Current Psychology

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-018-0095-1

Why and when paradoxical leader behavior impact employee creativity:

Thriving at work and psychological safety
Yang Yang 1 & Zhongqiu Li 1 & Liang Liang 1 & Xue Zhang 1

# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Abstract
Why and when does paradoxical leader behavior lead to an increase in employee creativity and thriving at work? Based on self-
determination theory, we propose that paradoxical leader behavior enhances employee creativity by increasing employees’
thriving at work. We also propose that psychological safety moderates the positive effect of thriving at work on employee
creativity. Survey data from 139 supervisor-employee dyads in four Chinese enterprises indicates that paradoxical leader behav-
ior has positive effects on employee creativity via the mediating effect of thriving at work. The results also show that psycho-
logical safety strengthens the positive relationship between thriving at work and employee creativity. This positive relationship
will be stronger when there are higher levels of psychological safety. Our study supports the self-determination perspective in
understanding paradoxical leader behavior, and also strengthens the application of this perspective in understanding paradoxical
leader behavior and employee creativity.

Keywords Paradoxical leader behavior; thriving at work . Psychological safety . Employee creativity

Introduction important consideration in this regard (George and Zhou

Employee creativity promotes the continuous innovation of an
organization, which is crucial for the development and surviv-
al of an organization in a dramatically changing business en-
vironment (Zhou and Hoever 2014). Over the past 30 years,
research focused upon creativity has become increasingly
prominent in the most renowned academic journals (Liu
et al. 2016) and employee creativity has become an increas-
ingly pressing concern for organizations. Many studies have
shown that organizational or situational factors can promote
the development of employee creativity (Zhou and George
2003). Leadership has frequently been acknowledged as an
* Zhongqiu Li
15b910029@hit.edu.cn
Yang Yang
yfield@hit.edu.cn
Liang Liang
17s010076@stu.hit.edu.cn
Xue Zhang
xuezinihao@163.com
1
School of Management, Harbin Institute of Technology, 92 West
Da-Zhi Street, Harbin 150001, People’s Republic of China
2007; Hughes et al. 2018). In this context, paradoxical leader
behavior, and more specifically its relationship with employee
behavior, has received growing levels of academic attention.
The competitive pressures which extend from a business
environment characterized by complexity, turbulence and un-
certainty further accentuate the importance of creativity (Zhou
and Hoever 2014). Leaders will inevitably face challenges and
tensions when managing employees. They will need to
engage in holistic thinking in order to meet employee and
organizational needs. However, established theories of
leadership cannot fully explain the dilemmas that
organizations currently confront. Zhang et al. (2015) combine
Western leadership theory with Chinese Yin–Yang philosophy
and then put forward the concept of “paradoxical leader be-
havior” (PLB), which describes leadership behaviors that are
ostensibly contradictory but which in reality are interrelated
and which address workplace demands simultaneously and
over time.
PLB combines attributes of complexity, freedom and lim-
itation (Zhang et al. 2015). Paradoxical leaders evidence a
clear desire to lead others but are also willing to share this
responsibility with others and are also comfortable with a
situation in which subordinates enjoy considerable autonomy
(Zhang et al. 2015). In this arrangement creativity emerges
from chaos (Kim and Zhong 2017). The autonomy of the

