See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/266674839

Determinants and effects of employee’s creative self-efficacy on innovative

activities

Article  in  International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences · October 2014

DOI: 10.1108/IJQSS-03-2013-0013

CITATIONS READS

60 2,828

1 author:

Terje Slåtten
Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences
61 PUBLICATIONS   1,221 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Psychological capital and intention to leave among university students View project

Phd project, teams as instruments in innovation View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Terje Slåtten on 10 April 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1756-669X.htm

IJQSS
6,4
Determinants and effects of
employee’s creative self-efficacy
on innovative activities
326 Terje Slåtten
Lillehammer University College, Lillehammer, Norway
Received 20 March 2013
Revised 10 February 2014
Accepted 18 February 2014
Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to identify factors that could be related to creative self-efficacy.
Specifically, this article examines three different levels of factors as determinants to creative
self-efficacy: leader-related, self-related and job-related. After careful consideration, this study selected
one determinant to represent each of the three factors. Transformational leadership represented the
leader-related factors, learning orientation represented the self-related factors and autonomy
represented the job-related factors of creative self-efficacy. This article also aims to examine the effect
of creative self-efficacy on what is called innovative activities.
Design/methodology/approach – Drawing from theory the study presents a conceptual model of
the aforementioned relationships. The data collection is based on a survey with a sample of employees
in hospitality organizations.
Findings – The findings reveal that the job-related factors (autonomy) were the most influential
determinants to creative self-efficacy, followed by the self-related factors (learning orientation) and
finally leader-related factors (transformational leadership). Furthermore, creative self-efficacy has a
positive effect on innovative activities. Creative self-efficacy was found to have a mediating role
between the three determinant variables and the effect variable.
Research limitations/implications – This study is limited to a selection of three different factors
as determinants to creative self-efficacy and only one effect variable. Future research should focus on
other variables that may be related to creative self-efficacy. This article suggests three main areas
related to creative self-efficacy that future research should specifically focus on.
Practical implications – This study stresses the importance for managers to understand that
creative self-efficacy is an important motivational factor for behavioural outcomes such as innovative
activities. Moreover, it stresses the need for managers to give employees the necessary freedom to act on
the basis of self-determination in their job role. Simultaneously, it points to the importance of building
a climate and culture that triggers an individual learning orientation, increasing the creative capital in
hospitality organizations. In general, this study demonstrates that creative self-efficacy may be a key
personal attribute in the workplace where innovation is essential and an important aspect of firm’s
competitive advantage.
Originality/value – Creative self-efficacy is a relatively new concept. This study contributes to the
understanding of this phenomenon.
Keywords Learning, Job autonomy, Creative self-efficacy, Innovative activities, Leadership
Paper type Research paper

International Journal of Quality and

Service Sciences Introduction
Vol. 6 No. 4, 2014
pp. 326-347 “Creativity and innovation are the lifeblood of many of today’s most successful
© Emerald Group Publishing Limited organizations” (Diliello et al., 2011, p. 151). Because of changing dynamics and
1756-669X
DOI 10.1108/IJQSS-03-2013-0013 instability in the economy, both nationally and internationally, there are fluctuations
and rapidly changing markets that demand the recognition of individual customer Employee’s
needs and wants. In these situations, firms have come to recognize that their future
survival and competitiveness depend on their capability to understand, respond and
creative
react to changes or shifts related to the firm’s environment, or what can be categorized self-efficacy
as innovation-related activities. The critical keys to accomplish this shift in these
demanding situations are activities such as creativity and innovation. Creativity is
necessary to produce novel and useful ideas cognitively (Mumford and Gustafson, 1988) 327
on the basis of the actual problem or challenge the firm is facing. However, although
creativity is a prerequisite or a fundamental condition, it is in isolation insufficient.
According to Coelho et al. (2011, p. 32), “creativity is (only) a first step”. Consequently,
innovation is the second activity needed for enabling the firm to deal with unstable
environments. Innovation covers the visible activities related to the actual implementation
of those creative ideas. Innovation can, for example, be an implementation of a new
tangible product for a specific market or customer group or an implementation of a
new procedure or a new process of carrying out customer service. These shifts
include changes both at the level of the organization and at the level of individuals
and their behaviour. Because of the importance of innovation for an organization’s
survival, leaders need to try to orchestrate their firm’s culture and climate in such a
way that they inspire and influence both creativity and innovation. Consequently,
the overarching goal for modern organizations is to encourage innovative activities
among all employees and to avoid limiting these activities to a single department,
group or team (e.g. R&D).
According to Coelho et al. (2011), “firms need creative employees to initiate
organizational innovation”. These are people who “[…] develop […] and modify ideas”
and other similar activities (Van de Ven, 1986, p. 592). Following this reasoning we can
assume that there are individual differences among employees who are either positively
or negatively related to their innovation-related activities. In recent years, there has been
a sharp increase in the interest in the concept of creative self-efficacy and its role in
explaining differences in employees’ participation in innovation-related activities.
Though creative self-efficacy is a relatively new concept, it has become popular and in
the literature, it is often emphasized as having an important role explaining individual
differences in activities related to innovation. Defined as a “self-view concept”, Tierney
and Farmer (2002, p. 1,137) were the first to suggest that creative self-efficacy is “a key
personal attribute […] in the workplace”. Moreover, Tierney and Farmer (2011, p. 277)
state that “self-efficacy specific to a given activity domain is the most instrumental in
predicting performance in that domain”. These authors also stress the importance of
investigating this construct in normal or naturalistic work contexts. However, given the
newness and relevance of creative self-efficacy, there is a need for more research into
number of issues related to this concept in real settings (Shalley et al., 2004; Tierney and
Farmer, 2011).
One important issue of interest would be the study of creative self-efficacy, as it
relates to front-line service employees in hospitality firms. Front-line service employees
encompass a critical key function in ensuring customers’ satisfaction and loyalty in
hospitality organizations. Onsøyen et al. (2009, p. 82) have supported this view and
describe the host– guest interaction in hospitality organizations as a “core activity” for
these firms. Others have supported the important role of service personnel in hospitality
firms (cf. Lashley and Lee-Ross, 2003; Kusluvan, 2003). Clearly, front-line employees
IJQSS play a critical role in hospitality firms’ success in general (Chung and Schneider, 2002;
Lashley, 2008). One reason for this importance is rooted in that front-line service jobs can
6,4 be labelled as “heterogeneity”. This term refers to the fact that employees in front-lines
service jobs often have so-called unstructured and non-routine jobs and face customers
with fairly diverse needs and demands. This variability implies the requirement for
service employees to be creative and perform innovative activities to satisfy customers
328 satisfactorily in many cases. Interestingly, the characteristics of creativity-related tasks
are to a great extent analogous and correspond to the characteristics of heterogeneity
that are natural for service job tasks. Amabile (1988) portrays creative tasks as being
non-routine, multifaceted and challenging, along with a relatively low level of
specificity. Consequently, it is reasonable to assume that the role of front-line employees
implies the need to have a certain level of creative self-efficacy to perform innovative
activities. In line with this postulation, Slåtten et al. (2011, p. 280) state, “creative
self-efficacy construct is highly relevant […] (to study) […] from a frontline
perspective”. Moreover, Tierney and Farmer (2011, p. 277) state that “understanding
how to build employee creative self-efficacy is a crucial step in an organization’s attempt
to innovate”. If we account for this line of reasoning and the limited research on creative
self-efficacy, it is crucial both to understand factors that determine creative self-efficacy
and to study at the same time its effects on innovative activities in real settings, such as
front-line service jobs.
Recently, there has been call for more research related to employees’ creative
self-efficacy from a front-line perspective (Slåtten et al., 2011). As far as this author is
aware, no previous study has focused on the determinants and effects of employee
creative self-efficacy from a front-line perspective in hospitality firms. Accordingly, this
study contributes to the call for more research in this area. Specifically, this study
focuses on the different types of determinants related to creative self-efficacy. Moreover,
it focuses on the effect of creative self-efficacy on innovative activities or what this study
calls innovative behaviour.
This article proceeds in the following way. First, it begins with a discussion of the
concept of creative self-efficacy. Second, there is a discussion of the determinants and
effects of creative self-efficacy. Third, the methodology used in this study is described.
Fourth, there is a presentation of the analysis and findings. The article concludes with a
discussion of the implications of this study and points out the limitations and
suggestions for future research.

