Journal of International Business Studies (2019)
ª 2019 Academy of International Business All rights reserved 0047-2506/19
RESEARCH NOTE
Uncertainty avoidance moderates
the relationship between transformational
leadership and innovation: A meta-analysis
Logan L Watts1,
Logan M Steele2 and
Deanne N Den Hartog3
1
Department of Psychology, Baruch College and
The Graduate Center, CUNY, 55 Lexington Ave.,
Box B8-215, New York, NY 10010, USA; 2 Muma
College of Business, University of South Florida,
4202 E. Fowler Ave., Tampa, FL 33620, USA; 3 The
University of Amsterdam, 1018 TV Amsterdam,
The Netherlands
Correspondence:
LL Watts, Department of Psychology, Baruch
College and The Graduate Center, CUNY, 55
Lexington Ave., Box B8-215, New York,
NY 10010, USA.
Tel: (512) 771-3251;
e-mail: Logan.Watts@baruch.cuny.edu
Received: 7 December 2017
Revised: 21 March 2019
Accepted: 2 April 2019
www.jibs.net
Abstract
Transformational leadership is commonly assumed to facilitate employee
innovation in all cultures. Drawing upon field studies from 17 countries, this
meta-analysis revealed that supervisor transformational leadership is positively
related to individual- and team-level innovation regardless of national
boundaries. However, the relationship trended somewhat more strongly in
countries with higher levels of uncertainty avoidance. These findings suggest
that employee innovation in most countries can be enhanced by investing in
supervisor transformational leadership, but organizations operating in countries
with higher levels of uncertainty avoidance may benefit more from this
strategy.
Journal of International Business Studies (2019).
https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-019-00242-8
Keywords: transformational leadership; innovation; creativity; uncertainty avoidance;
meta-analysis
INTRODUCTION
Innovation is a top concern among business leaders around the
world. However, managers tasked with leading for innovation in
our increasingly globalized economy are faced with many chal-
lenges. First, there is no guarantee that popular innovation-
management practices ‘‘imported’’ from one culture will work in
others (Lachman, Nedd, & Hinings, 1994). Second, the resources
that employees need from their supervisors in order to produce
innovations may vary across cultures (De Vries, Roe, & Taillieu,
2002). Third, innovation is by nature an uncertain and risky
enterprise (Mumford & Gustafson, 1988), and cultures vary in their
tolerance for uncertainty (Hofstede, 2001). In the midst of these
challenges, organizational success depends on acquiring and
developing managers who are capable of stimulating employee
innovation regardless of national boundaries.
Transformational leadership has been identified as a key capa-
bility for promoting employee innovation (Mumford, Scott, Gad-
dis, & Strange, 2002). Some scholars have proposed that
transformational leadership is universally beneficial to employee
innovation everywhere in the world (Bass, 1997). However, this
assumption has not been adequately tested. In the present effort,
 Cross-cultural leadership of innovation
we report the results of a meta-analysis of the cross-
cultural relationships between transformational
leadership and employee innovation. In addition,
we investigate whether societal uncertainty avoid-
ance (UA) might serve as a potential moderator to
help explain the strength of the relationship
between supervisor transformational leadership
and employee innovation across cultures.
Transformational Leadership and Innovation
Innovation refers to the processes by which indi-
vidual employees and teams generate and imple-
ment creative ideas in response to novel, complex,
and ill-defined problems (Anderson, Potočnik, &
Zhou, 2014). To produce innovations, managers
must provide tangible resources like equipment,
time, space, and access to experts (Medeiros, Watts,
& Mumford, 2017), but even with these tangible
resources in place, innovation is unlikely to occur
without the collective direction, commitment, and
motivation of employees (Amabile, 1988). It is in
providing these psychological resources where
transformational leaders may shine in stimulating
innovation.
Transformational leaders go above and beyond
transactional behaviors (e.g., motivating employees
with rewards) by providing a positive, compelling
vision of the future, role-modeling idealized behav-
iors in pursuit of this vision, demonstrating indi-
vidualized consideration, and providing
intellectual stimulation (Bass & Riggio, 2006). By
providing a compelling vision of the future, trans-
formational leaders provide direction around a
collective mission – one that helps employees to
work toward common goals and remain committed
during ambiguous, complex projects (Sarros,
Cooper, & Santora, 2008). Also, transformational
leaders set high expectations that motivate employ-
ees to break from the status quo, take risks, and
pursue especially creative work (Gong, Huang, &
Farh, 2009). Finally, transformational leaders cog-
nitively engage their employees by contributing
and evaluating creative ideas (Watts, Mulhearn,
Todd, & Mumford, 2017).