individual, which is embodied within specific responsibilities
and rights, can enhance the motivation of employees. By con-
tributing to psychological empowerment and opening up new
opportunities to participate in decision-making (Lee et al.
2018), PLB enhances creativity (Zhang and Bartol 2010).
Under optimal circumstances, this arrangement does not give
rise to the conflict or uncontrolled chaos that would arise from
the full sharing of rights of employees.
The primary objective of our research is to draw upon a
self-determination perspective to explain the association be-
tween PLB and improved employee creativity. In thriving at
work, employees will benefit from assorted learning opportu-
nities and enhanced vitality. This is consistent with self-
determination theory, which understands individuals to be ac-
tively orientated towards opportunities for learning and per-
sonal development (Deci and Ryan 2000). When innate needs
for autonomy, competence and social interaction are satisfied,
the individual will form a strong autonomous motivation be-
fore selecting the behavior that is most beneficial to their per-
sonal development (Deci and Ryan 2000). PLB, in providing
appropriate support, can enhance employees’ self-determina-
tion, meet employees’ psychological needs (Zhang et al.
2015) and promote learning and vitality, all of which are inte-
gral to thriving at work.
In working to acquire deeper insight into PLB, and specif-
ically the theme of creativity within the workplace, this study
also seeks to identify a key boundary condition of our causal
sequence. A substantial number of studies demonstrate that
thriving at work is positively related to various job outcomes
(Wallace et al. 2016). Employees who thrive within the work-
place will identify new opportunities to learn and new
problem-solving methodologies (Spreitzer et al. 2012), there-
by enhancing their creativity (Kark and Carmeli 2009). The
advancement of new ideas is however subject to considerable
risk and employees may be hindered by constraints such as the
balance of power, norms, relationships, work safety (Dewett
2004) and even the pervasive threat of failure (Newman et al.
2017), which so frequently functions to constrain individuals
and organizations. Drawing upon these insights, we propose
that psychological safety can function as a boundary condition
for employee thriving within the workplace and its impact
upon employee creativity.
This study contributes to the literature on PLB and employ-
ee creativity in several ways. Drawing upon self-
determination theory, we seek to contribute to the limited re-
search on the underlying process through which PLB influ-
ences employee creativity by enabling individuals to thrive
within the workplace. Then drawing upon previous studies
which suggest that psychological safety is an important factor
to take into account when assessing the impact of leaders upon
individual behaviors (Erkutlu and Chafra 2016), we engage
with the moderation effect of psychological safety. We specif-
ically focus upon the boundary condition of psychological
Curr Psychol
safety and its impact upon the relationship between thriving
at work and employee creativity. We then develop a moderat-
ed mediation model of the psychological processes that links
perceptions of PLB and creativity.
The second section further explores the relationship be-
tween PLB and employee creativity, while developing a me-
diation assumption that links PLB and enhanced employee
creativity through thriving at work. We then test the research
model by using data from 139 supervisor-employee dyads that
have in turn been drawn from four enterprises in China. The
discussion then proceeds to argue that the proposed conse-
quence is stronger in environments that possess high levels
of psychological safety before a moderated mediation model
is set out in more detail (this research model is set out in
Fig. 1). We conclude by demonstrating how our research
makes an important practical and theoretical contribution to
the literature on PLB and employee creativity.
Theory and Hypotheses
Based on Chinese Yin-yang philosophy and Western contra-
dictory cognition, paradoxical leader behavior (PLB) is used
to describe leader behaviors that are seemingly competing, yet
interrelated, to meet competing workplace demands simulta-
neously and over time (Zhang et al. 2015). Through explor-
atory research, Zhang et al. argue that paradoxical leader be-
havior needs to deal simultaneously with five contradictory
relationships: (1) combining self-centeredness with other-
centeredness; (2) maintaining both distance and closeness;
(3) treating subordinates uniformly, while allowing individu-
alization; (4) enforcing work requirements, while allowing
flexibility; and (5) maintaining decision control, while
allowing autonomy (Zhang et al. 2015). They use “both–
and” to describe these five objectives of paradoxical leader
behavior. In essence, paradoxical leadership behavior is a dy-
namic and integrated approach to conflict management, which
integrates the seemingly contradictory hierarchy and individ-
ual conflict. (Zhang et al. 2015).
Paradoxical Leader Behavior and Employee Creativity
Workplace creativity can be defined as the behavioral and
cognitive processes that are applied when an attempt is made
to generate novel ideas (Hughes et al. 2018). Creativity is an
important resource for enterprises that seek to gain competi-
tive advantages through the exploitation of competitive oppor-
tunities. Leadership is a key contextual factor that needs to be
taken into account in this regard (Hocine and Zhang 2014).
The current study examines the relationship between PLB and
employee creativity with reference to five dimensions of PLB
that have been drawn from self-determination theory.
Curr Psychol
Fig. 1 Research model
Paradoxical leader behavior
In the first instance, it should be recognized that PLB si-
multaneously emphasizes control and empowerment. PLB
can therefore simultaneously accentuate autonomy and the
control of decisions (Zhang et al. 2015). Specifically, leaders
can control the behavior and decisions of their employees at
work, while giving employees the freedom to act with flexi-
bility and autonomy. Empowerment realizes the interests of
employees by promoting autonomy and flexibility and can
also enable employers to develop pro-active problem-solving
strategies (Parker et al. 2006). Employees will demonstrate
divergent thinking, which is conducive to creativity (An
et al. 2016). Aside from these practical benefits, self-
determination theory (Deci and Ryan 2000) establishes auton-
omy as one of the most fundamental needs of employees
(Dysvik and Kuvaas 2011). It is often expected that
problem-solving and risk-taking will be conducive to creativ-
ity (Zhang et al. 2017).
However, this insufficiently recognizes that autonomy can
also contribute to problems in the workplace (Zhang et al.
2015). Autonomy may result in employees having more free-
dom to express themselves, but this does not reduce the pos-
sibility that they may be punished for evidencing such inno-
vation (Xiao et al. 2015), which in turn reduces the likelihood
that creativity will be evidenced in the first instance (Kark and
Carmeli 2009). This should be considered alongside the find-
ing that when leaders provide excessive autonomy and free-
dom, employees will make mistakes and even engage in un-
ethical or even illegal behaviors (Baucus et al. 2008). Taking
into account the initial definition of creativity, which envis-
aged the production of ‘novel’ and ‘useful’ information that
would enhance the work of an organization.
It is therefore reasonable to assume that while autonomy
may be conducive to the production of new ideas, it will not
actually serve to generate or sustain creativity, as presented
in the preceding definition. These ideas are not subject to the
supervision of leaders and may deviate from the organiza-
tion’s goals. This establishes that autonomy requires certain
limitations. The controls put in place by PLB put in place
strict controls and rules for employees, and this can in turn
help employees to develop a clear understanding of their
goals and responsibilities (Zhang et al. 2015), while ensur-
ing that they do not deviate from organizational goals. PLB
can serve as an invaluable asset in helping to reconcile the
employees’ internal needs with the priorities of the
organization.
Secondly, PLB combines maintaining both distance and
closeness. The two poles enable employees to obtain respect
Psychological safety
Thriving at work Employee creativity
from their leaders while keep close interpersonal relationships
(Zhang et al. 2015). Maintaining the power distance show the
existence of the hierarchical structure and the relationship ori-
entation emphasizes harmonious and close social relations
(Zhang et al. 2015). Chen et al. (2015) claim that individuals
are predisposed to pursue a harmonious relationship. In sus-
taining this harmonious relationship, they would express their
opinions and would also take the perspectives of their leaders
into account, which would clearly be conducive to enhanced
creativity (Li 2006; Chen et al. 2015). However, leaders have
too much closeness with employee may be detrimental, mak-
ing leaders to avoid conflicts and difficult decisions regarding
followers (Yukl 2010). The role of PLB therefore emphasizes
both distance and closeness, as this can help to maintain the
leader’s authority and influence. The coexistence of the poles
of paradoxical leadership behavior can maintain distance
while simultaneously establishing interpersonal bonds – this
can overcome ingrained defects and improve employee
creativity.
Thirdly, leaders who engage in paradoxical behavior treat
subordinates uniformly while permitting individualization.
This makes it possible to take employee interests and skills
into account when assigning tasks (Zhang et al. 2015) Under
this arrangement, employees will most likely receive a task
that is consistent with their capacities and interests, thus pro-
viding an opportunity to develop knowledge and skill-sets that
are aligned with their interests (Dong et al. 2017). In accor-
dance with self-determining theory, employee creativity will
be increased (Deci and Ryan 2000).
However, if leaders focus upon each individual em-
ployee and do not question if their specific interests
and skills are more broadly dispersed amongst other em-
ployees, then creativity will be inhibited (Spreitzer et al.
2012). Individualization can therefore make it difficult to
increase creativity. In this regard, it is instructive to note
that the opposite side of PLB stresses the need to treat
employees equally by assigning homogenous positions
with identical rights and status without demonstrating
favoritism (Zhang et al. 2015). This again reiterates that
within PLB, individualization and uniformity co-exist,
with the two elements being, at separate points in time
and in different measures, conducive to employee crea-
tivity. Based on the discussion above, we propose the
following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: Paradoxical leader behavior positively re-
lates to employee creativity.

