International Journal of Economics, Commerce and Management Research Studies

Volume 1, Issue 4, November - 2018

Impact of Creative Personality, Domain Expertise on

Employee Creativity with Moderating Role of LMX
Quality
Muhammad Saqib Khan
M.Phil. (Finance): International Islamic University Islamabad Pakistan
M.com (Accounting and finance): University of Azad Jammu O Kashmir
Master of Education: University of Sargodha
Bachelor of education, Bachelor of commerce

Hussain Ali
M.Phil. (Finance) International Islamic University Islamabad Pakistan
BS (Accounting and finance) University of Azad Jammu O Kashmir

Abdul Munnan Waheed

M.Phil. (Finance) International Islamic University Islamabad Pakistan
BS (Accounting and finance) University of Azad Jammu O Kashmir

Muhammad Talha Khan

M.Phil. (Finance) International Islamic University Islamabad Pakistan
BS (Accounting and finance) University of Azad Jammu O Kashmir

Syed Khuram Abbas

M.Phil.: (Management) International Islamic University Islamabad Pakistan

Abstract:- The purpose of this study is to analyze the I. INTRODUCTION

association among creative leadership, domain expertise
on employee creativity. It also analyzes cross level
interactions between LMX qualities in organizational
perspective persuading employee creativity. Ordinary least
square (OLS) regression modeling used to test the
hypothesis using 200 employees and 85 supervisors in
organization. In this research we found domain expertise
and LMX quality has positively impact on employee
creativity. Also we found a positive moderating role of
LMX quality in defining the correlation between domain
expertise and employee creativity. Furthermore, it is found
their no significant impact on creative personality and
employee creativity. This research has to explore the
major gap in the context of employee creativity. It has
wide field and understanding different backgrounds about
creativity, domain expertise and LMX quality as
persuasive factor. In addition domain expertise has
positive impact on employee creativity when LMX is high.
Furthermore, this study analyzed an encouraging
awareness in considerate the contribution of
organizational learning philosophy as in employee
creativity.
Keywords:- Creative leadership, domain expertise, employee
creativity and LMX quality.
The basic principle of LMX theory suggest very high
quality relation between leader and follower and fundamental
characterized by to have in , constancy for every one (Morrow
et al., 2005)1. Prior researcher proves that high quality
exchange relationship has significant impact on behavioral
outcome, like commitment with organizational incoming
intention and employee creative and performance behavior .
When leader give to employee sense of self-rule or any
objective oriented task interpersonal support task of
supervision in term of organizational commitment creativity
(Volmer et al., 2012)2.LMX quality plays very important role
in the performance of individual performance and manager as
well can affect the performance of employee (Gerstner &
Day, 1997).3
Leader plays very much chief role in providing
environment and philosophy for work that inspire or depress
the creativity (Shalley et al., 2004).4 Great leader have a very
strong objective boost up and create the sense in order to
commented with organization without any promising inner or
outer incentive. Horth and Buchner (2009)5 compete that
innovative leader is that who encourage the employee to be
engaged with work with honestly and creative process by
showing esteem and expectation in their work, valuable
involvement paying them for their creative outcomes.

