J Bus Psychol (2016) 31:399–414
DOI 10.1007/s10869-015-9417-6
ORIGINAL PAPER
Fostering Change-Oriented Behaviors: A Broaden-and-Build
Model
Cheng-Chen Lin1 • Yueh-Tzu Kao2 • Yuan-Ling Chen3 • Szu-Chi Lu4
Published online: 15 August 2015
Ó Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this study was to develop and
test a broaden-and-build model relating LMX to employ-
ees’ change-oriented behaviors (creative performance and
taking charge) through the mediators of positive affect and
psychological capital.
Design/Methodology/Approach Time-lagged, two-source
data were collected from 248 participants and 40 direct
leaders, which composed a heterogeneous sample of pro-
fessional jobs from a three-wave data collection strategy.
Mplus was employed to test the proposed hypotheses.
Findings We found that LMX predicts employees’
change-oriented behaviors through two sequential paths:
(a) the positive affect mediates the relationship between
LMX and employee psychological capital, and (b) psy-
chological capital mediates the relationship between
& Yuan-Ling Chen
ylclinda311@yahoo.com.tw
Cheng-Chen Lin
timothy@mail.npust.edu.tw
Yueh-Tzu Kao
ykao@isu.edu.tw
Szu-Chi Lu
ray2202002@yahoo.com.tw
1
Department of Business Administration, National Pingtung
University of Science & Technology, Pingtung 91201,
Taiwan
2
Department of Healthcare Administration, I-Shou University,
Kaohsiung 82445, Taiwan
3
Postgraduate Programs in Management, I-Shou University,
Kaohsiung 84001, Taiwan
4
Institute of Human Resource Management, National Sun
Yat-Sen University, Kaohsiung 80424, Taiwan
positive affect and employees’ creative performance and
taking charge. Our results provide a logical explanation of
the ‘broadening’ and ‘building’ mechanisms through
which LMX enhances employees’ change-oriented
behaviors.
Implications This study specifically suggests affective
and psychological mechanisms by promoting the broad-
ening and building phases that facilitate the transformation
of individual perceptions of LMX, positive affect, and
psychological capital in explaining employees’ creative
performance and taking charge.
Originality/Value This study develops a broaden-and-
build model of change-oriented behaviors and contributes
to research on proactive behaviors in the context of leader-
member relationships.
Keywords Leader-member exchange
Positive affect