Paradoxical Leader Behavior and Thriving at Work
Thriving is a psychological state that is jointly composed of
learning and vitality (Spreitzer et al. 2005). ‘Vitality’ can be
defined as being full of energy at work and retaining a passion
for one’s work. ‘Learning’ refers to the acquisition of knowl-
edge and skills in order to build capability and confidence,
which are undertaken in the expectation of self-improvement
(Spreitzer et al. 2012; Edmondson 1999). The two elements
can be said to constitute the affective (vitality) and cognitive
(learning) components of the psychological experience of per-
sonal growth (Porath et al. 2012). Learning and vitality must
be evidenced if the employees can be said to be thriving at
work (Porath et al. 2012; Spreitzer et al. 2012). We argue that
PLB makes an essential contribution by helping to achieve
both outcomes.
The five dimensions of paradoxical leadership behavior
can satisfy employees’ three basic needs and increase vitality.
Self-determination theory establishes that all individuals have
three fundamental needs, which are autonomy, competence
and relatedness needs (Deci and Ryan 2000; Gagné and
Deci 2005). The first need (autonomy) refers to the fact that
individuals have the right to act in accordance with their own
choices and in furtherance of their own self-determination; the
second need (competence) refers to the need to feel capable of
meeting the demands associated with a desired behavior; the
final need (social connectedness) refers to the need to feel
connected to, and valued by, significant others (Hancox
et al. 2018).
If the three innate needs are satisfied, the individual will
experience a sense of vitality (Deci and Ryan 2000). In the
first instance, the autonomy and structural dimensions of PLB
can equip employees with the power of self-determination and
enable them to work towards what they wish to achieve
(Zhang et al. 2015) – this satisfies the need of the employee
for autonomy and upholds the goals of the organization.
Secondly, the dimensions of PLB, which emphasize both
closeness and distance, reiterate the need for employers to
maintain an ‘appropriate’ distance from (Zhang et al. 2015)
– this can satisfy the employees’ need for social connected-
ness while also upholding the leaders’ authority. Thirdly, PLB
reiterates the requirement to extend equal treatment and tasks
which are equivalent to the employees’ own capacities (Zhang
et al. 2015). Each of these points demonstrates how PLB can
satisfy the requirements to treat employees equally and satisfy
employee competence. PLB can therefore meet the three
needs while simultaneously addressing organizational goals,
thus helping to promote vitality. The environment put in place
by PLB can also be conducive to employee learning. In the
first instance, the environment, which it instils, is autonomous
and harmonious to some extent, and this can in turn create
opportunities for learning in the absence of fears about retri-
bution (Spreitzer et al. 2012; Boyd 2015).
Curr Psychol
PLB is also likely to increase employee confidence
because it is grounded within individualization to some
extent (Zhang et al. 2015). It therefore enables employees
to feel confident in their working environment and gener-
ate positive energy, both of which are conducive to learn-
ing (Walumbwa et al. 2018). PLB can create learning
opportunities and also increase the possibility that em-
ployee learning will occur. This is consistent with a sub-
stantial number of studies which suggest that ‘learning’
and ‘vitality’ are preconditions for employees thriving
within the workplace (Niessen et al. 2012; Porath et al.
2012; Spreitzer et al. 2012) The preceding discussion has
made an important contribution by demonstrating how
PLB can contribute to the satisfaction of both precondi-
tions within the workplace. Therefore, we propose the
following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2: Paradoxical leader behavior positively re-
lates to thriving at work.
The Mediating Role of Thriving at Work
The impact of paradoxical leader behavior on employees’
thriving at work further leads to an increase in employee cre-
ativity. First, employees with high levels of thriving at work
are better able to gauge their own development (Spreitzer et al.
2005), looking for skills training and solving problems from a
new perspective and they focus on interesting tasks and gen-
erate internal motivation (Spreitzer et al. 2012). Importantly,
based on self- determination theory, motivation has often been
studied as a key element in relation to creativity. Second,
employees with high levels of thriving at work are more will-
ing to acquire new knowledge. Learning is required to obtain
professional knowledge, and then in turn to promote creative
behavior (Wallace et al. 2016), ensuring the success of crea-
tive efforts (Carmeli and Spreitzer 2011). Third, vitality, as a
positive emotion, enables employees to mentally and physi-
cally stay active, feel energetic and competent, learn, and de-
velop new ways of solving problems (Quinn 2007), all of
which are conducive to creativity (Kark and Carmeli 2009).
Based on the discussion above, we propose the following
hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3: Thriving at work mediates the positive
relationship between paradoxical leader behavior and
employee creativity.
The Moderating Effect of Psychological Safety
Perceived work environment affects employees’ creative
work in the organization (Amabile et al. 1996).
Curr Psychol
Psychological safety refers to employees’ perception of
safety when participating in risky activities at work.
Employees with high levels of psychological safety can
freely express their views without worrying about conse-
quences (Kahn 1990). For employees with different psy-
chological safety levels, the degree between their thriving
at work and creativity is also different. Based on the
above analysis, employees who have high levels of thriv-
ing at work will find opportunities to learn new things and
find new ways to solve problems (Spreitzer et al. 2012).
For employees with higher levels of psychological safety,
taking risks is safe (Edmondson 1999), so they are more
likely to engage in risky activities and feel free to express
their views without fear (Edmondson 1999). There is no
need to worry about being punished or rejected when
proposing a new way to solve a problem (Baer and
Frese 2003). Employees with high levels of psychological
safety are likely to speak up, seek help from others and
express themselves without fear of negative interpersonal
consequences, and they are more likely to develop a high
degree of involvement in creative endeavors which are
ultimately important for employee creativity (Carmeli
et al. 2010). However, when employees’ psychological
safety levels are low, causing them to face psychological
threats and feel psychologically unsafe, they are more
likely to develop a defensive orientation. In this case,
even if the employees come up with a new way to solve
a problem because they have high levels of thriving at
work, they are not willing to express it. We expect, there-
fore, that there would be a greater positive effect of thriv-
ing at work and employee creativity for employees with
high levels of psychological safety than for employees
with low levels of psychological safety.
Psychological safety, encourages employees to be flexible,
expressive. Employees with high psychological safety strive
to overcome challenges that occur when actualizing creative
ideas into practical application. In other words, if lacking psy-
chological safety, thriving at work produces only ideas with-
out transforming high-quality ideas into actual creative out-
comes. Employees are willing to thrive because they perceive
that the paradoxical leader encourages them through learning
and how they react to thriving at work depends on the psy-
chological safety. Thus, we propose the following:
Hypothesis 4: Psychological safety will moderate the re-
lationship between thriving at work and employee crea-
tivity, such that this positive relationship will be stronger
when there are higher levels of psychological safety.
Hypothesis 5: Paradoxical leader behavior influences em-
ployee creativity through its relationship with thriving at
work; and the indirect effect will be stronger when psy-
chological safety is strong rather than weak.
Method
Sample and Data Collection
Data were collected from full-time employees and their im-
mediate supervisors in four companies in northern China.
These companies were high tech industries. We first gave
out questionnaires to subordinates and then to their direct
leaders. The sample for this study comprises 180 employees
and 25 leaders. Questionnaires were sent though human re-
source department. Research purpose and survey instructions
were clearly explained to participants in detail. All participants
are convinced that the data is authentic and confidential. In the
consideration of availability of samples, we selected middle
managers as leaders. Each leader is responsible for evaluating
the corresponding 4 to 8 subordinates. After discarding unsuc-
cessful questionnaires that have unsuccessful matches an-
swers, repeated answers, and excessive missing data, 139 ef-
fective questionnaires were obtained. The response rate is
77.2%. The final sample consisted of 56.1% male and
43.9% female employees. The average age of employees is
28. The average job tenure of employee is 5 years.
Survey data were collected at two-time points separated by
1 month in order to reduce the influence of homologous error.
At Time 1, paradoxical leader behavior, thriving at work and
psychology safety were evaluated by employees. One month
later, at Time 2, employee creativity was evaluated by their
leaders.
Variable Measurement
To ensure equivalence of the following measures in the
Chinese and English versions, the translation/back-
translation procedure is followed to translate English-based
measures into Chinese. All study measures used in the present
study employed a Likert response scale that ranged from 1
(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
Paradoxical Leader Behavior A 22-item scale is used to cap-
ture paradoxical leader behavior (Zhang et al. 2015). Sample
items include “Uses a fair approach to treat all subordinates
uniformly, but also treats them as individuals” and “Manages
subordinates uniformly, but considers their individualized
needs”. The coefficient α is 0.95.
Thriving at Work A 10-item scale is used to capture thriving at
work (Porath et al. 2012). Sample items include “I continue to
learn more and more as time goes by” and “I am looking
forward to each new day”. The coefficient α is 0.92.
Psychological Safety A 5-item scale is used to capture psycho-
logical safety (Ning and Jin 2007). Sample items include
“There is a threatening environment at work” and “I’m not

