establishing formal rules, providing greater career stability, not tolerating deviant
ideas and behaviors, creating environment of trust and empowerment, and believing
in greater optimal experiences and perceptions of self-efficacy, and lower anxiety
(Hofstede, 1980, p. 49).
Although societal definition of uncertainty avoidance is significant in identification
of critical values and preferences in various societies, substantial variations between
individuals in a given society were found in later works in cross-cultural psychology,
organization behavior, and management. Furthermore, these studies confirmed that
workplace outcomes were more strongly determined by the individual differences than
society-level values (Dorfman & Howell, 1988; Farh, Hackett, & Liang, 2007; Taras,
Kirkman, & Steel, 2010). Since the focus of the current study is on innovative work
behavior as an individual-level outcome, it is crucial to examine the effect of uncer-
tainty avoidance at the individual level (Kong, 2013; Taras et al., 2010). Indeed, the
literature on innovation development process emphasizes the need to understand how
individuals with differing levels of Hofstede inspired values prefer the championing
role of defending innovators against interference by the organizational hierarchy
(Zhou & Su, 2010).
Notably, propensity to avoid ambiguity, indistinctness, and uncertainty does not
necessarily preclude these individuals who are high on uncertainty avoidance to adopt
championing roles that have been shown to lead to innovation and generate new and
novel ideas (Zhang & Zhou, 2014). Hofstede (2001) further explains that uncertainty
avoidance indicates the degree to which individuals desire to know the views and
expectations of their supervisors about their initiatives. Taras et al. (2010) posited that
whether individuals are willing to take or avoid risk might be equally applicable to
uncertainty accepting or avoiding individuals. Therefore, individuals with high uncer-
tainty avoidance under clear and explicit expectations may have differential social
attributions and high level of mental resources to simultaneously think about multiple
concepts and display innovative work behavior than when boundaries and expecta-
tions are not lucid.
Despite many definitions of trust, this study uses affect-based trust (subordinate’s
willingness to accept vulnerability due to positive expectations of supervisor’s inten-
tions and behavior), because we propose that individuals with high levels of uncer-
tainty avoidance display innovative work behavior under transformational leaders as a
result of emotional bonds between employees and their supervisors. Moreover, trans-
formational leadership provides an environment suitable for employees who want to
engage in innovative work behavior. As previously mentioned, innovative behaviors
are complicated and risky due to uncertainty of idea’s success. People are afraid to
40 The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 54(1)

generate creative ideas if they lack trust on their leaders (Brunetto, Farr-Wharton, &
Shacklock, 2010). They do not initiate ideas if they fear that they would be held
responsible in case ideas are unable to meet objectives. There is another type of fear as
well which describes that sometimes individuals resist from giving new ideas because
they feel that the due credit and appreciation is stolen by someone else if their ideas
become successful (George & Zhou, 2007).
Affect-based trust is embedded in norm of reciprocity and social exchange which
can make employees more creative, but lack of trust weakens social integration
(Connelly et al., 2012), creating distrust loop and making it tough for them to gather
information about existing concepts to engage in creativity enhancement initiatives
(Černe, Nerstad, Dysvik, & Škerlavaj, 2014). Affect-based trust permits employees to
understand susceptibility in uncertain and perilous situations, because they feel secured
that without any fear they can unreservedly share feelings, out of the box ideas, con-
volutions, and troubles with their trusted partners, and their trusted partners will recip-
rocate constructively, caringly, and considerately (McAllister, 1995).
Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman (1995) propose that when employees believe their
leader is trustworthy, competent, and cares about their work, they find it relatively
easy to work innovatively, because one does not have to be worried or concerned about
the leader’s potential behavior. Trust helps employees be more willing to rely on their
leader, and disclose their views and opinions, share sensitive information and mistakes
committed at workplace with the leader. On the contrary, when trust breaks down,
employee becomes suspicious and doubtful (Jones, 2002), and concerned about how
information (sharing best practices and mistakes) will be used and whether people will
understand and acquire knowledge with positive intentions and use that knowledge to
generate and implement new ideas. In contrast, lack of trust creates anxiety about the
leader’s behavior, and individual as a means of self-protection starts to avert resources
away from display of innovative work behavior.

Three-Way Interaction Effects on Innovative Work

Behavior
Several theorists have suggested that the interactional perspective of contextual fac-
tors such as transformational leadership is likely to have a greater effect when the
employees’ internal characteristics mean that they desire such external input (e.g.,
Afsar et al., 2014; Reuvers et al., 2008; Yukl, 2006). Characteristics of employees such
as needs for affiliation, emulation and social approval, a supportive work group, rela-
tional self-conception, and sensitivity to the supervisors’ expectations, establish the
effectiveness of supervisory behavior. Yukl (2006) found that employees who are con-
siderate of the supervisors’ needs and actively accept their influence are strongly
affected by supervisors’ behaviors as compared with employees who do not show such
attributes. In order for creative ideas to take place and be implemented, support for
employees by their leaders is essential. Consistent with this theory, research on trans-
formational leadership also suggests that it has different effects on job-related behav-
iors of different employees due to diversity in how they perceive and react to situations
Afsar and Masood 41