In sum, transformational supervisors may be
uniquely equipped to facilitate employee innova-
tion – a conclusion supported by meta-analytic
reviews at the individual and team levels of analysis
(e.g., Hammond, Neff, Farr, Schwall, & Zhao, 2011;
Wang, Oh, Courtright, & Colbert, 2011). Whether
this relationship holds across societal cultures with
varying tolerances for uncertainty, however,
remains an open question.
Journal of International Business Studies
Logan L Watts et al.
Uncertainty Avoidance as a Moderator
Hofstede defined UA as ‘‘the extent to which the
members of a culture feel threatened by uncertain
or unknown situations’’ (2001: 161). In high-UA
cultures (e.g., Greece, Mexico), respondents report
higher levels of anxiety, stress, and neuroticism
(Lynn & Martin, 1995), compared with low-UA
cultures (e.g., China, United States). Because inno-
vative work is fraught with uncertainty, avoiding
uncertainty may tax employees’ cognitive resources
and be counterproductive to employee innovation
(Fischer et al., 2019; Shane, 1993).
In order to overcome high UA as a barrier to
employee innovation, one recommended strategy
is to hire and develop managers who are skilled at
regulating the uncertainty inherent in creative
work (Shane, Venkataraman, & MacMillan, 1995).
In formulating a vision, transformational leaders
project a positive image of the future that provides
their employees with direction and meaning,
which in turn reduces anxiety and uncertainty
(Strange & Mumford, 2002). Transformational
leaders may further reduce employee anxiety and
worrying through individualized consideration, or
the process of providing social and emotional
support (Avolio & Bass, 1995). Finally, a negative
relationship has been found between transforma-
tional leadership and employee perceptions of UA,
suggesting transformational leaders may support
innovation by reducing the uncertainty that
employees perceive in creative work (Ergeneli,
Gohar, & Temirbekova, 2007).
No prior studies have examined the potential
moderating influence of societal UA on the rela-
tionship between supervisor transformational lead-
ership and employee innovation. However, two
field studies have demonstrated that societal-level
UA moderates the relationship between senior
manager transformational leadership and innova-
tion at the organizational level (Elenkov & Manev,
2005; Engelen, Schmidt, Strenger, & Brettel, 2014).
In sum, for high-UA countries, we expected
supervisor transformational leadership to demon-
strate a stronger relationship with employee inno-
vation, because transformational leaders are skilled
at managing the uncertainty inherent in creative
work. We expected to find smaller relationships in
low-UA countries because employees in these
countries have less of a need for these particular
psychological resources from their supervisors. In
line with prior meta-analyses, we expected to see
similar relationships between supervisor
 Cross-cultural leadership of innovation
transformational leadership and employee innova-
tion at the individual and team levels.
Hypothesis 1: High-UA countries will show
stronger relationships between supervisor trans-
formational leadership and individual innovation
than low-UA countries.
Hypothesis 2: High-UA countries will show
stronger relationships between supervisor trans-
formational leadership and team innovation than
low-UA countries.
METHOD
Selection of Primary Studies
Our literature search concluded in September 2016.
First, keyword searches were conducted in nine
databases (e.g., PsycINFO, ProQuest Dissertations
and Theses). Second, going 10 years back, manual
searches of 11 journals were conducted (e.g., Journal
of International Business Studies, The Leadership
Quarterly). Third, the references of six major review
articles were examined (e.g., Anderson et al., 2014).
Fourth, recent papers presented at major academic
conferences were searched. Fifth, researchers who
published recently on these topics were emailed a
request for unpublished work.