Psychological capital
Creative performance
Taking
charge
Broaden-and-build theory
Introduction
Increasingly, in the fast-growing, unpredictable, and com-
petitive business environment, organizations are placing a
premium on proactive employee behaviors (Luthans and
Youssef 2007) as their primary form of organizational
adaptability and growth (Bindl and Parker 2010), and
employee change-oriented behaviors have received more
and more attention (Parker and Collins 2010). Change-
oriented behaviors are forms of active work behaviors in
which employees actively take charge of situations to bring
about future changes in themselves or their organizations
(Morrison and Phelps 1999). In organizations, two focal
change-oriented behaviors that profoundly shape
123
400
employees’ ability to cope with progressively dynamic
environments are creative performance and taking charge
(Parker and Collins 2010). The former refers to the gen-
eration of novel and useful outcomes (Amabile 1998) in
meeting a standard of quality or utility for organizational
success and survival (Anderson et al. 2014). The latter
describes discretionary behaviors intended to effect func-
tional changes (Morrison and Phelps 1999) to ensure
organizational sustainability and effectiveness (Bindl and
Parker 2010).
Specifically, among the determinants of change-oriented
behaviors in the workplace, leader-member exchange
(hereafter referred to as ‘‘LMX’’; Graen and Uhl-Bien
1995) stands out as one of the drivers of employee change-
oriented behaviors (Van Dyne et al. 2008). LMX refers to
the unique relationships that leaders develop to differenti-
ate their leadership styles and exchange links within
workgroups to establish, nurture, and manage individual
members (Liao et al. 2010; McAllister et al. 2007). To date,
extant research has provided a solid basis for understanding
change-oriented behaviors and has confirmed that LMX
leads to creative work involvement (Atwater and Carmeli
2009; Volmer et al. 2012) and taking charge (Sekiguchi
2010). Nevertheless, if LMX makes unique contributions to
employee change-oriented behaviors, then research and
practices focusing only on direct LMX-change-oriented
behavior relationships will result in an incomplete under-
standing of how change-oriented behaviors are promoted in
the workplace. Hence, organizational researchers have
delved into an integrated theoretical framework explaining
the issues of how and why LXM has an effect on employee
change-oriented behaviors.
In this regard, we aim to fill this void by positioning the
Broaden-and-Build Theory (hereafter referred to as
‘‘BBT’’; Fredrickson 1998, 2001, 2004) as an overarching
theory for developing a mediation model that explains,
explicitly and theoretically, how and why LMX matters to
employee creative performance and taking charge, in par-
ticular. Briefly, BBT, which has received empirical support
(e.g., Fredrickson 1998; Fredrickson and Branigan 2001),
theorizes that positive affect broadens ‘‘momentary
thought-action repertoires,’’ and collective experiences
build ‘‘enduring psychological resources’’ (Fredrickson
1998, 2001, 2003, 2004). To begin, we articulate the nature
of BBT as promoting positive affect and psychological
resources that have significant impacts on employee
change-oriented behaviors in two ways.
First, we posit that LMX triggers employees’ positive
affect. Thus, we assume that BBT provides a detailed
account of how an individual positive affect derived from
LMX flourishes and how it further plays a major role in
broadening individual psychological capital (hereafter
referred to as ‘‘PsyCap’’), which refers to ‘‘an individual’s
123
J Bus Psychol (2016) 31:399–414
positive psychological state of development’’ and has been
conceptualized using four motivational dimensions—hope,
efficacy, resilience, and optimism (Luthans et al. 2007,
2006). Hope refers to the belief that individuals succeed
through the successful pursuit of goals. Efficacy is confi-
dence in one’s own ability to successfully overcome bar-
riers through positive beliefs and to invest the necessary
effort to execute and accomplish tasks in a given situation.
Resilience reflects positive coping and the ability to bounce
back in the face of adversity. Optimism refers to making
internal, stable, and global attributions concerning current
and future success.
Second, and more important, BBT explicates how Psy-
Cap accumulated from affective foci in the minds of an
individual (Bindl and Parker 2010) blooms and serves as a
key resource in building individual change-oriented
behaviors. In general, we anticipate that PsyCap comes into
play as proactive encouragement and engagement, contin-
uously transforming experiences of positive affect into
PsyCap, driving and disseminating the flows of positive
affect further to nourish the development of change-ori-
ented behaviors. In sum, taking a novel approach to BBT’s
influence on change-oriented behaviors, our study further
expands LMX and proactive behavior literature not only by
theorizing why LMX may uniquely cultivate positive affect
and PsyCap in employees but also by elucidating the
underlying broadening and building pathways, whereby
LMX drives change-oriented behaviors.
The purpose of this present study, then, is to test a
mediation model based on BBT. This model, shown in
Fig. 1, grounds predictions firmly in one unifying theory
(BBT), introduces two new mechanisms (broadening and
building), puts forward and tests a broaden-and-build
model of employee change-oriented behaviors, showing
that both positive affect broadening and PsyCap building
can play key roles in employee creative performance and
taking charge, respectively. In explaining this process, we
also seek to make two important contributions to the lit-
erature. First, we recognize the BBT approach as an
important avenue for integrating LMX and proactive
behavior literatures, demonstrating how the broadening
and building mechanisms of BBT hold up when predict-
ing the influence of LMX on creative performance and
taking charge. Second, we explore the possibilities of
employee positive affect and PsyCap in accounting for
LMX-change-oriented behavior relationships. Overall, the
present study not only addresses two key mechanisms
(i.e., broadening and building pathways) of BBT in
organizations but also investigates two important
employee factors (positive affect and PsyCap) to fully
capture the dynamics at play in shaping employee change-
oriented behaviors and, in particular, creative performance
and taking charge.
J Bus Psychol (2016) 31:399–414
Fig. 1 Conceptual model
linking LMX to change-oriented Positive
LMX
behaviors
affect
Conceptual Development and Hypotheses
LMX and Change-Oriented Behaviors
Rather than investigating general proactive behaviors, this
study focuses on two especially noteworthy change-oriented
behaviors, namely, creative performance and taking charge,
both of which profoundly shape employees and the envi-
ronment. Creative performance encompasses ‘‘the genera-
tion and implementation of novel and useful ideas in work
processes and procedures’’ (Amabile 1998), whereas taking
charge focuses on ‘‘discretionary behaviors with construc-
tive efforts to ignite organizationally functional changes’’
(Morrison and Phelps 1999). The literature shows that leader
support (Ohly et al. 2006) increases employees’ change-
oriented behaviors. Apparently, among potential contextual
antecedents, LMX likely acts as a promising factor in fos-
tering change-oriented behaviors in organizations.
LMX researchers posit that leaders build up differenti-
ated dyadic relationships with different members (Graen
and Uhl-Bien 1995). Specifically, leaders in organizations
shape, polish, and nurture members through differentiated
exchange relationships by using different leadership styles
within social networks (Liao et al. 2010). High LMX
involves tangible or intangible resource exchanges that
affect employee reactions, such as career progress (Bel-
schak and Den Hartog 2010), performance evaluations
(Duarte et al. 1994), voice (Yrle et al. 2002), affect, loyalty
and professional respect (Law et al. 2010; Olsson et al.
2012), and obligation, respect, and trust (Graen and Uhl-
Bien 1995). Building on this line of research, we expect
that employees who exert themselves as a result of inter-
action with leaders are likely to engage in creative per-
formance and taking charge.
Creative performance, one of the outcomes of LMX, is
critical for contemporary organizations and denotes the
degree to which employees devise novel and useful solu-
tions to workplace challenges (Hirst et al. 2009; Parker and
Collins 2010). For the following reasons, LMX is likely to
enhance employees’ creative performance. First, employ-
ees rely on the information, resources, and social support
derived from high-quality LMX to generate, develop, and
apply their novel and useful ideas. LMX specifies how
interpersonal exchange relationships influence employee
creativity (Janssen and Van Yperen 2004). Employees who
have high-quality relationships with leaders are energetic
(Atwater and Carmeli 2009) and exhibit self-efficacy (Liao
et al. 2010) when engaging in creative activities. Second,
401
Creative performance
PsyCap
Taking charge
other characteristics of LMX, such as respect, mutual trust,
and obligation, substantively influence creative perfor-
mance. Employees with high LMX are more likely to
exhibit higher psychological competence in challenging the
status quo and devising unique solutions to problems.
Employees are empowered by experiencing affect, loyalty,
contribution, and professional respect through high-quality
LMX, and this is beneficial in stimulating employees’
creative performance (Law et al. 2010; Olsson et al. 2012).
Additionally, employees substantively engage in creative
work involvement when they are empowered through
greater job autonomy (Volmer et al. 2012). Elaborating on
the existing research, we therefore offer a further test,
whereby employees’ creative performance is characterized
by the interpretation of excellent relationship quality.
Taking charge focuses on improvement (Fritz and Son-
nentag 2009) through voluntary and constructive efforts and
is also a discretionary, change-oriented behavior that reflects
employees’ efforts to restructure their workplace and opti-
mize its resources (Thomas et al. 2010; Van Dyne et al.
1995). Compared to the strong links with creative perfor-
mance, few empirical studies have linked LMX to taking
charge (Van Dyne et al. 2008). As Li et al. (2013) demon-
strated, the more effort a transformational leader made to
direct employees with a strong collective identity, the more
those employees exhibited taking charge. In the same vein,
as with LMX, we expect that when leaders emphasize con-
siderations for employees, employees who perceive sup-
portive management intervention will reciprocate through
change-oriented behaviors in the workplace. Therefore, we
foresee that employees who have good relationships with
leaders will exhibit more change-oriented behaviors, such as
taking charge. The above-mentioned drivers, together with
the LMX process, will accumulate to evoke constructive
changes in employees, leading to employees’ taking charge.
Drawing on the above reasoning, we predict:
Hypothesis 1a LMX is positively related to creative
performance.
Hypothesis 1b LMX is positively related to taking
charge.
Broaden-and-Build Theory
According to BBT, positive affect or a subset of positive
emotions such as joy, interest, contentment, pride, and love
can help enhance broader thinking (Fredrickson 1998,
123
402
2001). Positive affect encourages individuals to broaden
the scopes of action, attention, cognition, and mindful-
ness as well as to focus on new life possibilities and
opportunities, and thus positive affect widens individuals’
‘‘momentary thought-action repertoires.’’ Additionally,
broadness of cognition, thinking, and actions helps indi-
viduals build cognitive, psychological, and social resources
that help them in challenging situations. This, in turn,
results in the construction of ‘‘enduring personal resour-
ces,’’ ranging from physical, intellectual, and social to
psychological (Fredrickson 1998, 2001, 2003, 2004).
Fundamental evidence for the broadening proposition
holds that positive emotions broaden individuals’ ‘‘mo-
mentary thought-action repertoires’’ (Fredrickson 1998,
2001, 2003, 2004). Experiencing positive emotions/affect
can stimulate creativity (Isen et al.1987), efficiency (Isen
and Means 1983), flexibility (Isen and Daubman 1984),
integrative skills (Isen et al.1991), and unusual thoughts
(Isen et al. 1985). The evidence suggests that positive
affect provides a broader preference for variety and wel-
comes more varied behavioral options (Kahn and Isen