(Reuvers et al., 2008), while there has been little research into one of the most critical
job behaviors in today’s highly competitive world, that is, innovative work behavior.
An employee’s innovative work behavior implies going beyond the scope of basic
job requirements and responsibilities. The dynamic nature of the work activities in
innovative work behavior involves complicated nonstandardized and nonroutine tasks
(Zhang & Bartol, 2010). The rapid changes in technology, high level of competition to
innovate regularly and frequently, shortened product life cycles, and greater pressure
on organizations to respond quickly and creatively to frequent technical problems
have made the structured procedures and systems ineffective. Employees, therefore,
need to be able to perform tasks that go beyond the established routines for a team,
group, or organization. Therefore, innovative work behavior is inherently oriented
around uncertainty, indistinctness, and ambiguity. There is no guarantee that the new
transformation, novel ideas, and creative solutions would deliver what they are
expected to achieve (Zhou & George, 2001). Furthermore, due to uncertainty as to
how the new ideas would benefit the organization aggregated by a long process (from
idea generation to building social support to implementation and commercialization of
idea), the supervisors might not encourage or accept the desired change envisioned by
the subordinate. Because innovative work behavior involves uncertainty (whether an
idea is practical, socially acceptable, useful, and reliably reproduced), Afsar et al.
(2014) suggest that uncertainty avoidance spurs idea generation and might relate to
innovative work behavior in fundamental ways, whereas Mueller, Melwani, and
Goncalo (2012) found negative bias toward creativity when individuals experienced
uncertainty. Hence, due to these ambivalent attitudes toward creative outcomes, they
call for research to identify the types of supervisory behavior that can promote innova-
tive work behavior in those with high levels of uncertainty avoidance.
Hofstede (2001) posit that employees who have high levels of uncertainty avoid-
ance tend to deal with uncertainty through detailed understanding of rules, regulations,
existing processes, guidelines, and potential constraints. This convergent thinking may
be particularly useful to motivate the individuals to understand thoroughly the dynam-
ics of being creative, meaning they might generate and implement ideas that are not
just new or novel but also practical, useful, feasible, fit in well, and add value to the
stakeholders’ propositions as well as the overall organization. Paradoxically, the same
mechanism to stimulate innovative work behavior may also make the individuals dis-
inclined to be creative unless their supervisors trust their subordinates in trying out
new things.
The struggle to align a novel, exhilarating, and beneficial idea with existing pro-
cesses, procedures, and routines also raises uncertainty. The natural tendency of others
to resist the change and do not offer full devotion to an idea might further aggregate
the uncertainty level. Employees with high level of uncertainty avoidance may become
disinclined toward innovative work behavior due to these issues, and transformational
leadership and trust may play an important role to encourage them to display innova-
tive work behavior. More specifically, employees with high levels of uncertainty
avoidance will welcome championing role of their transformational leaders (such as
42 The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 54(1)

providing flexibility to make decisions about their work contexts, encouraging them to
argue successfully for right course of action instead of popular or established proce-
dures, providing noncontrolling work environment where personal and organizational
transformations and changes are promoted) if they trust their leaders, because these
interventions offer them with assurance of the permission they require to try new
things and clarification of expectations from the leaders.
Moreover, employees may experience ambiguity and uncertainty because of the
risky nature of innovative work behavior and hence may need assurance from their
leaders that they are on the right track. McAllister (1995) explains that if employees
have affect-based trust, they should perceive their leaders’ intellectual stimulation,
individualized consideration, inspirational motivation, and championing roles as gen-
uine, and hence would respond positively. They will not be afraid to speak and freely
exchange ideas and difficulties. They would know that if the idea gets successful, their
leaders would give them appreciation and in case, the idea could not succeed, the
blame will be transferred to the circumstances and other factors, but not the one who
initiated the idea. Transformational leaders listen, respond constructively, and con-
tinue to support individuals from idea generation to idea commercialization (de Jong
& Den Hartog, 2007). Accordingly, high level of innovative work behavior can be
expected in such environment.
Conversely, little affect-based trust inhibits creative ideas (Brunetto et al., 2010).
Employees do not initiate ideas if they fear that they would be held responsible in case
ideas are unable to meet objectives. There is another type of fear as well which
describes that sometimes individuals resist from giving new ideas because they feel
that the due credit and appreciation is stolen by someone else if their ideas become
successful (George & Zhou, 2007). Their supervisors or department heads do not truly
recognize and appreciate their successful ideas and instead less deserving people get
more appreciation.
Under trustworthy leader, employees think and act innovatively because they are
less concerned about leader’s potential behaviors, specifically in case of failure. With
high level of uncertainty avoidance, the detrimental effect on crafting new solutions is
likely to be exacerbated because people buy into their leaders first and then into their
visions, meaning that despite demonstrating transformational leadership characteris-
tics, if people are uncertain whether their leaders are trustworthy, dependable, and
genuine, they would respond negatively to transformational leadership. Therefore,
ambiguity, risk, anxiety, and fear of unknown associated with innovative work behav-
ior can only be trounced when transformational leadership is combined with trust for
employees with high levels of uncertainty avoidance. In a nutshell, consistent with the
interactional perspective of innovation process (e.g., Shalley, Zhou, & Oldham, 2004),
we propose that when employees have high levels of trust and uncertainty avoidance,
transformational leadership may become useful in fostering innovative work behavior
of such employees. Fundamentally, we suggest that innovative work behavior is the
outcome of a three-way interaction involving transformational leadership, trust in
leader, and uncertainty avoidance. Based on above arguments, we propose:
Afsar and Masood 43

Hypothesis 1: Transformational leadership, trust in leader, and uncertainty avoid-

ance interact to affect employee innovative work behavior in such a way that when
trust in leader and uncertainty avoidance are both high, transformational leadership
has the strongest positive relationship with innovative work behavior.

Researchers must identify mediating mechanisms to develop the interactional perspec-

tive of innovative work behavior (Shalley et al., 2004). Previous literature confirms
the mediating effect of motivational cognitive states like flexible role orientation,
supervisor support, and role breadth self-efficacy on the relationship between leader-
ship styles and creativity (Parker, Williams, & Turner, 2006). This research may
advance previous literature by explaining further the effect of creative self-efficacy on
the relationship between transformational leadership, trust, and uncertainty avoidance
by testing these relationships empirically. This study proposes that creative self-effi-
cacy is a psychological mechanism that may transmit the effects of our hypothesized
three-way interaction on innovative work behavior.
Innovative work behavior cannot be predicted because the intended benefits are
new and there is no surety of results (Zhou & George, 2001). Hence, employees with
high levels of uncertainty avoidance because of their inclination to avoid ambiguous
and uncertain situations may not believe that they have the ability to display innova-
tive work behavior at workplace (Rank et al., 2004). Nevertheless, trusted leaders are
powerful forces in shaping their followers’ self-efficacy, specifically for those who
prefer clarity and seek out supervisor guidance.
When trusted supervisors display transformational leadership, such as giving indi-
vidual consideration, stimulating intellectually, inspiring motivation, and providing
freedom, the ambiguity, anxiety, fear, frustration, and uncertainty linked with innova-
tive work behavior is reduced. As a result, these employees may feel they have skills,
abilities, capabilities, self-worth, and confidence to influence their work contexts more
meaningfully by adding value and purpose (Jones, 2002). Employee engages in more
rigorous understanding of a problem and searches for new solutions when his or her
confidence to try out new things is reinforced with trust and dependability on
supervisors.
When employees have high levels of uncertainty avoidance and they do not trust
their immediate supervisors, the effect of transformational leadership on the self-effi-
cacy beliefs of such employees may be limited. Even if their supervisors display char-
acteristics of transformational leadership, they feel uncertain about where they might
find support, should they encounter obstacles, problems, and difficulties from idea
generation till idea realization. This uncertainty impedes their ability to successfully
carry out innovative work behavior. Therefore, they are likely to experience low levels
of creative self-efficacy.
By providing an exciting vision to organizational members, transformational lead-
ers help build self-confidence of their followers by giving them feeling of self-effi-
cacy that they are capable to perform creative work (Afsar et al., 2014). Association
of high expectations motivates individuals to initiate positive changes and engage in
achievement-oriented behaviors. Thus, transformational leaders inspire and motivate
44 The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 54(1)