IJECMRS18NOV002 www.ijecmrs.com 1
 International Journal of Economics, Commerce and Management Research Studies
Componential theory of creativity Amabile’s (1988)6 we
suggest domain expertise, creative personality ,LMX(leader
member quality) as individual and or contextual antecedent
and analyze the main impact on employee creativity. The
basic objective of present study was to analyze the moderator
role of LMX (Leader member exchange) the relationship
between creative personalities, Domain expertise on employee
creativity. In order to understand the creativity at deeper level
researchers have paid deep attention and conduct various
studies (Shalley et al., 2004)7.
Intellectual Property Organization Global in 2012
announce in order to present the ranking index of nearly 200
creative countries and territories worldwide (INSEAD,
2012)8. This research is based on 84 creativity dimensions in
different prospective such as human resource capacity,
innovation of product, relation of knowledge about product
and advance technology and different business.
Asian Development Bank present a report In 2014 about
standard evaluation of creative performance of employee
called creative index in different Asian countries ( Zaitouni,.,
& Ouakouak,. (2018).9Here are great empirical studies have
been supporting relationship between employee creativity (
Amabile et al., 1996)10. but people tend to be reactive which
further explains its low performance with respect to creativity.
We further elaborate personal attribute such as contextual
factor within the organization significantly impact on
employee creativity. Zaitouni, M., & Ouakouak, M. L.
(2018)11.A creative and open minded leader and its thinking
towards new scenario and playing with ideas may be
transferred to his or her work climate. Possibly, creative and
open leaders also demonstrate honesty toward others’ concepts
and recommendations and in this way nurture an atmosphere
where enhancement ideas are welcomed.
Here are many factor related to personality such as
broad-mindedness, haziness, self-confidence (Feist, 1999)12.
effectiveness (Tierney andFarmer,2002)13. have been found
all are related to creativity. In recently, in order to promote the
concept of creativity many scholars have focused on the
organizational perspective (Zhou and George, 2003).14 The
main gap is that research has mostly examine major impact of
focusing solely on the basis of individual or contextual factors
but it is the negligence of researchers joint effect of these
factor on employee creativity (Hirst et al., 2009).15Recently
the non-controlling supervision and organizational learning
culture have been used as moderator with employee creativity
and Domain expertise, creative personality (Shinhee Jeong et
al., 2017)16.However, amazingly, these antecedents rarely
analyzed by empirical research in research and development
context. (ShalleyandGilson,200)17.
Number of researcher states that qualifying idea of
creativity convergence of numerous component or variable
transversely the level is very needed for creativity research.
High attentions cross moderation impact only a few
IJECMRS18NOV002 www.ijecmrs.com
Volume 1, Issue 4, November - 2018
experimental research have analyzed the person environment
interactions.
II. LITERATURE REVIEW AND RESEARCH
HYPOTHESIS
A. Main effect of LMX quality
Leader member exchange theory has progressed few
years as important and major approaches for researching
hypothesize relation between leadership and outcome of
organization (Gerstner & Day, 1997)18. Assistant that have
relationship of high quality able to receive high level of
resources, confidence emotional supports from their boss
(Uhl-Bien, Graen, & Scandura, 2000)19.
Stream of research analyzed the element that define how
a firm can develop its performance (Paauwe et al., 2013:Den
Hartog et al., 2013)20,21. Perception of clear goals enhance
the awareness of employee in required outcome prospective
and direct their attention to finding creative solution to achieve
those goals (Wu et al., 2012).22Within the organization
employees are more creative they are expected to gain the
performance and goals. When the employees are in confident
that if we will creative, this will boost up our performance, the
predictable performance results are optimistic (Yuan and
Woodman, 2010).23 It is found that leader support for ideas
was positively impact on employee creativity .In higher-
quality exchanges, together managers and subordinates
appreciate rewards. (Jawahar & Carr, 2007).24.
H1: LMX quality is positively impact on employee creativity.
B. Main effect of Domain expertise
The concept of domain expertise explained to wide
understanding, involvement and problem-solving skills in a
required zone (Germain and Tejeda, 201)25. (Tierney and
farmer (2002)26. creative self-efficacy have positive impact
on creative performance. Employees are wont to show upper
levels of problem-solving and creative process arrangement
when they have advanced stages of creative self-efficacy
(Tierney and Farmer, 2011).26 The incremental formation of
skill which symbolized employee learning direction is
malleable. More ever they resolve effectively and efficiently
conflicts confrontation from co-workers that may co-occur
with modernizations. How over many studies analyzed the
relationship among these construct in different work setting
(Germain and Tejeda, 2012).27
H2: A domain expertise is positively on employee creativity.
C. Main effect of creative personality
The person who has creative personality they have great
confidence of sense of self as creative .revealed that active
personality expected employee creativity(.Dul and Ceylan
2011)28.predicted that there is a positive relationship between
creative personality and creative performance. Probably,
creative leaders have a predominantly positive outcome on
administrative creativity by encouraging creative work
climates.
2
 International Journal of Economics, Commerce and Management Research Studies
Volume 1, Issue 4, November - 2018