afraid to be myself at work”. The coefficient α is 0.73.
Employee creativity. A 4-item scale is used to capture employ-
ee creativity (Farmer et al. 2003). Sample items include “This
employee tries new ideas or methods first” and “This employ-
ee generates ground-breaking ideas related to the field”. The
coefficient α is 0.95.
Employee Creativity A 4-item scale is used to capture para-
doxical leader behavior (Farmer et al. 2003). Sample items
include “This employee tries new ideas or methods first”
and “This employee generates ground-breaking ideas related
to the field”. The coefficient α is 0.95.
Control Variables We controlled for organization effect and
employees’ age, gender, and education because of their poten-
tial effects on employee behavior (Ng and Feldman 2012).
These demographic variables have been found to be signifi-
cantly related to creativity (Zhou and George 2001; Shin and
Zhou 2007). Age is coded as “1″ for those aged 25 or below,
“2″ for those aged between 26 and 30, “3″ for those aged
between 31 and 35, “4″ for those aged between 36 and 40,
“5″ for those aged 41 and 45, “6″ for those aged 46 and 50, “7″
for those aged 51or above. Gender is dummy-coded with male
respondents coded as “0″ and female respondents coded as
“1″. Education is coded as “1″ for employees who finished
high school or below, “2″ for employees who held junior
college degrees, “3″ for employees who held bachelor de-
grees, and “4″ for employees who held master’s degrees or
higher. In addition, we controlled tenure (in years) because
past research has demonstrated its influence on Chinese em-
ployees’ work perceptions and attitudes (Hui and Tan 1995).
Data Analysis and Results
In this paper, SPSS 22.0 statistical software was used to ana-
lyze variables. Main effect and moderating effect were tested
by hierarchical regression analysis. This study strictly con-
trolled the processes of questionnaire design, questionnaire
collection and data analysis. First, we use mature scales in this
survey are relatively in order to ensure the quality and feasi-
bility of the research. Second, participants come from different
regions in China. Finally, we collect and analyze all eligible
data. This paper uses Cronbach’s α to describe the internal
consistency of the questionnaire. The results show that the
value of Cronbach’s α is more than 0.7, indicating that the
questionnaire has good consistency.
Confirmatory Factor Analyses
In order to examine construct validity, we use Mplus 7.0 to
conduct confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The results show
acceptable fit of the hypothesized four-factor measurement
Curr Psychol
model (consisting of paradoxical leader behavior, thriving at
work, employee creativity, and psychological safety) model
(CFI = .95, TLI = .94, RMSEA = .07, χ2 = 359.60, df = 224,
SRMR = 0.05).
We use χ2 difference tests to compare this four-factor mod-
el to several alternative models. χ2 difference tests showed
that the four-factor model fit the data significantly better than
a single-factor model combing all the items into one overall
factor (Δχ2 = 960.64, p < .01). Fit of this one factor model
was χ2 = 1320.24, df = 230, CFI = .58, TLI = .54,
RMSEA = .19. SRMR = 0.14. The four-factor model also fit
better than a two-factor model in which collapsed paradoxical
leader behavior, thriving at work and psychological safety
items into one overall factor (Δχ2 = 481.99, p < .01). Fit of
this two-factor model was χ2 = 841.59, df = 229, CFI = .76,
TLI = .74, RMSEA = .14, SRMR = 0.10. Moreover, the four-
factor model fit better than a three-factor model in which col-
lapsing paradoxical leader behavior and thriving at work items
on one factor (Δχ2 = 309.39, p < .01). Fit of this three-factor
model was χ2 = 668.99, df = 227, CFI = .83, TLI = .81,
RMSEA = .12, SRMR = 0.09.
Correlation Analysis of Sample Variables
The means, standard deviations, and correlation coefficients
of variables are shown in Table 1. Paradoxical leader behavior
is positively associated with thriving at work (r = .59, p < .01)
and employee creativity (r = .37, p < .01); thriving at work is
positively associated with employee creativity (r = .39,
p < .01). These results provide evidence for the hypothesis of
this paper.
Hypothesis Test
Hierarchical regression analysis was adopted to test
Hypotheses 1–4. First, the main effect test is carried out.
Hypothesis 1, which predicates a positive relationship be-
tween paradoxical leader behavior and employee creativity,
is supported (β = .54, p < .01) and the results are shown in
Table 2. Second, the mediating effect of relational thriving at
work is examined, Hypothesis 2, which predicates a positive
relationship between paradoxical leader behavior and thriving
at work, is also supported (β = .64, p < .001). Hypothesis 3,
which predicates that thriving at work can mediate the rela-
tionship between paradoxical leader behavior and employee
creativity, is also supported. Independent variables have sig-
nificant effects on mediating variables. Paradoxical leader be-
havior is positively related to thriving at work (β = .64,
p < .01) and employee creativity (β = .54, p < .01,). When
thriving at work as the mediator variable is added into the
model, thriving at work has a significant positive impact on
employee creativity (β = .38, p < .1). But the effect of inde-
pendent variable on dependent variable weakened (β = .29,
Curr Psychol