employees to solve current problems, challenge status quo, propose out of the box
solution for existing issues, handle complicated, risky and uncertain situations,
accomplish difficult, ill-defined, and ill-organized objectives, and develop them-
selves to a higher level of competence. Creative self-efficacy helps employees engage
in creative activities and remain committed throughout the creative process until
novel, feasible, practical, and useful ideas are realized (Lim & Choi, 2009; Tierney &
Farmer, 2002). Based on the above arguments, we hypothesize:

Hypothesis 2: The relationship between the three-way interaction predicted in

Hypothesis 1 and innovative work behavior is mediated by creative self-efficacy.

Study 1
Method
The first study was conducted in public sector hospitals of Pakistan. Our sample com-
prised the nurses and their respective head nurses (supervisors). Data were collected
from two resources with a 3-month time lag. First, we distributed surveys to 574
nurses recording their opinions about transformational leadership, trust, uncertainty
avoidance, and creative self-efficacy. A total of 488 usable surveys were received
(85.2% response rate). Three months after the initial survey, a separate rating survey
was distributed to each of the 117 relevant head nurses (supervisors), asking them to
evaluate their subordinates’ innovative work behavior. In total, 539 matching usable
surveys (a head nurse rated a nurse who had also turned in a survey) were returned. On
average, each head nurse rated the innovative work behaviors of almost five nurses.
The average age of nurses was 33.6 years with a standard deviation of 3.62 whereas
the average age of head nurses was 38.4 years. The average tenure of nurses with the
hospital was 6.8 years with a standard deviation of 4.7 years. Approximately 89% of
the sample consisted of females.

Measures
All items were measured on a 5-point Likert-type scales ranging from 1 strongly dis-
agree to 5 strongly agree.

Transformational Leadership.  A 20 items scale was taken from Multifactor Leadership

Questionnaire Form 5X to measure transformational leadership, including idealized
behaviors, idealized attributes, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and
individualized consideration (Bass & Avolio, 1997). The nurses were asked to rate the
frequency with which their supervisor doctors displayed leadership behaviors.

Innovative Work Behavior.  The 10-item scale measuring innovative work behavior (e.g.,
“The employee pays attention to issues that are no part of his daily work.”) used the
studies by de Jong and Den Hartog (2010).
Afsar and Masood 45

Uncertainty Avoidance.  A five-item scale was adopted from the study of Dorfman and
Howell (1988). Sample item includes “Rules and regulations are important because
they inform employees what the organization expects of them.”

Trust in Supervisor. This study used McAllister’s (1995) five-item scale to measure

affect-based trust. Example of a sample item is “My supervisor and I have a sharing
relationship. We can both freely share our ideas, feelings, and hopes.”

Creative Self-Efficacy.  A three item creative self-efficacy scale by Tierney and Farmer
(2002) was used in this study. One sample item is “I have confidence in my ability to
solve problems creatively.”

Results and Discussion

Table 1 presents descriptive statistics, correlations, means, and scale reliabilities. To
examine the discriminant validity of our measures, confirmatory factor analyses was
conducted. The test result of adaptability showed that the five-factor model (transfor-
mational leadership, trust, uncertainty avoidance, creative self-efficacy, and innova-
tive work behavior) fits the data well, χ2(346) = 979.18, p < .001; χ2/df = 2.83;
nonnormed fit index = 0.94; comparative fit index = 0.93; and root mean square error
of approximation = 0.057, as compared with other models. We also computed the
interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) due to the fact that head nurses (supervisors)
evaluated innovative work behavior of more than one nurse (subordinate). There was
no systematic difference in supervisors’ ratings of innovative work behavior (F = 1.81,
p > .10; ICC (1) = 0.063).
To test the hypotheses, we used hierarchical moderated regression (Cohen &
Cohen, 1983). We conducted collinearity diagnostics and mean-centered all interac-
tion variables to reduce multicollinearity (Aiken & West, 1991). The hypothesized
model (Figure 1) had all variance inflation factor values well below 10, the average
variance inflation factor value was 2.85, and the tolerance statistic well above 0.1,
indicating that there is no multicollinearity within our data (Menard, 2002).
Hypothesis 1 proposed that the relationship between transformational leadership
and innovative work behavior was moderated by trust and uncertainty avoidance in
such a way that transformational leadership had the strongest positive relationship
with innovative work behavior when trust and uncertainty avoidance were both high.
According to Table 2, Hypothesis 1 was supported (β = .31, p < .05, ΔR2 = .03, Model
7). A three-way interaction was plotted following Aiken and West’s (1991) procedure.
Transformational leadership had the strongest positive relationship with innovative
work behavior when trust and uncertainty avoidance were both high, thus supporting
Hypothesis 1.
Hypothesis 2 stated that creative self-efficacy mediated the effect of the previous
three-way interaction on innovative work behavior. We used Muller, Judd, and
Yzerbyt’s (2005) four conditions procedures to test the mediated moderation. Table 2
shows that (a) the three-way interaction was significantly related to creative
46 The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 54(1)

Table 1.  Study 1: Descriptive Statistics, Correlations, and Reliabilities.