Over 10,000 papers were initially identified. After
removing duplicate papers, non-empirical papers,
and papers with abstracts that indicated our key
variables were absent, 929 papers remained. Seven
inclusion criteria were then applied: (1) conducted
in a field setting, (2) contained information on
both transformational leadership and employee
innovation, (3) collected data at the individual- or
team-level of analysis, (4) clearly described trans-
formational leadership behaviors or styles, rather
than potential antecedents to (e.g., traits) or out-
comes of (e.g., climate) transformational leader-
ship, (5) clearly described measures of innovation,
rather than related constructs (e.g., innovation
adoption), (6) contained information needed to
compute an effect size, and (7) if multiple studies
were published using the same dataset, only one
was retained. These criteria resulted in a final
database of 51 independent samples collected at
the individual level of analysis (n = 14,560 individ-
uals) and 30 independent samples collected at the
team level of analysis (n = 3129 teams), represent-
ing a total of 17 countries. Team-level samples
included instances where respondents were asked
to provide observations of innovation for an entire
Logan L Watts et al.
team, as well as instances where observations of
innovation for individual team members were
collected and then aggregated to the team level
during analysis. Each team-level observation
includes data from a single team and a single
supervisor to whom the team reports.
Coding of Study Characteristics
All study characteristics were coded by two trained
judges, obtaining an initial 91% agreement. Fol-
lowing a consensus meeting, any remaining dis-
crepancies were resolved by the head judge (i.e., the
second author). The final agreement was 100% on
all variables.
Effect size and other statistical information
We collected the observed effect size (r) between
supervisor transformational leadership and
employee innovation, along with reliability infor-
mation (i.e., Cronbach’s alpha). For the few samples
that did not report reliability information, estimates
were imputed using the mean reliability across all
samples in the meta-analysis. When studies reported
multiple effect sizes for employee innovation or
transformational leadership, a composite correla-
tion was computed (equations 10.6 and 10.7 in
Hunter & Schmidt, 2004) to maintain the assump-
tion of independence. Composite reliability esti-
mates were computed using Mosier’s reliability
formula (equation 10.15). Sample size (n) refers to
number of individual employees or teams.
Supervisor transformational leadership
Primary studies using construct labels such as
transformational leadership, charismatic leader-
ship, and inspirational motivation were coded as
transformational leadership. The average Cronbach’s
alpha was .91 (SD = .05).
Employee innovation
Primary studies using construct labels such as
employee creativity, idea implementation, and
innovation were coded as employee innovation. The
average Cronbach’s alpha was .90 (SD = .07) for
individual-level innovation and .86 (SD = .07) for
team-level innovation.
Uncertainty avoidance
UA scores for each country were drawn from
Hofstede et al.’s (2010) index. While assigning
country-level UA scores to our samples ignores
within-country variability (Kirkman, Lowe, & Gib-
son, 2006), societal-level values data serve as robust
Journal of International Business Studies
 Cross-cultural leadership of innovation
approximations of the cultural knowledge,
resources, structures, and norms held by a society
(Peterson & Barreto, 2014, 2018). Hofstede’s UA
index ranges from 0 to 100 based on data from
multiple international studies over several decades.
Because between-country comparisons of culture
scores are relatively stable over time (Beugelsdijk,
Maseland, & Hoorn, 2015), Hofstede et al.’s (2010)
index was used to code all samples. In order to
maximize power for subgroup analysis, countries
were split into low (0–50%) and high (51–100%)
categories for UA based on percentiles.
Controls
In studies where supervisors were the source of
both leadership and innovation data, or studies
where followers were the source of both leadership
and innovation data, we anticipated that correla-
tions would be stronger due to the potential for
confirmation bias and social desirability bias. Thus,
if leadership and innovation data were collected
from the same source, the study was coded as 1 for
yes; otherwise, it was coded as 0 for no when
common source measurement was not present.
Criterion objectivity was also coded as a potential
control, but only three studies used objective
criteria (e.g., number of patents), thus this variable
was dropped. We sought to control for other
potentially relevant context variables (e.g., indus-
try, profit vs. non-profit, leader tenure, organiza-
tional size), but they could not be included due to
insufficient reporting.
Analytic Procedures
Psychometric meta-analysis (Hunter & Schmidt,
2004) was used to analyze the data with the
‘‘psychmeta’’ package in R. Correlation coefficients
were corrected for unreliability in the predictor and
criterion based on Cronbach’s alpha estimates.
Both the uncorrected, weighted, average effect (r)
and the unreliability-corrected, weighted, average
effect (q) are presented. When the k-size was 5 or
greater, sensitivity analyses were conducted to
determine the extent to which effect size estimates
may have been biased by outliers (Viechtbauer &
Cheung, 2010). Further details on the method and
data are available as supplementary materials.