The concept of creativity has been analyzed at
individual level personal experience, abilities and personal
traits as well, that incorporate cognitive such as knowledge
and skills and non-cognitive like personality perspective
(Woodman et al., 1993)29.
H3: A creative leadership positively impact on employee
creativity.
H4: LMX quality will moderate the relationship between
creative personality and employee creativity.
H5: LMX quality will moderate the relationship between
Domain expertise and employee creativity.
On the basis of such hypothesis and theoretical
foundation we develop a model for this research as shown in
Figure 1.

D. Cross level interaction

Entities through a extremely creative personality are
additional expected to increase in value understanding
surroundings and flexible management that admit ambiguity
and risk-taking concepts(LMX quality has been found to play
an important role in individual performance; managers
(leaders and supervisors) can affect their employees’
performance (Illies et al., 2007).30Researchers studying LMX
qualification have shown that when the employees are more
engaged with their jobs, they are more satisfied, and their
work improves. This process leads to better group
performance, and business.

Model

LMX
Quality

Domain
Expertise

Employee
Creativity

Creative
Personality

III. METHODOLOGY A. Sample and data collection

In this section we present population and simple size,
data collection ad instrument use, including the reliability and
validity and analyze the data.
The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of
creative leadership and domain expertise on employee
creativity by keeping in mind LMX quality. In order to
achieve the purpose a structured questionnaire was developed
to collect the data and for analyze the result. In this research
the target population was to collect data from the employees

IJECMRS18NOV002 www.ijecmrs.com 3
 International Journal of Economics, Commerce and Management Research Studies
Volume 1, Issue 4, November - 2018
of textile industry. The sampling method which is used in this education. All items were measured on a Likert-type scale
research paper is to gather information from employee who ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
were best appropriately accessible is non-probabilistic method.
The respondent contribute willingly and it was guaranteed LMX quality - LMX quality was measured through
their replies will be keep confidential and it will use only for using the 7-item Leader – Member Exchange. This scale was
this research. developed by Scandura and Graen (1984) 35(e.g., ‘‘Do you
know how Satisfied your supervisor is with you?’’, ‘‘to what
We distributed 250 questionnaires 203 were received extent do you find your supervisor able to understand your
back and out of them 3 questionnaires were filled problems and needs?’’, ‘‘to what extent do you think your
inappropriately and 200 were able to use for this study. So the supervisor recognizes your potential?’’). Respondents
respondent rate is80 %. The questionnaires were distributed by answered using a 4-point scale, where 1 was indicative of a
hand to different employees, and from some users online data high quality LMX, and 4 was indicative of a low quality
was together who had access to internet. .In our sample work LMX. Prior to computing LMX quality scores, we reversed
groups has number of functional department (e.g., marketing, the response scale, so that high scores were indicative of high
accounting, human resources, and engineering).All respondent quality LMX.
were professional employees. During the work time all
questionnaire were completed. We use three control variables in order to multilevel
analysis. Education level and number of year in current career
B. Demographic details of respondents in organization were controlled for at level one i.e. individual
Total response of sample size was 200 out of these most level .Team size was also controlled for at level two i.e. team
part was containing male were179, 21 were female .30% that level.
was youth and between 18 to 25 ages. 35.8% of those
respondents who were 26 to 35 years. As major portion fall IV. DATA ANALYSIS
under between 26 to 35 ages so most of the respondents was We used hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) for the
unmarried, that were 70% of the total sample size and 30% reason that it delivers a better-quality assessment of direct
respondent were married. 52.2% of the total sample was effects at multiple levels and also at cross-level effects, the
having master qualification at master level whereas 38.8% nested organization of the multilevel data. We established and
were having graduate. 9% participants were below to under verified a series of multilevel models by means of the
graduate. incremental improvement procedure presenting three phases
C. Questionnaire and scale as mention below:
Questionnaire has distributed into 4 sections. First two  Shown structure at multi-level;
sections are contain on major portion of our study which  Shown Level-1 Impact of creative personality and domain
explains the independent variable I.e. domain expertise and expertise on employee creativity;
creative personality ,one is dependent variable which is  Show Level-2 impact of LMX quality on employee
employee creativity while LMX quality playing moderating creativity; and Show the cross-level moderating impact
role in this research. Last section represents demographic LMX quality on their associations in the middle of creative
details of respondents like Gender, age, marital status and personality, domain expertise and employee creativity.
Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1.Team_size 3.75 2.88 0.07 -0.28 -0.12 0.09 -0.33 0.09
2.Edu 3.33 1.82 0.06 0.04 0.09 0.33* 0.06 0.22
3.Career_exp 12.18 8.31 -0.06 -0.14 0.88** -0.33** 0.24* -0.19
4. CP 4.66 4.54 0.08 0.09 0.040** 0.21** 0.54 0.44 0.24
5.DE 2.70 0.74 0.18* 0.06 0.19** 0.31** 0.33 0.08
6. LMX 71.31 6.20 0.08 0.05 0.40* 0.61** 0.23* 0.13 0.19*
7. Creativity 6.86 14.08 0.09 0.03 0.08 0.47* 0.44** 0.06
4.1: Table 1: Mean, standard deviation and correlation