Variables Mean (SD) α 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 Innovative work 3.84 (0.32) .88 1  
behavior
2 Transformational 3.89 (0.51) .89 .35*** 1  
leadership
3 Uncertainty 3.76 (0.48) .85 .22* .28** 1  
avoidance
4 Trust 4.03 (0.43) .86 .41** .24** .38** 1  
5 Creative 3.96 (0.59) .92 .14** .21** .27** .15** 1  
self-efficacy
6 Age 33.6 (3.62) .03 −.05 .01 .03 .05 1  
7 Gender 0.87 (0.11) .05 .03 .04 .04 .05 .02 1  
8 Education level 2.65 (1.33) .23* .05 .07 .04 .02 .13* .04 1  
9 Job tenure 6.8 (4.7) .06 .02 .04 .03 .04 .08 .03 .07 1

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Figure 1.  The Hypothesized Model.

self-efficacy (β = .39, p < .001, ΔR2 = .06, Model 3); (b) the three-way interaction was
also significantly related to innovative work behavior (β = .31, p < .05, ΔR2 = .03,
Model 7); (c) creative self-efficacy was positively related to innovative work behavior,
after controlling for the interactions among the mediator and moderators and other
predictors (β = .26, p < .01, ΔR2 = .06, Model 8); and (d) the three-way interaction
effect on innovative work behavior of nurses became nonsignificant after entering the
mediator and controlling all other two-way and three-way interactions and predictors
(β = .19, n.s., Model 8).
A parametric bootstrapping procedure suggested by Preacher and Hayes (2008)
was then used to test the significance of the indirect effect. We found that there was a
positive indirect relationship between the three-way interaction and innovative work
behavior through creative self-efficacy (indirect effect = .31, 95% bias-corrected boot-
strap confidence interval was [.013, .587]), hence supporting Hypothesis 2. This study
 Table 2.  Study 1: Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis.

Creative self-efficacy Innovative work behavior

  M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8
Control variable
Age .04 .03 .07 .11 .09 .13 .08 .15
Gender −.05 −.01 −.08 −.05 −.07 −.11 −.14 −.06
Education level .03 .05 .02 .18* .11 .16* .22* .14
Job tenure .06 .12* .09 .11* .15 .17* .19 .09
Independent variable
Transformational leadership (TL) .18 .19* .24** .16 .14 .18 .08
Moderators
Uncertainty avoidance (UA) −.10 .03 −.04 −.17 −.09 −.11 −.10
Trust (T) .37*** .33** .19 .42*** .38** .28** .27*
Interactions
TL * UA .16 −.12 .23*** .06 .07
TL * T .28*** .25** .14 .12 −.05
UA * T −.42*** −.41*** −.28** −.27** −.19
TL * UA * T .39*** .31* .19
Mediator and interaction controls
Creative self-efficacy (CSE) .26**
UA * CSE .14
T * CSE .01
UA * T * CSE .11
R2 .37 .52 .58 .25 .46 .53 .56 .62
ΔR2 .17 .15 .06 .25 .21 .07 .03 .06
F 4.26*** 5.87*** 6.94*** 4.53** 6.11** 6.58** 6.99*** 5.85**
ΔF 6.52*** 7.06*** 9.37*** 4.53** 8.26** 4.86* 5.83** 1.99

47
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
48 The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 54(1)

Table 3.  Study 1: Results of the Moderated Path Analysis.

Three-way interaction (XZZ′) → Creative self-efficacy (M) →

Innovative work behavior (Y)

Stage Effect

Direct Indirect effect Total effect

Moderator variable First PMX Second PYM effects (PYX) (PYMPMX) (PYX + PYMPMX)
1. (Simple paths for .614* .518* .283 .315** .598**
high UA, high T)
2. (Simple paths for .425** .526** .134 .239 .373
high UA, low T)
3. (Simple paths for .285 .561*** .183 .187 .370
low UA, high T)
4. (Simple paths for −.097 .306 .297** −.021 .276*
low UA, low T)
Differences (1 and 2) .189** −.008 .149*** .076* .225**
Differences (1 and 3) .329 −.043 .10 .128 .228
Differences (1 and 4) .711*** .212 −.014 .336** .322
Differences (2 and 3) .140 −.049 −.049 .052 .003
Differences (2 and 4) .522** .220 −.163 .26 .097
Differences (3 and 4) .328 .255 −.114 .208 .094

Note. CSE = creative self-efficacy. PMX is path from three-way interaction to CSE; PYM is path from CSE to
innovative work behavior; PYX is path from three way to innovative work behavior.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

then conducted a moderated path analysis (Table 3; Edwards & Lambert, 2007), to
better integrate the mediator and multiple moderators into our research model. The
results showed that the indirect effect was significant (PYMPMX = 0.315, p < .01), when
trust and uncertainty avoidance were both high. Furthermore, the differences in the
indirect effect across Condition 1 (high trust and high uncertainty avoidance) and
Condition 2 (low trust and high uncertainty avoidance), and across Conditions 1 and 4
(low trust and low uncertainty avoidance) were significant (ΔPYMPMX = 0.076, 0.336,
p < .05, p < .01, respectively), supporting our theory of mediated moderation.
There were some limitations of Study 1. First, to increase the reliability of a three-
way interaction between transformational leadership, trust, and uncertainty avoidance,
we replicated the results because such higher order interactions might not be stable
(Figures 2 and 3). Second, to increase the validity and generalizability of these results
across the whole industry, we decided to conduct Study 2 on nurses of the private sec-
tor hospitals. Third, although we used a time-lagged design for the sources in Study 1,
but data for transformational leadership, trust, uncertainty avoidance, and creative
self-efficacy (independent and mediator variables) were collected from nurses at the
same time. Therefore, in Study 2, to increase the rigorousness of the design, we
decided to collect the data at three points in time.
Afsar and Masood 49

Figure 2.  Three-way interaction effects on innovative work behavior (Study 1).
Note. UA = uncertainty avoidance; T = trust.

Study 2
Method
We collected data from two sources (nurses and their respective head nurses) at three
points in time, with a 3-month interval between each point. At Time 1, surveys mea-
suring transformational leadership, trust, uncertainty avoidance, and tolerance of
ambiguity were distributed to 610 nurses. Of these, 428 usable surveys were returned,
giving a 70.1% response rate. A separate survey was then distributed to each of the 37
relevant head nurses asking them to evaluate their nurses’ innovative work behavior,
and 31 of these were returned. We then matched nurses with head nurses, giving us
384 usable surveys.
At Time 2, 3 months after the first round of surveys was completed, another survey
measuring creative self-efficacy and creative job requirements was distributed to the
384 nurses. We received 321 usable surveys, giving us an 83.5% response rate. Finally,
at Time 3, another 3 months later, a separate survey was distributed to the 27 corre-
sponding head nurses asking them to evaluate their nurses’ innovative work behavior
and 22 completed surveys were returned. Finally, we matched nurse responses with
head nurses to give us 277 usable responses. The number of nurses evaluated by each
head nurse ranged from 8 to 19, with an average of 13.
50 The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 54(1)

Figure 3.  Three-way interaction effects on innovative work behavior (Study 2).
Note. UA = uncertainty avoidance; T = trust.