Review of the literature and conceptual framework

Conceptualization and definition of creative self-efficacy
The concept of creative self-efficacy can be traced back to Tierney and Farmer (2002).
However, these authors were inspired to develop this concept on the basis on what
Bandura (1997) has called “self-efficacy” and Gist and Mitchell’s (1992)
conceptualization of work-related self-efficacy. Consequently, to understand the
meaning from creative self-efficacy fully, one must first understand and obtain a deeper
understanding and knowledge of the content in the former construct of self-efficacy.
Originally the construct of self-efficacy is “derived from social cognitive theory – a
theory positing a triadic reciprocal causation model in which behaviour, cognition and
the environment all influence each other in a dynamic faction” (Gist and Mitchell, 1992,
p. 184). Wood and Bandura (1989, p. 408) have defined self-efficacy as something that
“refers to beliefs in one’s capabilities to mobilize the motivation, cognitive resources, and Employee’s
courses of action needed to meet given situational demands”. In accordance with
cognitive theory and Wood and Bandura’s (1989) definition, there are three components
creative
involved in the self-efficacy construct: self-efficacy
(1) judgement;
(2) dynamics; and
329
(3) mobilization.

First, self-efficacy includes an individual person’s judgement or comprehensive

summary of the capabilities that need to be summoned. According to Bandura (1997),
this aspect of self-efficacy refers to a person’s belief that he or she can perform
successfully in a particular setting. Second, self-efficacy is dynamic in that it changes
over time as the individual acquires new information and experience (Gist and Mitchell,
1992). The third component refers to how a person’s mobilization influences the choice of
activity and also the persistence; the effort; and, ultimately, the attainment of a given
outcome (Beghetto, 2006). Thus, according to Gist and Mitchell (1992, p. 185), “people
who have the same skills may perform differently, based on their utilization,
combination, and sequencing of these skills in an evolving context”. Consequently, as
Bandura (1986, p. 391) describes it: “[…] self-efficacy […] is concerned not with the skills
one has but with the judgements of what one can do with whatever skills one possesses”.
The self-efficacy ranges between two extremities, “general” and “specific”. However,
self-efficacy should not, according to Bandura (1997), be seen or classified as either one
of these two extremities, but must be understood as something that falls somewhere
along a continuum ranging between the two (Bandura, 1997). The first type of
self-efficacy, general, represents a person’s assessment of how well one believes one can
perform in a range of situations (Smith, 1989). Generalized self-efficacy denotes a
person’s overall trait or characteristic of self, such as locus of control, neuroticism and
self-esteem (Judge et al., 2002). At the other end of the spectrum, the second type of
self-efficacy, specific, relates to a person’s judgement of efficacy in a particular area of
this person’s task capability. Because of the specificity of self-efficacy, it is not an
personal trait, as in the case of generalized self-efficacy, but becomes more state-like
(Mathisen, 2011).
Self-efficacy is a cognitive self-regulatory mechanism (Gist, 1987). On this basis,
Bandura’s theory suggests that persons with high self-efficacy more often view a
challenging assignment as something that can be mastered and not to be avoided
(Bandura, 1997). The implication of this links the self-efficacy construct to how a person
cognitively evaluates specific job tasks depending on this person’s (high or low) level of
self-efficacy (Sousa et al., 2012). Creative self-efficacy, then, represents an elaboration of
the content and characteristics inherent in the specific type of self-efficacy of the broader
self-efficacy construct. Consequently, creative self-efficacy is domain-specific in its
nature and is based on a person’s judgement of resources and constraints in that specific
domain or area. In line with previous work on creative self-efficacy by Tierney and
Farmer (2002, p. 1,138), this construct is defined as “the belief one has the ability to
produce creative outcomes”. It is important to note that this definition narrows its focus
on self-efficacy to creativity to tasks related to a specific work role and thus conceptually
IJQSS different from a more general self-efficacy, which refers to a person’s more holistic belief
of himself or herself across a number of contexts, domains or tasks.
6,4
Determinants of creative self-efficacy
According to Tierney and Farmer (2002, p. 1,137), creative self-efficacy may be a “key
personal attribute […] in the workplace”. Consequently, it is important to examine
330 factors that determine creative self-efficacy. It is reasonable to assume that there are
numerous factors that could be related to creative self-efficacy. However, this study
limits its focus to three such factors. Specifically, these are leader-related; self-related;
and job-related factors. Although there is a limitation to only three factors, this study
involved a careful selection of these based on each of them representing different levels
of determinants of employee creative self-efficacy. In the following section,
determinants that represent each of the three factors are discussed together with
hypotheses that postulate their relationship with creative self-efficacy.