RESULTS
Supervisor transformational leadership demon-
strated a moderate-sized relationship with both
individual employee innovation (q = .30,
Journal of International Business Studies
Logan L Watts et al.
SDq = .20) and team innovation (q = .31, SDq-
= .17). The percentage of variance in effect sizes
explained by sampling error and statistical artifacts
was relatively small at the individual (9%) and team
(28%) levels, suggesting a large degree of between-
sample heterogeneity that might be explained by
moderators.
Categorical meta-analysis procedures were used
to estimate whether high and low levels of UA
explain the relationship between supervisor trans-
formational leadership and employee innovation at
the individual and team levels. In the hierarchical
categorical analyses, because the k-size is in some
cases small, we focused on interpreting trends in
the mean corrected correlations, rather than null
hypothesis significance tests (e.g., Aguinis, Stur-
man, & Pierce, 2008). Nevertheless, p values reflect-
ing the statistical significance of effect size
contrasts are presented for interested readers. In
addition, an alternative presentation of the results
based on meta-regression procedures is available as
supplementary materials.
For individual-level innovation (see Table 1),
effect sizes from high-UA countries (q = .37, SDq-
= .24) trended higher than those from low-UA
countries (q = .25, SDq = .15). This difference in
effect sizes was not statistically significant
(p value = .279). Studies that used common
sources of measurement for leadership and inno-
vation variables showed stronger relationships
compared with studies that used non-common
sources. After separating common source from
non-common source studies, the general trend for
UA remained. For common source studies, high-
UA countries (q = .43, SDq = .25) trended toward
larger effect sizes than low-UA countries (q = .31,
SDq = .07), and these differences in effect sizes
approached the level of statistical significance
(p value = .077). For non-common source studies,
high-UA countries (q = .28, SDq = .19) also trended
higher than low-UA countries (q = .23, SDq = .16),
and this difference in effect sizes was statistically
significant (p value = .003). This pattern remained
consistent after removing studies flagged as out-
liers, providing support for hypothesis 1.
For team innovation (see Table 2), estimates of
effect sizes from high-UA countries (q = .36, SDq-
= .18) trended stronger than those from low-UA
countries (q = .21, SDq = .06). This difference in
effect sizes was statistically significant
(p value \ .001). Once again, common source
studies demonstrated stronger relationships. For
common source studies, too few studies were
 Cross-cultural leadership of innovation Logan L Watts et al.

Table 1 Individual-level meta-analysis of supervisor transformational leadership and employee innovation with robustness checks

Moderators k N r SDr q SDq CILL CIUL CVLL CVUL %Var Moderator tests

Contrast p value

Overall 51 14,560 .27 .18 .30 .20 .24 .35 .04 .55 8.55
Overall (wo) 48 12,609 .22 .14 .24 .14 .20 .28 .07 .42 22.93
Uncertainty avoidance (UA)
1. High 18 5658 .35 .21 .37 .24 .26 .49 .07 .68 5.05 2 vs. 4 .279
2. High (wo) 16 4055 .24 .14 .26 .14 .18 .33 .07 .44 22.20
3. Low 33 8902 .23 .15 .25 .15 .19 .30 .06 .44 15.53
4. Low (wo) 32 8554 .21 .13 .23 .13 .18 .29 .06 .40 27.87
Common source
1. UA High 9 3376 .40 .22 .43 .25 .26 .60 .11 .75 3.50 2 vs. 3 .077
2. UA High (wo) 7 1714 .35 .13 .38 .13 .27 .48 .21 .54 18.10
3. UA Low 8 2347 .29 .08 .31 .07 .25 .38 .23 .40 40.82
Non-common source
1. UA High 9 2282 .27 .16 .28 .19 .15 .41 .05 .52 11.03 2 vs. 4 .003
2. UA High (wo) 6 1435 .19 .02 .21 .00 .19 .23 .21 .21 100.00
3. UA Low 25 6555 .20 .16 .23 .16 .16 .29 .02 .43 14.08
4. UA Low (wo) 20 4753 .12 .08 .13 .06 .09 .17 .05 .21 56.17
Hunter and Schmidt’s (2004) moderator test was used as described in Aguinis et al. (2008). Where SDq = 0, a pooled SD was calculated in order to
conduct the t test (see Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins, & Rothstein, 2011, p. 172).