The average age of nurses was 28.6 years with a standard deviation of 4.53, whereas
the average age of head nurses was 35.9 years. The average tenure of nurses with the
hospital was 4.7 years with a standard deviation of 2.1 years. Approximately 84% of
the sample consisted of females.

Measures
We used same scales for Study 2. As in Study 1, we controlled for age, gender, organi-
zation tenure, and level of education. We also controlled for tolerance of ambiguity to
differentiate it from uncertainty avoidance. Tolerance of ambiguity was measured with
MacDonald’s (1970) 20-item scale (Cronbach’s α = .82). Furthermore, we developed
a four-item measure to control for job requirement for creativity (Cronbach’s α = .92).

Results and Discussion

Table 4 presents descriptive statistics, means, correlations, and scale reliabilities. The
nurses self-reported data at Times 1 and 2 (except Time 1 head nurses ratings), there-
fore, extra steps were taken to examine the potential for response bias among the par-
ticipants in the time-lagged design.
 Table 4.  Study 2: Descriptive Statistics, Correlations, and Reliabilities.

Variables Mean (SD) α 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

 1 Transformational leadership (T1) 3.55 (0.36) .87 1  
 2 Uncertainty avoidance (T1) 3.89 (0.52) .91 .23** 1  
 3 Trust (T1) 3.96 (0.36) .89 .32** .21** 1  
 4 Creative self-efficacy (T2) 4.08 (0.48) .91 .19** .26** .22** 1  
 5 Innovative work behavior (T3) 3.98 (0.37) .86 .39*** .27** .32** .46** 1  
 6 Tolerance of ambiguity 3.11 (0.23) .82 .13* .29** .18** .19* .08 1  
 7 Job requirement for creativity 3.74 (0.68) .92 .24** .37* .28** .13* .33** .42** 1  
 8 Age 28.6 (4.53) .03 −.02 .03 .04 .04 .04 .07 1  
 9 Gender 0.81 (0.17) .05 .03 .04 .04 .05 .02 .04 .05 1  
10 Education level 3.26 (0.96) .23* .05 .07 .04 .02 .13* .04 .02 .06 1  
11 Job tenure 4.7 (4.7) .06 .02 .04 .03 .04 .08 .03 .07 .05 .05 1

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

51
52 The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 54(1)

To test whether there were systematic differences in responses between the first and
second waves of data collection, we conducted multiple logistic regression. The results
showed that all logistic regression coefficients were nonsignificant, suggesting that
participant dropout was random.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

To examine the discriminant validity of our measures, confirmatory factor analyses
was conducted. The test result of adaptability showed that the hypothesized six-factor
model (transformational leadership, trust, uncertainty avoidance, job requirement for
creativity, creative self-efficacy, and tolerance of ambiguity) fits the data well, χ2
(783) = 2184.57, p < .001; χ2/df = 2.79; nonnormed fit index = 0.91; comparative fit
index = 0.92; standardized root mean square residual = 0.06; and root mean square
error of approximation = 0.052, as compared with other models.
According to Table 5, Hypothesis 1 was supported (β = .26, [heteroscedasticity-
consistent] HC standard error = .18, p < .001, ΔR2 = .02, Model 3 [significantly
related to creative self-efficacy]); β = .19, HC standard error = .11, p < .01, ΔR2 =
.03, Model 7 (significantly related to innovative work behavior); β = .62, HC stan-
dard error = .06, p < .01, ΔR2 = .25, Model 8 (creative self-efficacy was signifi-
cantly related to innovative work behavior after controlling for the interactions);
β = −.07, HC standard error = .10, n.s., Model 8 [after controlling all other two-way
and three-way interactions, the three-way interaction effect on innovative work
behavior became insignificant]).
A three-way interaction was plotted following Aiken and West’s (1991) procedure.
Transformational leadership had the strongest positive relationship with innovative
work behavior when trust and uncertainty avoidance were both high, thus supporting
Hypothesis 1.
To test mediated moderation as proposed in Hypothesis 2, we found support for
this hypothesis. Table 6 confirms that Study 2 had a significant three-way interac-
tion similar to Study 1. A parametric bootstrapping procedure suggested by Preacher
and Hayes (2008) was then used to test the significance of the indirect effect, and
we found a positive indirect relationship between the three-way interaction and
innovative work behavior through creative self-efficacy (indirect effect = .17, 95%
biased-corrected bootstrap confidence interval was [.016, .385]), hence supporting
Hypothesis 2.
Finally, to better integrate the mediator and multiple moderators into our research
model, a moderated path analysis suggested by Edwards and Lambert (2007) was
conducted. The results showed that when trust and uncertainty avoidance were both
high, the indirect effect was significant (PYMPMX = 0.309, p < .001). Furthermore, the
differences in the indirect effect across Condition 1 (high trust and high uncertainty
avoidance) and Condition 2 (low trust and high uncertainty avoidance), and across
Conditions 1 and 4 (low trust and low uncertainty avoidance) were significant
(∆PYMPMX = 0.403, 0.305, p < .001, p < .05, respectively), supporting our theory of
mediated moderation.
 Table 5.  Study 2: Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis Using Heteroscedasticity-Consistent Standard Error Approach.
Creative self-efficacy Innovative work behavior