Table 1 Descriptive statistics,

correlations of variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Gender .43 .50

2. Age 2.62 1.03 −.17
3. Education 3.20 .51 −.09 - .07
4. Tenure 3.39 1.13 −.05 .74** −.20**
5. Paradoxical leader behavior 4.13 .68 −.05 .30** −.20* .22**
6. Thriving at work 4.07 .73 −.08 .14 −.15 .67 .59**
7. Psychological safety 3.59 .85 .23** −.02 −.09 −.01 .14 .15
8. Creativity 3.53 .99 .03 .12 −.08 .14 .37** .39** .12

n = 139
a
Gender: 0 = Male; 1 = Female
b
Age: 1 = aged 25 or below; 2 = aged between 26 and 30; 3 = aged between 31 and 35; and 4 = aged between 36
and 40; and 5 = aged between 41 and 45; and 6 = aged between 46 and 50; and 7 = aged 51 or above
c
Education: 1 = high school or below; 2 = junior college degree; 3 = bachelor degree and 4 = master’s degree or
higher
d
Tenure: 1 = 1 year or below; 2 = between 1and 3 years; 3 = between 4 and 6 years; 4 = 7 years or higher
*
p < .05, ** p < .01

p < .01). We further tested the indirect effect between paradox-
ical leader behavior and employee creativity following proce-
dures recommended by Preacher and Hayes (2008). The re-
sults show that paradoxical leader behavior has an indirect
effect on employee creativity through thriving at work (b = .24,
boot SE = .09, 95% bias-corrected CI = [.07, .43]). 95%
confidence interval excludes zero, which indicates thriving at
work mediates the relationship between paradoxical leader
behavior and employee creativity. Hence, Hypothesis 1-3 are
supported.
Next, we teste the moderating effect of psychological safe-
ty. Table 3 shows the results of the moderated hierarchical
regression analyses for Hypothesis 4. First, control variables
are entered into the regression equation. Second, independent
variable is added into the regression equation based on the first
step. Third, we add the moderating variable and the interaction
of the independent variable and moderating variable together
into the regression based on the second step. As shown in
Model 3, the interaction of paradoxical leader behavior and
psychological safety is positively and significantly related to
employee creativity (β = .18, p < .05, Model 3 in Table 3),
explaining an additional 2% of the variance. Hence,
Hypothesis 4 is supported.
In order to clearly interpret the moderating effects, interac-
tion effects are plotted. As shown in Fig. 2, the positive rela-
tionship between paradoxical leader behavior and employee

Table 2 Mediation effect of

thriving at work Thriving at work Employee creativity
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5

Control variables
Gender −.09 −.07 .07 .09 .11
Age .14 .01 .06 −.06 −.06
Education −.18 −.02 −.11 .02 .03
Tenure −.07 −.05 .07 .09 .11
Independent variable
Paradoxical leader behavior .64*** .54**** .29**
Mediator
Thriving at work .38**
R2 .04 .36 .03 .15 .20
adjusted-R2 .01 .33 .00 .11 .16
ΔF 1.42 65.90*** 0.85 18.70*** 8.40**
ΔR2 .32** .12*** .05**

n = 139
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001
 Curr Psychol

Table 3 Moderation effect of

psychological safety Employee creativity

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Control variables
Gender .07 .09 .14
Age .06 −.02 .01
Education −.11 −.01 −.03
Tenure .07 .11 .11
Independent variable
Thriving at work .52**** .54****
Moderator
Psychological safety .06 −.03
Interaction
Thriving at work * Psychological safety .18*
R2 .03 .18 .20
adjusted-R2 .00 .14 .15
ΔF .85 12.01*** 3.23*
ΔR2 .15** .02**

n = 139
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

creativity is much more distinct in high psychological safety S E = . 11 , 9 5 % b i a s - c o r r e c t e d C I = [ − . 0 2 , . 4 3 ] .