Leader-related factor
Transformational leadership. This study uses transformational leadership to represent
the leader-related determinant of creative self-efficacy. There are three reasons for this
choice. First, transformational leadership has been suggested as a “particularly
promising direction for studying leadership” (Jung et al., 2003, p. 528). Second,
considering the fluctuation and rapidly changing markets that cater to individual
customer needs and wants, transformational leadership has been emphasized as the
only form of leadership adequate during turbulent times (Daft and Lengel, 1998). Third,
and even more importantly than the two previously mentioned reasons,
transformational leadership focuses on the individual employee and how one through
leadership behaviour can stimulate and influence individual followers in the firm. It can
be characterized as a form of benevolent leadership, meaning individualized care,
coaching and concern for the sake of growth and development in a given work domain
(e.g. front-line service job).
This study defines transformational leadership as a relationship between leader and
follower based on a set of leadership behaviours perceived by subordinates (Nemanich
and Keller, 2007). Specifically, transformational leadership in this study embraces three
facets of leadership behaviours: intellectual stimulation; charismatic leadership; and
individual consideration (Bass (1985). The first facet (intellectual stimulation) is linked to
leadership behaviour that motivates employees positively to challenge the status quo
and assumptions about how things are done in the organization. The goal is to stimulate
employees to think in new ways before acting. The second facet of transformational
leadership (charismatic leadership) focuses on how leaders build pride and faith and
serve as charismatic role models that employees want to identify with and emulate. The
third facet (individual consideration) is about a manager’s development of a one-to-one
relationship with employees. Specifically, it is about how leaders show empathy, coach
and show appreciation of individual initiatives, aspirations and viewpoints with respect
to their one-to-one relationships with employees in the organization (Sàenz, 2011; Shin
and Zhou, 2003). Although transformational leadership consists of several unique
behavioural dimensions, these are interrelated and reflect a higher-order construct of
leadership (Avolio et al., 1999).
 According to Zhou and Shalley (2008, p. 159), “employees rely on cues from others in Employee’s
their work environment to form views about their ability to be creative”. Cues from
leadership in the context of work play an important role in influencing and shaping
creative
employees’ self-image (Coelho et al., 2011). Transformational leaders are “essentially self-efficacy
change agents” (Nemanich and Keller, 2007, p. 50). Consequently, it is a process where a
transformational leader considers each employee as an individual and through a set of
leadership behaviours (e.g. through intellectual consideration and stimulation) does 331
what is necessary to promote positive changes in the subordinates’ thoughts and
behaviour. It is reasonable to assume that transformational leadership is able to cause
changes in an employee’s self-view, considering his or her belief in the ability to produce
creative outcomes, namely, creative self-efficacy. Reasons for this argument can
actually be found in Bandura’s (1997) original work on different fundamental or
essential sources that are essential for building a person’s self-efficacy. Bandura (1986,
1997) has suggested four fundamental sources to self-efficacy: observational learning;
verbal persuasion; enactive mastery; and physiological arousal. Of these four
fundamental sources of self-efficacy, verbal persuasion and enactive mastery can be
influenced by the characteristics of the transformational leadership concept.
Verbal persuasion refers to a person who is eventually convinced that they possess
the necessary capabilities. Enactive mastery refers to successful episodes that positively
contribute to the improvement of a person’s self-view or self-efficacy belief. Both sources
are essential for promoting self-efficacy (Bandura (1986, 1997). Both verbal persuasion
and enactive mastery can be seen as positively related to the definition and content that
constitute the construct of transformational leadership (i.e. intellectual consideration,
charismatic leadership and individual consideration). On the basis of transformational
leaders as “change agents” (Nemanich and Keller, 2007, p. 50), it is assumed that this
type of leadership is an important source of positive change in a person’s self-view or
creative self-efficacy. As an “individual-focused” construct, transformational leadership
is about helping individuals to develop their strengths and to spend time coaching,
mentoring and encouraging employees and demonstrating their confidence in their
creative capability, such as offering positive comments when an employee succeeds,
which in turn leads to a positive physiological arousal in the individual self-view
about the ability to be creative. On the basis of this one-to-one relationship, Mathisen
(2011) states that it is through this “constructive dialogue between supervisor and
subordinate […] the subordinate is convinced that he or she is able to act
successfully and creatively”. Consequently, although it seems that no previous
study has linked transformational leadership to creative self-efficacy, there are
several indications that there is a positive relationship between these two
constructs. Generally, the link between managerial behaviour and employee
creativity in general is well-recognized in the literature. Tierney and Farmer (2002)
found that supervisory support (which is an implicit part of transformational
leadership) was positively related to creative self-efficacy. Previous research that
has applied the leadership-member exchange (LMX) model has been linked to an
employee’s creative capability (Scott and Bruce, 1994; Shalley and Gilson, 2004;
Slåtten, 2011). Previous research on transformational leadership has suggested that
this type of leadership is able to trigger creative self-efficacy positively (cf. Gong
et al., 2009). Consequently, regarding sources of self-efficacy suggested in the
literature that draws from Bandura’s (1986, 1997) original framework and empirical
IJQSS findings and indications in previous research, it is assumed that there is a positive
relationship between transformational leadership and creative self-efficacy. On the
6,4 basis of this discussion, this study proposed the following hypothesis:
H1. Transformational leadership is positively related to creative self-efficacy.

Self-related factor
332 Learning orientation. This study uses learning orientation to relate the self-related
factor to employees’ creative self-efficacy. There are two reasons for this choice. First,
and most importantly, learning has been considered to be an essential source of
self-efficacy (Bandura, 1986, 1997). Specifically, two modes of learning have been
suggested:
(1) enactive learning (i.e. learning through one’s own direct practice); and
(2) vicarious learning (i.e. learning through observation and modelling) (Weiss,
1990).

Second, some researchers have suggested that learning is an essential and critical source
to both creativity and innovation (Mavondo et al., 2005; Hirst et al., 2009), as well as to a
firm’s maintenance of its competitive advantage (Liu et al., 2002) in both the short and
the long run (Kohli et al., 1998). According to Mavondo et al. (2005, p. 1,241), “a learning
orientation involves questioning organizational practices and assumptions”. The
questioning of practices and assumptions could involve a thorough consideration of the
firm’s front-line service practices. Although it seems that much of the literature focuses
on organizational learning, we must recognize that organizations are unable to learn.
More precisely it is the individual in the organization who can learn. As Kohli et al. (1998,
p. 263) correctly observe, “organizations ultimately learning through their individual
members and are, therefore, directly affected by individual learning”. Porter and
Tansky (1999, p. 48) emphasize this point by describing the individual’s learning
orientation as the most “critical factor to success”. Consequently, there are good reasons
for focusing on the individual learning orientation as the one reflecting the self-related
determinant factor of creative self-efficacy.
Learning orientation at the individual level as it is used in this study draws upon the
achievement-motivation theory. This theory describes individual orientation as
motivational goal-orientation (e.g. a goal learning orientation to develop competence to
master a service job). According to Hirst et al., (2011, p. 625) this individual orientation
fosters “an intrinsic interest in a task itself”. Because this orientation is characterized as
an intrinsic task motivation, the individual is prepared to put in effort to attain the goal
(Amabile, 1996). In line with this reasoning, this study defines a learning orientation as
an internal mindset that motivates an individual to develop his or her skills or
competence (Gong et al., 2009; Dweck, 2000). This definition of learning orientation
emphasizes two fundamental aspects that can be regarded as necessary “ingredients”
for building a grounded foundation for creative self-efficacy: intrinsic motivation and
skills or competence. These two aspects are reflected in the so-called “three-component
model of creativity” (Amabile, 1996). According to this model, the components
necessary for creativity are intrinsic motivation; domain-relevant skills; and
creativity-relevant skills. The definition of learning orientation used in this study is
associated to both intrinsic motivation and the acquisition of the two skills-components Employee’s
referred to in the component model of Amabile (1996).
In the literature, one often will encounter descriptions of two modes of learning,
creative
namely, exploration and exploitation. The first mode refers to learning and acquiring self-efficacy
knowledge and skills through discovery and experimentation, whereas the second is
learning through specialization and the amassing of experience within the existing
activities (Choo, 1998). Moreover, these two types of learning modes can be described, 333
according to social cognitive theory, as “enactive mastery experience” (i.e. direct
experience of attaining knowledge and skills) and “mastery modelling” (e.g. learning
from successful employees or leaders in service firms).
It is important to note that the definition of learning orientation used in this study
focuses on none of these modes of learning or identity from whom or with whom learning
orientation is focused on. Instead, it is a general mindset with no specific area or source
to which the learning orientation is directed. It is a positive motivational drive to develop
one’s task competence independent of the sources of learning. Consequently, all types of
sources have basically the same or equal possibilities for individual learning. Moreover,
this learning orientation is built on a person’s fundamental idea and conception about
possibility incrementally to progress and improve one’s ability to master a specific task.
This positive formation of positive thoughts about improving one’s task ability builds
up a person’s beliefs about his or her own efficacy (Bandura, 1997). According to Gong
et al. (2009, p. 768), because of their orientation towards learning, these people:
[…] are likely to accumulate experience of successful mastery over time. With this repertoire of
skills and experiences, these employees should be more self-efficacious when it comes to
producing creative outcomes.
However, it is important to bear in mind that not all employees are learning-oriented. It
is reasonable to assume that learning orientation varies across employees depending on
the respective employee mindset related to motivation to develop his or her skills or task
competencies. Some employees are highly oriented towards learning, constantly
questioning both their own and organizational practices and assumptions about how
work tasks are performed. The sources of learning for such employees can be
everywhere, both inside and outside the organization (e.g. practices related to the firm’s
competitors and non-competitors). As a consequence of these employees’ goal
orientation towards learning, they build a positive platform and input necessary for
creative self-efficacy. In contrast to those who have a positive mindset related to
learning, there are those who lack a learning orientation mindset. These are people who
do not seek to learn anything new in their job. They are not motivated to actively make
any progress (either incremental or radical) to improve their ability to master a specific
task. Their mindset is “frozen” and static for continuous discovery and experimentation.
The goal and orientation are to do what they have done in past, often expressed in
proverbs such as “what has worked in the past will work in the future”. Their primary
goal is to maintain and preserve previous routines and procedures. The mindset of these
employees means that they lack the platform and input necessary for creative
self-efficacy. Consequently, for these people, learning orientation and creative
self-efficacy are not positively related. As Wang and Netemeyer (2002, p. 218)
emphasize, stating that, “it is (only) through proactive learning that the information
becomes relevant and functions as an efficacy facilitator”. Previous conceptualizations
IJQSS and empirical research suggest that learning orientation is a source to self-efficacy (cf.
Bandura (1986, 1997; Gong et al., 2009; Wang and Netemeyer, 2002). Following this line
6,4 of reasoning, there is good reason to assume that learning orientation is related to
creative self-efficacy. On the basis of the aforementioned reasoning and discussion, this
study put forth the following hypothesis:
H2. Learning orientation is positively related to creative self-efficacy.
334
Job-related factor
Autonomy. This study uses job autonomy to represent the job-related factor to
employees’ creative self-efficacy. There is one important reason for this choice. Job
autonomy is one of five core dimensions or job resources associated with potential
motivational aspects or values of any job in the widely recognized job-characteristic
model of Hackman and Oldham (1980). The other four dimensions in this model are:
(1) skill variety (i.e. the use of one’s knowledge and capabilities);
(2) task identity (i.e. whether one is responsible for performing the total task process
or just for contributing to a part of the task process);
(3) task significance (i.e. whether the worker considers the work being performed as
meaningful); and
(4) feedback [i.e. whether one receives any form of feedback (e.g. from the
leadership, co-workers) on job performance].