  M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8

Control variable
Age .07 (.01) .07 (.01) .07 (.01) .09 (.01) .09 (.01) .09 (.01) .07 (.01) .03 (.01)
Gender .16 (.16)* .17 (.16)* .18 (.16)** .22 (.07)* .21 (.07)** .20 (.07)* .20 (.07)* .06 (.04)
Education level .27 (.09)** .28 (.09)** .28 (.08)** .25 (.04)* .25 (.04)* .25 (.04)** .25 (.04)** .08 (.02)
Job tenure .04 (.02) .05 (.02) .06 (.02) .03 (.01) .03 (.01) .02 (.01) .03 (.01) .01 (.01)
Tolerance of ambiguity .14 (.22) .12 (.23) .08 (.22) .04 (.12) −.04 (.11) −.05 (.12) −.07 (.11) −.11 (.1)
Job requirement for creativity .06 (.13) .06 (.13) .07 (.13) .32 (.05)** .21 (.06)*** .20 (.06)* .21 (.06)* .18 (.05)
Independent variable
Transformational leadership (TL) .13 (.15) .14 (.15) .11 (.15) .21 (.08)* .22 (.09)* .20 (.08)* .12 (.08)
Moderators
Uncertainty avoidance (UA) .05 (.14) .03 (.15) −.07 (.14) −.04 (.06) −.05 (.07) −.12 (.07)* −.1 (.08)
Trust (T) .19 (.08)* .19 (.08)* .16 (.08)* .14 (.04)** .15 (.03)** .12 (.03)** .04 (.02)
Interactions
TL * UA −.03 (.26) .03 (.23) .03 (.14) .05 (.13) .02 (.13)
TL * T .12 (.08) .07 (.07) .09 (.04) .06 (.03) .04 (.03)
UA * T .08 (.15) .09 (.14) .04 (.09) .05 (.08) −.03 (.1)
TL * UA*T .26 (.18)*** .19 (.11)** −.07 (.1)
Mediator and interaction controls
Creative self-efficacy (CSE) Time 2 .62 (.06)**
UA * CSE −.05 (.11)
T * CSE .02 (.04)
UA * T * CSE .21 (.05)**
R2 .32 .34 .38 .27 .35 .36 .39 .64
ΔR2 .05 .02 .04 .27 .08 .01 .03 .25
F 6.89*** 5.64*** 6.07*** 10.54** 8.05** 6.33** 6.92*** 15.69**
ΔF 3.97** 1.26*** 8.35** 10.54** 4.81** .68 5.11** 27.35**

Note. Heteroscedasticity-consistent (HC) robust standard errors are in parentheses.

53
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
54
Table 6.  Study 2: Results of the Moderated Path Analysis.

Three-way interaction (XZZ′) → Creative self-efficacy (M) → Innovative work behavior (Y)

Stage Effect

Direct effects Indirect effect Total effect

Moderator variable First PMX Second PYM (PYX) (PYMPMX) (PYX + PYMPMX)
1. (Simple paths for high UA, high T) .677* .463** .218 .309*** .424***
2. (Simple paths for high UA, low T) −.098 .288 .304 −.094 .279
3. (Simple paths for low UA, high T) .012 .341*** .226 .004 .229
4. (Simple paths for low UA, low T) .409** .559** .048 .243* .282
Differences (1 and 2) .775* .175** −.086* .403*** .145
Differences (1 and 3) .665 .122 −.008 .305* .195
Differences (1 and 4) .268 −.096 .169 .066 .142
Differences (2 and 3) −.086 −.053 .078 −.09 .05
Differences (2 and 4) −.311 −.261 .256 −.149 −.003
Differences (3 and 4) −.421 −.218 .178 −.239 −.053

Note. PMX is path from three-way interaction to CSE; PYM is path from CSE to innovative work behavior; PYX is path from three way to innovative work
behavior.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Afsar and Masood 55

General Discussion
This study investigated the complex effect that the interaction between transforma-
tional leadership, trust, and uncertainty avoidance has on nurse’s innovative work
behavior. We found that when trust and uncertainty avoidance were both high, trans-
formational leadership had the strongest positive relationship with innovative work
behavior. Another important finding of the study was that creative self-efficacy medi-
ated the three-way interaction’s effect on innovative work behavior. This study makes
several distinct contributions. First, our overall contribution is that we have built and
tested a conceptual model that uniquely integrates transformational leadership theory
with important innovation process theories. Second, this was the first study to investi-
gate the circumstances in which transformational leadership can foster innovative
work behavior in nurses with high levels of uncertainty avoidance. We found that
transformational leadership was most effective at increasing innovative work behavior
for nurses when they trusted their head nurses. However, transformational leadership
was shown not to be very effective for other combinations of trust and uncertainty
avoidance, for example, when nurses had high trust and low levels of uncertainty
avoidance, or when they had low trust and high levels of uncertainty avoidance.
We found an interesting result that low trust and low levels of uncertainty avoid-
ance showed similar patterns in both studies, however, low trust and high levels of
uncertainty avoidance appeared to vary somewhat between the two studies, which
could be explained by the differences between the two samples (public vs. private
hospitals). The sample in Study 1 was composed of nurses from public sector hospitals
where job security may result in speaking freely and trying out new solutions without
any fear of job loss, whereas the sample in Study 2 was composed of nurses working
in private hospitals, where job insecurity and contractual nature of job may inhibit
nurses from displaying innovative work behavior that are inherently risky.
Third, the use of more temporally rigorous designs across public and private hos-
pitals makes this study unique. We compared the interaction effects of trust and
uncertainty avoidance of nurses working in public and private sector hospitals and
found interesting results. Fourth, this article contributes to the innovative work
behavior literature by providing an in-depth understanding of the relationship trust
and uncertainty avoidance have with innovative work behavior. By focusing on the
interactions between transformational leadership, trust in supervisor, and uncer-
tainty avoidance and the effect of these interactions on innovative work behavior,
this study aims to make five significant contributions to the literature. First, we
address the critical research question: under conditions of high uncertainty avoid-
ance, when and how does transformational leadership promotes innovative work
behavior among nurses? While in many instances, it is believed that transforma-
tional leadership does particularly affect innovative work behavior of employees
with low uncertainty avoidance, this study advances the literature by proposing that
there is a positive effect of transformational leadership on innovative work behavior
of employees with high uncertainty avoidance proclivity under the condition that the
nurses trust their nurse managers (supervisors).
56 The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 54(1)