k number of independent samples; N total sample size; r sample-size-weighted mean observed correlation; SDr standard deviation of observed
correlations; mean true-score correlation in the Hunter and Schmidt meta-analytic tradition (corrected for unreliability in the independent and
dependent variables); SDq standard deviation of corrected correlations; CILL and CIUL lower and upper bounds of the 95% confidence interval around
the corrected correlations; CVLL and CVUL lower and upper bounds of the 80% credibility interval around the corrected correlations; %Var percentage
of variance attributable to sampling error and statistical artifacts; wo without outliers; UA uncertainty avoidance.

Table 2 Team-level meta-analysis of supervisor transformational leadership and employee innovation with robustness checks

Moderators k N r SDr q SDq CILL CIUL CVLL CVUL %Var Moderator tests

Contrast p value

Overall 30 3129 .27 .17 .31 .17 .24 .38 .09 .52 27.84
Overall (wo) 27 2752 .23 .12 .26 .09 .21 .31 .14 .37 58.67
Uncertainty avoidance (UA)
1. High 16 2047 .32 .18 .36 .18 .26 .46 .12 .59 19.94 2 vs. 4 \ .001
2. High (wo) 14 1788 .26 .11 .30 .09 .23 .37 .18 .41 50.80
3. Low 14 1082 .19 .13 .21 .06 .14 .29 .13 .29 79.68
4. Low (wo) 13 964 .17 .11 .19 .00 .12 .26 .19 .19 100.00
Common source
1. UA High 5 816 .34 .15 .39 .15 .24 .54 .20 .58 22.48 – –
2. UA High (wo) 4 664 .28 .09 .32 .05 .23 .42 .26 .39 71.90
3. UA Low 1 43 – – – – – – – – –
Non-common source
1. UA High 11 1231 .30 .19 .33 .20 .21 .46 .08 .58 19.62 2 vs. 4 .019
2. UA High (wo) 10 1124 .26 .13 .28 .11 .19 .37 .15 .42 48.88
3. UA Low 13 1039 .20 .11 .23 .04 .16 .30 .18 .28 90.64
4. UA Low (wo) 12 921 .18 .10 .20 .00 .14 .26 .20 .20 100.00
Hunter and Schmidt’s (2004) moderator test was used as described in Aguinis et al. (2008). Where SDq = 0, a pooled SD was calculated in order to
conduct the t-test (see Borenstein et al., 2011, p. 172).
k number of independent samples; N total sample size; r sample-size-weighted mean observed correlation; SDr standard deviation of observed
correlations; mean true-score correlation in the Hunter and Schmidt meta-analytic tradition (corrected for unreliability in the independent and
dependent variables); SDq standard deviation of corrected correlations; CILL and CIUL lower and upper bounds of the 95% confidence interval around
the corrected correlations; CVLL and CVUL lower and upper bounds of the 80% credibility interval around the corrected correlations; %Var percentage of
variance attributable to sampling error and statistical artifacts; wo without outliers; UA uncertainty avoidance.

Journal of International Business Studies

 Cross-cultural leadership of innovation
available from low-UA countries to estimate an
interpretable effect size. Nevertheless, high-UA
countries showed relatively strong effect sizes as
anticipated (q = .39, SDq = .15). For non-common
source studies, high-UA countries (q = .33, SDq-
= .20) demonstrated stronger effect sizes than low-
UA countries (q = .23, SDq = .04), and this differ-
ence was statistically significant (p value = .019).
This pattern remained stable after removing poten-
tial outliers, supporting hypothesis 2.
DISCUSSION
Leadership scholars have long called for greater
attention to cross-cultural issues, including the
need to better understand how cultural factors
may constrain leadership processes and outcomes
across different levels of analysis (e.g., Dickson, Den
Hartog, & Mitchelson, 2003; Fahr, Podsakoff, &
Cheng, 1987). The present work advances our
understanding of leadership and employee innova-
tion by demonstrating that cultural values reported
at the societal level can help to explain the extent
to which transformational leadership exhibited by
supervisors manifests as a complementary resource
for individual- and team-level innovation in
organizations.