According to Hackman and Oldham, all of these dimensions are important. Yet the
dimensions related to job autonomy (and feedback) are essential and particularly
important for a person’s motivation in any job (see the “job diagnostic survey” by
Hackman and Oldham, 1975). Consequently, job autonomy is associated with the
fundamental attainment of basic human needs in a job situation (Bakker and Demerouti,
2007).
Job autonomy covers one’s subjective evaluation of the degree of control,
responsibility, and independence regarding one’s working situation. In this study, job
autonomy refers to the freedom and independence that people performing the tasks have
in determining how to execute their duties (Zhou and Shalley, 2008). Job autonomy is
closely related to the term “delegation”, which describes a variety of different forms and
degree of power-sharing with individual subordinates. There is little or no delegation
(i.e. a low level of job autonomy) if someone must ask the supervisor what to do
whenever there is a problem or something unusual occurs. On the other hand, there is
substantial delegation (i.e. a high level of job autonomy) when an employee is allowed to
make important decisions and to implement them without prior approval (Yukl, 2006).
Consequently, there are variations in job autonomy depending on the individual’s
subjective evaluation of one’s freedom in the working situation. Considering the often
complex and demanding job tasks that front-line employees face in their interaction
with their customers, it is reasonable to assume that this type of job requires some level
of autonomy.
Previous research has found that job autonomy is related to many factors, such as
intrinsic job motivation (Hackman and Oldham, 1980), a person’s efforts directed to a
work task (Gagne and Deci, 2005), individual development (Deci and Ryan, 1985) and
employee engagement (Xanthopoulou et al., 2009). To this author’s knowledge,
Mathisen’s (2011) work is the only study to have tested the relationship between job Employee’s
autonomy and creative self-efficacy, and it has examined the relationship between job
autonomy and creative self-efficacy on the basis of a sample of 240 employees in a
creative
division of a metallurgy manufacturing company, including employees from several self-efficacy
sectors, including mining operations, white-collar and blue-collar workers and leaders.
Although this present study is similar to Mathisen’s (2011) in its focus, this study differs
in that it concentrates on creative self-efficacy in relation to front-line or front-stage 335
employees, and not employees situated in the rear or back-stage. Consequently, this
study’s focus is unique. However, it is reasonable to assume that there is a relationship
between front-line employee’s subjective evaluation of job autonomy and creative
self-efficacy. Whether the relationship between the two variables is positive or negative
depends on level of autonomy and how an employee assesses the experience of job
autonomy. As indicated in the previous discussion, job autonomy is closely associated
with delegation. The level of autonomy can vary from a low to a high level. When
managers impose restrictions on job autonomy, it can send a message of distrust in the
employee’s capability. It is reasonable to assume this can lead to a negative effect on an
employee’s judgement of his or her self-efficacy. In the literature, one can find support
for there being a negative link between job autonomy and self-efficacy. Research has
found that a situation of restriction leads to a decrease in a person’s self-efficacy (cf.
Bandura and Wood, 1989). Moreover, it is a fact that not all employees are comfortable
when managers delegate work tasks that give them more freedom and control regarding
one’s work situation. Although giving employees more freedom, control and
independence can be positive, assessed from a manager’s perspective, this form of
autonomy simultaneously implies more responsibility for the outcomes of decisions and
how work is performed. On this basis, some employees prefer little or no responsibility.
Thus, these employees prefer to be told what to do and what decisions should be taken.
Consequently, for some employees’ perspective, job autonomy can be assessed as a
negative, which moreover causes a negative relationship between autonomy and
creative self-efficacy.
Although job autonomy for some employees can be assessed as negative and
undesirable, it is clear that for other employees, it can be assessed as something positive
and desirable that they appreciate highly. Following this line of reasoning, a high level
of job autonomy is an implicit message of trust from the manager in the employee’s
capability. According to Wang and Netemeyer (2002, p. 219), a message from the
manager implicit in high-level job autonomy “[…] has a positive effect on the […]
efficacy judgement”. In a review of a series of studies by Gecas (1989), the author finds
support for a positive relationship between freedom experienced at work and a person’s
self-efficacy. Moreover, in the previously mentioned study of Mathisen (2011), the
author finds empirical support for a positive relationship between job autonomy and
creative self-efficacy. This study concentrates on the more desirable or positive
perceptions of job autonomy. Following this reasoning, this study assumes that a
person’s positive subjective perception of job autonomy leads to an increase of the
creative self-efficacy in the work role and how day-to-day work tasks are conducted.
Consequently, on the basis of this discussion, this study proposes the following
hypothesis.
H3. Autonomy is positively related to creative self-efficacy.
IJQSS The effect of creative self-efficacy on innovative activities
According to Coelho et al. (2011, p. 31), “frontline service employees often hold
6,4 unstructured jobs, frequently facing customers with quite diverse needs, implying that
they need to be innovative”. This article links creative self-efficacy to front-line
employees’ innovative activities. Innovative activities in this study refer to behavioural
acts of the front-line employees in their interactive processes with customers.
336 Specifically, innovative activities are defined as the implementation of novel and useful
ideas (West and Farr, 1989). The construct has some similarities to Schumpeter’s (1934)
concept of “process innovation”, which refers to the implementation of a new method of
production. However, it is important to note that this implementation of a “new method
of production” in process innovations does not indicate some decision about
standardization or a predetermined way of how services should be delivered to
customers. In line with the characteristics of services as something that is heterogeneous
in its nature (Parasuraman et al., 1985), innovative activities involve the process of
implementation of novel and useful ideas in the process of customizing one’s service.
Although some novel and useful elements can be reproduced in the same way to several
customers, it may be difficult, if not impossible, to implement all innovative activities in
every interaction with all of the firm’s customers. Consequently, the content of the actual
level of innovative activities will vary depending on the customer’s needs and wants.
Innovative activities are thus analogous to what Gallouj and Weinstein (1997) refer to as
“ad hoc innovation”, where an innovation produced in the process is a novel and useful
solution for the individual customer but not necessarily for the firm’s customers as a
whole.
To this author’s knowledge, no previous research has investigated the link between
creative self-efficacy and innovative activities from a front-line perspective. However,
the link between these two constructs are grounded in the reasoning that human
thoughts form the basis for human behaviour. Following this argument, this study
defined creative self-efficacy as a person’s “beliefs in one’s capabilities to mobilize the
motivation, cognitive resources and courses of action needed to meet given situation
demands” (Wood and Bandura, 1989, p. 408). It is reasonable to assume that, depending
on the level, creative self-efficacy forms the basis of a person’s decision to execute an
activity or not. Social cognitive theory supports this approach. According to this theory,
a person’s motivation to perform a specific activity or task is dependent on this person’s
judgement about his or her capabilities and expectations about the outcomes of the
activity (Bandura, 1986, 1997; Gist and Mitchell, 1992). Consequently, there should be a
close relationship between creative self-efficacy and innovative activities. Hsu et al.
(2011, p. 260) support this idea, stating: “individual with high creative self-efficacy can
mobilize the motivation, cognitive resources, and courses of action needed to meet the
situational demands”. In line with this, Tierney and Farmer (2011, p. 277) state that
“self-efficacy specific to a given activity domain is the most instrumental in predicting
performance in that domain”. Moreover, Bandura (1997, p. 239) relates self-efficacy to
innovative activities by suggesting that “[…] innovativeness require an unshakable
sense of efficacy […]”. Previous research also supports a link between the two constructs
(cf. Hsu et al., 2011; Mathisen and Bronnick, 2009; Tierney and Farmer, 2002, 2011). On
the basis of the aforementioned discussion, this study suggests that there is a positive
relationship between front-line employees’ creative self-efficacy and innovative
activities. Consequently, the following hypothesis was proposed:
 H4. Creative self-efficacy is positively related to innovative activities. Employee’s
Research model
creative
Figure 1 shows the conceptual model and provides a summary of the variables and self-efficacy
hypotheses that have guided this study. As can be seen in the diagram, the model
illustrates that transformational leadership, learning orientation and autonomy
represent three different types of determinants to employees’ creative self-efficacy. 337
Moreover, this study suggests that innovative activities are an effect of employees’
creative self-efficacy.