Note personality; DE = domain LMX quality =leader member

Here are two tables. Table one shows diagonal result at exchange;*p< 0.05;**p <0.01
individual level and table two present diagonal result at team V. RESULTS
level study; N = 48 teams including 200 employees; By using
the team-level statistics, we calculated means and standard In this division, we present the results of our research as
deviations of CP and DE; That data was included Team size = well as the descriptive statistics and examine the five
the quantity of employees per boss; Edu = instruction level; hypotheses.
Career_exp = the number of years in career; CP = creative

IJECMRS18NOV002 www.ijecmrs.com 4
 International Journal of Economics, Commerce and Management Research Studies
Volume 1, Issue 4, November - 2018
In Table one, we present the means, standard deviations Hierarchical linear modeling outcomes. In this
and associations of the variables. The correlation results section we used HLM, to test the hypothesis: the results are
indicated that domain expertise have positive impact on shown below.
employee creativity (r=0.44, p < 0.01) and LMX quality
(r=0.23, p < 0.01). Further, among the independent variables
at different levels, there was also positive association between
creative personality and LMX quality (r = 0.33, p < 0.05).

1 Variables Null model Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model4

2 Level1
3 (Intercept) 8.88**(0.03) 8.68**(2.07) 6.65**(2.35) 7.69**(1.14) 6.63**(2.16 )
4 Edu 0.33* (0.09 ) 0.44(1.54) 0.44(1.61) 0.16(1.82)
5 Career Exp 0.010(0.05) 0.15(0.16) 0.16(0.15) 0.14(0.12)
6 CP 0.72(0.12) 0.93(0.32) 0.41(0.21)
7 DE 6.27**(3.053) 3.67**(2.27) 5.31**(2.05)
8 Level 2
9 Team Size 0.55(0.56) 1.18(0.74) 0.41(0.58) 0.46(0.55)
10 LMX 2.89**(0.54) 4.47**(0.65)
11 Interaction Effects
12 C P*LMX 0.09(0.62
13 D E *LMX 2.43* (0.61)
14 Deviance 2288.06 2280.28 2169.33 2186.63 2184.54
15 Level2n 48 48 86 86 86
16 Level1n 200 200 325 325
Table 2: Multilevel analysis result for employee creativity as the dependent variable
Note: adjusting of individual and team level forecasters impact of
Entries are educated guess of fixed belongings with LMX (r =2.89, p < 0.01) was positively by way of employee
robust standard errors. Standard errors are given in creativity. After analyzing of this result our hypothesis No 1
parentheses; Team size = the quantity of employees per supported.
manager; Edu = instruction level; Career_exp = the number of
years in career; CP =creative personality; DE = domain Model 4
expertise, LMX quality leader member exchange; *p < In this study one moderator was used that was LMX
0.05;**p< 0.01 quality. Model four examine the moderation association LMX
quality (H4, H5) on the association between creative
Model 1 personality, domain expertise and employee creativity (get
Model one consist control variables. Education level, table 2).The result of model four shown in table 2 and with the
number of years in the existing career as individual level sub section named ‘interaction effect” . According to H5 the
variables. And team size shown as a team-level variable. Only moderation impact of LMX quality by the way of association
Education (r= 0.33, p < 0.05) a significant association with between creative personality and employee creativity was not
employee creativity (see Table II). supported. But LMX quality positively moderates the relation
between domain expertise and employee creativity(r=0.09,
Model 2 p<0.05) hence our hypothesis 5 supported.
In model two creative personality and domain expertise
were included by way of individual-level variables. These VI. DISCUSSION
models also show impact of independent variables i.e.
(creative personality and domain expertise) on dependent This research examined the independent and joint impact
variable i.e. (employee creativity). After controlling for single- of specific non-cognitive and cognitive appearances (i.e.
and team-level control variables (get Model 1). Model two creativity personality and domain expertise) and managerial
also directed creative personality (r = 0.72).There was no perspectives (i.e.LMX quality) on a pointer of employee
significant impact on employee creativity. Hence, H3 was not creativity, the measure of intellectual property. The impact of
supported. But, the impact of domain expertise was significant this study can be establish not merely in that we established an
and positive on employee creativity (r= 5.27, p<0.05). So this collaboration model with a distinctive combination of
situation supports H2. variables constructed on a firm hypothetical foundation. But
we also test on empirically base. The results from the
Model 3 hypotheses of the model are argued with their different
This model comprised LMX quality as team level contributions.
variable. This model assessed hypothesis No 1.After the