Theoretical Implications
This research advances theory by demonstrating
that societal UA helps to explain the strength of the
relationship between supervisor transformational
leadership and employee innovation. These find-
ings are consistent with prior work demonstrating
that UA amplifies the relationship between top
manager transformational leadership and organi-
zational-level innovation (Elenkov & Manev, 2005;
Engelen et al., 2014). Thus, UA may act as a
consistent amplifier of the relationship between
transformational leadership and innovation regard-
less of whether one is leading individuals, teams, or
organizations, although this conclusion requires
more robust examination at the organizational
level where there are currently fewer studies.
Finally, while the strength of the relationship
between transformational leadership and innova-
tion varied across cultures, the relationship was
nonetheless, nearly always positive. This pattern
lends some support to Bass’s (1997) universality
assumption that transformational leadership is
positively related to employee innovation regard-
less of national culture.
Journal of International Business Studies
Logan L Watts et al.
Practical Implications
The consistently positive relationships observed in
our findings suggest that organizations around the
globe may facilitate employee innovation by
investing in transformational leadership. For exam-
ple, transformational leadership skills can be devel-
oped through the implementation of relatively
short, targeted interventions (Kelloway, Barling, &
Helleur, 2000). In addition, Hofstede’s UA index
might be used to predict particular regions of the
world where organizational investments in super-
visor transformational leadership may yield weaker
or greater returns with respect to employee inno-
vation. The UA index moderately predicts the
strength of the relationship between supervisor
transformational leadership and employee innova-
tion in our samples (r = .33; R2 = .11). Comparing
how different cultural clusters rank on UA (e.g.,
Ronen & Shenkar, 2013) suggests several trends.
Countries in Latin America (e.g., Mexico, Colom-
bia), Latin Europe (e.g., Spain, France), and East
Europe (e.g., Russia, Poland) tend to score highest
on UA. Thus, all other things being equal, organi-
zations operating in Latin American, Latin Euro-
pean, and Eastern European countries may have the
most to gain by investing in supervisor transfor-
mational leadership in terms of stimulating
employee innovation.
Limitations and Future Research
The present effort is not without limitations. First,
using aggregated values scores at the societal level
may ‘‘wash out’’ potential differences in values
found among a country’s regions and communities
(Den Hartog et al., 1999). Future research might
investigate if different moderator effects can be
observed among values data reported at the
regional, organizational, or even individual levels
of analysis (Tung & Stahl, 2018). Second, while
Hofstede’s classic UA index was the focus of the
present effort, future research could benefit from
updating Hofstede’s indices (e.g., Minkov et al.,
2017) and investigating alternative conceptualiza-
tions of societal values dimensions as potential
moderators (Beugelsdijk, Ambos, & Nell [2018],
present a review of four popular cross-cultural
frameworks). Third, the majority of samples exam-
ined here focused on incremental, process-based,
behavioral innovation criteria. It remains an open
question if radical or product-based innovation
criteria demonstrate similar patterns. Fourth,
because studies nearly always reported overall
(i.e., composite) transformational leadership data,
 Cross-cultural leadership of innovation
we could not examine relationships for subdimen-
sions. Thus, which particular transformational
leadership behaviors serve as the most important
resources for innovation in different cultures forms
a topic for future research.
CONCLUSION
Using a meta-analytic framework, we examined the
boundary conditions of the relationship between
transformational leadership and employee innova-
tion within a cross-cultural context. We found that
supervisor transformational leadership relates pos-
itively to employee innovation in most countries
and may serve as a particularly beneficial resource
for employee innovation in cultures marked by
higher levels of UA. These findings suggest that
organizations might achieve a higher return on
their investments in supervisor transformational
REFERENCES
Aguinis, H., Sturman, M. C., & Pierce, C. A. 2008. Comparison
of three meta-analytic procedures for estimating moderating
effects of categorical variables. Organizational Research Meth-
ods, 11(1): 9–34.
Amabile, T. M. 1988. A model of creativity and innovation in
organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10(1):
123–167.
Anderson, N., Potočnik, K., & Zhou, J. 2014. Innovation and
creativity in organizations: A state-of-the-science review,
prospective commentary, and guiding framework. Journal of
Management, 40(5): 1297–1333.
Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. 1995. Individual consideration viewed
at multiple levels of analysis: A multi-level framework for
examining the diffusion of transformational leadership. The
Leadership Quarterly, 6(2): 199–218.