Research methodology
Sample and procedures
The data were collected from front-line employees in a hospitality sector situated in
southern Norway. Front-line employees in hospitality organisations are expected to deal
with a number of requests by customers (Karatepe and Uludag, 2008). Consequently,
hospitality organizations provide an appropriate setting for an examination of the
chosen variables in this study.
In total, seven research assistants participated in the data collection. All research
assistants were students who did their final year of Bachelor in Tourism. To ensure a
common understanding among the research assistants, two workshops were conducted.
Both workshops were held at the university campus. The two workshops were led by
the lead author. The workshops explained in detail the overall aim of the research
project, the questionnaire, the conceptual model of the study and the importance of
informing all the participants about anonymity.
The hospitality firms included in the study were selected partly because of their
geographical location. In most cases, one of the researchers contacted the hospitality
firm’s director or manager directly. The director or manager helped to identify the

Leader-related factor

Transformaonal
leadership

Self-related factor

Learning orientaon Creave self-efficacy Innovave acvies

Figure 1.
Job-related factor
A conceptual model of
determinants and effects
of employees’ creative
Autonomy self-efficacy on innovative
activities
IJQSS names of relevant respondents. Each respondent was then contacted individually and
asked to participate in the survey. If a respondent agreed to participate, then that person
6,4 received a questionnaire, was informed about the study and the guarantee of anonymity
and was then asked to put the filled-out questionnaire in a special closed response box.
In total, there were 345 respondents who participated in the study.

338 Measures
This study used a structured survey questionnaire. Before the collection of data, one
expert evaluated the questionnaire and pre-tested it on five respondents to evaluate the
readability and understand ability of the questionnaire. This pre-test led to certain
questions being re-worded for the sake of improved validity and clarity. To measure
creative self-efficacy dimensions, this study formulated items that were inspired by
Gong et al. (2009). One of the sample items was “I have confidence in my ability to solve
problems creatively”. To capture the transformational leadership construct, we looked
to Bycio et al. (1995) for item formulation. The transformational leadership construct
consisted of three facets: intellectual stimulation; individual consideration; and
charismatic leadership. The first facet of transformational leadership, intellectual
stimulation, gave rise to questions such as “My leader has provided me with new ways
of looking at things that used to be a puzzle for me”. The second facet, individualized
consideration, gave rise to questions such as “My leader makes me feel we can reach our
goals without him/her if we have to”. The third facet, charismatic leadership, gave rise
to questions such as “My leader encourages me to express my ideas and opinions”. Items
used for innovative activates had their basis in Janssen (2000) and were modified for this
study. One sample item was, “I try out new ideas in my job”. Elliot and Church (1997)
inspired items designed to capture the learning-orientation construct. One question was,
“I seek to learn something new in my job”. Finally, Zhang and Bartol (2010) provided the
basis for the job-autonomy items used for self-determination. One sample item was, “I
can decide on my own how to go about doing my work”.
All items in the survey questionnaire were formulated as statements and measured
with a 7-point Likert scale (1 ⫽ strongly disagree to 7 ⫽ strongly agree).

Data analysis and results

Before performing a regression analysis to test the proposed hypotheses, this author
checked all items for normality. Furthermore, the convergent properties of formative
variables were tested by principal component extraction and varimax rotation. The
results showed satisfactory convergent properties for the variables used in the study.
Table I shows the descriptive statistics, means, standard deviations and correlations of
all constructs.
Regression analysis. The first regression analysis regressed the dependent variable of
creative self-efficacy against the three independent variables of transformational
leadership, learning orientation and autonomy. The second regression analysis tested
the dependent variable of innovative activities against the variable of creative
self-efficacy. Table II shows the results.
Table II reveals that all three determinants have a significantly positive relationship
with employee creative self-efficacy and this finding supports H1-H3. The
␤-coefficients of each variable are, respectively, transformational leadership (␤ ⫽ 0.137),
learning orientation (␤ ⫽ 0.253) and autonomy (␤ ⫽ 0.261). In total, the three
determinants explain about 30 per cent of the variance in creative self-efficacy. Employee’s
Moreover, Table II shows the results from the test of the effect of creative self-efficacy on
innovative activities. The ␤-coefficients of the relationship between the two variables
creative
are 0.604, which implies that creative self-efficacy explains about 36 per cent of the self-efficacy
variance in innovative activities. This finding supports H4. In summary, this study
finds support for all of the hypotheses.
Figure 1 suggests that creative self-efficacy mediates the relationship between the 339
three determinants and the effect variable. Consequently, this study has examined the
mediating effects of creative self-efficacy. To examine the mediating effects, this study
applied the “three-step procedures” recommended by Baron and Kenny (1986). First,
according to Baron and Kenny (1986), for mediation to be established, one should relate
the antecedents to the mediating variables. Second, the mediating variables should
relate to the outcome variables. As can be seen in Table II, these two criteria are fulfilled.
Third, according to Baron and Kenny’s (1986) recommendation, the mediating variable
should diminish the effect of the antecedents on the outcome variable. This is the case:
the results in Table III (which compares Models 1 and 2) show that the presence of
creative self-efficacy diminishes the influence of the three determinant variables
(transformational leadership, learning orientation and autonomy) on innovative
activities.
In summary, on the basis of the different tests, the findings reveal that the conditions
for mediation are met.