IJECMRS18NOV002 www.ijecmrs.com 5
 International Journal of Economics, Commerce and Management Research Studies
In the First, it was found that creative personality never
influence on employee creativity. We also reasonably found
domain expertise is positive co relator of employee creativity.
In addition current research adds empirical suggestion that
domain expertise matter in employee creativity rather than
creative personality in the context of research and
development declared that attaining creative nature problems
techniques depends on expertise, not intelligence or differing
thoughtful skills and techniques. Tierney and Farmer (2002)32
also recommended that the employees who have low level of
expertise, they see themselves as peak of creative. In the
context of this study we found that no association between
creative personality and employee creativity not amazing
reason ,as define earlier ,precious studies have described
changeable result .This study also provide additional result on
the basis of empirical the relation between both.
In the second, it was found major impact of LMX quality
on employee creativity, which is reliable through previous
research ( Basu and Green, 1997)33.In the context of research
and development explain that the leaders who improve high
level quality exchange association with team member are
expected to have plan achievement. LMX with high quality
provides team work with greater and independently (Basu and
Green, 1997)34.Doing work with independently plays a
significant role in functioning at high scale intrinsic
motivation that is a key element of creativity. Evidence also
shows there is significant relation between autonomy and
intrinsic motivation and also positive and significant relation
between intrinsic motivation and employee creativity
(ZhangandBartol,2010)35.Leadership is a very important and
interesting element in research and development functions
because it the fundamental requirement of R&D possess
certain leader skills and also expertise .In the context of
research and development finding presented in this study
provide fruitful literature in setting of R&D.
In the third we established that LMX quality positively
moderates the relationship between employees’ domain
expertise and creativity. It is also the support of this literature
that as a professional expert have solid uniqueness and wish to
perform the work independently they perform work under
better condition.
A. Practical implication
The outcomes of this research suggest practical
implications for research and development association in order
to increase the creativity among their employees of
organization. Organizations should reflect two factors one is
personal and second contextual factors when planning
interventions, as creativity is an important element of public
interactions. Organization requirement is to deliver personnel
with training and learning chances to improve their domain
expertise. Also permit them to participate in the in dependent
practice of task domain skills and accomplishments.
Furthermore, bearing in mind that expertise does not
essentially appear only in a one person by knowledge, training
and skill, but moreover from a system of share expertise with
each other (ShalleyandGilson, 2004)36.If the organization
IJECMRS18NOV002 www.ijecmrs.com
Volume 1, Issue 4, November - 2018
have the strong system of knowledge management in order
to restore and share the skill, experience it will fruitful for that
organization.
Organizations should struggle to invite and recruit to a
person who has superior domain-relevant expertise. It is also
the basic requirement of organization to be aware with
features of extremely well-informed and skillful employees
that value a self-directed, LMX environment, which also has
implications for employee recruitment and selection. In order
to improve work independence, managers should authorize
juniors to use several resources to achieve the project