1993). Additionally, positive emotions broaden individu-
als’ awareness of play, exploration, enjoyment, and inte-
gration within safe, close relationships (Fredrickson 2000).
Preliminary evidence for the building proposition sug-
gests that positive emotions bolster personal resources by
advocating more novel ideas, creative actions, and social
bonds (Fredrickson 1998, 2001, 2004). The resources that
individuals build through positive emotions create an
upward spiral that can later be drawn on to manage sur-
vival, health, and fulfillment (Fredrickson 2001, 2013). In a
field experiment (Fredrickson et al. 2008), positive emo-
tions experienced from meditation practices increased
mindfulness, purpose in life, and social support. Individu-
als thus strengthen their enduring personal resources,
including intellectual, physical, psychological, and social
resources, which can later be reserved or drawn on as
necessary for coping or survival. Empirical evidence also
notes that psychological resources act as enduring coping
resources in helping individuals combat adversity
(Fredrickson 1998, 2001).
To summarize, positive affect not only broadens indi-
viduals’ momentary mindsets but also gradually builds
enduring personal resources (Fredrickson 2003). Positive
affect evokes the achievement of a momentarily broadened
scope of awareness, presents their function as being able to
build individual survival resources, and then funnels those
resources to support novel and creative actions. Over time,
positive affective states not only broaden individuals’
mindsets but also enable individuals to build significant
personal resources (Vacharkulksemsuk and Fredrickson
2012), helping to enhance self-efficacy, optimism, and
resilience. The net result is to enable individuals to ‘‘live
123
J Bus Psychol (2016) 31:399–414
within an optimal range of human functioning’’
(Fredrickson and Losada 2005, p. 678) and, further, to
survive, thrive, and positively transform their circum-
stances and behaviors.
Broadening Phase: From LMX to PsyCap
Conceptually, hope, efficacy, resilience, and optimism
have been characterized as the positive psychological state
of development to best depict PsyCap (Luthans et al.
2006). Each of these four dimensions has been shown to
exert relatively unique influence and to have a positive
impact on individual wellness and performance. Hope
includes both the energy invested to achieve goals and the
associated planning (Luthans et al. 2007; Avey et al. 2009).
Individuals with expectancy and motivation respond to
obstacles by seeking multiple alternative paths to achieve
their goals. In regard to efficacy, research (Judge et al.
2007) has indicated that cognitive ability, experience, and
personality are the antecedents of self-efficacy, which, in
turn, positively and significantly predicts work-related
performance. Research (Avey et al. 2009) has also shown
that resilient individuals better cope with stressors in a
constantly changing context, as they recognize the need to
accept reality based on a deep belief in a meaningful life,
have a mixed ability to combat changing demands, and
face adversity with more flexible emotional stability.
Optimistic individuals tend to make positive attributions
for successes when faced with changes, as they maintain
positive expectations even in the face of changes, historical
problems, or setbacks (Avey et al. 2008).
Empirical research also supports the argument that
PsyCap should be examined collectively (Luthans et al.
2007) for its best predictive usefulness. For example,
PsyCap, a core construct, provides better predictions of job
outcomes than any of its four constituent components do
individually (Avey et al. 2009). PsyCap has been empiri-
cally demonstrated to be directly and significantly related
to desirable employee attitudes (Sweetman et al. 2011),
such as job satisfaction (Luthans et al. 2007), organiza-
tional commitment (Luthans et al. 2008), and well-being
(Avey et al. 2010), and to desirable employee behaviors,
such as work-related performance (Luthans et al. 2008) and
organizational citizenship (Avey et al. 2010).
In the LMX-PsyCap broadening phase, grounded in
BBT, we suggest that LMX creates a unique interaction
that may improve individuals’ capacity to think and com-
bine psychological resources (Fredrickson 1998, 2001).
Additionally, taking LMX as a key theoretical perspective
related to leadership, previous work has emphasized the
role of leadership in broadening PsyCap (e.g., Avolio and
Luthans 2006). Avey (2014) noted that the supervision
category, which includes concepts such as authentic and
J Bus Psychol (2016) 31:399–414
ethical leadership, is one of the predictors of PsyCap. Such
a perspective has been further supported; for example, at
the organizational level, Memili et al. (2014) found that
unique family firm LMXs facilitated organizational Psy-
Cap of family franchise firms, which further enhanced
family firm innovativeness. Thus, we argue that high LMX
activates positive affect or a subset of positive emotions,
such as joy and interest (Dutton 2003), which may improve
individuals’ capacity to think and combine psychological
resources (Fredrickson 1998, 2001).
Positive interactions create affective bonding, which
reinforces employees’ experience of relational meanings
for LMX. Reasonably, employees respond to leaders’
expectations by regulating their positive affect to realize
emotional consequences and, further, to justify the positive
implications of PsyCap broadening. More specifically,
interpersonal connections or positive dyadic exchanges
heighten employees’ positive affective states because those
connections and exchanges arouse their sense of belonging,
competence, and autonomy, and gradually broaden their
PsyCap. Such a process is aligned with BBT: the role of
LMX in dyadic interaction schemes stimulates positive
affect, which supports the broadening of PsyCap.
To summarize, positive affect, initiated through constant
interaction with leaders, may also broaden the inner power
of employees, which, in turn, accumulates hope, efficacy,
resilience, and optimism together with repeated positive
affective experiences during immersion in high-quality
LMX. Overall, this perspective suggests a mediating
framework in which LMX fosters subsequent PsyCap
broadening via positive affect. In line with this reasoning,
we argue that employees engaging in high-quality LMX
while at the same time being immersed in positive affect
view affective support as a valuable resource that can assist
their advancement and dependence. Throughout the
development of high-quality LMX relationships, employ-
ees rely on this motivational force and further engage in
individual PsyCap broadening. Drawing on the above
reasoning, we predict the following:
Hypothesis 2 Positive affect mediates the relationship
between LMX and employees’ PsyCap.
Building Phase: From Positive Affect to Change-
Oriented Behaviors
In a dynamic business environment, firms consider
employees’ creative performance a promising avenue for
securing enterprise competitive advantage and a critical
driver of the exploration of thorough sustainability (Shalley
and Gilson 2004). Creative performance claims ‘‘a set of
creativity-relevant skills’’ (Amabile 1998) that include
utilizing creative-thinking ability, compiling alternative
403
generations of an idea, engaging in divergent thinking, and
being able to suspend judgment (Shalley and Gilson 2004).
However, taking charge aims to challenge the status quo
and is beneficial for individual career-related outcomes,
sales, overall performance, and organizational success
(Parker et al. 2006). Both creative performance and taking
charge are change-oriented behaviors and emphasize
changes in terms of making suggestions and implementing
refinements.
According to BBT, in the broadening phase, positive
affect increases broad-minded coping over time, and these
improvements, in turn, predict subsequent positive affect in
the building phase. Consequently, in the building phase, as
positive affect reflects cognition and cognitive flexibility,
we expect a positive relationship between perceived
recurrent positive affect and creative performance. For
creative performance, as employees experience positive
affect, they exhibit high creativity through their cognitive
styles or motivational processes (Madjar et al. 2002).
Previous studies show that positive affect facilitates cre-
ative problem solving (Isen et al. 1987) and that an
empirical linkage exists between positive affect and cre-
ativity (Amabile et al. 2005). Additionally, we agree with
Baas et al. (2008) that a consistent relationship exists
between positive affect and creative performance. Fol-
lowing this reasoning, we believe that positive affect
should generate strong improvements in creative aspira-
tion; thus, positive affect should lead to attempts at cre-
ativity and creative performance.
Scholars have argued that employee exchange ideology,
output control by the direct manager, and propensity to
trust all predict taking charge (Chiaburu and Baker 2006).
We therefore expect an association between positive affect
and taking charge despite a relative paucity of organiza-
tional investigations. In many situations, in terms of the
social information processing perspective (Salancik and
Pfeffer 1978), positive affect can stimulate more efficient,
flexible, and heuristic information processing and related-
ness (see Isen 2000, for a review). Based on these ideas, we
propose that employees with positive affect can flexibly
organize concepts and ideas (Miner and Glomb 2010). In
line with BBT, positive affect permits a wide array of
mindsets, not only increasing the tendency toward a
broader and more flexible cognitive context but also con-
structing the ability to combine divergent materials to
develop actual proactive behaviors (Fredrickson 1998,
2001).
Notably, BBT postulates that positive affect gradually
broadens and synthesizes in incremental ways, which
gradually build enduring personal resources (Fredrickson
2013). Extending beyond resourcefulness, we predict that
employees with positive affective experiences may express
more positive affect than others in building enduring
123
404
PsyCap, with which employees are more likely to optimize
their functionality (Fredrickson and Losada 2005). In the
building phase, PsyCap can be viewed as what an indi-
vidual wishes to become through positive development
(Avolio and Luthans 2006). Consistent with the perspec-
tives of positive psychology (Snyder 2002), we argue that
the four enduring resources—hope, efficacy, resilience, and
optimism—synergistically shape attitudes, behaviors, and
performance associated with goal accomplishment and
success. Additionally, the building hypothesis suggests that
positive affect broadens employees’ awareness, increases
the flexibility and durability of personal resources, and thus
helps optimize the construction of personal resources
(Fredrickson et al. 2008). Extending beyond the optimal
functioning of personal resources, we propose that con-
structed PsyCap not only improves creative performance
but also increases personal initiative, a construct closely
related to taking charge (McAllister et al. 2007). To sum-
marize, this building phase occurs because positive affect
triggers an abundant PsyCap reservoir that inclines
employees to perform novel, proactive, and creative
actions. Given the above factors, we propose that PsyCap
serves as a mechanism in the relationships of positive
affect with change-oriented behaviors, namely, creative
performance and taking charge. Accordingly, we hypoth-
esize the following:
Hypothesis 3a Employees’ PsyCap mediates the rela-
tionship between positive affect and creative performance.
Hypothesis 3b Employees’ PsyCap mediates the rela-
tionship between positive affect and taking charge.
An Integrated Model: From LMX to Change-
Oriented Behaviors1
BBT helps build our arguments in the present study. We
posit that positive affect triggered by LMX can broaden
employees’ cognition of efficacy, foundation of hope,
grounds for optimism, and infrastructure of resilience,
gradually accumulating into a well-established PsyCap
reservoir. Over time, a PsyCap reservoir expanded by
positive affect is particularly conducive to change-oriented
behaviors. Such assertions are consistent with two broad-
ening and building mechanisms of BBT. According to the
logic of BBT, we suggest that LMX has a significant
impact on employees’ willingness to engage in change-
oriented behaviors (Hypotheses 1a and 1b). More specifi-
cally, LMX enhances creative performance and taking
charge through the linkages of LMX–positive affect–Psy-
Cap (broadening phase, Hypothesis 2), positive affect–
PsyCap–creative performance (building phase, Hypothesis