Construct Minimum Maximum Mean SD IA CSE TL LO A

IA 1 7 5.42 1.11 1.00

CSE 1 7 5.38 1.01 0.604* 1.00
TL 1 7 5.03 1.19 0.500* 0.406* 1.00
LO 1 7 6.06 0.85 0.553* 0.462* 0.490* 1.00 Table I.
A 1 7 5.56 0.94 0.530* 0.488* 0.607* 0.546* 1.00 Descriptive statistics,
means, standard
Notes: IB ⫽ innovative activities; CSE ⫽ creative self-efficacy; TL ⫽ transformational leadership; deviations and inter-
LO ⫽ learning orientation; A ⫽ autonomy; * significant at the p ⬍ 0.001 level (two-tailed); The bolded correlations for all
unit 1.00 in table means there is a 100 per cent correlation between the two variables variables

Standardized regression coefficients

Predictors CSE IA

H1. CSE 0.604* Table II.

H2. TL 0.137* Regression results testing
H3. LO 0.253* the effects of creative self-
H4. A 0.261* efficacy on innovative
Overall F 44.91* 191.28* activities and of testing
R2 0.302 0.365 transformational
Adjusted R2 0.296 0.363 leadership, learning
orientation and autonomy
Notes: IB ⫽ innovative activities; CSE ⫽ creative self-efficacy; TL ⫽ transformational leadership; as determinants on
LO ⫽ learning orientation; A ⫽ autonomy; * significant at the p ⬍ 0.01 level (two-tailed) creative self-efficacy
IJQSS Discussion
According to de Bono (1995, p. 12): “There are far too many practitioners out there who
6,4 believe that creativity is just brainstorming and being free to suggest crazy ideas”.
Instead, de Bono (1995) emphasized that it is important to take creativity seriously. This
study has revealed how one can (seriously) build a platform to cultivate the firm’s
“creative capital” focusing on the creative self-efficacy of the individual employee in a
340 specific work role. As far as this author is aware, no previous study has emphasized
determinants and effects of employee creative self-efficacy from a front-line perspective
in hospitality service firms. Consequently, this study responds to the call for more
research related to employee creative self-efficacy. Moreover, it also responds to the call
for more research that examines real work settings (cf. Tierney and Farmer, 2011) and
research on innovation in services in general (Miles, 2000).
This study has examined creative self-efficacy as a domain-specific construct.
Specifically creative self-efficacy was defined as a cognitive belief of a person’s ability to
produce creative outcomes (Tierney and Farmer, 2002). One important purpose of the
current study was to examine the various determinants that trigger a person’s creative
self-efficacy in a specific work role. In total, three factors were chosen as being relevant
to the promotion of creative self-efficacy, namely, leader-related; self-related; and
job-related factors.
With the comparison of the three different factors, the results reveal that job
autonomy, representing the job-related factors, was the most influential for creative
self-efficacy. Job autonomy is related to a person’s consideration about freedom and
independence when performing his or her work role. The findings suggest that
employees who experience control and responsibility of how their job should be
performed are more able to develop their creative self-efficacy. Further, the findings
stress the importance for managers to share or delegate their power with their
subordinates. This is especially important where the day-to-day conduct of work is
characterized as unstructured and there is the need for employees to deal constantly
with heterogeneous needs and wants and the demand to provide customized solutions to
the individual customer. According to Sousa et al. (2012, p. 166), “giving employees the
freedom to respond to work situations and problems should contribute to an
enhancement of their beliefs concerning their capability to perform their job well”. The
findings from this study clearly support this statement. Previous research has

Standardized regression coefficients

Innovative activities (IA)
Predictors Model 1 Model 2

TL 0.239* 0.185**
LO 0.199* 0.302*
Table III. A 0.218* 0.132**
Results of employee CSE 0.368*
creative self-efficacy as a Overall F 70.54* 75.37*
mediating variable Adjusted R2 0.396 0.487
between the determinant
variables and the effect Notes: TL ⫽ transformational leadership; LO ⫽ learning orientation; A ⫽ autonomy; CSE ⫽ creative
variable self-efficacy; * p ⬍ 0.001; ** p ⬍ 0.05
considered job autonomy as fundamentally important for a person’s motivation in any Employee’s
job (cf. Bakker and Demerouti, 2007; Hackman and Oldham, 1980). The comparison of
job autonomy with the two other determinants used in the present study reveals that job
creative
autonomy is a “key factor” and is critical for developing a person’s creative self-efficacy. self-efficacy
Generally, the findings from this study are supported within previous empirical
research and within self-efficacy theory, all suggesting that autonomy is an important
determinant of self-efficacy (Gist and Mitchell, 1992; Mathisen, 2011; Sousa et al., 2012). 341
Bandura (1986, 1997) has suggested that learning is a source of self-efficacy. This
study defined learning orientation as an internal mindset that motivates an individual to
develop his or her skills or competence (Gong et al., 2009; Dweck, 2000). As expected, the
results indicate that learning orientation, representing the self-related factor, has a
positive influence on creative self-efficacy. The findings reveal that learning orientation,
compared with the two other determinants, is the second most influential determinant to
creative self-efficacy. This finding stresses the importance of creating a commitment to
learning across and among employees in the organization. More precisely, based on
achievement theory, building commitment is about how to trigger the individual
employees’ motivation in the direction of a specific goal in such a way that it fosters
interest in the task itself. One source of this kind of mindset that seeks to develop skills
or competence would be the so-called intrinsic motivation. Although not all employees
are naturally intrinsic motivated, managers should find other “routes” to induce
employees to seek to develop their task insight and capability. One such strategy could
for managers explicitly to show their appreciation of an employee’s ability to improve
their mastery of specific tasks. By giving regular feedback to employees about their
mastery over time and generally emphasize the value of enhanced know-how for the
organization, it could result in a positive self-reinforcing learning spiral among
individual employees. A positive spiral contributes to making individual learning
orientation a natural part of the organizational climate and culture. Moreover,
improving individual members’ know-how and experience of mastery would
simultaneously enhance these employees self-efficacy about their ability to produce
creative outcomes (Gong et al., 2009). The findings in the present study indicate that
individual learning orientation is an important determinant to effective building of
creative self-efficacy.
Employee cognitions and derived meanings appear to be associated with leadership
(Gioia and Chittipeddi, 1991). Leaders can through their behaviours influence
employees’ perceptions (Amabile et al., 2004; Coelho et al., 2011). This study has used
transformational leadership to represent the leader-related determinant of creative
self-efficacy. This type of leadership has been suggested as a preferred type of
leadership attainment goals, as it influences or develops organizations’ employees in a
specific direction. The findings support a positive link between transformational
leadership and creative self-efficacy. Surprisingly, compared with the other two
determinants, transformational leadership had least impact on creative self-efficacy.
One interpretation could be that transformational leadership is relatively unimportant
compared with job autonomy and learning orientation as determinants to creative
self-efficacy. However, a closer inspection of the survey data reveals that two
characteristics of the study setting could explain the findings. First, descriptive data
inspections show that more than 50 per cent (55.9) of participants had worked for the
organization for less than three years. Consequently, hospitality organizations included
IJQSS in the present study generally suffer from a high level of employee turnover. Second,
approximately 40 per cent (39.1) of all employees work on a part-time basis for
6,4 hospitality organizations. Overall, these two characteristics of the study setting could
mean that a majority of employees have not had enough time there actually to be
influenced or “transformed” in the desired direction by their leader. Although this could
be a natural ad hoc explanation of the findings, future research should explore further
342 whether time spent working in a hospitality organization has an impact on the
relationship between transformational leadership and creative self-efficacy.
The effect of creative self-efficacy is in this study linked to innovative activities. The
difference between the two constructs is that creativity self-efficacy is about a person’s
thoughts, about one’s capability to be creative on the basis of acquired knowledge and
skills. On the other hand, innovative activities relate to the employee’s activities in
interactive process with the firm’s customers and to the novel and useful ways to
execute these activities. Consequently, the idea behind the link is the assumption that
“different thoughts” causes “different activities”. The findings in this study reveal a
strong and positive relationship between creative self-efficacy and innovative activities.
Moreover, this study also finds that creative self-efficacy plays a mediating role between
the three determinant variables and the effect variable. Clearly, it indicates that creative
self-efficacy has a “key role” in their relationship. Overall, the results demonstrate that
creative self-efficacy is an important motivational factor for such behavioural outcomes
as innovative activities. The present study supports Tierney and Farmer’s (2011,p. 277)
statement that “self-efficacy […] is the most instrumental in predicting performance in
that domain”. Moreover, it supports Bandura (1997, p. 239), who states that “[…]
innovativeness requires an unshakable sense of efficacy […]”. Generally, the findings is
supported in previous research on self-efficacy and work-related performance (Hsu et al.,
2011; Mathisen and Bronnick, 2009; Stajkovic and Luthans, 1998; Sousa et al., 2012;
Tierney and Farmer, 2002, 2011).