objectives. Provide least advices or instructions, boosting them
to atmosphere free to explore their distinctive understandings.
Leader with constructive response and grant for risk taking
behavior would more fruitful among followers.
Lastly, organizations should promote creative-friendly
situations that improve intrinsic motivation. In order to
achieve this determination; organizations may require a
structure of self-management. Organizations can offer an
inspirational vision, in order to co-create clear goals with
personnel, delegate employees to indicate in what way to
fulfill those objectives. Help them keep inspiration through
encouraging but exact response and skill appreciation. Such
approaches can offer workers with a sense of significance,
choice and competencies .
B. Theoretical implication
Generally, outcome of this study support an
interactionist method in which mutually individual and
contextual aspects arise into play in defining creativity in the
organization. Furthermore address the individual–background
(i.e. cross-level) fit in that individuals by way of significant
capability are additional expected to value the contextual
abilities of leader member exchange. In other context, we
advise suggestion that creativity is a role of societal
development which has been least studied
(Sagivetal.,2010)37.In that detail, we have initiated to
discourse the significant and main gap in the present
employee creativity literature and have proceeded from the
joint study practice of examining creativity at a sole level.
This research also pays to the current creativity literature
and related philosophies. The outcomes of this study increase
our concept of the backgrounds of creativity with
experimental indication, as they disclose that domain expertise
and LMX quality are pursuit factors. Furthermore, we
demonstrate that domain expertise has positive impact on
creativity. Additional theoretic input of this investigation can
be originated from an exciting ambiguity in the literature
associated to the role of capability in creative performance.
Although creativity theory Amabile’s (1988)38 and related
studies obviously debated domain expertise as an vital factor.
Further literature has reasoned that domain expertise element
creativity as specialists are inflexible and have difficulty
adjusting to innovative guidelines and thoughtful from other
domains (i.e. functional fixedness). The reasons of the counter
6
 International Journal of Economics, Commerce and Management Research Studies
good relationships between skillful and creativity has also
been more stayed by some experimental work that
demonstrations a substandard role of regular cognitive style in
increasing creative behavior (Sagiv, 2010).39
Our findings show that that, experts’ organized thinking
style works well than creative personality in creative
presentation and creates cooperation once autonomy is
established.
VII. LIMITATION AND DIRECTION FOR FUTURE
DIRECTION
We analyzed only one team-level moderators, LMX
quality however; other contextual features are expected to play
a character in the process of creativity. By elaborating other
contextual features further research should continue or you
can use other moderator or mediator. It Is not necessary that
finding will be same for all population like workers in textile
industry on other who works in different organizational
culture.
Tierney and Farmer (2002)27 analyzed that their
research on creative performance were changed in the middle
of blue-collar and white-collar sections. Coming researchers
may use other frameworks such as different industrial sector
or in new organizational cultures. Further researcher may
change the population sector for data collection. Furthermore,
the level to which creativity is necessary will differ crosswise
jobs and industrial sector and nation state .
REFERENCES
[1]. Morrow, S. L. (2005). Quality and trustworthiness in
qualitative research in counseling psychology. Journal of
counseling psychology, 52(2), 250.