3a), and positive affect–PsyCap–taking charge (building
phase, Hypothesis 3b). To sum up, as LMX invokes
123
J Bus Psychol (2016) 31:399–414
employees’ positive affect, employees are likely to expe-
rience broadened PsyCap and exhibit greater psychological
resources, which are utilized to build up change-oriented
behaviors. Based on the tenets of BBT and above
hypotheses, we hypothesize that LMX stimulates positive
affect, leading to PsyCap that, in turn, yields change-ori-
ented behaviors. Therefore, we summarize as follows:
Hypothesis 4a The relationship between LMX and
employees’ creative performance is mediated by positive
affect and PsyCap.
Hypothesis 4b The relationship between LMX and
employees’ taking charge is mediated by positive affect
and PsyCap.
Methods
Sample and Procedure
The data used for hypotheses testing for this study came
from a larger data source obtained from 40 teams of mul-
tiple organizations in Taiwan, including 248 full-time
employees and 40 team leaders who were invited to par-
ticipate. Our data collection was conducted in three waves.
At time 1, we administered the questionnaires on LMX and
control variables to 40 teams, totaling 260 full-time
employees, of which 257 were returned (98.8 % response
rate). The survey conducted at time 2 measured positive
affect and PsyCap, and was completed by 255 full-time
employees in 40 teams (99.6 % response rate). In the final
wave, we collected data on employees’ creative perfor-
mance and taking charge behavior as evaluated by leaders
and received responses from 248 employees in the 40
teams (the minimum team size was 3 and the maximum
was 10). By the end of the three phases, matching data on
248 employees (97.2 % response rate) and 40 leaders were
obtained.
A heterogeneous sample of professional jobs allowed
for generalization across jobs and industries. Participants
worked in a wide range of occupational fields and different
industries, including hi-tech (58.1 %), manufacturing
(25.4 %), banking (7.3 %), health services (4.6 %), and
travel (4.6 %). Across the whole sample, 59 % of partici-
pants were male. The average age of the participants was
34.19 years (SD = 7.41). The participants were highly
educated, with 72.5 % holding a university degree. The
participants had an average working tenure of 57 months
(SD = 50.9) and had worked with their current supervisor
for an average of 37.68 months (SD = 41.45).
To avoid the bias resulting from common method
variance, based on the suggestion offered by Podsakoff
et al. (2003), we adopted a three-wave data collection
J Bus Psychol (2016) 31:399–414
strategy and a two-source design to address this concern.
Separate questionnaires were developed and administered
to leaders and employees. The data were collected suc-
cessfully using three sets of questionnaires over a 6-week
interval, with two questionnaires for employees and one for
leaders. The third author contacted all of the leaders, either
in person or by email, to brief them about the purposes of
the study and to explain the survey completion procedures.
Prior to conducting the surveys, we promised to offer
incentives and obtain feedback from those participants (40
supervisors and 260 employees) who committed them-
selves to participate in all rounds of data collection. At time
1 and time 2, leaders received cover letters explaining the
survey procedures, together with questionnaires and return
envelopes. Participants received questionnaires and return
envelopes for time 1 and time 2 with guaranteed confi-
dentiality. Participants returned the completed question-
naires in sealed envelopes directly to the team leader. At
time 3, leaders received cover letters, questionnaires for
evaluating employees, and return envelopes. The third
author then visited team leaders to collect the completed
questionnaires, or alternatively, team leaders mailed them
directly to the third author. To match the two sets of
employee responses with the performance appraisals of
their immediate leaders, a researcher-assigned identifica-
tion number was coded in each questionnaire.
Measures
All items used in this study were well-developed English-
based measures and were back translated to ensure item
equivalence (Brislin, 1970). All measures were rated from
1, indicating ‘‘strongly disagree,’’ to 5, indicating ‘‘strongly
agree.’’ Employees filled out questionnaire items related to
LMX, positive affect, and PsyCap. Leaders were asked to
rate the creative performance and taking charge behavior of
their direct subordinates.
Leader-Member Exchange Quality
LMX quality was measured using a five-point LMX-7 scale
developed by Scandura and Graen (1984) and assessed by
employees. The scale consists of seven items that charac-
terize the overall relationship quality between leaders and
members. A sample item is ‘‘I have enough confidence in
my leader that I would defend and justify his or her deci-
sions if he or she were not present to do so.’’ The alpha
coefficient was .95.
Positive Affect
Positive affect was measured with four items using the
PANAS scale from Watson et al. (1988). Employees rated
405
the extent to which they felt each item in connection with
their current work task. A sample item is ‘‘During the past
3 months, I have felt extremely happy.’’ The alpha coef-
ficient was .92.
Psychological Capital
We used the Psychological Capital Questionnaire (24 items
PCQ; Luthans et al. 2007), a state-like framing, to ask
employees to describe how they perceive themselves in
terms of four sub-dimensions, namely, efficacy (items
1–6), hope (items 7–12), resilience (items 13–18), and
optimism (items 19–24) in the workplace. Some sample
items are (a) efficacy, ‘‘I feel confident helping to set goals
in my work area.’’; (b) hope, ‘‘Right now I see myself as
being pretty successful at work.’’; (c) resilience, ‘‘I usually
take stressful things at work in stride.’’; and (d) optimism,
‘‘I always look on the bright side of things regarding my
job.’’ The overall alpha coefficient was .92 (the alpha
coefficients for the subscales of self-efficacy, hope, resi-
lience, and optimism were .91, .86, .77, and .70,
respectively).
Creative Performance
We asked leaders to individually evaluate the creative
performance of their employees using three items devel-
oped by Farmer et al. (2003). A sample item is ‘‘This
employee tries new ideas or methods first.’’ The alpha
coefficient was .90.
Taking Charge
Three items adopted from Morrison and Phelps (1999)
were used to measure leader assessments of employees’
taking charge. A sample item is ‘‘This employee tries to
bring about improved procedures in your workplace.’’ The
alpha coefficient was .89.
Tests for Nonindependence and Nonresponse Bias
The 248 employees reported to 40 leaders; hence, one
leader rated multiple employees. Such a data structure
raised the concern for nonindependence (Bliese 2000);
thus, we calculated intraclass correlation coefficients
(ICCs) for creative performance and taking charge to
address this concern. The values of ICC(1) and ICC(2) for
creative performance are .16 and .74 (F value = 3.87,
p \ .001) and for taking charge are .27 and .70
(F value = 3.33, p \ .001), respectively, indicating that a
significant portion of the variance in the ratings of
employee creative performance and taking charge could be
accounted for the rating effects by the differences among
123
406
leaders. Due to the lack of independence among the lead-
ers’ ratings, we used hierarchical linear modeling (Rau-
denbush and Bryk 2002) through the Mplus software
(version 7; Muthén and Muthén 1998–2010) for multilevel
confirmatory factor analysis and hypotheses testing.
In addition, to ensure that the team members from three
different points of time were not significantly different, we
conducted a series of nonresponse bias tests on demo-
graphical variables (e.g., gender, education, and age) and
model variables (e.g., LMX, positively affect, PsyCap,
creative performance, and taking charge). The results
showed that there were no significant differences among
three different time points.
Results
Confirmatory Factor Analyses
Traditionally, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) is adop-
ted to validate a prior hypothesized factor structure among
research variables. Unfortunately, CFA can result in an
incorrect conclusion about the factor structure when non-
independence is inherent in the data. Because the present
data in not free of nonindependence (i.e., creative perfor-
mance taking charge), we conducted a multilevel confir-
matory factor analysis (MCFA), as suggested by Muthén
(1994), to address this concern. We used Mplus to conduct
five models with both individual- and group-level con-
structs simultaneously at both levels. We constructed a
baseline model with five factors at level 1 and two factors at
level 2, loading separately. Additionally, we tested whether
alternative models (Models 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5) provided a
better fit to the data. Table 1 presents the MCFA results. As
shown, our two-level baseline model resulted in an excel-
lent fit (v2 = 439.11; df = 212; RMSEA = .06;
SRMRW = .05; SRMRB = .07; NNFI = .93; CFI = .94;
AIC = 8242.19). Alternative models (Models 1, 2, 3, 4, and
5) do not fit significantly better than the two-level baseline
model. Therefore, the MCFA testing results specify the
construct distinctiveness of LMX, positive affect, PsyCap,
creative performance, and taking charge, supporting the
discriminant validity of the measures studied.
Descriptive Analyses
Table 2 displays the results of the descriptive analyses,
showing means, standard deviations, and correlations
among the study variables, with coefficient alphas pre-
sented on the diagonal. The univariate correlations between
LMX and creative performance (r = .13, p \ .05) and
taking charge (r = .13, p \ .05) provided preliminary
evidence to support Hypotheses 1a and 1b, which state that
123
J Bus Psychol (2016) 31:399–414
LMX has positive relationships with creative performance
and taking charge, respectively.
Hypothesized Structural Model
To account for nonindependence as well as the multilevel
factor structure of creative performance and taking charge,
as mentioned previously in the sections of Tests for
Nonindependence and Nonresponse Bias and Confirmatory
Factor Analyses, we used hierarchical linear modeling
(Raudenbush and Bryk 2002) through the Mplus package
(version 7; Muthén and Muthén 1998–2010), which pro-
vides promising approaches to test our hypotheses. Mean-
while, following the analytic procedure of previous studies
in which dependent variables (e.g., employee job behaviors
and performance) are rated by one leader who simultane-
ously evaluates multiple members (e.g., Harris et al. 2007),
we also included the average of the leader’s evaluations of
all members’ creative performance and taking charge as the
level 2 control variables.
Hypothesis 2 predicted the broadening phase, in which
positive affect mediates the relationship between LMX and
PsyCap. Hypotheses 3a and 3b predicted the building
phases separately and that during these phases, PsyCap
mediates the relationship of positive affect with both cre-
ative performance and taking charge. Table 3 displays the
overall fit indices of the four competing models. Model 1,
our hypothesized model, represents a fully integrative
mediating model. We specified paths from LMX to positive
affect, from positive affect to PsyCap, and from PsyCap to
creative performance and taking charge. We tested three
alternative nested models against our hypothesized model.
Model 2 was identical to Model 1, yet with the addition of
two direct paths from LMX to creative performance and
from LMX to taking charge. Model 3 was also identical to
Model 1, but with the addition of a direct path from LMX
to PsyCap. Model 4 included two direct paths from positive
affect to both creative performance and taking charge. As
Table 3 shows, Model 3 has the largest CFI and TLI and
the smallest RMSEA, SRMR, AIC, and BIC index com-
pared with the other models, suggesting that Model 3 is
superior to the remaining models (Preacher et al. 2010).
Figure 2 shows the unstandardized parameter estimates
for each of the hypothesized paths from model 3. As shown
in Fig. 2, the relationship between the LMX and positive
affect was significantly positive (c = .24, p \ .001), and
the relationship between positive affect and PsyCap was
also significant (c = .22, p \ .001). Next, the positive
relationship between two employees’ change-oriented
behaviors and creative performance and taking charge, was
significantly associated with PsyCap (creative perfor-
mance: c = .28, p \ .05; taking charge: c = .25, p \ .05).
Additionally, the direct paths added from LMX to PsyCap
J Bus Psychol (2016) 31:399–414 407