Suggestions for future research

Tierney and Farmer (2002, p. 1,137) first introduced the concept of creative self-efficacy,
which is “a key personal attribute […] in the workplace”. However, as a relatively new
construct, more research has to be done to explore and understand how and under what
circumstances creative self-efficacy is a “key” variable. Consequently, future research
should focus on both determinants and effects of creative self-efficacy.
The present study points to three opportunities for future research. First, this study
is limited to a focus on one type of job-related determinant to creative self-efficacy. The
findings show that autonomy was most influential of the three determinants. However,
job autonomy is but one out of the five types of “job resources” originally suggested by
Hackman and Oldham (1980). Considering the significant impact of autonomy as a core
characteristic of the job, future research should examine how other job-related
resources, such as skill variety, task identity, task significance and feedback, are linked
to creative self-efficacy.
Second, the literature suggests that learning orientation is an important factor for
enabling efficacy (Bandura, 1986, 1997; Wang and Netemeyer, 2002). The findings in the
present study support this view. However, learning is a complex and multidimensional
concept. This study was limited to a holistic perspective, defining learning orientation
as an internal mindset that motivates an individual to develop his or her skills and
competence (Gong et al., 2009). This perspective is positive because it embraces a Employee’s
number of sources for individual learning. However, it gives little information of the
exact sources that actually trigger individual learning orientation. For example, it gives
creative
little or no information about whether the sources of individual learning orientation are self-efficacy
located to sources within the organization (e.g. co-workers) or sources outside (e.g. the
firm’s competitors). Moreover, it gives little information about firms’ specific factors, such
as routines for intra-organizational knowledge sharing or organization-wide shared visions 343
of individual learning. The importance of learning for organizational survival and
competiveness indicates the need for future research to identify the exact sources of
individual learning that build creative self-efficacy.
Third, as already suggested, future research should explore whether the time spent
working at a particular organization has an impact on the relationship between
transformational leadership and creative self-efficacy. Time spent together is a
necessary condition for establishing, developing and upholding relationships between
persons. According to Shamir (2011, p. 307), “leadership takes time”. Consequently,
relationships between leaders and their subordinates evolve over time. It seems both
intuitive and logical that building a person’s creative self-efficacy is an incremental or
stepwise process that occurs over time. On the basis of this, we may reasonably assume
that time could have a moderating effect on the relationship between transformational
leadership and creative self-efficacy. However, this aspect, among other potential links
related to the temporal dimension, should be considered in future research.