[2]. Eisenberger, R., Karagonlar, G., Stinglhamber, F., Neves,
P., Becker, T. E., Gonzalez-Morales, M. G., & Steiger-
Mueller, M. (2010). Leader–member exchange and
affective organizational commitment: The contribution of
supervisor's organizational embodiment. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 95(6), 1085.
[3]. Volmer, J., Spurk, D., & Niessen, C. (2012). Leader–
member exchange (LMX), job autonomy, and creative
work involvement. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(3), 456-
465
[4]. Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-Analytic
review of leader–member exchange theory: Correlates and
construct issues. Journal of applied psychology, 82(6), 827
[5]. Shalley, C. E., Zhou, J., & Oldham, G. R. (2004). The
effects of personal and contextual characteristics on
creativity: Where should we go from here?. Journal of
management, 30(6), 933-958.
[6]. Horth, D., & Buchner, D. (2009). Innovation leadership:
How to use innovation to lead effectively, work
collaboratively and drive results. Center for Creative
Leadership. Retrieved from: http://www. ccl.
org/leadership/pdf/research/InnovationLeadership. pdf..
IJECMRS18NOV002 www.ijecmrs.com
Volume 1, Issue 4, November - 2018
[7]. Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and
innovation in organizations. Research in organizational
behavior, 10(1), 123-167.
[8]. Shalley, C. E., Zhou, J., & Oldham, G. R. (2004). The
effects of personal and contextual characteristics on
creativity: Where should we go from here?. Journal of
management, 30(6), 933-958.
[9]. Dutta, S., Mia, I., & Insead, S. D. (2012). World Economic
Forum.
[10]. Zaitouni, M., & Ouakouak, M. L. (2018). Key predictors of
individual creativity in a Middle Eastern
[11]. 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.
[12]. Zaitouni, M., & Ouakouak, M. L. (2018). Key predictors of
individual creativity in a Middle Eastern culture: The case
of service organizations. International Journal of
Organizational Analysis, 26(1), 19-42.
[13]. Feist, G. J. (1999). 14 The Influence of Personality on
Artistic and Scientific Creativity. Handbook of creativity,
273.
[14]. Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2002). Creative self-
efficacy: Its potential antecedents and relationship to
creative performance. Academy of Management
journal, 45(6), 1137-1148.
[15]. Zhou, J., & George, J. M. (2003). Awakening employee
creativity: The role of leader emotional intelligence. The
leadership quarterly, 14(4-5), 545-568.
[16]. 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(2), 280-
293.
[17]. Jeong, S., McLean, G. N., McLean, L. D., Yoo, S., &
Bartlett, K. (2017). The moderating role of non-controlling
supervision and organizational learning culture on
employee creativity: The influences of domain expertise
and creative personality. European Journal of Training
and Development, 41(7), 647-666.
[18]. Shalley, C. E., Zhou, J., & Oldham, G. R. (2004). The
effects of personal and contextual characteristics on
creativity: Where should we go from here?. Journal of
management, 30(6), 933-958.
[19]. Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-Analytic
review of leader–member exchange theory: Correlates and
construct issues. Journal of applied psychology, 82(6),
827.
[20]. Uhl-Bien, M., Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. (2000).
Implications of leader-member exchange (LMX) for
strategic human resource management systems:
[21]. Paauwe, J., Wright, P., & Guest, D. (2013). HRM and
performance: What do we know and where should we
go. HRM and performance: Achievements and challenges,
1-13.
[22]. Den Hartog, D. N., Boon, C., Verburg, R. M., & Croon, M.
A. (2013). HRM, communication, satisfaction, and
7
 International Journal of Economics, Commerce and Management Research Studies
Volume 1, Issue 4, November - 2018
perceived performance: A cross-level test. Journal of miniature-scale refrigeration system. Energy Conversion
management, 39(6), 1637-1665 and Management, 51(1), 81-88.