Bass, B. M. 1997. Does the transactional–transformational
leadership paradigm transcend organizational and national
boundaries? American Psychologist, 52(2): 130–139.
Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. 2006. Transformational leadership.
London: Psychology Press.
Beugelsdijk, S., Ambos, B., & Nell, P. C. 2018. Conceptualizing
and measuring distance in international business research:
Recurring questions and best practice guidelines. Journal of
International Business Studies, 49(9): 1113–1137.
Beugelsdijk, S., Maseland, R., & Hoorn, A. 2015. Are scores on
Hofstede’s dimensions of national culture stable over time? A
cohort analysis. Global Strategy Journal, 5(3): 223–240.
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P., & Rothstein, H. R.
2011. Introduction to meta-analysis. Chichester, West Sussex:
Wiley.
De Vries, R. E., Roe, R. A., & Taillieu, T. C. 2002. Need for
leadership as a moderator of the relationships between
leadership and individual outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly,
13(2): 121–137.
Den Hartog, D. N., et al. 1999. Culture specific and cross-
culturally generalizable implicit leadership theories: Are
attributes of charismatic/transformational leadership univer-
sally endorsed? The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2): 219–256.
Dickson, M. W., Den Hartog, D. N., & Mitchelson, J. K. 2003.
Research on leadership in a cross-cultural context: Making
progress, and raising new questions. The Leadership Quarterly,
14(6): 729–768.
Logan L Watts et al.
leadership by concentrating these investments in
high-UA countries where it helps employee inno-
vation the most.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to thank Kelsey Medeiros, Tyler
Mulhearn, and Tristan McIntosh who contributed as
coders, Michael Mumford who inspired the initial
literature review, and the many scholars who
responded to our calls for primary data. We also thank
our Editor, Dr. Mark Peterson, and three anonymous
reviewers, whose thoughtful recommendations signif-
icantly improved the quality of this manuscript. An
earlier version of this work was presented at the 33rd
annual conference of the Society for Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, Chicago, IL.
Elenkov, D. S., & Manev, I. M. 2005. Top management
leadership and influence on innovation: The role of sociocul-
tural context. Journal of Management, 31(3): 381–402.
Engelen, A., Schmidt, S., Strenger, L., & Brettel, M. 2014. Top
management’s transformational leader behaviors and innova-
tion orientation: A cross-cultural perspective in eight coun-
tries. Journal of International Management, 20: 124–136.
Ergeneli, A., Gohar, R., & Temirbekova, Z. 2007. Transforma-
tional leadership: Its relationship to culture value dimensions.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 31(6): 703–724.
Fahr, J. L., Podsakoff, P. M., & Cheng, B. S. 1987. Culture-free
leadership effectiveness versus moderators of leadership
behaviors: An extension and test of Kerr and Jermier’s
‘substitutes for leadership’ model in Taiwan. Journal of Inter-
national Business Studies, 18(3): 43–60.
Fischer, R., et al. 2019. Does organizational formalization
facilitate voice and helping organizational citizenship behav-
iors? It depends on (national) uncertainty norms. Journal of
International Business Studies, 50(1): 125–134.
Gong, Y., Huang, J. C., & Farh, J. L. 2009. Employee learning
orientation, transformational leadership, and employee cre-
ativity: The mediating role of employee creative self-efficacy.
Academy of Management Journal, 52(4): 765–778.
Hammond, M. M., Neff, N. L., Farr, J. L., Schwall, A. R., & Zhao,
X. 2011. Predictors of individual-level innovation at work: A
meta-analysis. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts,
5(1): 90–105.
Hofstede, G. 2001. Culture’s consequences: Comparing values,
behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. 2010. Cultures and
organizations: Software of the mind (3rd ed.). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. 2004. Methods of meta-analysis:
Correcting error and bias in research findings (2nd ed.).
Thousdand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kelloway, E. K., Barling, J., & Helleur, J. 2000. Enhancing
transformational leadership: The roles of training and feed-
back. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 21(3):
145–149.
Kirkman, B. L., Lowe, K. B., & Gibson, C. B. 2006. A quarter
century of culture’s consequences: A review of empirical
Journal of International Business Studies
 Cross-cultural leadership of innovation
research incorporating Hofstede’s cultural values framework.
Journal of International Business Studies, 37(3): 285–320.