Second, this study extends previous research (such as Afsar et al., 2014) by examin-
ing the effect of transformational leadership on innovative work behavior as the crite-
rion variable. Zhang and Zhou (2014) found that trust facilitates the positive effect of
empowering leadership in nurturing creativity of employees with high uncertainty
avoidance and suggested that transformational leadership could also have the same
effect. Third, in the literature (e.g., Swierczek & Ha, 2003), a negative connotation has
been attached to uncertainty avoidance in the context of entrepreneurial orientation,
proactive behavior, and creativity of employees. This study suggests that this notion is
oversimplified and premature; uncertainty avoidance under condition of high trust
level on supervisor can strengthen the relationship between transformational leader-
ship and innovative work behavior.
Fourth, by divulging the intricate synergy between transformational leadership,
trust in supervisor, and uncertainty avoidance to nurture the initiation and implementa-
tion of creative outcomes, this study extends the interactional perspective of innova-
tive work behavior beyond a simple person-by-context interaction. The current study
evinces the mechanism as to how a focal employee views the instigator of a contextual
influence (e.g., trust) may intensify the effect of that contextual factor (e.g., transfor-
mational leadership) on the innovative work behavior of employee, subject to indi-
vidual attributes such as levels of uncertainty avoidance. Fifth, the interactional
perspective of innovative work behavior currently lacks the investigation of a psycho-
logical mechanism that might explain why a particular person–context interaction
occurs (e.g., Shalley et al., 2004). This study investigates the effect of creative self-
efficacy as a mediating mechanism for innovative work behavior which may contrib-
ute to the development of the interactional perspective of innovative work behavior.
Our theoretical model also has important implications for managers. In an era of
intense competition, managers need to fully utilize their most valuable resources—
their employees. Research has shown that under favorable conditions, organizations
with high employee innovativeness deliver increased levels of organizational perfor-
mance (Gong, Zhou, & Chang, 2013). Hence, it is imperative that managers promote
innovative work behavior in their rank-and-file employees. First of all, to engender
innovative work behavior among nurses, thereby aiding the advancement of medical
care, the doctor’s leadership does matter. Our results suggest that to set the stage for
enhancing innovative work behavior in their employees, managers first need to estab-
lish whether they can demonstrate transformational leadership behaviors (intellectual
stimulation, individualized consideration, intellectual stimulation, and idealized influ-
ence). Managers who have yet to be able to demonstrate transformational leadership
can then participate in training programs to develop their leadership style. Hospitals
that want to capitalize on the innovative capabilities of employees must ensure that
team leaders and individuals in key leadership positions not only possess transforma-
tional leadership behaviors but explicitly demonstrate them as well. Recruitment and
development practices should therefore incorporate a means to control for the pres-
ence and actual use of such behaviors, which could subsequently yield an environment
in which innovative work behavior can thrive, thereby aiding the advancement of
medical care. Research has shown that transformational leadership can be learned and
Afsar and Masood 57

training programs have been developed (Afsar et al., 2014), suggesting that manage-
ment should develop leadership development trainings to increase transformational
leadership among supervisors.
Second, the managers should understand that a leadership approach such as trans-
formational leadership that can lift the heart and engage the soul, instead of just being
impeccably logical, is the way forward to trigger workplace innovation at hospitals.
They should create a positive and safe atmosphere that encourages openness and risk
taking to encourage idea generation and application. They should also give their
employees opportunities to develop affect-based trust in them. Once these two condi-
tions are met (development of transformational leadership style in managers and trust
in employees), the managers may identify employees with high levels of uncertainty
avoidance and then empower them. For employees with low levels of uncertainty
avoidance, developing affect-based trust should be a higher priority for managers than
transformational leadership. Hospital management should provide a safe and positive
climate, and opportunities to develop affect-based trust in nurses so that they do not
feel afraid to speak and dissent with their supervisor doctors. A working environment
where nurses express themselves, share best practices and good experiences, share
mistakes, sensitive information, and problems at workplace with their doctors are
likely to display higher levels of innovative work behaviors.
Fourth, managers need to be mindful that training employees to take more risks,
accept uncertainty as part of the process, and trust their leaders will not guarantee inno-
vative work behavior. It is building the creative self-efficacy of their employees that will
provide the facilitating conditions for uncertainty avoidance and trust to take hold and
bring forth innovative work behavior. Managers can be instrumental here in terms of
providing an environment that stimulates and nourishes creative self-efficacy, through,
for example, applying transformational leadership principles. Several managerial behav-
iors are likely to foster favorable conditions for the development of creative self-efficacy.
First, managers may personally demonstrate, and instruct their employees on, creativity-
relevant skills. This activity should be accompanied by provision of hands-on opportuni-
ties to apply these skills. These strategies should enhance employees’ observational and
enactive mastery, thereby building their creative self-efficacy and creativity. Second,
managers should serve as creative role models and verbally persuade employees that
they too can be creative. Third, by offering support and encouragement, managers can
alleviate employee fear and anxiety that may arise from the uncertainty of creative
endeavors. This support also should boost employees’ creative self-efficacy.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

The current study in not without limitations. First, the constructs in the present study
were measured with subjective ratings. Common source bias was avoided by using
both leader and follower ratings. However, replicating the findings with more objec-
tive measures would add to our confidence in our findings. Since these constructs
(transformational leadership, trust, and uncertainty avoidance) address individuals’
internal states, we would argue that it is logical to collect the data from participants
58 The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 54(1)

themselves. Second, we were still unable to establish causality, thus, future research
could use a longitudinal design to replicate our results. Third, to generalize the find-
ings, future researchers should collect data from other industries. Finally, both of our
studies took place in Pakistan and it is not yet clear whether our results are generaliz-
able to other countries. Future research is needed to test the model in other countries,
and it may be particularly interesting to compare countries that score very differently
on uncertainty avoidance at the country-level. One might propose that it is difficult to
generate creative ideas in a high uncertainty avoidance country because the population
as a whole is likely to feel unease relating to uncertainty and ambiguity.
Our study is based on only two moderating variables (uncertainty avoidance and
trust is supervisor). Future research should focus on other complex mechanisms such
as performance measurement and reward system (e.g., whether performance is indi-
vidual based or team based, the use of short-term vs. long-term performance measures,
the mix of financial and nonfinancial measures, and the extent of performance-based
rewards). Employees’ willingness to experiment and take risks also may depend on the
tightness of the resource and time constraints that they face at work. In turn, these
aspects of the work environment may be affected by the extent to which superiors
permit subordinate participation in establishing budgets and performance standards
and in the latter’s performance evaluation. Future research should probe deep into
mechanism through which transformational leadership affects innovative work behav-
ior. Moreover, we cannot conclude that employee creative self-efficacy exceeds
employee intrinsic motivation in explaining unique variance because we did not mea-
sure employee intrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation may be a rival explanation for
our findings that we cannot empirically rule out. It is also possible that the findings
attributed to employee creative self-efficacy may be due at least in part to unmeasured
employee intrinsic motivation. An interesting empirical question is whether employee
creative self-efficacy would still serve as a mediator if employee intrinsic motivation
were included in the model. Second, future studies can also improve the explanatory
power of the model proposed by adding further variables that could more comprehen-
sively explain link between transformational leadership and innovative work
behavior.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

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

References
Afsar, B., Badir, Y. F., & Bin Saeed, B. (2014). Transformational leadership and innovative
work behavior. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 114, 1270-1300.
Afsar and Masood 59