rather than in low psychological safety.
Finally, we used Model 14 of the PROCESS macro
(Hayes 2013) to generate bootstrap confidence intervals
for the conditional indirect effect of paradoxical leader be-
havior on employee creativity via thriving at work at dif-
ferent levels of psychological safety (see Table 4). When
psychological safety was stronger, paradoxical leader be-
havior had a significant indirect effect on creativity through
thriving at work (b = .45, boot SE = .14, 95% bias-corrected
CI = [−.18, .73]) and a 95% bias-corrected confidence in-
terval around the bootstrapped indirect effect, which did not
contain zero. When the psychological safety was weaker,
paradoxical leader behavior did not have an indirect effect
on creativity through thriving at work (b = .06, boot
SE = .15, 95% bias-corrected CI = [−.26, .34]). The index
of moderated mediation was not significant(b = .19, boot
Consequently, Hypotheses 5 is not supported.
Discussion and Conclusions
From the perspective of self- determination theory and using
data from 139 supervisor-employee dyads from four enter-
prises in China, this paper explores the relationship between
paradoxical leader behavior’s effect on employee creativity
and the mediating role of thriving at work and the moderating
role of psychological safety in the relationship between thriv-
ing at work and employee creativity. The main conclusions are
as follows.
Results of this study show that paradoxical leader behavior
has positive effect employee creativity. Scholars have also
previously highlighted the importance of effective leadership

Fig. 2 The Moderating Effect of 2.5

Psychological Safety on
Relationship between Thriving at
2
Work and Employee Creativity
Employee creativity

1.5 Low psychological

safety

1 High psychological
safety
0.5

0
Low thriving at work High thriving at work
Curr Psychol
Table 4 Conditional indirect
effect(s) of paradoxical leader Moderator Level
behavior on creativity at values of
psychological safety Psychological safety Low
High
The index of moderated mediation
N = 139
for organizations (Crossan and Apaydin 2010; Flynn and
Staw 2004) while separate research attests to the impact that
leaders can have upon employee behavior (Gerstner and Day
1997) – authentic (Cerne et al. 2011), empowering (Zhang and
Bartol 2010) and transformational leadership (Shin and Zhou
2003) have all been provided as important examples in this
regard.
Although paradoxical leadership is a new kind of leader-
ship, its impact upon employees and organizations has given
birth to a substantial literature. Previous studies suggest a pos-
itive relation between PLB and adaptive/proactive behavior
and task proficiency (Zhang et al. 2015). In this study, we
have instead argued that PLB is positively related to employee
creativity. PLB is different from other sole leaderships, and it
can be conceived as a development of contingency theory. It
encourages supervisors to engage in holistic thinking and to
develop integrative complexity, doing so in the expectation
that this will create an autonomous environment which is si-
multaneously close to and distant from individual employees,
who are engaged upon the basis of their equal status (Zhang
et al. 2015).
This environment is conductive to creativity for a number
of reasons. Firstly, PLB enhances autonomy, a basic need of
individuals (Deci and Ryan 2000) and a crucial pre-condition
for employee creativity (Zhang et al. 2017). However, this
benefit should not be pursued to excess, as this may result in
unethical or even illegal behavior (Lu et al. 2017). However, if
job autonomy is removed in its entirety, then creativity will
reduce in due proportion. (Lu et al. 2017). This establishes that
a leadership which permits both autonomy and rules is re-
quired and also asserts PLB as a key means through which
this requirement can be met. Other features of PLB, including
closeness to employees, individualized consideration and
other-centeredness present themselves favorably in this con-
text. It also overlaps with transformational leadership, for in-
stance, which accentuates the need to understand the needs
and requirements of individual employees. (Wang et al.
2014). It is therefore not surprising to note that several studies
have suggested that there is a positive relationship between
transformational leadership and creativity (Chen et al. 2009;
Wang et al. 2014).
In conclusion, it can therefore be observed that each com-
ponent of PLB resembles, in key respects, positive leadership
contributions which are in turn conducive to creativity. At the
same time, other components of PLB, which emphasize the
Indirect Effect SE 95% CI
.06 .15 [−.26, .34]
.45 .14 [.18, .73]
.19 .11 [−.02, .43]
need to remain distant from employees, equality of employee
treatment and self-centeredness, can be theorized as con-
straints which prevent ‘excesses’ that limit creativity. The
two poles of PLB interact, and further reinforce employee
creativity.
The empirical results also demonstrate that thriving at work
mediates the positive relationship between paradoxical leader
behavior and employee creativity. PLB can satisfy employees’
autonomy, competence and relatedness needs. The contribu-
tion of self-determination further underlines the extent to
which it is conductive to employee vitality (Deci and Ryan
2000). In reconciling both autonomy and structure, PLB es-
tablishes a sound a basis for employee learning (Spreitzer et al.
2012) while upholding organizational goals.
Paradoxical leaders stay distant from employees in order to
maintain prestige but they will attempt to remain close to em-
ployees (Zhang et al. 2015). They do not treat followers merely
as subordinates. They also assign different tasks in accordance
with employee interests and skills and also treat them upon an
equitable basis (Zhang et al. 2015). In this circumstance, em-
ployees do not need to concern retribution and they do not feel
threatened by new environmental challenges, and this in turn
establishes a basis for learning (Boyd 2015) When learning and
vitality are both in evidence, employees thrive at work (Porath
et al. 2012). In the first respect, learning enables employees to
obtain professional knowledge and this in turn promotes crea-
tive behavior (Wallace et al. 2016); in the second sense, thriving
employees enjoy positive emotions and moods and this in turn
establishes the basis for expansive cognitive thinking and crea-
tive problem-solving (Wallace et al. 2016), both of which fur-
ther enhance employee creativity.
Empirical results demonstrate that psychological safety
will strengthen the relationship between thriving at work
and employee creativity. Improving the psychological se-
curity of employees will guarantee the investment that em-
ployees make within the creative process and will accord-
ingly result in creative behavior being evidenced on a more
frequent basis. Psychological safety cannot moderate the
indirect effect of future work self on employee creativity
because future work selves are positive reference values,
which is a motivational resource for proactive behavior
(Strauss et al., 2012). We argue that individuals with a
salient future work self are more likely to form a high level
of thriving at work and a high level of creativity whether
their psychological safety is high or low.