Table 1 Multilevel Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Model Factors structure v2 df Dv2 (df) RMSEA SRMRW SRMRB NNFI CFI AIC

Baseline Level 1: 5 factors (LMX, PA, PC, 439.11 212 – .06 .05 .07 .93 .94 8242.19
model CP, and TC)
Level 2: 2 factors (CP and TC)
Model 1 Level 1: 4 factors (LMX, PA, PC, 533.35 217 94.24 (5)*** .07 .06 .23 .90 .92 8328.22
and CP ? TC)
Level 2: 1 factor (CP ? TC)
Model 2 Level 1: 4 factors (LMX, 678.98 216 239.87 (4)*** .09 .08 .08 .86 .88 8478.34
PA ? PC, CP, and TC)
Level 2: 2 factors (CP and TC)
Model 3 Level 1: 3 factors (LMX, 774.18 220 335.07 (8)*** .10 .08 .22 .83 .85 8566.72
PA ? PC, and CP ? TC)
Level 2: 1 factor (CP ? TC)
Model 4 Level 1: 2 factors 1488.69 222 1049.58 (10)*** .15 .14 .23 .63 .67 9305.72
(LMX ? PA ? PC, CP ? TC)
Level 2: 1 factor (CP ? TC)
Model 5 Level 1: 1 factor 2461.98 223 2022.87 (11)*** .20 .23 .22 .34 .42 10253.42
(LMX ? PA ? PC ? CP ? TC)
Level 2: 1 factor (CP ? TC)
*** p \ .001
CP creative performance, TC taking charge, PC PsyCap, PA positive affect