Lachman, R., Nedd, A., & Hinings, B. 1994. Analyzing cross-
national management and organizations: A theoretical frame-
work. Management Science, 40(1): 40–55.
Lynn, R., & Martin, T. 1995. National differences for thirty-seven
nations in extraversion, neuroticism, psychoticism and eco-
nomic, demographic and other correlates. Personality and
Individual Differences, 19(3): 403–406.
Medeiros, K. E., Watts, L. L., & Mumford, M. D. 2017. Thinking
inside the box: Educating leaders to manage constraints. In C.
Zhou (Ed.): Handbook of research on creative problem-solving
skill development in higher education (pp. 25–50). Hershey, PA:
IGI Global.
Minkov, M. 2017. A revision of Hofstede’s individualism-collec-
tivism dimension: A new national index from a 56-country
study. Cross Cultural & Strategic Management, 24(3): 386–404.
Mumford, M. D., & Gustafson, S. B. 1988. Creativity syndrome:
Integration, application, and innovation. Psychological Bulletin,
103(1): 27–43.
Mumford, M. D., Scott, G. M., Gaddis, B., & Strange, J. M.
2002. Leading creative people: Orchestrating expertise and
relationships. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(6): 705–750.
Peterson, M. F., & Barreto, T. S. 2014. The like it or not
proposition: Implications of societal characteristics for the
cultural expertise and personal values of organization mem-
bers. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(8): 1134–1152.
Peterson, M. F., & Barreto, T. S. 2018. Interpreting societal
culture value dimensions. Journal of International Business
Studies, 49(9): 1190–1207.
Ronen, S., & Shenkar, O. 2013. Mapping world cultures: Cluster
formation, sources and implications. Journal of International
Business Studies, 44(9): 867–897.
Sarros, J. C., Cooper, B. K., & Santora, J. C. 2008. Building a
climate for innovation through transformational leadership
and organizational culture. Journal of Leadership & Organiza-
tional Studies, 15(2): 145–158.
Shane, S. 1993. Cultural influences on national rates of innova-
tion. Journal of Business Venturing, 8(1): 59–73.
Shane, S., Venkataraman, S., & MacMillan, I. 1995. Cultural
differences in innovation championing strategies. Journal of
Management, 21(5): 931–952.
Strange, J. M., & Mumford, M. D. 2002. The origins of vision:
Charismatic versus ideological leadership. The Leadership
Quarterly, 13(4): 343–377.
Tung, R. L., & Stahl, G. K. 2018. The tortuous evolution of the
role of culture in IB research: What we know, what we don’t
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional
affiliations.
Supplementary information accompanies this article on the Journal of International Business Studies website (www.palgrave.com/journals).
Accepted by Mark F. Peterson, Area Editor, 2 April 2019. This article has been with the authors for four revisions.
Journal of International Business Studies
Logan L Watts et al.
know, and where we are headed. Journal of International
Business Studies, 49(9): 1167–1189.
Viechtbauer, W., & Cheung, M. W. L. 2010. Outlier and
influence diagnostics for meta-analysis. Research Synthesis
Methods, 1(2): 112–125.
Wang, G., Oh, I. S., Courtright, S. H., & Colbert, A. E. 2011.
Transformational leadership and performance across criteria
and levels: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of research.
Group and Organization Management, 36(2): 223–270.
Watts, L. L., Mulhearn, T. J., Todd, E. M., & Mumford, M. D.
2017. Leader idea evaluation and follower creativity: Chal-
lenges, constraints, and capabilities. In M. D. Mumford & S.
Hemlin (Eds.), Handbook of research on leadership and creativity
(pp. 82–99). Cheltenham: Elgar.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Logan L Watts is an assistant professor in the
Department of Psychology at Baruch College and
The Graduate Center, The City University of New
York. His research interests include leadership,
ethics, creativity, and stories.
Logan M Steele is an assistant professor in the
Muma College of Business at the University of
South Florida. His research interests include lead-
ership, ethical decision making, creativity, and
innovation.
Deanne N Den Hartog is full professor of Organi-
zational Behavior at the University of Amsterdam
Business School (ABS) in the Netherlands. She is
Research Director at ABS and heads its Leadership
and Management section. Her research interests
include leadership, culture, innovative and proac-
tive work behavior, dark triad traits, trust, and
HRM.