Theoretical and Practical Implications
Our findings mainly have two implications for future research
and theory. On the one hand, drawing on self- determination
theory, this study examines the effect of paradoxical leader
behavior on employee creativity, providing new prospective
for further understanding employee creativity under turbulent
as well as complex environment and enriching paradoxical
leader behavior and employee creativity literature.
Moreover, this study proves paradoxical leader behavior in-
creases employee creativity by thriving at work, promoting
further future study of the mechanism between paradoxical
leader behavior and employee creativity; On the other hand,
this study preliminarily discusses the boundary conditions of
paradoxical leader behavior. The previous study on paradox-
ical leader behavior lack the attention of situational factors.
This study discusses the variation of the relation between par-
adoxical leadership behavior and employee creativity, broad-
ening the literature on psychological safety and promoting the
study of paradoxical leader behavior’s situational factors.
This study provides practical implications for managers
and organizations. First, the findings suggest that para-
doxical leader behavior is instrumental in developing
thriving at work, which can be used to enhance employee
creativity. Hence, it is worthwhile for managers and orga-
nizations to encourage paradoxical leader behavior.
Leaders should cultivate their contradictory thinking and
integrated thinking. Leaders with paradoxical thinking can
effectively deal with contradictions and with synergy be-
tween contradictions and tensions in organizations, and
cope with the integration of organizational paradox with
a more open and inclusive attitude. Second, leaders
should take responsibility and actively develop high-
quality relationships with their followers because psycho-
logical safety represents an important construct in human
organizing. Leaders should focus on improving psycho-
logical safety.
Limitations and Future Research
The current study has some limitations. First, although vari-
ables in this study were collected at two-time points, there
may still exist reverse causality. For example, employees
who have higher levels of creativity may be more likely to
have thriving at work. Therefore, a longitudinal design is en-
couraged to be done in future research, which will extend the
present study and reinforce the causal direction of the model.
Second, this study collected data from four enterprises in
northern China, and all data came from Chinese contexts.
Future research will encourage verification whether this rela-
tionship is equally applicable in cross-cultural contexts. Third,
although some appropriate controls are put in this study, there
Curr Psychol
is still possibility of unmeasured variables creating spurious
relationships. For example, autonomy is a key characteristic of
empowering leadership. In future research, we can use
empowering leadership as a control variable.
Funding This paper is supported by grants from the National Natural
Science Foundation of China (Project Numbers: 71372089).
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author
states that there is no conflict of interest.
Ethical Approval All procedures performed in studies involving human
participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institu-
tional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki
declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed Consent Informed consent was obtained from all individual
participants included in the study.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic-
tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996).
Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of
Management Journal, 39(5), 1154–1184.
An, D., Song, Y., & Carr, M. (2016). A comparison of two models of
creativity: Divergent thinking and creative expert performance.
Personality and Individual Differences, 90, 78–84.
Baer, M., & Frese, M. (2003). Innovation is not enough: Climates for
initiative and psychological safety, process innovations, and firm
performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(1), 45–68.
Baucus, M. S., Norton, W. I., Baucus, D. A., & Human, S. E. (2008).
Fostering creativity and innovation without encouraging unethical
behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 81(1), 97–115.
Boyd, N. M. (2015). Introducing thriving at work to the field of community
psychology. Journal of Community Psychology, 43(6), 794–809.
Carmeli, A., & Spreitzer, G. M. (2011). Trust, connectivity, and thriving:
Implications for innovative behaviors at work. Journal of Creative
Behavior, 43(3), 169–191.
Carmeli, A., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Ziv, E. (2010). Inclusive leadership
and employee involvement in creative tasks in the workplace: The
mediating role of psychological safety. Creativity Research Journal,
22(3), 250–260.
Cerne, M., Jaklic, M., & Skerlavaj, M. (2011). Authentic leadership,
creativity, and innovation: A multilevel perspective. Leadership,
9(1), 63–85.
Chen, C. H. V., Li, H. H., & Tang, Y. Y. (2009). Transformational lead-
ership and creativity: Exploring the mediating effects of creative
thinking and intrinsic motivation. International Journal of
Management and Enterprise Development, 6(2), 198–211.
Chen, T., Leung, K., Li, F., & Ou, Z. (2015). Interpersonal harmony and
creativity in China. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(5), 648–672.
Crossan, M. M., & Apaydin, M. (2010). A multi-dimensional framework
of organizational innovation: A systematic review of the literature.
Journal of Management Studies, 47(6), 1154–1191.
Curr Psychol
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The“what” and “why” of goal pur-
suits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior.
Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.
Dewett, T. (2004). Employee creativity and the role of risk. European
Journal of Innovation Management, 7(4), 257–266.
Dong, Y., Bartol, K. M., Zhang, Z. X., & Li, C. (2017). Enhancing
employee creativity via individual skill development and team
knowledge sharing: Influences of dual-focused transformational
leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(3), 439–458.
Dysvik, A., & Kuvaas, B. (2011). Intrinsic motivation as a moderator on
the relationship between perceived job autonomy and work perfor-
mance. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,
20(3), 367–387.
Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in
work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 350–383.
Erkutlu, H., & Chafra, J. (2016). Benevolent leadership and psychologi-
cal well-being: The moderating effects of psychological safety and
psychological contract breach. Leadership and Organization
Development Journal, 37(3), 369–386.
Farmer, S. M., Tierney, P., & Kung-Mcintyre, K. (2003). Employee cre-
ativity in Taiwan: An application of role identity theory. Academy of
Management Journal, 46(5), 618–630.
Flynn, F. J., & Staw, B. M. (2004). Lend me your wallets: The effect of
charismatic leadership on external support for an organization.