Table 2 Descriptive Statistics,

Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5
Correlations, and Reliabilitiesa
1. LMX 3.44 .86 (.95)
2. PA 3.19 .63 .31*** (.92)
3. PsyCap 3.39 .38 .33*** .46*** (.92)
4. Creative performance 3.46 .68 .13* .08 .11 (.90)
5. Taking charge 3.38 .63 .13* .09 .12 .74*** (.89)
a
n = 248. Coefficient alphas are presented along the diagonal in parentheses
* p \ .05; *** p \ .001

Table 3 Fit Index of the Research Modela

Path v2 df Dv2 (df) CFI TLI RMSEA SRMR AIC BIC
a
1. LMX ? PA ? PC ? CP ? TC 22.83 16 – .99 .98 .04 .05 951.28 1019.61
2. LMX ? PA ? PC ? CP ? TC and LMX ? CP ? TC 26.22 14 3.39 (2) .98 .97 .06 .05 955.63 1030.79
3. LMX ? PA ? PC ? CP ? TC and LMX ? PC 12.79 15 10.04 (1)*** .99 .99 .01 .03 946.84 1018.57
4. LMX ? PA ? PC ? CP ? TC and PA ? CP ? TC 23.19 14 .36 (2) .98 .97 .05 .04 953.39 1028.54
All the models controlling the paths from group means of CP and TC to CP and TC, respectively
*** p \ .001
a
Baseline model
LMX leader-member exchange, PA positive affect, PC PsyCap, CP creative performance, TC taking charge

were also significant (c = .06, p \ .05). In Table 4, we
showed the direct, indirect, and total effect on each model
path and computed the percentage between indirect and
total effect. Path 7 showed that the indirect effect from
LMX to PsyCap was .05 (p \ .05) and the percentage was
45 %; therefore, Hypothesis 2 is supported. In addition, the
result also suggested that there might be other mechanisms
between LMX and PsyCap. Paths 8 and 9 revealed the full
mediation relationships because the indirect effect was
equal to total effect. That is, the relationship between

123
408 J Bus Psychol (2016) 31:399–414

Average
Creative
.97***
performance
Creative
.06* performance

.28*

.24*** .22***

Positive
LMX PsyCap
affect

.25*

Taking
charge
Average
Taking charge .98***

Fig. 2 Path diagram. Note unstandardized coefficients are reported for significant effects. * p \ .05; *** p \ .001

positive affect and creative performance and taking charge
were fully mediated by PsyCap (indirect effects were .06,
p \ .05, for both mediating paths), which supports
Hypotheses 3a and 3b. The last two paths (i.e., Paths 10
and 11) showed that LMX influenced creative performance
and taking charge through positive affect and then through
PsyCap (both were .02, p \ .05), which supports
Hypotheses 4a and 4b. Additionally, Paths 10 and 11
provide further supporting evidence of Hypotheses 1a and
1b. Overall, the results support the proposed model.

Table 4 Direct, indirect, and total effects of LMX

Paths Direct effects and other unhypothesized effects Indirect effect Total effect Percentage (%)a

1. LMX ? PA .24*** – – –
2. PA ? PC .22*** – – –
3. PC ? CP .28* – – –
4. PC ? TC .25* – – –
5. Average CP ? CP .97*** – – –
6. Average TC ? TC .98*** – – –
7. LMX ? PA ? PC .06*b .05* (.025–.086) .11* 45
8. PA ? PC ? CP – .06* (.008–.125) .06* 100
9. PA ? PC ? TC – .06* (.002–.120) .06* 100
10. LMX ? PA ? PC ? CP .02 (-.001–.040)c .02* (.002–.032) .02* 100
11. LMX ? PA ? PC ? TC .02 (-.000–.038)d .02* (.000–.031) .02* 100
LMX leader-member exchange, PA positive affect, PC psychological capital, CP creative performance, TC taking charge
a
The indirect effect divided by total effect * p \ .05; *** p \ .001
b
LMX ? PC
c
LMX ? PC ? CP
d
LMX ? PA ? TC