[23]. To, M. L., Fisher, C. D., Ashkanasy, N. M., & Rowe, P. A. [37]. Shalley, C. E., Zhou, J., & Oldham, G. R. (2004). The
(2012). Within-person relationships between mood and effects of personal and contextual characteristics on
creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(3), 599. creativity: Where should we go from here?. Journal of
[24]. Yuan, F., & Woodman, R. W. (2010). Innovative behavior management, 30(6), 933-958
in the workplace: The role of performance and image [38]. Gong, Y., Huang, J. C., & Farh, J. L. (2009). Employee
outcome expectations. Academy of Management learning orientation, transformational leadership, and
Journal, 53(2), 323-342. employee creativity: The mediating role of employee
[25]. Jawahar, I. M., & Carr, D. (2007). Conscientiousness and creative self-efficacy. Academy of management
contextual performance: The compensatory effects of Journal, 52(4), 765-778
perceived organizational support and leader-member [39]. Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and
exchange. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(4), 330- innovation in organizations. Research in organizational
349. behavior, 10(1), 123-167.
[26]. Germain, M. L., & Tejeda, M. J. (2012). A preliminary [40]. Sagiv, L., Arieli, S., Goldenberg, J., & Goldschmidt, A.
exploration on the measurement of expertise: An initial (2010). Structure and freedom in creativity: The interplay
development of a psychometric scale. Human Resource between externally imposed structure and personal
Development Quarterly, 23(2), 203-232. cognitive style. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(8),
[27]. Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2002). Creative self- 1086-1110Sagiv, L., Arieli, S., Goldenberg, J., &
efficacy: Its potential antecedents and relationship to Goldschmidt, A. (2010). Structure and freedom in
creative performance. Academy of Management creativity: The interplay between externally imposed
journal, 45(6), 1137-1148. structure and personal cognitive style. Journal of
[28]. Germain, M. L., & Tejeda, M. J. (2012). A preliminary Organizational Behavior, 31(8), 1086-1110.
exploration on the measurement of expertise: An initial
development of a psychometric scale. Human Resource APPENDIX
Development Quarterly, 23(2), 203-232.
[29]. Dul, J., Ceylan, C., & Jaspers, F. (2011). Knowledge All tables of results and figures are taken from
workers' creativity and the role of the physical work SPSS(Statistical package for social sciences) after testing
environment. Human resource management, 50(6), 715- different statistical tests.
734.
[30]. Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. (1993).
Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of
management review, 18(2), 293-321.
[31]. Illies, C., Gromada, J., Fiume, R., Leibiger, B., Yu, J., Juhl,
K., ... & Barker, C. J. (2007). Requirement of inositol
pyrophosphates for full exocytotic capacity in pancreatic β
cells. Science, 318(5854), 1299-
[32]. Scandura, T. A., & Graen, G. B. (1984). Moderating
effects of initial leader–member exchange status on the
effects of a leadership intervention. Journal of applied
psychology, 69(3), 428.
[33]. Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2002). Creative self-
efficacy: Its potential antecedents and relationship to
creative performance. Academy of Management
journal, 45(6), 1137-1148.
[34]. Basu, R., & Green, S. G. (1997). Leader‐member exchange
and transformational leadership: an empirical examination
of innovative behaviors in leader‐member dyads. Journal
of applied social psychology, 27(6), 477-499
[35]. Basu, R., & Green, S. G. (1997). Leader‐member exchange
and transformational leadership: an empirical examination
of innovative behaviors in leader‐member dyads. Journal
of applied social psychology, 27(6), 477-499
[36]. Wu, Y. T., Ma, C. F., & Zhong, X. H. (2010).
Development and experimental investigation of a

IJECMRS18NOV002 www.ijecmrs.com 8