Strategic Management Journal, 25, 453–464.
Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work
motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331–362.
George, J. M., & Zhou, J. (2007). Dual tuning in a supportive context:
Joint contributions of positive mood, negative mood, and supervi-
sory behaviors to employee creativity. Academy of Management
Journal, 50(3), 605–622.
Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader–
member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 82, 827–844.
Hancox, J. E., Quested, E., Ntoumanis, N., & Thøgersen-Ntoumani, C.
(2018). Putting self-determination theory into practice: Application
of adaptive motivational principles in the exercise domain.
Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 10(1), 75–91.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and
Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression‐Based Approach.
New York: The Guilford Press
Hocine, Z., & Zhang, J. (2014). Autonomy support: Explaining the path
from leadership to employee creative performance. Open Journal of
Social Sciences, 02(6), 417–423.
Hughes, D. J., Lee, A., Tian, A. W., Newman, A., & Legood, A. (2018).
Leadership, creativity, and innovation: A critical review and practi-
cal recommendations. The Leadership Quarterly, 29, 549–569.
Hui, H. C. C., & Tan, C. K. (1995). Employee motivation and attitudes in
the Chinese workforce. The handbook of Chinese psychology, p.
364–378
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement
and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal,
33(4), 692–724.
Kark, R., & Carmeli, A. (2009). Alive and creating: The mediating role of
vitality and aliveness in the relationship between psychological safe-
ty and creative work involvement. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 30(6), 785–804.
Kim, Y. J., & Zhong, C. B. (2017). Ideas rise from chaos: Information
structure and creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 138, 15–27.
Lee, A., Willis, S., & Tian, A. W. (2018). Empowering leadership: A meta-
analytic examination of incremental contribution, mediation, and
moderation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(3), 306–325.
Li, C. (2006). The Confucian ideal of harmony. Philosophy East and
West, 56, 583–603.
Liu, D., Jiang, K., Shalley, C. E., Keem, S., & Zhou, J. (2016).
Motivational mechanisms of employee creativity: A meta-analytic
examination and theoretical extension of the creativity literature.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 137,
236–263.
Lu, J. G., Brockner, J., Vardi, Y., & Weitz, E. (2017). The dark side of
experiencing job autonomy: Unethical behavior. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 73, 222–234.
Newman, A., Donohue, R., & Eva, N. (2017). Psychological safety: A
systematic review of the literature. Human Resource Management
Review, 27(3), 521–535.
Ng, T. W., & Feldman, D. C. (2012). Breaches of past promises, current
job alternatives, and promises of future idiosyncratic deals: Three-
way interaction effects on organizational commitment. Human
Relations, 65(11), 1463–1486.
Niessen, C., Sonnentag, S., & Sach, F. (2012). Thriving at work—A diary
study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(4), 468–487.
Ning, L., & Jin, Y. (2007). The mechanism of how trust climate impacts on
individual performance. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 39(6), 1111–1121.
Parker, S. K., Williams, H. M., & Turner, N. (2006). Modeling the ante-
cedents of proactive behavior at work. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 91(3), 636–652.
Porath, C., Spreitzer, G., Gibson, C., & Garnett, F. G. (2012). Thriving at
work: Toward its measurement, construct validation, and theoretical
refinement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(2), 250–275.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strat-
egies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple medi-
ator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891.
Quinn, R. W. (2007). Exploring positive relationships at work: Building a
theoretical and research foundation. In J. E. Dutton, & B. R. Ragins
(Eds.), Energizing others in work connections. Mahwah: Lawrence
Erlbaum. 73–90.
Shin, S. J., & Zhou, J. (2003). Transformational leadership, conservation,
and creativity: Evidence from Korea. Academy of Management
Journal, 46(6), 703–714.
Shin, S. J., & Zhou, J. (2007). When is educational specialization hetero-
geneity related to creativity in research and development teams?
Transformational leadership as a moderator. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 92(6), 1709–1721.
Spreitzer, G. M., Sutcliffe, K., Dutton, J., Sonenshein, S., & Grant, A. M.
(2005). A socially embedded model of thriving at work.
Organization Science, 16, 537–549.
Spreitzer, G., Porath, C. L., & Gibson, C. B. (2012). Toward human
sustainability: How to enable more thriving at work.
Organizational Dynamics, 41(2), 155–162.
Wallace, J. C., Butts, M. M., Johnson, P. D., Stevens, F. G., & Smith, M.
B. (2016). A multilevel model of employee innovation:
Understanding the effects of regulatory focus, thriving, and employ-
ee involvement climate. Journal of Management, 42(4), 982–1004.
Walumbwa, F. O., Muchiri, M. K., Misati, E., Wu, C., & Meiliani, M.
(2018). Inspired to perform: A multilevel investigation of anteced-
ents and consequences of thriving at work. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 39(3), 249–261.
Wang, C. J., Hueiting, T., & Mingtien, T. (2014). Linking transformation-
al leadership and employee creativity in the hospitality industry: The
influences of creative role identity, creative self-efficacy, and job
complexity. Tourism Management, 40(1), 79–89.
Xiao, F., Wang, L., Chen, Y., Zheng, Z., & Chen, W. (2015).
Dispositional and situational autonomy as moderators of mood
and creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 27(1), 76–86.
Yukl, G. (2010). Leadership in organizations 7th edn. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Zhang, X., & Bartol, K. M. (2010). Linking empowering leadership and
employee creativity: The influence of psychological empowerment,
intrinsic motivation, and creative process engagement. Academy of
Management Journal, 53(1), 107–128.

Zhang, Y., Waldman, D. A., Han, Y., & Li, X. (2015). Paradoxical leader
behaviors in people management: Antecedents and consequences.
Academy of Management Journal, 58(2), 538–566.
Zhang, W., Jex, S. M., Peng, Y., & Wang, D. (2017). Exploring the effects
of job autonomy on engagement and creativity: The moderating role
of performance pressure and learning goal orientation. Journal of
Business and Psychology, 32(3), 235–251.
Zhou, J., & George, J. M. (2001). When job dissatisfaction leads to
creativity: Encouraging the expression of voice. Academy of
Management Journal, 44(4), 682–696.
Curr Psychol
Zhou, J., & George, J. M. (2003). Awakening employee creativity: The
role of leader emotional intelligence. The Leadership Quarterly,
14(4), 545–568.
Zhou, J., & Hoever, I. J. (2014). Research on workplace creativity: A
review and redirection. Annual Review of Organizational
Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 333–359.