123
J Bus Psychol (2016) 31:399–414
Discussion
Increasingly, researchers are recognizing the importance of
positive organizational behaviors in organizational settings.
However, to date, little attention has been given to affec-
tive and psychological aspects of employees as the critical
determinants in performing change-oriented behaviors.
Drawing on BBT, our study tested a structural model of
LMX and employee change-oriented behaviors through
broadening and building phases. We specified the indi-
vidual affective and psychological states broadened in the
short run and the development of psychological powers in
the long run as the important precedents of proactively
regulating and building creative performance and taking
charge. In doing so, we contribute to the proactive behavior
literature by answering the questions of why and how LMX
influences employees’ proactive behaviors. Furthermore,
by positioning the variables of interest proposed in our
broaden-and-build model, we have underscored the medi-
ating roles of positive affect in the broadening phase and of
PsyCap in the building phase.
Our results show that LMX is directly and positively
related to employees’ creative performance and taking
charge, respectively. Furthermore, the findings highlight
the broadening pathway through which LMX promotes
employees’ PsyCap via positive affect as well as the
building pathway through which positive affect drives
employees’ creative performance and taking charge via
PsyCap. Our findings demonstrate that employees who
perceive a high-quality social exchange relationship tend to
be strongly immersed in positive affective states because
those experiences help them broaden PsyCap. We also find
that employees with positive affect tend to be strongly
energized to engage in creative performance and taking
charge because of the PsyCap they build in organizational
settings.
Although the present research focuses on LMX as the
source of broadening employee PsyCap via positive affect,
our results also show that LMX has a direct effect on
employee PsyCap, indicating the possibility of other
mediators that were not included in the present study. To
discuss the connection between LMX and PsyCap, we
would like to suggest that, drawing on the logic of self-
concept based theory (Shamir et al. 1993), LMX heightens
employees’ self-concept (e.g., general self-efficacy, orga-
nization-based self-esteem), which drives PsyCap into a
form of resources that are invested and leveraged more
directly in shaping employees with the notions of ‘‘who you
are’’ and ‘‘who you are becoming’’ (Luthans et al. 2006).
Additionally, by having access to greater social capital
offered by leaders (Erdogan and Bauer, in press), high-
quality LMX may enhance employees’ PsyCap through
409
perceived organizational support (POS; Eisenberger
et al.1986) and perceived leader support (PSS; Eisenberger,
et al. 2002), both of which strengthen employees’ beliefs
about career success expectancy (optimism and hope; Yu
and Frenkel 2013). Furthermore, in terms of social cogni-
tive theory (Bandura 1989), LMX acts as the sociostructural
factor (Bandura 2001) and is exemplified by a pooling of
resources that enable employees to reach a greater level of
role breadth self-efficacy, which refers to ‘‘employees’
perceived capability of carrying out a broader and more
proactive set of work tasks that extend beyond prescribed
technical requirement’’ (Parker 1998, p. 835), and to build a
psychological resource reservoir, PsyCap.
Theoretical Implications
The present study offers four central implications for theory
and research on change-oriented behaviors. First, we extend
the literature on LMX by highlighting LMX as an important
social antecedent to resource accumulation for taking
charge. LMX reflects the actual leader-member relation-
ship, which provides a reference and context for triggering
employee positive affect (Tse et al. 2008) and filling Psy-
Cap reservoirs (Fredrickson 1998, 2001), which in turn,
further lead to employees’ change-oriented behaviors. In
other words, this study suggests that leaders who have high-
quality LMX relationships with their employees enhance
their employees’ positive affect and PsyCap. Together these
activities lead to change-oriented behaviors.
Second, this study offers a fresh look with a unique
perspective on the mechanism between LMX and change-
oriented behaviors, in which the broadening and building
effects are critical and meaningful. By incorporating LMX
theoretical perspectives, this study elucidates a more
complete look at BBT, which implies the positive value of
LMX in terms of triggering employees’ affective appraisal
patterns, encouraging them to draw on inner resources; the
broadening phase articulates how an employee gains the
positive affect to increase individual PsyCap. Additionally,
by incorporating positive psychology, the building phase
depicts how a durable psychological resource reservoir
manifests these vitalities into the actualizations of creative
performance and taking charge. Taken separately, broad-
ening and building mechanisms only provide partial
mediators. Taken together, these two mechanisms could
allow for full mediation.
Third, this study represents an attempt at integrating
affective experiences and psychological capacities to study
employee change-oriented behaviors and offers important
implications for theoretical development. Affective expe-
riences emphasize the value of positive affect in the
accumulation of psychological resources. Psychological
123
410
capacities highlight the value of psychological resources in
energizing individuals to perform creatively and to take
charge. This study not only empirically demonstrates the
distinctiveness of broadening and building mechanisms but
also provides insight into why and how LMX influences the
change-oriented behavior employees form about whose
positive affect and psychological resources are served.
Using multiple variables as the hypothesized framework,
the findings support our hypotheses and closely fit the
broadening and building phases of BBT.
Particularly, we found that positive affect enhances
creative performance and taking charge completely
through PsyCap. This implies that positive affect, by itself,
may not necessarily benefit creative performance and tak-
ing charge. This finding corresponds with the other inves-
tigations into the precise mechanism between positive
affect and proactive behaviors (Parker et al. 2010). It may
be more effective in facilitating employee change-oriented
behaviors by developing psychological resources through
which employees exert their engagement in creative
endeavors and initiative in taking charge. This study not
only unfolds an important psychological resource mecha-
nism for the effect of positive affect but also reveals a
theoretical implication that the positive affect perspective
is worth being extended to explicitly incorporate the psy-
chological resource aspect of its effect.
Practical Implications
In addition to its central contributions to the proactive
behavior literature, several practical implications also
extend knowledge about the broadening-and-building
model in three ways. First, employees who perceive their
dyadic relationships with leaders positively are willing to
engage in organizationally desirable change-oriented
behaviors. Leaders seeking increased change-oriented
behaviors among employees must put out a call to ensure
that their employees will contribute to maximizing orga-
nizational effectiveness. One promising pathway is to
improve the quality of the exchange relationship between
leaders and employees and to consistently maintain ways to
comply with employees’ relational schema (Huang et al.
2008). Thus, we recommend applying practical exercises,
which are also necessary to enhance the transformational
leadership behaviors of leaders (Wang et al. 2005), espe-
cially for those organizations and leaders seeking to
increase employees’ change-oriented behaviors.
Second, interventions to promote positive affect are
necessary because employees rely on their affective states
to evaluate their own task-performance abilities (Salanova
et al. 2011). Our study identifies the importance of
employee positive affect and simultaneously confirms the
important role of positive affect in broadening a valuable
123
J Bus Psychol (2016) 31:399–414
psychological resource of employees as well as in building
change-oriented behaviors. Thus, we urge leaders to clo-
sely attend to their employees’ level of positive affect by
providing both tangible and intangible social supports to
increase employees’ perception of high-quality social
exchanges, thereby broadening employees’ positive affect.
We argue that abundant positive affect helps employees
engage in meaningful reciprocations with their leaders,
while also leading them to feel confident in developing
valuable psychological resources.
Additionally, this study would suggest that leaders
should recognize the levels of employees’ PsyCap (Luthans
et al. 2014), which may play an important role in lever-
aging change-oriented behaviors that can contribute to
organizational performance. According to prior research,
hope (e.g., Rego et al. 2009), self-efficacy (e.g., Tierney
and Farmer 2002), resilience (e.g., Sweetman et al. 2011),
and optimism (e.g., Rego et al. 2012) are all related to
creative performance. Still, our study has tested a novel
predictor, PsyCap, as a core construct of taking charge.
Thus, we recommend that leaders consider the develop-
ment of employee PsyCap as potential human resource
selection and training strategies (Shin et al. 2012).
Overall, our findings suggest that leaders can enhance
employee change-oriented behaviors by directly influenc-
ing two mediators: positive affect and PsyCap. Leaders
may consider developing high-quality relationships with
employees that directly increase positive affect by training
employees to manage individual positive affect and, sub-
sequently, their psychological reactions in building a dur-
able PsyCap reservoir. Moreover, leaders are encouraged to
monitor how well employees are able to exercise their
positive affect and PsyCap in advance of the change-ori-
ented behaviors enhancement.
Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research
This study has limitations that should be considered. First,
drawing upon BBT, the variables of interest proposed in our
framework represent the major processes by which the
initial variable, LMX, influences employees’ positive
affect, which is created and translated into PsyCap and
further utilized to engage in change-oriented behaviors.
However, we believe that other facets of organizational
functioning may certainly impact LMX-change-oriented
behavior relationships. Second, we did not collect repeated
measures to better reveal the proposed change-oriented
behavior process. Although we did not have a longitudinal
research design, our study has adopted a time-lagged design
(i.e., three waves of data collection) and two sources (i.e.,
employees and leaders) to test the cross-lagged effects,
which is more rigorous than research on change-oriented
behaviors at work using cross-sectional approaches.
J Bus Psychol (2016) 31:399–414
Third, there are many studies disentangling change-
oriented behaviors with a dispositional perspective, such as
proactive personality. For example, several empirical
studies have established relationships between proactive
personality and individual job performance (e.g., Zhang
et al. 2012), career and job satisfaction (e.g., Erdogan and
Bauer 2005), and OCB (e.g., Li et al. 2010), just to name a
few. In Fuller and Marler’s (2009) meta-analysis study,
proactive personality is positively related to LMX, showing
that proactive personality seems to be the distal predictor of
change-oriented behaviors in our study.
Fourth, we would like to suggest proactive personality
as a potential moderator in our model. Indirect empirical
evidence depicts proactive personality as a moderator in
strengthening or weakening the relationship between LMX
and employee attitudes and behaviors (e.g., Li et al. 2013),
implying the potential moderating role of proactive per-
sonality in the linkage of LMX and change-oriented
behaviors. However, we did not collect information on
proactive personality in our data. Still, proactive person-
ality is worth taking into consideration in future studies as
the exogenous variable of both positive affect and PsyCap.
Fifth, as mentioned earlier, there are some other possible
mechanisms that could account for the role of LMX in
shaping employees’ PsyCap beyond the mediating effect of
positive affect. We believe that it would be valuable for
future research to assess the understudied yet promising
mediators of POS, PSS, organization-based self-esteem, or
role breadth self-efficacy in refining our understanding of
how LXM shapes employees’ PsyCap.
Finally, our results show a high correlation between
creative performance and taking charge (c = .74, p \ .05),
which raises a concern regarding the discriminant validity
in treating these two variables differently. In our study, we
conducted confirmatory factor analysis to establish dis-
criminant validity, and the findings provide rigorous sup-
port for the discriminant validity of our constructs. Despite
creative performance differing from taking charge both
conceptually and statistically, these variables are likely to
yield similar patterns because they are influenced by the
same broadening and building processes. Future research
could help address this issue and explore different types of
proactive behaviors (McAllister et al. 2007), such as
challenging behaviors (e.g., voice) or affiliative behaviors
(e.g., helping;) in seeking out further applications of BBT
in proactive behavior literature.
Conclusion
Our study provides noteworthy insights by introducing
BBT with broadening and building phases into proactive
behavior literature. We do so by theorizing and providing
411
empirical evidence of the link between LMX and change-
oriented behaviors. To conclude, this study responds to
previous research (Grant and Ashford 2008; Parker et al.
2010) by not only focusing on relational concepts of LMX
and change-oriented behaviors but also reexamining the
embedded effects of positive affect and PsyCap to improve
our understanding of change-oriented behaviors at work
and to suggest that these two mechanisms are significant in
linking LMX and employee creative performance and
taking charge.
Note
1. We would like to distinguish OCB from creative per-
formance and taking charge because even though they
are proactive behaviors, they have different intentions
and purposes. In Van Dyne and her colleagues’ work
(Van Dyne et al. 1995; Van Dyne and LePine 1998),
OCBs were recognized as (1) affiliation-oriented
behaviors (e.g., altruism and courtesy, Organ 1988;
helping and cooperating with others, Podsakoff and
MacKenzie 1994; interpersonal facilitation, Van
Scotter and Motowidlo 1996), which tend to maintain
or enhance relationships; and (2) challenge-oriented
behaviors (e.g., voice, LePine and Van Dyne 2001;
whistle blowing, Near and Miceli 1987; principled
organizational dissent, Graham 1986) that are engaged
into criticize/change the status quo, with the possible
risk of worsening relationships with others. In our
study, creative performance sets in after an employee
works to implement novel and useful ideas aligned
with new and emerging opportunities (Parker and
Collins 2010), while taking charge comes to light when
an employee pursues work architectures, practices, and
procedures as effectively as possible (Morrison and
Phelps 1999; Parker and Collins 2010). These two
change-oriented behaviors seek to ignite positive
changes within the organizations (Parker and Collins
2010), enacted by employees with a proactive sense as
to challenge the status quo in organization functions.
References
Amabile, T. M. (1998). How to kill creativity. Harvard Business
Review, 76, 77–87.
Amabile, T. M., Barsade, S. G., Mueller, J. S., & Staw, B. M. (2005).
Affect and creativity at work. Administrative Science Quarterly,
50, 367–403.
Anderson, N., Potocnik, K., & Zhou, J. (2014). Innovation and
creativity in organizations: A state-of-the-science review,
prospective commentary, and guiding framework. Journal of
Management, 40, 1297–1333. doi:10.1177/0149206314527128.
123
412
Atwater, L., & Carmeli, A. (2009). Leader-member exchange,
feelings of energy, and involvement in creative work. The
Leadership Quarterly, 20, 264–275. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.
07.009.
Avey, J. B. (2014). The left side of psychological capital: New
evidence on the antecedents of PsyCap. Journal of Leadership &
Organizational Studies, 21, 141–149. doi:10.1177/
1548051813515516.
Avey, J. B., Luthans, F., & Jensen, S. M. (2009). Psychological
capital: A positive resource for combating employee stress and
turnover. Human Resource Management, 48, 677–693. doi:10.
1002/hrm.20294.
Avey, J. B., Luthans, F., Smith, R. M., & Palmer, N. F. (2010a).
Impact of positive psychological capital on employee well-being
over time. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 15,
17–28. doi:10.1037/a0016998.
Avey, J. B., Luthans, F., & Youssef, C. M. (2010b). The additive
value of positive psychological capital in predicting work
attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Management, 36, 430–452.
doi:10.1177/0149206308329961.
Avey, J. B., Wernsing, T. S., & Luthans, F. (2008). Can positive
employees help positive organization change? Impact of psy-
chological capital and emotions on relevant attitudes and
behaviors. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 44, 48–70.
doi:10.1177/0021886307311470.
Avolio, B. J., & Luthans, F. (2006). The high impact leader: Moments
matter for accelerating authentic leadership development. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Baas, M., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Nijstad, B. A. (2008). A meta-
analysis of 25 years of mood-creativity research: Hedonic tone,
activation, or regulatory focus? Psychological Bulletin, 134,
779–806. doi:10.1037/a0012815.
Bandura, A. (1989). Self-regulation of motivation and action through
internal standards and goal systems. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Goal
concepts in personality and social psychology (pp. 19–85).
Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective.
In S. T. Fiske (Ed.), Annual review of psychology (Vol. 52,
pp. 1–26). Palo Alto: Annual Reviews Inc.
Belschak, F. D., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2010). Pro-self, pro-social, and
pro-organizational foci of proactive behavior: Differential
antecedents and consequences. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 83, 475–498. doi:10.1348/
096317909X439208.
Bindl, U. K., & Parker, S. K. (2010). Proactive work behavior:
Forward-thinking and change-oriented action in organizations.
In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organiza-
tional psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 567–598). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and
reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analyses. In K.
J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory,
research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, exten-
sions, and new directions (pp. 349–381). San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1, 185–216. doi:10.1177/