Ahearne, M., Mathieu, J., & Rapp, A. (2005). To empower or not to empower your sales force?
An empirical examination of the influence of leadership empowerment behavior on cus-
tomer satisfaction and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 945-962.
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Bally, J. M. (2007). The role of nursing leadership in creating a mentoring culture in acute care
environments. Nursing Economics, 25, 143-151.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York, NY: Collier-
Macmillan.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1997). Full range leadership development: Manual for the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Mind Garden.
Brunetto, Y., Farr-Wharton, R., & Shacklock, K. (2010). The impact of supervisor–subordinate
relationships on morale: Implications for public and private sector nurses’ commitment.
Human Resource Management Journal, 20, 206-225.
Černe, M., Nerstad, C. G., Dysvik, A., & Škerlavaj, M. (2014). What goes around comes
around: Knowledge hiding, perceived motivational climate, and creativity. Academy of
Management Journal, 57, 172-192.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analyses for the behav-
ioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaunm.
Connelly, B. L., Miller, T., & Devers, C. E. (2012). Under a cloud of suspicion: Trust, dis-
trust, and their interactive effect in interorganizational contracting. Strategic Management
Journal, 33, 820-833.
de Jong, J. P., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2007). How leaders influence employees’ innovative
behaviour. European Journal of Innovation Management, 10, 41-64.
Dorfman, P. W., & Howell, J. P. (1988). Dimensions of national culture and effective leader-
ship patterns: Hofstede revisited. Advances in International Comparative Management, 3,
127-150.
Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2007). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation:
Ageneral analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12,
1-17.
Farh, J.-L., Hackett, R. D., & Liang, J. (2007). Individual-level cultural values as moderators of
perceived organizational support—Employee outcome relationships in China: Comparing
the effects of power distance and traditionality. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 715-
729.
Fineman, S. (2006). On being positive: Concerns and counterpoints. Academy of Management
Review, 31, 270-291.
Forrester, R. H. (2000). Capturing learning and applying knowledge: An investigation of the
use of innovation teams in Japanese and American automotive firms. Journal of Business
Research, 47, 35-45.
George, J. M., & Zhou, J. (2007). Dual tuning in a supportive context: Joint contributions of
positive mood, negative mood, and supervisory behaviors to employee creativity. Academy
of Management Journal, 50, 605-622.
Gifford, W., Davies, B., Tourangeau, A., & Lefebre, N. (2011). Developing team leadership
to facilitate guideline utilization: Planning and evaluating a 3-month intervention strategy.
Journal of Nursing Management, 19, 121-132.
60 The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 54(1)

Gong, Y., Zhou, J., & Chang, S. (2013). Core knowledge employee creativity and firm per-
formance: The moderating role of riskiness orientation, firm size, and realized absorptive
capacity. Personnel Psychology, 66, 443-482.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and
organizations across nations (2nd ed.). London, England: Sage.
Jones, A. J. (2002). On the concept of trust. Decision Support Systems, 33, 225-232.
Kong, D. T. (2013). Examining a climatoeconomic contextualization of generalized social trust
mediated by uncertainty avoidance. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44, 574-588.
Lim, H. S., & Choi, J. N. (2009). Testing an alternative relationship between individual and con-
textual predictors of creative performance. Social Behavior and Personality, 37, 117-135.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational
trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709-734.
McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal
cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 24-59.
McDonald, A. P. (1970). Revised scale for ambiguity tolerance: Reliability and validity.
Psychological Reports, 26, 791-798.
Menard, S. (2002). Applied logistic regression analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mueller, J. S., Melwani, S., & Goncalo, J. A. (2012). The bias against creativity why people
desire but reject creative ideas. Psychological Science, 23, 13-17.
Muller, D., Judd, C. M., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (2005). When moderation is mediated and mediation
is moderated. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 852-863.
Park, H. T. (1997). Transformational and transactional leadership styles of the nurse administra-
tors and job satisfaction, organizational commitment in nursing service. Journal of Nurses
Academic Society, 27, 228-241.
Parker, S. K., Williams, H. M., & Turner, N. (2006). Modeling the antecedents of proactive
behavior at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 636-647.
Piccolo, R. F., & Colquitt, J. A. (2006). Transformational leadership and job behaviors: The
mediating role of core job characteristics. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 327-340.
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, 609-623.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and
comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40,
879-891.
Rank, J., Pace, V. L., & Frese, M. (2004). Three avenues for future research on creativity, inno-
vation, and initiative. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 53, 518-528.
Reuvers, M., Van Engen, M. L., Vinkenburg, C. J., & Wilson-Evered, E. (2008). Transformational
leadership and innovative work behaviour: Exploring the relevance of gender differences.
Creativity and Innovation Management, 17, 227-244.
Rycroft-Malone, J. O. (2008). Evidence-informed practice: From individual to context. Journal
of Nursing Management, 16, 404-408.
Shalley, C. E., Zhou, J., & Oldham, G. R. (2004). The effects of personal and contextual char-
acteristics on creativity: Where should we go from here? Journal of Management, 30, 933-
958.
Afsar and Masood 61

Swierczek, F. W., & Ha, T. T. (2003). Entrepreneurial orientation, uncertainty avoidance and
firm performance: An analysis of Thai and Vietnamese SMEs. International Journal of
Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 4, 46-58.
Taras, V., Kirkman, B. L., & Steel, P. (2010). Examining the impact of culture’s consequences:
A three-decade, multilevel, meta-analytic review of Hofstede’s cultural value dimensions.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 405-439.
Tierney, P. (2008). Leadership and employee creativity. In J. Zhou & C. E. Shalley (Eds.),
Handbook of organizational creativity (pp. 125-147). New York, NY: Erlbaum.
Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2002). Creative self-efficacy: Its potential antecedents and rela-
tionship to creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 1137-1148.
Yukl, G. (2006). Leadership in organizations (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Zhang, X., & Bartol, K. M. (2010). Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity:
The influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process
engagement. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 107-128.
Zhang, X., & Zhou, J. (2014). Empowering leadership, uncertainty avoidance, trust, and
employee creativity: Interaction effects and a mediating mechanism. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 124, 150-164.
Zhou, J., & George, J. M. (2001). When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: Encouraging the
expression of voice. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 682-696.
Zhou, J., & Su, Y. (2010). A missing piece of the puzzle: The organizational context in cultural
patterns of creativity. Management and Organization Review, 6, 391-413.