References
Amabile, T.M. (1988), “A model of creativity and innovation in organizations”, in Staw, B. and
Cummings, L.L. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 10, JAI Press, Greenwich,
London, pp. 123-167.
Amabile, T.M. (1996), Creativity in Context: Update to The Social Psychology of Creativity,
Westview, Boulder, CO.
Amabile, T.F., Schatzel, E.A., Moneta, G.B. and Kramer, S.J. (2004), “Leader behaviors and the
work environment for creativity: perceived leader support”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 15
No. 1, pp. 5-32.
Avolio, B.J., Bass, B.M. and Jung, D.I. (1999), “Re-examining the components of transformational
and transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire”, Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 72 No. 4, pp. 441-462.
Bakker, A.B. and Demerouti, E. (2007), “The job demands-resources model: state-of-the-art”
Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 309-328.
Bandura, A. (1986), Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Bandura, A. (1997), Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control, W.H. Freeman, New York, NY.
Bandura, A. and Wood, R.E. (1989), “Effect of perceived controllability and performance
standards on self-regulation of complex decision-making”, Journal of Personality and social
Psychology, Vol. 56 No. 5, pp. 805-814.
Baron, R. and Kenny, D. (1986), “The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1173-1182.
Bass, B.M. (1985), Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations, Free Press, New York, NY.
IJQSS Beghetto, R.A. (2006), “Creative self-efficacy: correlates in middle and secondary students”,
Creativity Research Journal, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 447-457.
6,4 Bycio, P., Allen, J.S. and Hackett, R.D. (1995), “Further assessment of Bass’s (1995)
conceptualization of transactional and transformational leadership”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 80 No. 4, pp. 468-478.
Choo, C.W. (1998), The Knowing Organization – How Organizations Use Information to Construct
344 Meaning, Create Knowledge, and Make Decisions, Oxford University Press. Oxford.
Chung, B.G. and Schneider, B. (2002), “Serving multiple masters: role conflict experienced by
service employees”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 70-87.
Coelho, F., Augusto, M. and Lages, L.F. (2011), “Contextual factors and the creativity of frontline
employees: the mediating effects of role stress and intrinsic motivation”, Journal of
Retailing, Vol. 87 No. 1, pp. 31-41.
Daft, R.L. and Lengel, R.H. (1998), Fusion Leadership, Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, CA.
de Bono, E. (1995), “Serious creativity”, The Journal of Quality and Participation, Vol. 18 No. 5,
pp. 12-18.
Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (1985), Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human
Behaviour, Plentum Press, New York, NY.
Diliello, T.C., Houghton, J.D. and Dawley, D. (2011), “Narrowing the creativity gap: the moderating
effects of perceived support for creativity”, The Journal of Psychology, Vol. 145 No. 3,
pp. 151-172.
Dweck, C.S. (2000), Self-Theories: Their Role in Motivation, Personality and Development,
Psychological Press, Philadelphia, PA.
Elliot, A.J. and Church, M.A. (1997), “A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance
achievement motivation”, Journal of Personality and social Psychology, Vol. 72 No. 1,
pp. 218-232.
Gagne, M. and Deci, E.L. (2005), “Self-determination theory and work motivation”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 331-362.
Gallouj, F. and Weinstein, O. (1997), “Innovation in services”, Research Policy, Vol. 26, pp. 537-556.
Gecas, V. (1989), “The social psychology of self-efficacy”, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 15,
pp. 291-316.
Gioia, D.A. and Chittipeddi, K. (1991), “Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change
initiation”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 433-448.
Gist, M.E. (1987), “Self-efficacy: implications for organizational behavior and human resource
management”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 472-485.
Gist, M.E. and Mitchell, T.R. (1992), “Self-efficacy: a theoretical analysis of it determinants and
malleability”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 183-211.
Gong, Y., Huang, J.C. and Farth, J.L. (2009), “Employee learning orientation, transformational
leadership, and employee creativity: the mediating role of employee creative self-efficacy”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 52 No. 4, pp. 765-778.
Hackman, J. and Oldham, G.R. (1975), “Development of the job diagnostic survey”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 159-170.
Hackman, J. and Oldham, G.R. (1980), Work Design, Addison-Westley, Cambrigde, MA.
Hirst, G., Knippenberg, D.V. and Zhou, J. (2009), “A cross-level perspective on employee creativity:
goal orientation, team learning behaviour, and individual creativity”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 280-293.
Hirst, G., Knippenberg, D.V., Chen, C.H. and Sacramento, C.A. (2011), “How does bureaucracy Employee’s
impact creativity? A cross-level investigation of team contextual influences on goal
orientation-creativity relationships”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 54 No. 3, creative
pp. 624-641. self-efficacy
Hsu, M.L.A., Hou, S.T. and Fan, H.L. (2011), “Creative self-efficacy and innovative behavior in a
service setting: optimism as a moderator”, Journal of Creative Behavior, Vol. 45 No. 4,
pp. 258-272.
345
Janssen, O. (2000), “Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fairness and innovative work
behaviour”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 73 No. 3,
pp. 287-302.
Judge, T.A., Erez, A., Bono, J.E. and Thorese, C. (2002), “Are measures of self-esteem, neuroticism,
locus of control, and generalized self-efficacy indicators of a common core construct?”,
Journal of personality and social Psychology, Vol. 83 No. 3, pp. 693-710.
Jung, D.I, Chow, C. and Wu, A. (2003), “The role of transformational leadership en enhancing
organizational innovation: hypotheses and some preliminary findings”, Leadership
Quarterly, Vol. 14 Nos 4/5, pp. 525-544.
Karatepe, O.M. and Uludag, O. (2008), “Role stress, Burnout and their effects on frontline hotel
employees job performance: evidence from Northern Cyprus”, International Journal of
Tourism Research, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 111-126.
Kohli, A.J., Shervani, A.T. and Challagalla, G.N. (1998), “Learning and performance orientation of
salespeople: the role of supervisors”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 35 No. 2,
pp. 263-274.
Kusluvan, S. (2003), “Employee attitudes and behaviours and their role of tourism
and hospitality”, in Kusluvan, S. (Ed), Managing Employee Attitudes and Behaviours in
the Tourism and Hospitality Industry, Nova Science Publishers, New York, NY,
pp. 25-50.
Lashley, C. (2008), “Studying hospitality: insights from social sciences”, Scandinavian Journal of
Hospitality and Tourism, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 69-84.
Lashley, C. and Lee-Ross, D. (2003), Organization Behavior for Leisure Services,
Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
Liu, S.S., Luo, X. and Shi, Y.Z. (2002), “Integrating customer orientation, corporate
entrepreneurship, and learning orientation in organization-in-transition: an empirical
study”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 367-382.
Mathisen, G.E. (2011), “Organizational antecedents of creative self-efficacy”, Creativity and
Innovation Management, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 185-195.
Mathisen, G.E. and Bronnick, K.S. (2009), “Creative self-efficacy: an intervention study”,
International Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 21-29.
Mavondo, F.T., Chimhanzi, J. and Stewart, J. (2005), “Learning orientation and market orientation –
relationship with innovation, human resource practices and performance”, European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 39 Nos 11/12, pp. 1235-1263.
Miles, I. (2000), “Services innovation: coming of age in the knowledge based economy”,
International Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 371-389.
Mumford, M. and Gustafson, S. (1988), “Creative syndrome: integration, application, and
innovation”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 1, pp. 27-43.
Nemanich, L.A. and Keller, R.T. (2007), “Transformational leadership in an acquisition: a field
study of employees”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 49-68.
IJQSS Onsøyen, L.E., Mykletun, R.J. and Steiro, T.J. (2009), “Silenced and Invisible: the work-experience
of room-attendants in Norwegian hotels”, Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and
6,4 Tourism, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 81-102.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L. (1985), “A conceptual model of service quality and
its implications for future research”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 41-50.
Porter, G. and Tansky, J.W. (1999), “Expatriate success may depend on a ‘learning orientation’:
346 considerations for selection and training”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 38 No. 1,
pp. 47-60.
Sàenz, D.H. (2011), “Transformational leadership”, in Bryman, A., Collinson, D., Grint, K., Jackson,
B. and Uhl-Bien, M. (Eds), The Sage Handbook of Leadership, Sage Publications.
Scott, S.G. and Bruce, R.A. (1994), “Determinants of innovative behavior: a path model of
individual innovation in the workplace”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 37 No. 3,
pp. 580-607.
Shalley, C.E. Zhou, J. and Oldham, G.R. (2004), “The effects of personal and contextual
characteristics on creativity: where should we go from here?”, Journal of Management,
Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 933-958.
Shalley, C.E. and Gilson, L.L. (2004), “What leaders need to know: a review of social and contextual
factors that can foster or hinder creativity”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 33-53.
Shamir, B. (2011), “Leadership takes time: some implications of (not) taking time seriously in
leadership research”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 22, pp. 307-315.
Schumpeter, J.A. (1934), The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry into Profits, Capital,
Credit, Interest and the Business Cycle, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Shin, S.E. and Zhou, J. (2003), “Transformational leadership, conversation, and creativity:
evidence from Korea”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 46, pp. 703-714.
Slåtten, T. (2011), “Antecedents and effects of employee’s feelings of joy on employee innovative
behaviour”, International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, Vol. 3 No. 1.
Slåtten, T., Svennson, G. and Sværi, S. (2011), “Empowering leadership and the influence of a
humorous work climate on service employees’ creativity and innovative behaviour in
frontline service jobs”, International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, Vol. 3 No. 3,
pp. 267-284.
Smith, G.E. (1989), “Effects of coping skills training on generalized self-efficacy and locus of
control”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 56 No. 2, pp. 228-233.
Sousa, C.M.P., Coelho, F., Gullamon-Saorin, E. (2012), “Personal values, autonomy, and
self-efficacy: evidence from frontline service employees”, International Journal of Selection
and Assessment, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 159-170.
Stajkovic, A.D. and Luthans, F. (1998), “Self-efficacy and work-related performance: a
meta-analysis”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 124 No. 2, 240-261.
Tierney, P. and Farmer, S.M. (2002), “Creative self-efficacy: potential antecedents and relationship
to creative performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 45 No. 6, pp. 1137-1148.
Tierney, P. and Farmer, S.M. (2011), “Creative self-efficacy development and creative performance
over time”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 96 No. 2, pp. 277-293.
Van de Ven, A. (1986), “Central problems in the management of innovation”, Management Science,
Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 590-607.
Wang, G. and Netemeyer, R.G. (2002), “The effects of job autonomy, customer demandingness,
and trait competitiveness on salesperson learning, self-efficacy, and performance”, Journal
of Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 217-228.
 Weiss, H. (1990), “Learning theory and industrial and organizational psychology”, in Dunnette, Employee’s
M.D. and Hough, L.M. (Eds), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2nd
ed., Vol. 1, Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA, pp. 171-222. creative
West, M.A. and Farr (1989), “Innovation at work: psychological perspectives”, Social Behavior, self-efficacy
Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 15-30.
Wood, R.E. and Bandura, A. (1989), “Impact of conceptions of ability on self-regulatory
mechanism and complex decision making”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 347
Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 407-415.
Xanthopoulou, D. Bakker, A.B. Demerouti, E. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2009), “Work engagement and
financial return: a diary study on the role of job and personal resources”, Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 82 No. 1, pp. 183-200.
Yukl, G. (2006), Leadership in Organizations, Prentice Hall, Pearson, NJ.
Zhang, X. and 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, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 107-128.
Zhou, J. and Shalley, C.E. (2008), Handbook of Organizational Creativity, Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, New York, NY.

Corresponding author
Terje Slåtten can be contacted at: Terje.slatten@hil.no

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

View publication stats