135910457000100301.
Chiaburu, D. S., & Baker, V. L. (2006). Extra-role behaviors
challenging the status quo: Validity and antecedents of taking
charge behaviors. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21,
620–637. doi:10.1108/02683940610690178.
Duarte, N. T., Goodson, J. R., & Klich, N. R. (1994). Effects of
dyadic quality and duration on performance appraisal. Academy
of Management Journal, 37, 499–521. doi:10.2307/256698.
123
J Bus Psychol (2016) 31:399–414
Dutton, J. E. (2003). Energize your workplace: How to build and
sustain high-quality relationships at work. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchinson, S., & Sowa, D. (1986).
Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 71, 500–507.
Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I., &
Rhoades, L. (2002). Perceived supervisor support: Contributions
to perceived organizational support and employee retention.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 565–573. doi:10.1037//0021-
9010.87.3.565.
Erdogan, B., & Bauer, T. N. (2005). Enhancing career benefits of
employee proactive personality: The role of fit with jobs and
organizations. Personnel Psychology, 58, 859–891. doi:10.1111/
j.1744-6570.2005.00772.x.
Erdogan, B., & Bauer, T. N. (in press). Leader-member exchange
(LMX) theory: The relational approach to leadership. In D. Day
(Ed.). Oxford handbook of leadership and organizations.
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Farmer, S. M., Tierney, P., & Kung-McIntyre, K. (2003). Employee
creativity in Taiwan: An application of role identity theory.
Academy of Management Journal, 46, 618–630. doi:10.2307/
30040653.
Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What good are positive emotions? Review
of General Psychology, 2, 300–319. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.2.3.
300.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2000). Cultivating positive emotions to optimize
health and well-being. Prevention & Treatment, 3, Article
0001a. Retrieved from http://journals.apa.org/prevention.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive
psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotion.
American Psychologist, 56, 218–226. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.
56.3.218.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2003). The value of positive emotions. American
Scientist, 91, 330–335.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2004). The broaden-and-build theory of positive
emotions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of
London Series B-Biological Sciences, 359, 1367–1377. doi:10.
1098/rstb.2004.1512.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2013). Positive emotions broaden and build. In P.
Devine & A. Plant (Eds.), Advances in experimental social
psychology (Vol. 47, pp. 1–54). San Diego: Academic Press.
Fredrickson, B. L., & Branigan, C. (2001). Positive emotions. In T.
J. Mayne & G. A. Bonnano (Eds.), Emotion: Current issues and
future directions (pp. 123–151). New York: Guilford Press.
Fredrickson, B. L., Cohn, M. A., Coffey, K., Pek, J., & Finkel, S. M.
(2008). Open hearts build lives: Positive emotions, induced
through meditation, build consequential personal resources.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1045–1062.
doi:10.1037/a0013262.
Fredrickson, B. L., & Losada, M. F. (2005). Positive affect and the
complex dynamics of human flourishing. American Psycholo-
gist, 60, 678–686. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.60.7.678.
Fritz, C., & Sonnentag, S. (2009). Antecedents of day-level proactive
behavior: A look at job stressors and positive affect during the
workday. Journal of Management, 35, 95–111. doi:10.1177/
0149206307308911.
Fuller, J. B., & Marler, L. E. (2009). Change driven by nature: A
meta-analytic review of the proactive personality literature.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 75, 329–345. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.
2009.05.008.
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to
leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX)
theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-
domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219–247.
J Bus Psychol (2016) 31:399–414
Graham, J. W. (1986). Principled organizational dissent: A theoretical
essay. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in
organizational behavior (Vol. 8, pp. 1–52). Greenwich: JAI
Press.
Grant, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at
work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 3–34. doi:10.
1016/j.riob.2008.04.002.
Harris, K. J., Kacmar, K. M., Zivnuska, S., & Shaw, J. D. (2007). The
impact of political skill on impression management effective-
ness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 278–285.
Hirst, G., Van Knippenberg, D., & Zhou, J. (2009). A cross level
perspective on employee creativity: Goal orientation, team learning
behavior, and individual creativity. Academy of Management
Journal, 52, 280–293. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2009.37308035.
Huang, X., Wright, R. P., Chiu, W. C., & Wang, C. (2008). Relational
schemas as sources of evaluation and misevaluation of leader-
member exchanges: Some initial evidence. The Leadership
Quarterly, 19, 266–282. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.03.003.
Isen, A. M. (2000). Positive affect and decision making. In M. Lewis
& J. Haviland-Jones (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (Vol. 2,
pp. 417–435). New York: Guilford Press.
Isen, A. M., & Daubman, K. A. (1984). The influence of affect on
categorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
47, 1206–1217. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.47.6.1206.
Isen, A. M., Daubman, K. A., & Nowicki, G. P. (1987). Positive affect
facilitates creative problem solving. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 52, 1122–1131. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.52.6.
1122.
Isen, A. M., Johnson, M. M. S., Mertz, E., & Robinson, G. F. (1985).
The influence of positive affect on the unusualness of word
associations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48,
1413–1426.
Isen, A. M., & Means, B. (1983). The influence of positive affect on
decision-making strategy. Social Cognition, 2, 18–31. doi:10.
1521/soco.1983.2.1.18.
Isen, A. M., Rosenzweig, A. S., & Young, M. J. (1991). The influence
of positive affect on clinical problem solving. Medical Decision
Making, 11, 221–227. doi:10.1177/0272989X9101100313.
Janssen, O., & Van Yperen, N. W. (2004). Employees’ goal
orientations, the quality of leader-member exchange, and the
outcomes of job performance and job satisfaction. Academy of
Management Journal, 47, 368–384. doi:10.2307/20159587.
Judge, T. A., Jackson, C. L., Shaw, J. C., Scott, B. A., & Rich, B. L.
(2007). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: The integral
role of individual differences. Journal of Applied Psychology,
92, 107–127. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.107.
Kahn, B., & Isen, A. M. (1993). The influence of positive affect on
variety-seeking among safe, enjoyable products. Journal of
Consumer Research, 20, 257–270. doi:10.1086/209347.
Law, K. S., Wang, H., & Hui, C. (2010). Currencies of exchange and
global LMX: How they affect employee task performance and
extra-role performance. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 27,
625–646. doi:10.1007/s10490-009-9141-8.
LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (2001). Voice and cooperative
behavior as contrasting forms of contextual performance:
Evidence of differential relationships with big five personality
characteristics and cognitive ability. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 86, 326–336. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.86.2.326.
Li, N., Chiaburu, D. S., Kirkman, B. L., & Xie, Z. T. (2013). Spotlight
on the followers: Neutralizing the effect of transformational
leadership on subordinates’ citizenship and taking charge.
Personnel Psychology, 66, 225–260. doi:10.1111/peps.12014.
Li, N., Liang, J., & Crant, J. M. (2010). The role of proactive
personality in job satisfaction and organizational citizenship
behavior: A relational perspective. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 95, 395–404. doi:10.1037/a0018079.
413
Liao, H., Liu, D., & Loi, R. (2010). Looking at both sides of the social
exchange coin: A social cognitive perspective on the joint effects
of relationship quality and differentiation on creativity. Academy
of Management Journal, 53, 1090–1109. doi:10.5465/AMJ.
2010.54533207.
Luthans, F., Avey, J. B., Avolio, B. J., Norman, S. M., & Combs, G. J.
(2006). Psychological capital development: Toward a micro-
intervention. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 387–393.
doi:10.1002/job.373.
Luthans, F., Avolio, B. J., Avey, J. B., & Norman, S. M. (2007).
Positive psychological capital: Measurement and relationship
with performance and satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 60,
541–572. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00083.x.
Luthans, B. C., Luthans, K. W., & Avey, J. B. (2014). Building the
leaders of tomorrow: The development of academic psycholog-
ical capital. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 21,
191–199. doi:10.1177/1548051813517003.
Luthans, F., Norman, S. M., Avolio, B. J., & Avey, J. B. (2008). The
mediating role of psychological capital in the supportive
organizational climate—employee performance relationship.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 219–238. doi:10.1002/
job.507.
Luthans, F., & Youssef, C. M. (2007). Emerging positive organiza-
tional behavior. Journal of Management, 33, 321–349. doi:10.
1177/0149206307300814.
Madjar, N., Oldham, G. R., & Pratt, M. G. (2002). There’s no place
like home? The contributions of work and non-work creativity
support to employee’s creative performance. Academy of
Management Journal, 45, 757–767. doi:10.2307/3069309.
McAllister, D. J., Kamdar, D., Morrison, E. W., & Turban, D. B.
(2007). Disentangling role perceptions: How perceived role
breadth, discretion, instrumentality and efficacy relate to helping
and taking charge. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92,
1200–1211. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1200.
Memili, E., Welsh, D. H. B., & Kaciak, E. (2014). Organizational
psychological capital of family franchise firms through the lens of the
leader-member exchange theory. Journal of Leadership & Organi-
zational Studies, 21, 200–209. doi:10.1177/1548051813515513.
Miner, A. G., & Glomb, T. M. (2010). State mood, task performance,
and behavior at work: A within-persons approach. Organiza-
tional Behavior and Human Decisions Processes, 112, 43–57.
doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.11.009.
Morrison, E. W., & Phelps, C. C. (1999). Taking charge at work:
Extrarole efforts to initiate workplace change. Academy of
Management Journal, 42, 403–419. doi:10.2307/257011.
Near, J. P., & Miceli, M. P. (1987). Whistle-blowers in organizations:
Dissidents or reformers? Organizational Behavior, 9, 321–368.
Ohly, S., Sonnentag, S., & Pluntke, F. (2006). Routinization, work
characteristics, and their relationships with creative and proac-
tive behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27,
257–279. doi:10.1002/job.376.
Olsson, L., Hemlin, S., & Pousette, A. (2012). A multi-level analysis
of leader-member exchange and creative performance in
research groups. The Leadership Quarterly, 23, 604–619.
doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.12.011.
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behaviour: The good
soldier syndrome. Lexington: Lexington Books.
Parker, S. K. (1998). Enhancing role breadth self-efficacy: The roles
of job enrichment and other organizational interventions.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 835–852.
Parker, S. K., Bindl, U. K., & Strauss, K. (2010). Making things
happen: A model of proactive motivation. Journal of Manage-
ment, 36, 827–856. doi:10.1177/0149206310363732.
Parker, S. K., & Collins, C. G. (2010). Taking stock: Integrating and
differentiating multiple proactive behaviors. Journal of Man-
agement, 36, 633–662. doi:10.1177/0149206308321554.
123
414
Parker, S. K., Williams, H. M., & Turner, N. (2006). Modeling the
antecedents of proactive behavior at work. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 91, 636–652. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.636.
Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1994). Organizational
citizenship behaviors and sales unit effectiveness. Journal of
Marketing Research, 3, 351–363.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P.
(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A
critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903. doi:10.1037/0021-
9010.88.5.879.
Preacher, K. J., Zyphur, M. J., & Zhang, Z. (2010). A general
multilevel SEM framework for assessing multilevel mediation.
Psychological Methods, 15, 209–233. doi:10.1037/a0020141.
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear
models: Applications and data analysis methods. Newbury Park:
Sage.
Rego, A., Machado, F., Leal, S., & Cunha, M. P. E. (2009). Are
hopeful employees more creative? An empirical study. Creativ-
ity Research Journal, 21, 223–231. doi:10.1080/10400410902
858733.
Rego, A., Sousa, F., Marques, C., & Cunha, M. P. (2012). Optimism
predicting employees’ creativity: The mediating role of positive
affect and the positivity ratio. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 21, 244–270. doi:10.1080/
1359432X.2010.550679.
Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing
approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 23, 224–253.
Salanova, M., Llorens, S., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2011). Yes, I can, I
feel good, and I just do it! On gain cycles and spirals of efficacy
beliefs, affect, and engagement. Applied Psychology, 60,
255–285. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2010.00435.x.
Scandura, T. A., & Graen, G. (1984). Moderating effects of initial
leader-member exchange status on the effects of a leadership
intervention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 579–584.
Sekiguchi, T. (2010). Career development of Japanese college
students through part-time work: The role of leader-member
exchange and taking charge behavior. Retrieved from http://
www2.econ.osaka-u.ac.jp/library/global/dp/1010.pdf.
Shalley, C. E., & Gilson, L. L. (2004). What leaders need to know: A
review of social and contextual factors that can foster or hinder
creativity. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 33–53. doi:10.1016/j.
leaqua.2003.12.004.
Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational
effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory.
Organization Science, 4, 577–594.
Shin, J., Taylor, M. S., & Seo, M. G. (2012). Resources for change:
The relationships of organizational inducements and psycholog-
ical resilience to employees’ attitudes and behaviors toward
organizational change. Academy of Management Journal, 55,
727–748. doi:10.5465/amj.2010.0325.
Snyder, C. R. (2002). Hope theory: Rainbows in the mind. Psycho-
logical Inquiry, 13, 249–275. doi:10.1207/S15327965PLI1304_
01.
Sweetman, D., Luthans, F., Avey, J. B., & Luthans, B. C. (2011).
Relationship between positive psychological capital and creative
performance. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 28,
4–13. doi:10.1002/cjas.175.
Thomas, J. P., Whitman, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (2010). Employee
proactivity in organizations: A comparative meta-analysis of
123
J Bus Psychol (2016) 31:399–414
emergent proactive constructs. Journal Occupational and Orga-
nizational Psychology, 83, 275–300. doi:10.1348/096317910
X502359.
Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2002). Creative self-efficacy: Its
potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance.
Academy of Management Journal, 45, 1137–1148. doi:10.2307/
3069429.
Tse, H. M., Dasborough, M., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2008). A
multilevel analysis of team climate and interpersonal exchange
relationships at work. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 195–211.
doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.01.005.
Vacharkulksemsuk, T., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2012). Strangers in
sync: Achieving embodied rapport through shared movements.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 399–402.
doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2011.07.015.
Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L. L., & McLean-Parks, J. (1995). Extra
role behaviors: In pursuit of construct and definitional clarity (a
bridge over muddied waters). In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw
(Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 17,
pp. 215–285). Greenwich: JAI Press.
Van Dyne, L., Kamdar, D., & Joireman, J. (2008). In-role perceptions
buffer the negative impact of low LMX on helping and enhance
the positive impact of high LMX on voice. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 93, 1195–1207. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.6.1195.
Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role
behaviors: Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy
of Management Journal, 41, 108–119. doi:10.2307/256902.
Van Scotter, J. R., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1996). Interpersonal
facilitation and job dedication as separate facets of contextual
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 525–531.
Volmer, J., Spurk, D., & Niessen, C. (2012). Leader-member
exchange (LMX), job autonomy, and creative work involvement.
The Leadership Quarterly, 23, 456–465. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.
2011.10.005.
Wang, H., Law, K. S., Hackett, R. D., Wang, D., & Chen, Z. X.
(2005). Leader-member exchange as a mediator of the relation-
ship between transformational leadership and followers’ perfor-
mance and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of
Management Journal, 48, 420–432. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2005.
17407908.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and
validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The
PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
54, 1063–1070. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063.
Muthén, L. K. & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2010). Mplus user’s guide (6th
edn.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén
Yrle, A. C., Hartman, S. J., & Galle, W. P. (2002). An investigation of
relationship between communication style and leader-member
exchange. Journal of Communication Management, 6, 257–269.
Yu, C., & Frenkel, S. J. (2013). Explaining task performance and
creativity from perceived organizational support theory: Which
mechanisms are more important? Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 34, 1165–1181. doi:10.1002/job.1844.
Zhang, Z., Wang, M., & Shi, J. (2012). Leader-follower congruence
in proactive personality and work outcomes: The mediating role
of leader-member exchange. Academy of Management Journal,
55, 111–130. doi:10.5465/amj.2009.0865.
Journal of Business & Psychology is a copyright of Springer, 2016. All Rights Reserved.